View allAll Photos Tagged IGNORED
The Cranberries - Dreams (Official Music Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yam5uK6e-bQ&list=RDyKNxeF4KMs...
Blog Post
The striking example of deviation from a wild type under artificial selection provided by the Shirley poppy attracted the attention of pioneer geneticists and biometricians. The biometrician Karl Pearson used the Shirley poppy to study his ideas of homotyposis, which he defined as “the quantitative degree of resemblance to be found on the average between the like parts of organisms”.[1][2] However Pearson's work on Shirley poppy was ridiculed by the pioneer geneticist William Bateson for ignoring the recently discovered analytical methods of Mendelian genetics.
Winnebago County - Iowa
Out hiking the "Heartland" before the big winds and nasty weather. It's the peace and quiet I enjoy, ignoring the cheeky squirrel that's scolding me for being on his turf!
Soft subtle earthy colors of fall to be enjoyed one more time before the white of winter . . .
Copyright 2017
88/365
Q&A PART 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp4ScZztbUM
Q&A PART 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-2txQVA9o
ignore my awkwardness wooo.
if you have any other questions as me here
Hey flickr friends. Not really ignoring your photos and your invites on mine. Busy with gull photos for a bird forum, but when done there will be able to look at your pictures for a nice change of pace.
Funnier large here. View On Black
© Leanne Boulton, All Rights Reserved
Candid eye contact street photography from Glasgow, Scotland.
If you ignore the earphone cord, wheelie bins and security camera, this could be quite a timeless image. It is definitely my favourite shot of the day and it was a chance shot after I saw some motion down the alleyway out of the corner of my eye.
I love his gait, almost as if he is on a catwalk, and with that pout and steely gaze. I am really proud of this capture. Enjoy full screen by pressing 'L' and I thank you for all of your comments and support.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the...
Home Secretaries: Mr. Kenneth Baker ▶️Baron Baker of Dorking - House of Lords - London UK.
Mr. Ken Clarke KC - ▶️Lord Clarke of Nottingham
Mr. Jack Straw
Holloway Governor: Mr. Tim Michael O'Sullivan
A royal bengal tiger spotted in Bandipur tiger reserve, Karnataka, India. Relaxing in the water, ignoring the crazy humans taking pictures.
I'm used to being ignored. Some people will often blithley walk into a scene when its quite obvious that I'm composing a picture. That's OK, though! The end result is often more interesting with a person for perspective - as it was in this image with a very pleasant lady, who was totally absorbed in checking out the many features of a heritage home during a Doors Open event.
Ignore me, I'm fulfilling an obligation for some prairie scenes for a print project for which I am *very* behind. Likely be a lot of wheat and sky for the next few pics.
Not sure if I'll keep this for this weeks theme.... I have a few other ideas so I might try them this week!
Background, polar bears & plane are from deviantart.com!
I've replaced the old one with the new one, thanks for the tips! I worked so hard on this yesterday that I sort of ignored the little details ;) so here is the better version!
321/365
Wansink Photography © All Rights Reserved. 2011. Do not use, copy or edit any of my photographs without written permission.
At the start of the long walk to the famous Wistman's Woods, there is a beautiful row of trees that you past. I positioned myself up against the beautiful stone wall and captured this seven shot panoramic.
Another windy day down on the beach.
I'm ignoring the lighthouse for a change and exploring these pools further down the beach.
© www.adamclutterbuckphotography.com
www.facebook.com/adamclutterbuckphoto
@adamclutterbuckphotography
Just booked!
Back south on Wednesday morning, up and gone around
2:30 am! Hope I get a couple hours sleep!
Here is a shot from our last tour to FLA, a Red-bellied woodpecker taken near Orlando. This bird was preparing its nest right beside a dock used for fishing boats. About 12 feet from the dock!
Standing as still as possible, the woodpecker carried on with its business, virtually ignoring us, and doing quite a nice job cleaning out the bottom of the nest hole.
Hoping the Purple gallinules are busy in nesting, and maybe some spoonies nesting to at the alligator farm at St. Augustine - just north of our hotel a few hours drive! We should see some wonderful coloured plumage, and so many birds!
Should be fun with the D850 this time, a great birding test for the camera. - real nature in superb Florida!
Looking forward to all the tolls too! (ouch!) .
Any directive to not paint graffiti is sure to be ignored. This one in an obscure and rather noxious laneway in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane.
