Wow, what a great choice of words, BJ. Even you realize, on some level, that you're full of it.The idea that the the link contains the date of the original story (in this case, 2004) is bogus. Again, if you actually could, or did, read the article, you might be able to figure it out. There is no mention of events from 2004, and is clearly about events of this year. Ya think an article from 2004 could predict what would be observed in 2007??!

No, just another case of you pulling crap out of you a$$, throwing it against the wall, and hoping it sticks. Mean while, you don't even notice how much is getting on you.