PETA Says Fish Are Intelligent Beings

[kasia]

PETA’s pro-fish TV ad—narrated by the late Linda McCartney—is hitting the airwaves. In the ad, McCartney points out that it’s obvious that fish feel pain: “Have you ever seen a fish gasping for breath when you take it out of the water? They’re saying, ‘Thanks a lot for killing me. It feels great, you know.’ No! It hurts!”

Several recent studies confirm that fish are intelligent individuals who lead complex lives. An issue of Fish and Fisheries cited more than 500 research papers proving that fish are intelligent animals with long-term memories who can use tools and even build structures. University of Edinburgh biologist Culum Brown says, “Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates, including nonhuman primates.”

University of Edinburgh biologist Culum Brown says, “Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates, including nonhuman primates.”
This year, New Scientist reported, “The structure of the fish brain is varied and rather different from ours, yet it functions in a very similar way.” And Dr. Sylvia Earle, perhaps the foremost marine biologist in the world, explained, “I wouldn’t eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”

So-called “catch and release” fishing is cruel, too—and it’s also deadly to many fish. Wounds from hooks can make it difficult or impossible for fish to eat and can lead to deadly infections. Just handling or netting fish can damage their protective coating and lead to death. And discarded fishing tackle, such as hooks, monofilament line, and netting injures and kills countless birds and other aquatic animals.
from goveg.com

[hooligan]

i've been trying to eat less red meat. now this? great. I'm never going to eat meat again.

[DragonKnight]

i've been trying to eat less red meat. now this? great. I'm never going to eat meat again. Plants enjoy listening to music.

[Emperor_Mike]

I need my meat to live.

[Kuchana]

Eat grass. Ugh.

[bluemonq]

you know what? fine, let's eat peta. problem solved.

[kasia]

anyways, what kind of argument is it that something shouldn't be eaten just because it is "intelligent"?

if that were the test as to whether certain beings should be eaten, i'd be eating some of my clients.

i think nemo tastes good with green onion and soy sauce. how good something tastes -- *that's* the test.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

What about some of the animals that are borderline, like...animals that are kinda stupid but kinda not?

[applehead]

i guess mentally retarded animals are okay to eat.
:frown:

[s1eve]

Hmm, makes me wonder about the merits of big game fishing where fisherman spend hours pulling in their big one. If fish can feel pain, then surely this game is pretty cruel.

[applehead]

just keep swimming~
just keep swimming~

[fossilfuel]

“Have you ever seen a fish gasping for breath when you take it out of the water? They’re saying, ‘Thanks a lot for killing me. It feels great, you know.’ No! It hurts!”

Fish are like the best mimes ever?

[BeTheReds]

Peta is dumb.

Their fur fights? I can understand tho.

Everything else? STFU!

[AliBabaIncorporated]

If they were really all that intelligent, they would have found some way to avoid becoming food, the way dolphins and most dogs have managed to do.

[deez nuts]

i've been trying to eat less red meat. now this? great. I'm never going to eat meat again.

you mind as well stop eating meat and wear birks and move to a commune with the other flaming liberal tree hugging hippies.

[sinisterpanda]

I don't eat meat, but I don't go around smacking people's hamburgers out of their hands or preaching, just like I don't want people who do to tell me to start eating meat, it's just logical. I wish peta would stop being so egotistical and just become a support group for people who are pressured into eating meat by a society that is highly carnivorous.

[VV o n g B a]

If they were really all that intelligent, they would have found some way to avoid becoming food, the way dolphins and most dogs have managed to do.give 'em time. this is the first step of their "avoid being eaten" strategy.

[deez nuts]

i love a whole pig roast. a whole pig roasting over a pit of fire and you slice off chunks of its meat and eat it.

i have no qualms about eating nemo and flipper. i don't care how smart they are cuz if they were so smart their cooked carcasses wouldn't be on my dinner plate.

as a matter of fact after i watched finding nemo, i had a real bad craving for sushi.

[Hanuman]

If fish are so smart, why do they make it so easy to catch em? Baloney!! (which is good too), I'm gonna eat cause it tastes sooo goood...