Peter Duesberg is a "scientist" who is widely recognised as being one of the foremost idiots who thinks that HIV does not cause AIDS. He thinks that everyone gets it from taking ARVs and doing too much poppers and too many recreational drugs. Celia "Thats why they put blood on my face" Farber has spent an awful long time defending this lunatic "faith".
A new Harvard study has claimed that the deaths of around 330,000 South Africans occured as a direct result of Mbeki's HIV denial.
Peter Duesberg was on Mbeki's AIDS panel, so advised him in his murderous denial.
Of course I am not pointing the finger directly at Duesberg as the buck stopped with Mbeki and his health minister Dr Beetroot, and the policies they enacted.
However it would be wrong to completely ignore the role that Duesberg and others played in the deaths of all of these people.
Duesberg is currently employed by the University of California Berkeley. Maybe in light of this new evidence they should seriously consider his position within their (ANY!) teaching institution.
Mbeki Aids policy 'led to 330,000 deaths'
Sarah Boseley Thursday November 27 2008 00.01 GMT
The Aids policies of former president Thabo Mbeki's government were directly responsible for the avoidable deaths of a third of a million people in South Africa, according to research from Harvard University.
South Africa has one of the most severe HIV/Aids epidemics in the world. About 5.5 million people, or 18.8% of the adult population, have HIV, according to the UN. In 2005 there were 900 deaths a day.
But from the late 90s Mbeki turned his back on the scientific consensus that Aids was caused by a viral infection which could be combated, though not cured, by sophisticated and expensive drugs. He came under the influence of maverick scientists known as Aids-denialists, most prominent among whom was Peter Duesberg from Berkeley, California.
In 2000 Mbeki called a round-table of experts, including Duesberg and his supporters but also their opponents, to discuss the cause of Aids. Later that year, at the international Aids conference in Durban, he publicly rejected the accepted wisdom. Aids, he said, was indeed brought about by the collapse of the immune system - but not because of a virus. The cause, he said, was poverty, bad nourishment and general ill-health. The solution was not expensive western medicine but the alleviation of poverty in Africa.
In a new paper Harvard researchers have quantified the death toll resulting from Mbeki's stance, which caused him to reject offers of free drugs and grants and led to foot-dragging over a treatment programme, even after Mbeki had taken a vow of silence on the issue.
"We contend that the South African government acted as a major obstacle in the provision of medication to patients with Aids," write Pride Chigwedere and colleagues from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
They have made their calculations by comparing the scale-up of treatment programmes in neighbouring Botswana and Namibia with the limited availability of drugs in South Africa from 2000-2005.
Expensive antiretrovirals came down in price dramatically as a result of activists' campaigning and public pressure. In July 2000 the pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim offered to donate its drug nevirapine, which could prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child during labour. But South Africa restricted the availability of nevirapine to two pilot sites a province until December 2002.
Eventually, under international pressure, South Africa did launch a national programme for the prevention of mother to child transmission in August 2003 and a national adult treatment programme in 2004. But by 2005, the paper's authors estimate, there was still only 23% drug coverage and less than 30% prevention of mother to child transmission.
By comparison, Botswana achieved 85% treatment coverage and Namibia 71% by 2005, and both had 70% mother to child transmission programmes coverage.
The authors estimate that more than 330,000 people died unnecessarily in South Africa over the period and that 35,000 HIV-infected babies were born who could have been protected from the virus but would now probably have a limited life.
Their calculations will withstand scrutiny, they say. "The analysis is robust," said Dr Chigwedere. "We used a transparent and accessible calculation, publicly available data, and, where we made assumptions, we explained their basis. We purposely chose very conservative assumptions and performed sensitivity analyses to test whether the results would qualitatively change if a different assumption were used."
The authors conclude: "Access to appropriate public health practice is often determined by a small number of political leaders. In the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of a failure to accept the use of available ARVs to prevent and treat HIV/Aids in a timely manner."
Since Mbeki's ousting from the leadership of the African National Congress in September South Africa has urgently pursued new policies to get treatment to as many people as possible under a new health minister, Barbara Hogan.
November 26, 2008
Study Cites Toll of AIDS Policy in South Africa
By CELIA W. DUGGER
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?_r=1
JOHANNESBURG — A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo Mbeki’s denial of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
Coming in the wake of Mr. Mbeki’s ouster in September after a power struggle in his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions about why Mr. Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.
And it has again caused soul-searching about why his colleagues in the party did not act earlier to challenge his resistance to broadly accepted methods of treating and preventing AIDS.
Reckoning with a legacy of such policies, Mr. Mbeki’s’s successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies.
