Children Raised In Greener Areas Have Higher IQ, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 221
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Growing up in a greener urban environment boosts children's intelligence and lowers levels of difficult behavior, a study has found. The analysis of more than 600 children aged 10-15 showed a 3% increase in the greenness of their neighborhood raised their IQ score by an average of 2.6 points. The effect was seen in both richer and poorer areas. There is already significant evidence that green spaces improve various aspects of children's cognitive development but this is the first research to examine IQ. The cause is uncertain but may be linked to lower stress levels, more play and social contact or a quieter environment. The increase in IQ points was particularly significant for those children at the lower end of the spectrum, where small increases could make a big difference, the researchers said.
The study, published in the journal Plos Medicine, used satellite images to measure the level of greenness in neighborhoods, including parks, gardens, street trees and all other vegetation. The average IQ score was 105 but the scientists found 4% of children in areas with low levels of greenery scored below 80, while no children scored below 80 in areas with more greenery. The benefits of more greenery that were recorded in urban areas were not replicated in suburban or rural areas. [T]his may be because those places had enough greenness for all children living there to benefit. Behavioral difficulties such as poor attention and aggressiveness were also measured in the children using a standard rating scale, and the average score was 46. In this case, a 3% rise in greenery resulted in a two-point reduction in behavioral problems, in line with previous studies.
The study, published in the journal Plos Medicine, used satellite images to measure the level of greenness in neighborhoods, including parks, gardens, street trees and all other vegetation. The average IQ score was 105 but the scientists found 4% of children in areas with low levels of greenery scored below 80, while no children scored below 80 in areas with more greenery. The benefits of more greenery that were recorded in urban areas were not replicated in suburban or rural areas. [T]his may be because those places had enough greenness for all children living there to benefit. Behavioral difficulties such as poor attention and aggressiveness were also measured in the children using a standard rating scale, and the average score was 46. In this case, a 3% rise in greenery resulted in a two-point reduction in behavioral problems, in line with previous studies.
I have no idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea what a 3% greener environment looks like, nor can I pretend that a 2.6 IQ point difference is meaningful.
Does this mean that children raised in the Amazon rainforest are smarter than children raised in a 'concrete jungle'?
IQ is not a litmus (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the interesting thing about IQ is that its a sliding scale. 100 is always average. But average is a function based on the people testing at a given time. If you took 1000 people from places that specialize in severely autistic, as in very low functioning, and had them take IQ tests, then yourself took one, you, in theory, would be cheating the outcome. IQ is not a litmus. They also claim kids that climbed trees as a kid do not develop ADHD. Thats bullshit. I never met a tree I did not want to climb as a kid and still have ADD (its label when i was a kid) a plenty. Sometimes studies are like that movie Pi. When youre looking for a 256 letter pattern youll see it everywhere you go. 256 steps to the mailbox. 256 days till Christmas. You become obsessed.
Re: (Score:3)
> They also claim kids that climbed trees as a kid do not develop ADHD. Thats bullshit. I never met a tree I did not want to climb as a kid and still have ADD (its label when i was a kid) a plenty.
I keep picturing an ADHD kid in Tucson trying to climb a giant cactus...
Re:IQ is not a litmus (Score:5, Funny)
What about AD4K
Re:IQ is not a litmus (Score:4, Funny)
AD8K, get with the times.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IQ is not a litmus (Score:4, Funny)
I only have AD240P you insensitive clod!
Re: IQ is not a litmus (Score:2)
Heâ(TM)s confusing autism with ADD, while autism is the far end of the spectrum on the back side of the same coin
Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
The shit we pump into the air so we can have cheap consumer goods and drive cars is really, really bad for us all.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Being in greener spaces also leads to less stress, a more relaxed childhood may well help development. I know as a kid, I retreated to the bush whenever I could and was lucky enough to have bush to retreat to, even in the big city (Stanley Park).
Cofounding factor: socio-economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Or there might be no causation, just a correlation due to external cofounding factor.
