c4countdown

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:03 am**

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:26 pm
Philip A wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:40 pm Gnocchi is disgusting.
True.
As I always say, why eat something gnocchi, when you could have something gnice?

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:22 am**

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:57 pm Donald Trump winning the US election is precisely the kick up the arse that the woke left needs...
Let's hope the democrats and other similar groups worldwide -even down to something as insignificant as our own FOCAL- take a long hard look at their priorities in the coming years.

I'm trying to imagine what a Trump-like Focal would look like... Close the borders, newbies are not welcome. Forget the code of conduct - respect for others is woke nonsense. Arm all attendees to ensure safety. It would be the best ever Focal - better than any Focal there's ever been!

(The position of chair is up for grabs - step up and be the change you want to see!)

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:52 am**

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:20 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:03 pm I think there should be an upper age limit of 70 for leaders of the free world
There is a good reason that "old" and "wise" are often put together.
Better a leader that is "too old" than "too young".

Also Police and Intelligence are often put together.

I do think there is a limit between wisdom and senility / bonkers

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:00 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:03 pm
L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:57 pm Donald Trump winning the US election is precisely the kick up the arse that the woke left needs...
Let's hope the democrats and other similar groups worldwide -even down to something as insignificant as our own FOCAL- take a long hard look at their priorities in the coming years.
I can handle the Democrats losing but I hope after Trump pardons himself he let's the hillbilly take over

I think there should be an upper age limit of 70 for leaders of the free world

Not everyone loses it at a certain age. It would be crude and ageist. Really you need to look at the democratic system and ask how you can end up with such unpopular candidates in the first place.

Leader of the free world isn't a real thing.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:13 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:00 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:03 pm
L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:57 pm Donald Trump winning the US election is precisely the kick up the arse that the woke left needs...
Let's hope the democrats and other similar groups worldwide -even down to something as insignificant as our own FOCAL- take a long hard look at their priorities in the coming years.
I can handle the Democrats losing but I hope after Trump pardons himself he let's the hillbilly take over

I think there should be an upper age limit of 70 for leaders of the free world
Not everyone loses it at a certain age. It would be crude and ageist. Really you need to look at the democratic system and ask how you can end up with such unpopular candidates in the first place.

Leader of the free world isn't a real thing.

As bad as the UKs democratic process is it's certainly better than the American one.
As for leader of the free world , I was unable to find the tongue in cheek emoji t

Posted: **Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:01 pm**

Red wine tastes like vinegar no matter how expensive it is it always tastes likes vinegar.
White wine whilst not my tipple of choice tastes nice if its sweet or sparkling
If that makes me a philistine than so be it.

Tbf I have had a love hate relationship to alcohol
I spent my teenage years pretending to like beer to fit in.
I'm still convinced it tasted horrible to everyone but nobody would break ranks and admit it and eventually everyone gets used to it.
I think vodka and coffee based drinks are the only ones I really like now but funnily enough a lot of non alcoholic lagers taste nice now

Posted: **Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:21 pm**

Conor wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:39 pmTo actually offer something genuine:
- Everything Everywhere All at Once might be the worst film I've ever seen. Crazy how many awards it won.

I've just watched this (it's available on c4) and I think it's fine as just some silly bit of fun but I also find it strange how it's held up as this great film. It's throwaway whimsy.

Posted: **Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:13 pm**

The FIFA World Cup is at risk of losing identity and quality in expanding to 48 teams and more than 2 host nations.

Less is more.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2024 2:40 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:21 pm
Conor wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:39 pmTo actually offer something genuine:
- Everything Everywhere All at Once might be the worst film I've ever seen. Crazy how many awards it won.
I've just watched this (it's available on c4) and I think it's fine as just some silly bit of fun but I also find it strange how it's held up as this great film. It's throwaway whimsy.

I watched the first 15 minutes and I was legitimately stressed so I turned it off.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:48 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:21 pm
Conor wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:39 pmTo actually offer something genuine:
- Everything Everywhere All at Once might be the worst film I've ever seen. Crazy how many awards it won.
I've just watched this (it's available on c4) and I think it's fine as just some silly bit of fun but I also find it strange how it's held up as this great film. It's throwaway whimsy.

There is an element of the Emperors new clothes with this film.
The Daniels previous film Swiss Army Man is far better and funnier.
Screenplay was good but how it won so many acting awards was beyond me

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:52 pm**

Philip A wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:13 pm The FIFA World Cup is at risk of losing identity and quality in expanding to 48 teams and more than 2 host nations.

Less is more.

It's the same as with The Champions league too much insignificant football.
48 Teams will qualify from how many teams Involved , it's probably close to 1 in 4
Edit : actually about 1 in 8 there are 211 teams with a Fifa ranking.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2024 6:43 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:52 pm
Philip A wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:13 pm The FIFA World Cup is at risk of losing identity and quality in expanding to 48 teams and more than 2 host nations.