[SunWuKong]

i have 2 goldfish, and i can honestly say they're pretty damn stupid. but i have to also admit that they have individual personalities. one of the goldfish likes to hide in the plants we put in the tank. the other likes to swim around.

[ModernLogic]

These people have too much time on their hands.

Someone needs to throw these Peta nutjobs into a den of lions. And see how their rights are respected by other members of the animal kingdom.

[DragonKnight]

These people have too much time on their hands.

Someone needs to throw these Peta nutjobs into a den of lions. And see how their rights are respected by other members of the animal kingdom. They can always try preaching the good word of Da Lawwwwd. :biggrin:

[seanp]

I eat fish more than beef or pork...

[golden_buns]

Eat grass. Ugh.

Soon they'll find that it has feelings too

[Green_Jade]

Soon they'll find that it has feelings too

I swear I read a small paper sometime back on this guy who measured biofeedback from his plants.. and he claimed they can think a bit.

so yeah, no meat, no fish, no chicken, no grass or plants.

that leaves us with one thing, soylent green.

[golden_buns]

that leaves us with one thing, soylent green.

They have feelings too :tongue:

[Fireblade]

I guess there's only one thing left to do. Genetically modify ourselves so that we're self-sufficient on just soil, sun, and water. Kinda like that slug that can photosentisize and produce it's own food.

But then PETA would get on our asses and say something stupid like "the sunlight is a bio-organism many of millions of years old, and we're robbing it of it's lifesouce!"

Man... what I wouldn't give to stone the hell out of those guys then.

[heykitten]

I thought fish only has a memory of like 5 seconds? Eh, I know PETA is for the ethical rights of animals but they go about it so unethically and create drama rather than reasonable tactics.

[applehead]

i don't understand why people are bothered
by peta's ad campaigns so much.
for those of you who are, what exactly bothers
you so much about this orgainization
promoting their ideas?

[Emperor_Mike]

^ I think it's because PETA sometimes comes across as being too preachy and unreasonable. I, for one, like my fish, chickens, cows, pigs, and other sundry forms of high protein sustenance. PETA might make some people uncomfortable with their Fish-Have-Feelings-Too or Don't-Wear-Fur campaigns.

I don't think anyone should wear fur, by the way. That's just unseemly.

[DragonKnight]

^ I think it's because PETA sometimes comes across as being too preachy and unreasonable. Kinda like the Jehovah's Witnesses version of spreading the good word of not eating meat. :biggrin:

(not that all Jehovah's Witnesses are bad...just the real pushy kind that stick their foot in the door when you try to close it cause you don't have the time to debate god's word)

[applehead]

Kinda like the Jehovah's Witnesses version of spreading the good word of not eating meat. :biggrin:

(not that all Jehovah's Witnesses are bad...just the real pushy kind that stick their foot in the door when you try to close it cause you don't have the time to debate god's word)


i've never ever met a jehovah's witness like that.

^ I think it's because PETA sometimes comes across as being too preachy and unreasonable. I, for one, like my fish, chickens, cows, pigs, and other sundry forms of high protein sustenance. PETA might make some people uncomfortable with their Fish-Have-Feelings-Too or Don't-Wear-Fur campaigns.

I don't think anyone should wear fur, by the way. That's just unseemly.

how unreasonable and preachy?
can you cite some examples?

i just see it as an organization that
don't really agree with what most people
in the world do and say. and obviously,
that's going to push a lot of buttons.

when peta's doing a campaign that a lot of people
agree with like the famous "fur is dead." peta's OKAY.
but with something like "meat is murder" all hell
breaks loose. what's so different about the two
campaigns? they use the same type of advertisements,
the same tactics.

[Emperor_Mike]

how unreasonable and preachy?
can you cite some examples?

i just see it as an organization that
don't really agree with what most people
in the world do and say. and obviously,
that's going to push a lot of buttons.

when peta's doing a campaign that a lot of people
agree with like the famous "fur is dead." peta's OKAY.
but with something like "meat is murder" all hell
breaks loose. what's so different about the two
campaigns? they use the same type of advertisements,
the same tactics.