The study did control for the rich vs poor *neighbourhoods*, but not the socio-economic level of the *family*.
It might be that indeed a neighbourhood with more vegetation could help the better development of the kids (triggering some circuit, dating back from where we used to be tribes of social monkeys in the forst, to encourage to play outdoor ???)
But it could also be that family with slightly better than local average socio economic have a better chance to be picky about where they live AND could afford slightly better education and even better parenting (have more time to spend with the kids, have more occasions to get the kids in a museum, etc. instead of leaving them to the "video player babysitter").
That's a level of details that is going to be missed by this study.
A slightly more affluent, but not ultra rich family, might opt to get a slightly nicer and very affordable living place in a slightly poorer neighbourhood, rather than opt for the shittiest possible living quarter in an ultra rich neighbourhood.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's what the paper says it controls for:
...while adjusting for potential confounding factors including sex, age, parental education, neighborhood household income, year of assessment, and zygosity and chorionicity.
It is true that the study did not control for parental income, probably because it didn't have that data. But I don't think it stretches the bounds of credibility to assume that parents of the same educational background living in neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic profiles are likely to be similar in their socioeconomic background.
That said, the real problem is the effect here is tiny. While it's statistically significant, it's not necessarily practically
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollens only cause breathing problems for people with allergies (or related preconditions). Allergies are far less common in greener/rural areas.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollens only cause breathing problems for people with allergies (or related preconditions). Allergies are far less common in greener/rural areas.
Sure, if your environment made you sick, you'd want to move, right?
Anyway, the pollution in urban areas may actually cause allergies, and certainly exacerbates them. Maybe lots more people have pollen allergies than know about it, but they are milder in people who don't have to deal with urban pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that children raised in the Amazon rainforest are smarter than children raised in a 'concrete jungle'?
Quite possible. You won't survive for long in Amazon (or another harsh environment) if you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite possible. You won't survive for long in Amazon (or another harsh environment) if you're an idiot.
Or if you can't bring yourself to piss in a bottle.
Sorry, just a little "joke" (ha ha only serious) there related to your dropping the "The" ;)
No uncertainties, correlation != causation (Score:3)
Does this mean that children raised in the Amazon rainforest are smarter than children raised in a 'concrete jungle'?
No, but it may mean that the authors of this study were raised in a concrete jungle because correlation is not causation and any result without quoted uncertainties is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean that children raised in the Amazon rainforest are smarter than children raised in a 'concrete jungle'?
Yes. Obviously the children raised in a concrete jungle will on average have better life outcomes because they have have more opportunity for education and development than a child raised in a rainforest. But those Manhattan high rises are stunting children's intelligence.
nor can I pretend that a 2.6 IQ point difference is meaningful.
2.6 IQ points is just over a quarter of a standard deviation, so you should consider it meaningful.
If you had made it to the end of the summary you might also have found this meaningful:
the scientists found 4% of children in areas with low levels of greenery scored below 80, while no children scored below 80 in areas with more greenery.
Considering that children with an IQ of 75 have a 50/50 chance of reaching high school, and even in the range 80-85 there is a strong chance that children drop out in elementary school before year 7, I would say that's a big deal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone with an IQ less than 80 is basically a dribbling idiot who'll most likely be doing menial/manual jobs for he rest of their life so whether they finish school or not is mostly irrelevant.
Re: I have no idea (Score:2)
Tarzan must have been a fucking genius then!
Re: (Score:2)
Probably has more to do with latent oxygen and carbon dioxide levels than anything else.
https://www.menshealth.com/hea... [menshealth.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the fucking study, or even the story? It's amazing how much you can learn by actually reading more than the headline and the first sentence of the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution works at much smaller percentage differences than this. Evolution is in it for the long game.