Less is more.
It's the same as with The Champions league too much insignificant football.
48 Teams will qualify from how many teams Involved , it's probably close to 1 in 4
Edit : actually about 1 in 8 there are 211 teams with a Fifa ranking.

Yes, agreed. The Premier League has retained the 20-team format for years and it’s perfect.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:57 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2024 5:52 pm
Philip A wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2024 7:13 pm The FIFA World Cup is at risk of losing identity and quality in expanding to 48 teams and more than 2 host nations.

Less is more.
It's the same as with The Champions league too much insignificant football.
48 Teams will qualify from how many teams Involved , it's probably close to 1 in 4
Edit : actually about 1 in 8 there are 211 teams with a Fifa ranking.

No, the new Champions League format is allowing for an increased variety of football. Despite Villa's ticketing department giving my wallet a nervous breakdown, the variety has made it more interesting. Agree with the World Cup angle though. See also constant calendar expansion in both football and F1

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:00 pm**

Whilst I'm here, I hope the England football never win any further honours. England fans (as a collective) have behaved so appallingly at tournaments that being defeated in the finals of the past two Euros have made me grin with schadenfreude. International football is rarely worth bothering with-I'd support club over country every time (UTV!)

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:10 pm**

Since music began, in the 1950s, by far the worst decade for new music has been the 1980s and its not even close.

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:40 pm**

Mark Deeks wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:10 pm Since music began, in the 1950s, by far the worst decade for new music has been the 1980s and its not even close.

I'm not showing you my Spotify playlist. (Yes I have one of these now.)

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:57 pm**

A lot of Coldplay, I expect.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:25 am**

Mark Deeks wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:10 pm Since music began, in the 1950s, by far the worst decade for new music has been the 1980s and its not even close.

I won't pick up on the since music began in the 50s..
Presumably you meant music on the radio aimed at teenagers
I will take exception to you denigrating the 80s when half of my favourite albums came out that decade.
I do agree that 88 was a bad year given that SAW worked out the formula for creating a hit record
Obviously as a boomer who lived through the 80s I'm going to say this but the 2020s is they worst decade ever so far and even the 2010s were mostly crap
The death of proper bands being popular is really where the slow death of popular music happened

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am**

Mark Deeks wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:57 pm A lot of Coldplay, I expect.

No.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:53 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:13 am
Mark Deeks wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:57 pm A lot of Coldplay, I expect.
No.

Parachutes and X an Y where good albums but they went the same way of U2 where fame diluted their talent/appeal to the early fans at least

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:41 pm**

I do actually have a couple of Coldplay songs but there's lots of stuff, much of which is 80s, which is why I replied in the first place.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:44 pm**

It was a Yellow joke. It was a really good one and it deserved more.

Posted: **Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:34 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:56 am**

Mark Deeks wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:44 pm It was a Yellow joke. It was a really good one and it deserved more.

That's a bit of a jaundiced view

Posted: **Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:58 pm**

Alan Carr is okay.

Posted: **Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:27 pm**

Philip A wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:58 pm Alan Carr is okay.

Since Changing ends and Picture Slam , I quite like him too.
But not when he is on chat shows etc

Posted: **Wed Dec 18, 2024 11:33 am**

Looking back most punk rock bands were shit.
But maybe that was the point

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2024 8:52 am**

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj6pqd2v16o

This isn't necessarily good news in fact it reinforces my argument that pop or rock bands are a dying breed

Posted: **Tue Dec 31, 2024 4:56 pm**

New years Eve Celebrations are Over Rated when you get past 50

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2025 1:20 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2024 8:52 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj6pqd2v16o

This isn't necessarily good news in fact it reinforces my argument that pop or rock bands are a dying breed

Well aye, no bands (Beatles excepted) have had a UK #1 since Magic! in 2014, Maroon 5 in 2012 before that.

Quite apart from strong changes in fashion this century - bands are still very much active - the charts are very much biased towards streaming, and away from acts that would be supported by people with ready cash; therefore, obsessive young people with lots of time to spend rather than older teens and twenties who have more discerning taste in general.

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:22 pm**

Self-checkouts aren't a bad thing. they're better. I can monitor to make sure all the discounts work, I don't get rushed along, and I don't have to put on any kind of conversational performance.

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm**

The drink-drive limit should be nil.

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:18 pm**

Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm The drink-drive limit should be nil.