I don't know. Personally, I don't have any problems with PETA. It doesn't irk to the extent that I'd actually use the word "hate" when describing my feelings toward the organisation as a whole, but a lot of people are sensitive and don't like being told what to do; especially if it's something as common and widespread as eating meat. It's funny, really. If you're being told not do something you don't regularly get involved with, everything is a-okay. But once you ask people to stop indulging in an activity that they partake in on a regular basis it usually becomes a problem. Who knows how people think? Maybe this is a case of unreasonable distaste for something or other.

[applehead]

I don't know. Personally, I don't have any problems with PETA. It doesn't irk to the extent that I'd actually use the word "hate" when describing my feelings toward the organisation as a whole, but a lot of people are sensitive and don't like being told what to do; especially if it's something as common and widespread as eating meat. It's funny, really. If you're being told not do something you don't regularly get involved with, it's fine. But once you ask people to stop indulging in an activity that they partake in on a regular basis it usually becomes a problem. Who knows how people think? Maybe this is a case of unreasonable distaste for something or other.


you freakin led me on by answering my question!!
i totally thought you were one of those
who were bothered by peta.
anyone?

:biggrin:

[Emperor_Mike]

Kinda like the Jehovah's Witnesses version of spreading the good word of not eating meat. :biggrin:

(not that all Jehovah's Witnesses are bad...just the real pushy kind that stick their foot in the door when you try to close it cause you don't have the time to debate god's word)

When I lived in my apartment I never had to worry about Jehovah's Witnesses. Now that I have a house and no longer have the luxury of living in a high-rise I have to defend my property against encroachers. Heh.

My parents are lucky. They have a large gate and brick walls to block out people like that. :wink:

Oh, but the "Watchtower" magazines are pretty interesting.

you freakin led me on by answering my question!!
i totally thought you were one of those
who were bothered by peta.
anyone?

:biggrin:

Nah. PETA's okay. Freedom of Expression and all that. Besides, I can appreciate where they're coming from. "Hating" an organisation like PETA is pretty unreasonable, really. How can you hate something without knowing everything there is to know about it? Marginal dislike, perhaps, but hate? People are so strange.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Surprised no one posted it yet: :tongue:
http://www.activemax.com/archives/nemo-sushi.jpg

[fossilfuel]

If PETA limited their activities to preaching they wouldn't be so bad. However, they are annoying because they are hypocritical, lie and if they had their way they would enforce their views on everyone else.

Fur is murder. I'm fine with that, I don't like fur. However, people that throw maggots or paint on fur coats have crossed the line between freedom of expression and giving up the right to get punched (it's assault and battery by the way).

They want to ban all sorts of animal testing. Well, I'm for animal testing because the alternatives, testing on people or not having the drugs to save human lives are not attractive to me. Guess what, the founder of PETA uses insulin made from animals and animal testing. Wow, that's ok though.

There are also claims that PETA has funded groups that blow up research labs. I'm not sure if they've been substantiated but I wouldn't be surprised.

PETA people are also very self righeous. If they see you eating meat, they feel like it's their duty to go up and tell you how you will get cancer and the red meat will be in your colon for the next 5 years. That's about as welcome as a telemarketer that you can't hang up on. If you want to get your message across, put it in an ad or a billboard and leave it at that. I don't go around preaching the benefits of meat to vegetarians (and someone that did that would be equally annoying). Well someone's gonna say that it's never happened to them. Well it happened to me and it was really annoying.

PETA is officially pro-choice I believe. Well I am too - but it's ok to abort a human fetus but not eat eggs?

There's the somewhat mainstream side of PETA and the radical side. The radical side is what gives the organization a bad rep. The mere fact that I disagree with them is not why I find them annoying, it's the fact that they are all up in your face when they do things.

- About this article - I'm not sure who it's addressed to. Vegetarians don't eat fish. Meat eaters don't care if the animals they eat think. Were there a subclass of people that only ate fish, and only ate the fish because they thought the fish were not intelligent? :boggle:

[DragonKnight]

i've never ever met a jehovah's witness like that.
They used those tactics a long time ago. Don't think they do it nowadays since that count as invasion of private property. Maybe there's a case when some overzealous preacher got sued. :rolleyes:

[applehead]

If PETA limited their activities to preaching they wouldn't be so bad. However, they are annoying because they are hypocritical, lie and if they had their way they would enforce their views on everyone else.