But the obvious question here is "does more green improve IQ, or does higher IQ tend to go green? (or none of the above)
My opinion is that smarter folks prefer a bit more green in their environment, and have higher IQ kids as a result of their higher parental IQ. So neither "causes" the other, they're just likely to occur together. (I'd bet there's a ~6 syllable "word for that', but I don't know what it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I spotted the racist (the first one to bring up the issue of skin color, which had not been mentioned up to that point)
People with a high IQ (and their offspring, who are statistically more likely to have a higher IQ as well), tend to earn more money, and are more likely to be able to pick a nice, green area to live in. Low IQ people tend to be poorer and end up in polluted areas. Hence the correlation.
Sure, a green area could have real benefits too, so I wouldn't completely rule out any causal effect in th
"greener urban environment "... (Score:2)
Is an oxymoron
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Cities exist as both the largest technology we have to serve the poor, and the largest prison we have to contain the poor. In this case poverty of intellect, but it holds true for poverty of wealth and even poverty of spirit.
Re: (Score:3)
People with a high IQ (and their offspring, who are statistically more likely to have a higher IQ as well), tend to earn more money, and are more likely to be able to pick a nice, green area to live in. Low IQ people tend to be poorer and end up in polluted areas.
TFS says this: "The effect was seen in both richer and poorer areas."
Greener poorer areas tend to be red states. Where us knuckle dragging conservatives live.
Maybe y'all are wrong about us rednecks.
Maybe I'm trolling. Maybe not.
Re: I have no idea how stupid colonists had slaves (Score:2)
Re: green does not mean pot (Score:3)
There are no studies on general intelligence and cannabis use (I'm aware of), but there are studies that show that cannabis users are more successful.
I think most people will take success over a bump on a standardized test.
Colorado and Washington at an advantage here (Score:5, Funny)
Growing up in a greener urban environment boosts children's intelligence and lowers levels of difficult behavior
Well Colorado and Washington have a lot of green to offer, so kids in those places must be pretty smart!
Oh wait you weren't talking about weed?
Re: (Score:2)
And would that be relevant anyway?
At least we should be told!
Editors, editors, editors <Throws chairs>
Correlation is not causation (Score:3, Insightful)
The paper conclusion is rightfully much more conservative than the first sentence in the Guardian article. Paper: "Our results indicate that residential green space may be beneficial for the intellectual and the behavioral development of children living in urban areas." Nothing about boosting which implies causation.
Re: Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but we already know polluted areas contaminate the brain - easily seen in postmortem, and known since the 1970s - causing impairment of brain function and increased violence.
It seems logical for a reduction of air pollution to result in the opposite.
Is it causation? In the sense that a truck and a tree cannot inhabit the same space. At least, not with the truck remaining functional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we evolved living in green spaces and green spaces are considered relaxing. And kids love playing in the bush. I know I did, along with most of the neighbourhood kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I evolved in a concrete jungle.
The concrete slab
Where people take anything and everything that they can grab.
Correlation is not necessarily causation (Score:3, Insightful)
The paper only shows a correlation and not causation. The paper IMO improperly uses the word "benefits" to describe the effect of green on intelligence. Nothing in the paper shows a causal benefit. Instead the paper shows empirical correlation and then hypothesizes about causal benefits in a fairly confident manner. The authors themselves provide no empirical evidence to substantiate the statements on causality but simply and repeatedly cite prior papers.
There are statements about accounting for obvious significant factors such as parental income and education, "An important strength of our study is that we excluded potential confounding by socioeconomic indicators and traffic-related air pollution. Indeed, we presented our associations independently of socioeconomic indicators both at the individual level, such as parental education, as well as by group level by including neighborhood household income." However, even assuming that such factor analysis was done properly, a correlation is still just a correlation.
If I were a reviewer for the paper, I would have harshly criticized it on the unsubstantiated claims on causality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I note that you must also understand that, "Correlation is not necessarily non-causation."
And of course, I wonder if this relationship continues to the exceptionally green farming communities in fly-over.
{^_^}
Re:Correlation is not necessarily causation (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how this kind of science works. You can't take newborns and place them in a controlled environment to determine direct causation. You can't dissect hundreds of children's brains to look for contaminants, and then inject those contaminants into other children's brains to observe the effect.