I don't think this is probably that unpopular. I wonder though if it should be slightly over zero. I'm not sure exactly how alcohol leaves the system, but a small amount remaining because someone had a drink two nights ago probably shouldn't get them disqualified. But all this nonsense about "I can have two pints" should go out the window.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:29 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:18 pm
Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm The drink-drive limit should be nil.
I don't think this is probably that unpopular. I wonder though if it should be slightly over zero. I'm not sure exactly how alcohol leaves the system, but a small amount remaining because someone had a drink two nights ago probably shouldn't get them disqualified. But all this nonsense about "I can have two pints" should go out the window.

I was going to say the quality of non alcoholic beers and spirits are so good now ,there really isn't any excuse.
0.5% alcohol is still technically non alcoholic

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:10 pm**

The Simpsons should have finished 20 years ago.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:15 pm**

Philip A wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:10 pm The Simpsons should have finished 20 years ago.

Season 10 was where it peaked for me.
I did enjoy the film though

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:49 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:15 pm
Philip A wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:10 pm The Simpsons should have finished 20 years ago.
Season 10 was where it peaked for me.
I did enjoy the film though

Seasons 11 and 12 were decent, but it definitely peaked out after Season 10. The film was good.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:06 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:18 pm
Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm The drink-drive limit should be nil.
I'm not sure exactly how alcohol leaves the system, but a small amount remaining because someone had a drink two nights ago probably shouldn't get them disqualified.

Typically, it takes 1 hour to break down 1 unit of alcohol. It does depend on other factors, such as how much you have eaten, (alcohol remains in the stomach longer when you have eaten a large meal, for instance), but to be sure that your blood level was zero, you would likely have to wait 12 hours.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:11 am**

Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:22 pm Self-checkouts aren't a bad thing. they're better. I can monitor to make sure all the discounts work, I don't get rushed along, and I don't have to put on any kind of conversational performance.

Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm The drink-drive limit should be nil.

Technicalities about the interpretation of "nil" aside, both of these are perfectly correct opinions.

The drink-drive limit in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is higher than any other country in Europe. Unfortunately, every attempt to lower it has led to no change.

The only other times it gets seriously discussed are as part of proposed restrictions on young drivers, in which a lower limit would be imposed on drivers under 25 only. IMO these sorts of proposals are ridiculous and motivated more by ignorant prejudice against young people than by any desire to improve road safety. If it were about road safety they'd apply the lower limit to everyone, which I'd completely agree with, rather than have a law that says drivers can drink more when they reach a certain age.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:13 pm**

The drink-drive limit may be higher in most parts of the UK, but the penalties are far more severe for offenders too. There is a mandatory 1 year driving ban for anyone caught over the limit in the UK. Also, the law is enforced more in the UK, with routine breathalyser tests for minor accidents. and even random stop and test, especially around Christmas time.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 1:21 pm**

By reducing the limit we could have the best of both worlds.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:58 pm**

It wouldn't be fool proof but if you had a breathalyser test as part of the ignition process of starting a car it might be a useful deterrrent

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 pm**

I'm hoping for the day that self-driving cars become good enough to render human drivers obsolete.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2025 7:49 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 pm I'm hoping for the day that self-driving cars become good enough to render human drivers obsolete.

Now that is an unpopular opinion

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:26 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:58 pm It wouldn't be fool proof but if you had a breathalyser test as part of the ignition process of starting a car it might be a useful deterrrent

This definitely exists.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:30 pm**

Mark Deeks wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:04 pm The drink-drive limit should be nil.

I think slightly above zero makes more sense I think, especially to account for these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:42 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:58 pm It wouldn't be fool proof but if you had a breathalyser test as part of the ignition process of starting a car it might be a useful deterrrent

You should also have to solve a numbers round and a conundrum before you are able to drive.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:13 pm**

Ian Volante wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:26 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:58 pm It wouldn't be fool proof but if you had a breathalyser test as part of the ignition process of starting a car it might be a useful deterrrent
This definitely exists.

In which case make it mandatory for all new cars and subsidise retro fits.
Over to you two tier Kier

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:14 pm**

Conor wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:42 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 4:58 pm It wouldn't be fool proof but if you had a breathalyser test as part of the ignition process of starting a car it might be a useful deterrrent
You should also have to solve a numbers round and a conundrum before you are able to drive.

Fuck that I would have to take a taxi if it's 4 large or 6 small

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:23 pm**

Saturday night TV is, overall, better than what it was 10-15 years ago.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:36 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 pm I'm hoping for the day that self-driving cars become good enough to render human drivers obsolete.

If this did happen pedestrians wouldn't need to look before crossing a road. Your presence on the pavement would have been noted, so a car would definitely stop before hitting you whatever you did. Motorised transport in busy towns would be at a virtual standstill.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:18 am**

David Williams wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:36 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 pm I'm hoping for the day that self-driving cars become good enough to render human drivers obsolete.
If this did happen pedestrians wouldn't need to look before crossing a road. Your presence on the pavement would have been noted, so a car would definitely stop before hitting you whatever you did. Motorised transport in busy towns would be at a virtual standstill.