He replaced her with Barbara Hogan, who has brought South Africa — the most powerful country in a region at the epicenter of the world’s AIDS pandemic — back into the mainstream.
“I feel ashamed that we have to own up to what Harvard is saying,” Ms. Hogan, an A.N.C. stalwart who was imprisoned for a decade during the anti-apartheid struggle, said in a recent interview. “The era of denialism is over completely in South Africa.”
For years, the South African government did not provide antiretroviral medicines, even as Botswana and Namibia, neighboring countries with epidemics of similar scale, took action, the Harvard study reported.
The Harvard researchers quantified the human cost of that inaction by comparing the number of people who got antiretrovirals in South Africa from 2000 to 2005 with the number the government could have reached had it put in place a workable treatment and prevention program.
They estimated that by 2005, South Africa could have been helping half those in need but had reached only 23 percent. By comparison, Botswana was already providing treatment to 85 percent of those in need, and Namibia to 71 percent.
The 330,000 South Africans who died for lack of treatment and the 35,000 babies who perished because they were infected with H.I.V. together lost at least 3.8 million years of life, the study concluded.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.
“They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would consider their numbers quite reasonable,” James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said in an e-mail message.
The report was posted online last month and will be published on Monday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
Max Essex, the virologist who has led the Harvard School of Public Health’s AIDS research program for the past 20 years and who oversaw the study, called South Africa’s response to AIDS under Mr. Mbeki “a case of bad, or even evil, public health.”
Mr. Mbeki has maintained a silence on his AIDS legacy since his forced resignation. His spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, said Mr. Mbeki would not discuss his thinking on H.I.V. and AIDS, explaining that policy decisions were made collectively by the cabinet and so questions should be addressed to the government.
The new government is now trying to hasten the expansion of antiretroviral treatments. The task is urgent. South Africa today is home to 5.7 million people who are H.I.V.-positive — more than any other nation, almost one in five adults. More than 900 people a day die here as a result of AIDS, the United Nations estimates.
Since the party forced Mr. Mbeki from office and some of his loyalists split off to start a new party, rivalries have flared and stories about what happened inside the A.N.C. have begun to tumble out, offering unsettling glimpses of how South Africa’s AIDS policies went so wrong.
From the first year of his presidency in 1999, Mr. Mbeki became consumed with the thinking of a small group of dissident scientists who argued that H.I.V. was not the cause of AIDS, his biographers say.
As president he wielded enormous power, and those who disagreed with him said they feared they would be sidelined if they spoke out. Even Nelson Mandela, the revered former president, was not immune from opprobrium.
In a column in The Sunday Times of Johannesburg on Oct. 19, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, a senior party member now running the party’s 2009 election campaign, recounted how Mr. Mandela, known affectionately as Madiba, was humiliated during a 2002 A.N.C. meeting after he made a rare appearance to question the party’s stance on AIDS.
Mr. Ramatlhodi described speakers competing to show greater loyalty to Mr. Mbeki by verbally attacking Mr. Mandela as Mr. Mbeki looked on silently. “After his vicious mauling, Madiba looked twice his age, old and ashen,” Mr. Ramatlhodi wrote.
Mr. Ramatlhodi himself acknowledged in a recent interview that in 2001 he sent a 22-page letter, drafted by Mr. Mbeki’s office, to another of Mr. Mbeki’s most credible critics, Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba, an immunologist who was one of South Africa’s leading scientists. The letter accused Professor Makgoba of defending Western science and its racist ideas about Africans at the expense of Mr. Mbeki.
In 2000 Mr. Mbeki had provided Professor Makgoba with two bound volumes containing 1,500 pages of documents written by AIDS denialists. After reading them, Professor Makgoba said in an interview that he wrote back to warn Mr. Mbeki that if he adopted the denialists’ ideas, South Africa would “become the laughingstock, if not the pariah, of the world again.”
But Mr. Mbeki indicated last year to one of his biographers, Mark Gevisser, that his views on AIDS were essentially unchanged, pointing the writer to a document that, he said, was drafted by A.N.C. leaders and accurately reflected his position.
The document’s authors conceded that H.I.V. might be one cause of AIDS but contended that there were many others, like other diseases and malnutrition.
The document maintained that antiretrovirals were toxic. And it suggested that powerful vested interests — drug companies, governments, scientists — pushed the consensus view of AIDS in a quest for money and power, while peddling centuries-old white racist beliefs that depicted Africans as sexually rapacious.