Fur is murder. I'm fine with that, I don't like fur. However, people that throw maggots or paint on fur coats have crossed the line between freedom of expression and giving up the right to get punched (it's assault and battery by the way).

They want to ban all sorts of animal testing. Well, I'm for animal testing because the alternatives, testing on people or not having the drugs to save human lives are not attractive to me. Guess what, the founder of PETA uses insulin made from animals and animal testing. Wow, that's ok though.

There are also claims that PETA has funded groups that blow up research labs. I'm not sure if they've been substantiated but I wouldn't be surprised.

PETA people are also very self righeous. If they see you eating meat, they feel like it's their duty to go up and tell you how you will get cancer and the red meat will be in your colon for the next 5 years. That's about as welcome as a telemarketer that you can't hang up on. If you want to get your message across, put it in an ad or a billboard and leave it at that. I don't go around preaching the benefits of meat to vegetarians (and someone that did that would be equally annoying). Well someone's gonna say that it's never happened to them. Well it happened to me and it was really annoying.

PETA is officially pro-choice I believe. Well I am too - but it's ok to abort a human fetus but not eat eggs?

There's the somewhat mainstream side of PETA and the radical side. The radical side is what gives the organization a bad rep. The mere fact that I disagree with them is not why I find them annoying, it's the fact that they are all up in your face when they do things.

- About this article - I'm not sure who it's addressed to. Vegetarians don't eat fish. Meat eaters don't care if the animals they eat think. Were there a subclass of people that only ate fish, and only ate the fish because they thought the fish were not intelligent? :boggle:

peta doesn't condone FURTHER animal testing.
and unnecesary continued animal testing.
meaning they can't undo the animal testing that's
been done in the past but now that there's better
technology out there, it seems a bit unnecessary.

so it's okay for you to think that fur is bad
but eating meat isn't?
i don't understand why people always connect supporting
abortions and not eating meat products and seem
that it's contradictory.
a woman's right to choose and eating meat is
same, how?

so someone from peta was preaching to you
about meat-eating while you were eating
a burger? that's why you say they're "in your face?"

i'm just really trying to understand because
all i see are stickers, posters, billboards.
i never had official peta members
interrupt me while i'm eating. i've never had
them peronally come up to me and yell at me for
wearing leather. i've never had them "in my face"
as you put it.
so maybe i've been lucky.

and i think this article is trying to portray
fish as a thinking living being that can feel pain.
not they'll-understand-philosophical-texbook intelligent.

[fossilfuel]

peta doesn't condone FURTHER animal testing.
and unnecesary continued animal testing.
meaning they can't undo the animal testing that's
been done in the past but now that there's better
technology out there, it seems a bit unnecessary.


Well they are horribly misinformed then. What is this magical technology that can test if drugs are safe or not on humans? The radical PETA members are against ALL animal testing, not "unnecessary continued animal testing". If animal testing has been used successfully in the past to create life saving drugs like insulin, it is a reasonable proposition that drugs for new diseases can also be created. If PETA were truly the moral superior high ground, they would not support any products created from animal testing. Using those products only reinforces the idea that those products are necessary.


so it's okay for you to think that fur is bad
but eating meat isn't?
i don't understand why people always connect supporting
abortions and not eating meat products and seem
that it's contradictory.
a woman's right to choose and eating meat is
same, how?


Yes, it's ok for me to have opinions. What I don't do is force my opinions on others. I also never said that the ads were bad, they have the right to advertise their opinions. However, some of those ads are horribly distasteful (putting up pictures of chicken farms next to victims of the holocaust). My main fur problem is when they willfully destroy other people's property by throwing paint on fur coats. Can that be justified at all?

Also, my comparison was not between meat and the right to choose. Part of the rationale for why we shouldn't eat eggs is because they are potential living beings. When we eat those beings, we are destroying potential lives. Thus, we shouldn't eat eggs. However, it is ok for a woman to destroy a potential life. I guess there is a key difference - being that chickens have no right to choose, which I will concede.


so someone from peta was preaching to you
about meat-eating while you were eating
a burger? that's why you say they're "in your face?"

i'm just really trying to understand because
all i see are stickers, posters, billboards.
i never had official peta members
interrupt me while i'm eating. i've never had
them peronally come up to me and yell at me for
wearing leather. i've never had them "in my face"
as you put it.
so maybe i've been lucky.