All you can do is look for correlations and then try to discount all other possible factors to the best of your ability. Therefore the way to evaluate this paper is on how well it discounted other possibilities.
In any case the results are useful. Again this is not uncommon with science, e.g. we know that copper alloys have useful anti-microbial properties but don't fully understand why, yet that knowledge is extremely useful. In this case even if we cannot be 100% certain it would be foolish to do nothing, especially as we know that green spaces in urban areas have many other benefits.
Re:Correlation is not necessarily causation (Score:4, Insightful)
All you can do , is not really do science, and pretend you KNOW a lot more then you really know and claim it is true because 'science supports it'.
This is common in all of the 'soft sciences' aka sociology, psychology, etc.
Ummmm.... no (Score:2)
Have a look at the charts, the confidence on ANY correlation is microscopic..
They are finding correlation in noise.
Re: (Score:2)
The paper only shows a correlation and not causation. The paper IMO improperly uses the word "benefits" to describe the effect of green on intelligence. Nothing in the paper shows a causal benefit. Instead the paper shows empirical correlation and then hypothesizes about causal benefits in a fairly confident manner...If I were a reviewer for the paper, I would have harshly criticized it on the unsubstantiated claims on causality.
You speak as if we're still living in the 20th Century. Sorry, but profit now drives all media. Therefore, Clicks and Likes are the priority. Facts are secondary. Yes, even in a scientifically pointless but "sooo clickworthy!" paper such as this.
Average of 2.6 IQ points? Give me a fucking break. Social media is still maniacally laughing at that "impact".
Re: (Score:2)
The paper only shows a correlation and not causation.
Causation is determined by interconnected correlation.
When we find correlation between green space and intelligence, and then find correlation between green space and lower air pollution, and then find correlation between air pollution and intelligence, it kind of starts to paint a bigger picture the typical "correlation != causation" crowd start looking increasingly childish.
Causation does not need to be direct.
Re: (Score:2)
They admit that the cause is uncertain. So what are you blabbering about?
No, this is not correct. The authors state in their conclusion section, "Our results indicate that residential green space may be beneficial for intellectual and behavioral development of children living in an urban environment." This conclusion is not substantiated by their data. Instead they liberally use the word "benefit" which implies causality.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote you're citing uses qualifier "may be", which is an expression indicating uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Older inner-city houses might have higher levels of lead paint present.
Re: (Score:3)
The effect of even minute quantities of lead on intelligence, among other things, is is well-documented. It at least potentially explains a lot of things (e.g., disparate rates of crime, academic achievement, poverty, and health issues). And in ways that would not fit the narrative of either major party.
Getting lead out of gasoline is believed to have led to a large reduction in crime rates and poverty, and I believe getting it out of inner-city homes, as quickly as possible short of razing them or furthe
If IQ doesn't exist, then why does this matter? (Score:2, Troll)
It's odd that researchers are still using IQ as a measure of "something," because other researchers have expressed the opinion that IQ doesn't actually exist.
So who is right?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Researchers who aren't stupid enough to claim that 2+2=5, IQ doesn't exist and other anti-scientific nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't comment on specifics as I haven't looked into it in significant detail. All I can say is that arguments used were effectively same recycled arguments from intersectional parts of anglosphere academia. There was almost no new material that I could see. The only novel aspect was directing intersectional arguments toward mathematics as a specific field of science.
So as far as I can see, the only new thing is that intersectional dogma is now rooted in anglosphere academic circles so strongly, that it ca
Re:If IQ doesn't exist, then why does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that's where it starts, and your line is how protection for the subversion of science occurs while it's in progress.
It's funny how few people have learned from past success of intersectional people in attacking the very foundations of sciences they wanted to subvert. People who have sufficient amount of arrogance about their beliefs truly do not learn from past failures. "But science says", "but it's just a small vocal crowd", "but this is so absurd, it must be a joke" etc were the things that were said about their initial anti-scientific claims, like that biological sex in humans isn't connected to gender expression.