People have said this before but I'm not sure there's any evidence for it. Pedestrians would still have to look anyway. A self-driving car would brake if a pedestrian stepped out but the stopping distance wouldn't suddenly become zero. It would be the same as for any other car. And it's not going to slow down to 1 mph just because pedestrians are on the pavement, because it simply wouldn't work if they did. They only need to be at least as safe as human drivers and human drivers aren't expected to go 1 mph when pedestrians are nearby.

The only difference is that people seem to think pedestrians trust that an AI would definitely stop whereas a human might decide not to and damage their own car to spite you.

Verdict: Myth

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2025 4:39 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:18 am
David Williams wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:36 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:44 pm I'm hoping for the day that self-driving cars become good enough to render human drivers obsolete.
If this did happen pedestrians wouldn't need to look before crossing a road. Your presence on the pavement would have been noted, so a car would definitely stop before hitting you whatever you did. Motorised transport in busy towns would be at a virtual standstill.
People have said this before but I'm not sure there's any evidence for it. Pedestrians would still have to look anyway. A self-driving car would brake if a pedestrian stepped out but the stopping distance wouldn't suddenly become zero. It would be the same as for any other car. And it's not going to slow down to 1 mph just because pedestrians are on the pavement, because it simply wouldn't work if they did. They only need to be at least as safe as human drivers and human drivers aren't expected to go 1 mph when pedestrians are nearby.

The only difference is that people seem to think pedestrians trust that an AI would definitely stop whereas a human might decide not to and damage their own car to spite you.

Verdict: Myth

Of course there's no evidence. We are years away from any being available.

The stopping distance at 20mph would be six metres, half what it is for a human, because a human reacts much slower. And the time would be consistent. You'd know that the car would not be speeding, and the driver wouldn't be drunk or 90 years old. The merest glance to see there's nothing close would be all you need.

Until there's some actual evidence the verdict can only be unproven.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2025 4:56 pm**

But why assume people would do that though? It's just another form of antisocial behaviour. People do engage in antisocial behaviour but it's not something that's just continuously happening everywhere you go, which is pretty much what you're expecting.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 12:19 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 4:56 pm But why assume people would do that though? It's just another form of antisocial behaviour. People do engage in antisocial behaviour but it's not something that's just continuously happening everywhere you go, which is pretty much what you're expecting.

Why is it antisocial? In the early days of motoring cars gave way to pedestrians. I thought it took a concerted effort by the manufacturers to shift the blame for accidents on to pedestrians, and in recent years the pendulum has rather swung back again. Latest editions of the Highway Code specify that there is a hierarchy of road users, with the most vulnerable (pedestrians) at the top of the hierarchy. That doesn't mean that they can act irresponsibly, but if you know that a car can stop it's not irresponsible to assert your right of way.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:00 am**

It's antisocial because there are far more cars on the road than decades ago and as you say it would bring traffic to a standstill. You pre-emptively answered your question in your first post.

It's also as antisocial as just walking out in front of a car now and expecting them to stop. Sure, there's more risk now but there's nothing to say it's any more antisocial. So do you think that if you walked into the road today without looking and caused a motorist to have to brake hard it would be antisocial?

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 2:27 pm**

I'm afraid I've reached an age where increasingly drivers stop and beckon me across even when I don't expect them to. But I do think what is antisocial now wouldn't be in the driverless era. You're dealing with an inanimate object rather than a human you can see (passengers don't count), and what starts with a few people is enough to slow traffic enough for more to follow, and soon it's the norm. You can see it now if there's a crowd of pedestrains waiting to cross a busy road. If there's a small gap one person will dash across. The car slows, and someone else follows. And next thing the car has stopped and everyone goes across.

This is getting pointless. One more go for you and let's leave it.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 2:53 pm**

I think some of the differences in opinion above on what constitutes normal behaviour between cars and pedestrians may be due to regional differences?

In my experience norms vary wildly on this. In some places such as many cities, it very much is pedestrians first. In some places such as more rural areas it's anything but. This isn't as simple as city vs countryside but there's certainly a huge variation in different areas.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 3:09 pm**

I think my main point is that I don't think the possibility David mentioned would be enough to derail the idea of self-driving cars. Other things could be changed anyway such as better crossing points, fewer individual cars in town centres with better mass transport.

Or really loud horns.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2025 5:40 pm**

Or allow driverless cars to hit you if you're being antisocial. Not hard enough to kill or injure, just enough to make you drop your phone.

c4countdown

Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold

Re: Unpopular opinions you genuinely hold