I guess you have. Move to LA. You'll run into PETA members and scientologists.


and i think this article is trying to portray
fish as a thinking living being that can feel pain.
not they'll-understand-philosophical-texbook intelligent.

I never said they thought fish could read Kafka either. This doesn't address my last issue with the article at all. Who is this article targeted to? Any reasonable person can believe that a cow feels pain and thinks. Yet, meat eaters still eat them. Was anybody out there thinking that fish don't think and don't feel pain and therefore they are ok to eat? I haven't met them, but I haven't been in LA for a while.

[applehead]

um, i guess we can discuss this over PM.
i don't want to post too much
about an organization that has nothing
to do with yellowworld in such detail!
bore everyone else.

Was anybody out there thinking that fish don't think and don't feel pain and therefore they are ok to eat?

maybe.
there might be people like that!
who knows.
not on yw of course. we're all pretty smart.

[Faithless]

So, you thought PETA was bad, just think how bad it could get if more people take their cause after getting law degrees in "Animal Law".

From: http://www.nabr.org/AnimalLaw/

Animal activists and their lawyers are using increasingly sophisticated and coordinated legal strategies in an attempt to incrementally change how our laws relate to animals.

From -- Geordie Duckler: Seeing animals as more than just property (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/111140255732440.xml)

Nationally, 42 law schools now teach animal law.


THE MONDAY PROFILE Lawyer works for pet owners * Monday, March 21, 2005 * JULIE SULLIVAN

Squish . . . step. Squish . . . step.

Attorney Geordie Duckler slogs across an Estacada farmyard in borrowed boots, camera in hand. Mud and manure coat his legs as he lurches into the barn to see Freckles, a llama mauled by neighborhood dogs. The llama stumbles to his feet, his leg wound oozing.

"He was on the ground when the caretaker got there," says owner Kit Collins, voice shaking. Her sheep, Emmylou and Baab, are dead. "I am so upset," she says. "I just want to save animals; I just want to have a rescue here."

"You are," Duckler says soothingly. "You will."

"With your help," she says.

Ten years ago, attorneys rarely visited barns or kennels. But in a nation that spends $31 billion a year on pets, far more are interested. Nationally, 42 law schools now teach animal law. Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland led the way, hosting one of the first national conferences and publishing the first animal-law review. The top reason attorneys enter animal law, according to one American Bar Association official: a personal experience with an animal. Duckler's associate, Laura Ireland Moore, is a vegan who rescues pets.

Not so Duckler. The driving force behind nearly 140 Oregon animal-law cases is no animal-rights activist. He eats meat. He represents the owners of controversial exotic pets. And as a paleontologist trained at the University of California at Los Angeles, the animal he knows best is the saber-toothed cat, which lived 33,000 years ago.

"I disappoint a lot of people," Duckler acknowledges.

At a time when more Oregonians are arguably more in love with their pets than ever, Duckler has emerged as a persistent force in changing how judges and juries see that bond. But Oregon courts still consider animals property. While courts recognize legal liability for negligence that causes an animal's death, the only remedy they offer is the animal's market value. Duckler wants the law to recognize the loss of the relationship. Courts in California and Kentucky have awarded damages on that basis.

"I'm not an animal-rights advocate," Duckler says. "I'm an owner's rights advocate. Animals are not like other property. They appreciate; they don't depreciate. The law does not reflect 10 years of life together, of taking the dog for walks, and sleeping in beds or playing."

Three judges have allowed Duckler's "loss of companionship" claims, but none of the claims has reached a jury. On Wednesday, a fourth judge ruled against Duckler, ending a trial before a Benton County jury could decide whether a kennel's advertising claims and actions contributed to the death of a dog. The judge ruled that Duckler failed to prove with reasonable medical certainty that the kennel caused the death.

The case, filed by a Corvallis public health expert and firefighter, took two years to bring, cost thousands and, in the end, seemed to change little.

Duckler vows to keep trying, saying he will appeal that case and bring others until the law advances to reflect the fact that society values animals -- not as people -- but not solely as property either.