Today, there are several regions in Anglosphere where stating biological facts about this will get you punished by law enforcement and courts. Learn from past mistakes, and stop being so arrogant as to think that "science" or "evidence" or any other aspects that you think are relevant to the world actually matter in court of public opinion in the long run.
Re: If IQ doesn't exist, then why does this matter (Score:2)
Re:If IQ doesn't exist, then why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
IQ does measure something, it's just not general intelligence. Seems the tests I've taken have measured pattern matching, which is a type of intelligence but doesn't mean you're going to be successful at stuff that takes creative intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine you've got an assignment to design the very first IQ test. You've got a first draft, administered it to some subjects, and now you have some results.
How do you know those results are right? How do you *validate* your test?
If you were inventing a ruler, you'd start with something like this: check pairs of people and see that it consistently gives you larger readings for the taller person. There's no analogue of that for "general intelligence". The only means you have to measure GI is the very t
I dunno about that.. (Score:2)
I grew up in a small redneck town that was fairly well forested, and there sure were a lot of dopes there.. (Myself included!)
Re: (Score:2)
Dopes are everywhere, not just in rural areas. It’s just that city dwellers like to pretend otherwise.
Didn't they tell us that.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same people were recently arguing on twitter that 2+2=5 in full seriousness, and accusing those that noted that mathematics are specific, and 2+2 cannot equal 5 of being racist, colonialist and espousing whiteness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that when that particular argument started. I didn't a week later after seeing the quality of arguments being used to back it up, as those were carbon copy arguments from arguments being used in various intersectional circles across anglosphere academia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they tell us that.... (Score:4, Informative)
These people have so far successfully used these same arguments to argue for same kind of insanity in other fields. Just not as specific and easily provable as math. For example, they successfully argued that human sexuality is fluid and completely disconnected from biology, a claim that is utterly absurd in light of what we know about biology and life on this planet. A claim which is now put into law in several places in anglosphere, and where stating the truth is punishable by law.
Like I said elsewhere, these arguments have been used before many times with great success against various scientific fields. The only novel thing is that these arguments are now being fielded even against sciences as provable and as exact as mathematics. Everything else about this attack is at least a decade old.
But I suppose you can argue that "everything is a joke until we have a law that punishes you for stating factually correct things that go against ideology of said friends". That has been done as this ideology was in process of attacking a specific scientific claim, to provide cover for the attack to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant to how well you can do on an IQ test.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "they"? I usually see it touted around here by the dull and dimwitted.
Theories? (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds very plausible to me. (Score:3)
Our hunter/gatherer/nomad and "lots of nature around" ancestry is only a very short while back. Our cousins are monkeys that are really good at climbing trees and we share the same flexible body parts for that. There are strong indications that our brain and hands developed from climbing trees. That having a diverse environment as a child and the freedom to explore it up intelligence and creativity and problem solving abilities is just about a no-brained IMHO. As is the strong indication that such an environment helps strengthen and regulate impulse control and executive function, the key traits lacking in people with ADHD.
The modern world that shuns nature fucks with our brains to a certain degree, that's for sure (fill in millennial joke of choice here).
For fchk sake ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... please, spare us the "correlation is not causation" BS.
Observation is the first part of the process. These people observed a correlation. Now, maybe someone will be interested enough to discover the cause of the correlation. The authors even suggest a possibilty for further research.
Does everyone here really have to be an armchair scientist
No.. (Score:2)
They didnt. Go and look at the data, they are extracting data with a confidence level of near 0. This is just finding a tiny possibility in noise..
And thats ignoring the fact that apparently they found a TON of rural people who dont have any 'green space' within 3000m....
Think about that for a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, lots of people here think they are smarter than everyone else. While in reality they are below average. This same thinking is what leads people down the path to believing in conspiracies.