With only about 100 attorneys practicing animal law full time nationwide, it is a quixotic battle. It is also messy and emotional, full of anger and grief.

"The law sees animals as inanimate objects," says Collins, the llama owner. "Animals are not TVs. These animals are part of the family."

Family of achievers

That Duckler is pushing a legal frontier surprises few who know his Portland family.

A sister, Heidi Duckler, is the artistic director of an avant-garde Los Angeles dance theater, staging productions in sites such as abandoned buildings. Another sister, Merridawn Duckler, is an award-winning Portland writer. Alycia, his older twin by five minutes, runs the Alycia Duckler Gallery in the Pearl District. His brother, Garrick, on Friday received a doctorate in English literature from the University of Chicago.

The Ducklers say their distinct paths were set by parents who challenged them and the status quo. "They were genuine eccentrics," Merridawn Duckler says. "They raised us to be absolutely independent thinkers."

Dr. Larry Duckler was a general surgeon whose tendency to treat people for free impoverished the family. His wife eventually persuaded him to take a salaried position at a Portland hospital, where he spent 42 years before retiring and taking three other jobs. Mother Selma Duckler is a Portland actress and theater producer who heads a national psychoanalytic foundation.

Worried that her children would not know their busy father, Selma Duckler carted the five to the hospital cafeteria to eat with him every evening he worked. On Sunday shifts, they spent the whole day. Dinners at home included a bowl of flash cards on topics that each person had to speak on extemporaneously. The exercises created knowledge of the classics, appreciation of performance arts and skepticism of mainstream values.

When one college admissions officer asked what faith the family practiced, a sister said, "Our religion is Freud."

Geordie Duckler questioned things early, starting an underground newspaper while at Wilson High. He earned bachelor's degrees in science and zoology and a master's in journalism at the University of Oregon. He hoped to become a science writer, but a desire to have more impact sent him to law school. He landed at a 200-attorney San Francisco insurance defense firm.

He was on the telephone with his mother one day when he announced that he could see hundreds of other glass office windows and "behind every one is a jerk like me. Here I am making money for these companies. What do they need more money for?" his mother recalls him saying. "My life has to have more meaning."

With the blessing of his wife, Lori Lieberman, then a law librarian, Duckler entered a doctoral biology program at UCLA. He specialized in diseases of Ice Age mammals, analyzing bones from the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits to the nearly extinct Florida panther. He taught college-level anatomy and biology, too, but wanted to return to Portland and combine his background in science and the law. With the births of the couple's two children, there was a practical element to the decision as well.

Like all animals, he had to eat.

Fears over veterinary costs

On a farm in Estacada, Duckler and logger Mark Greenup walk down the shady lane where Greenup's 13-year-old dog Grizz died under the wheels of a pickup. Police later arrested the driver and charged him with felony animal abuse. After a friend told Greenup and his girlfriend they were unlikely to be satisfied by the criminal remedy, they decided to call an attorney. A radio reporter suggested Duckler.

At an office visit weeks later, Duckler said a civil case could help hold the driver accountable and help change Oregon law. But "I don't think this is supercathartic. It can be anticlimactic and frustrating."

Greenup and his family said they knew that. "But if the law isn't going to stop him, maybe Mr. Duckler will."

Critics of animal-law lawyers say Duckler and others are opening a floodgate of lawsuits that will harm animals by raising the price of malpractice insurance and driving up veterinary costs for everyone.

"Attorneys have maxed out on the human medical profession with legislative caps on the amount of money they can collect. The next untapped profession with liability insurance is veterinary medicine. They see it as another way for them to get money," says Dr. Bonnie Beaver, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association and a professor at Texas A&M University.

But Duckler says the civil system has a long history of addressing social wrongs. He is in animal law, he says, because it is "morally complicated" and because animals turn people into "de facto scientists and lawyers," making them understand the natural world and one another better.

Duckler's brother says: "He thinks of himself as doing philosophy as well as law. It's important for him to see the complexity. This has nothing to do with his own desire or to make money; he was in that, and he got out of it and found his own way, and he's living a much richer life."

Julie Sullivan: 503-221-8068. juliesullivan@news.oregonian.com

[robotic]

so don't eat nemo!!!

oh, but we will, we will.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Anuma/donteatnemo.jpg