Some story here tells a simple fact, like say the sky is blue. The armchair geniuses want to show how much smarter they are and go "well actually its red..." and try to contradict the fact. Other dimwits see this as truth and mod it up because hey slashdot is full of smart people.
Re: (Score:2)
Does everyone here really have to be an armchair scientist
Wait, did you not read Slashdot's ToS?
Negative effect? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been earlier studies that have linked air pollution to psychiatric disorders [slashdot.org].
Greener areas tend to have fewer sources of pollution, and plant life can also filter pollutants from the air to some degree.
It would be interesting to see how the brain chemistry is affected by different types of pollution. Maybe what we're seeing is not as much a positive effect in greener areas but more of a negative effect in less green areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Pollution could impact things to a negative degree. Diesel fumes from buses in particular can really have a cumulative effect. Look at what happens to a major city when they bus service goes on strike (I've seen this happen). The air starts to get noticeably cleaner soon afterwards. Any time humans live that closely together you start to need specialized resources to take care of the pollution that would otherwise disperse without concerns in lower density environments. Were humans really meant to live that
Solar punk the towns and cities then (Score:5, Interesting)
Rural voters (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains all of the brilliant voters from rural areas.
Really? (Score:3)
So that's the reason those Hill people in Kentucky are so smart.
1950s Green Hospitals (Score:2)
I don't need any more convincing! (Score:3)
I'm painting my walls green right now!
Sunglasses (Score:3)
I gave my kid green sunglasses. Now he's a freaking genius. Want to buy a pair for your kid?
Complexity (Score:3)
Since we're all throwing in our pet hypotheses, I suspect living in an environment of mainly boxes and flat surfaces might deprive the brain of some stimulation that would help with its development.
Last time I went for a walk on the beach with some friends I remember noticing how I was using all these muscles I don't normally use, challenging my sense of balance, etc.
I'm no expert, but I imagine that if you train a neural network with a low poly simulation it will miss out on a lot of valuable nuanced cues when applying it to data from the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
How about greenery leading to more oxygen in the environment...
Pollutants cause all sorts of health problems (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Or (Score:5, Informative)
Or it could be that city areas with more greenery also tended to be wealthier areas, and there's a strong correlation between wealth and IQ.
Or, you could have read the summary and known that they controlled for wealth.
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
The authors know this, and the don't claim to have found anything. The wrote in the paper, "residential green space may be beneficial for the intellectual and the behavioral development of children living in urban areas."
Re: (Score:2)
Its MUCH worse than that, note that there are many many rural areas with 0 greenspaces within 3000m ;)
Now, that is quite obviously impossible, so they are simply massaging data to fit SOME kind of agenda...
Re: (Score:2)
the greenness of their neighborhood raised their IQ score by an average of 2.6 points
No. The authors have found a correlation between green spaces and IQ, and they say as much. To show causation would require a truly herculean decade-long longitudinal study involving somehow controlling where the children live.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you using linear regression?
Probably because they knew someone will ask "why are they using ${STATISTICAL_PROCESS}" regardless of what they did and therefore didn't bother appeasing the peanut gallery.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could have read the summary and known that they controlled for wealth.
Preposterous! Don't you know the only true experts on any topic, especially science are Slashdot commenters!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't even the summary say that this as been accounted for?
Please read the fine article (Score:2)
It helps to read the article to understand that scientists have addressed this particular bias.
The researchers took into account the wealth and education levels of the children’s parents, largely ruling out the idea that families who are better placed to support children simply have more access to green space.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the 'green' correlation is to money not trees or grass
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you don't. Not unless you're a High School teacher. Really, you've seen a bunch of 80s movies where the rich bullies pick on the scrappy hero, and somehow you confused the trope with real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, IQ does not correlate positively with ass-whoopings.
Nope. The only thing that does is more ass-whoopings.
Re: Correlation? (Score:2)
Polo counts as play you insensitive clod!
Re:for the right millionth time (Score:4, Insightful)
If there have been a million posts saying it before you, then there is absolutely no reason for you to shout it again! Shut the fuck up!