“Yes, we are sex crazy!” the document’s authors bitterly exclaimed. “Yes, we are diseased! Yes, we spread the deadly H.I. virus through our uncontrolled heterosexual sex!”
In 2002, after a prolonged outcry over Mr. Mbeki’s comments about AIDS and the government’s policies, Mr. Mbeki agreed to requests from within his party to withdraw from the public debate. That same year, the Constitutional Court ruled that the government had to provide antiretroviral drugs to prevent the infection of newborns. And in 2003, the cabinet announced plans to go forward with an antiretroviral treatment program.
“We did an enormous amount of good in the early days in South Africa, not because of the Health Ministry, but in spite of the Health Ministry,” said Randall L. Tobias, who was appointed by President Bush in 2003 to lead the United States’ $15 billion global AIDS undertaking.
In the same years, former President Clinton and his foundation were also deeply involved in helping South Africa get a treatment program going. Mr. Clinton attended Mr. Mandela’s 85th birthday celebration in Johannesburg in 2003. During the dinner, he and Mr. Mbeki slipped away to talk about AIDS, Mr. Clinton recalled in a recent interview.
Mr. Clinton said he told Mr. Mbeki how antiretroviral treatment had reduced the AIDS mortality rate in the United States and reminded him, “I’m your friend and I haven’t joined in the public condemnation.” That evening, when Mr. Clinton offered to send in a team of experts to help the country put together a national treatment plan, Mr. Mbeki took him up on it.
The Clinton Foundation helped devise a plan and mobilized 20 people to travel to South Africa in 2004 to help carry it out. But the South African government never invited them, Mr. Clinton said. So the foundation, which had projects all over Africa, was to have none in South Africa.
Changes since Mr. Mbeki’s fall from power have prompted many to hope for forceful South African political leadership on AIDS. Mr. Mbeki’s rival and successor as head of the party, Jacob Zuma, who is expected to become president after next year’s election, himself made a famously questionable remark about AIDS.
In his 2006 rape trial, in which he was acquitted of sexually assaulting a family friend, he testified that he sought to reduce his chances of being infected with H.I.V. by taking a shower after sex. Nonetheless, he seems to have more conventional views on the pandemic.
“Who would have thought Jacob Zuma would be better than Mbeki, but he is,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration who heads a coalition of businesses fighting AIDS. “The tragedy of Thabo Mbeki is that he’s a smart man who could have been an international statesman on this issue. To this day, you wonder what got into him.”
For South Africans who watched the dying and were powerless to stop it, the grief is still raw. Zackie Achmat, the country’s most prominent advocate for people with AIDS, became sick during the almost five years he refused to take antiretrovirals until they were made widely available. He cast Mr. Mbeki as the leading man in this African tragedy.
“He is like Macbeth,” Mr. Achmat said. “It’s easier to walk through the blood than to turn back and admit you made a mistake.”
Mbeki's opposition to ARVs cost 330,000 lives, shows study
Michael Carter, Thursday, November 27, 2008
www.aidsmap.com/en/news/97BFC49D-E43C-4028-8E4D-CACF15F82...
The refusal of the Mbeki government to roll-out antiretroviral therapy and treatment to prevent mother-to child transmission in South Africa resulted in 330,000 needlessly premature HIV-related deaths and 35,000 avoidable case of mother-to-child HIV transmission according to estimates published in the December 1st edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
South Africa is one of the countries hardest hit by HIV. UNAIDS estimates that 19% of the adult population is HIV-positive, some 5.5 million individuals. In 2005, an estimated 320,000 individuals died because of HIV.
President Thabo Mbeki’s government consistently resisted the provision of antiretroviral therapy. The first important evidence of this was in 1999 when, under pressure to provide AZT monotherapy to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, President Mbeki announced that the drug was dangerous and that it would therefore not be provided by his government. This was followed by Mbeki publicly questioning that HIV caused AIDS and the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy. The Mbeki administration then resisted the use of nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child transmission and obstructed the acquisition of grants from the Global Fund.
US investigators estimated the lost benefits resulting from the Mbeki government’s opposition to provision of antiretroviral therapy and treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission. To do this, they compared the actual number of people who received HIV treatment or therapy to prevent mother-to-child transmission between 2000 and 2005 and compared this to the number that could feasibly have been treated during this period. This difference was multiplied by the average efficacy of antiretroviral treatment and treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission to give the lost benefits consequent upon the South African government’s decision to prevent access to anti-HIV drugs.
“Our overriding values in choosing methods were transparency and minimization of assumptions and we were purposely conservative”, write the investigators.
When estimating the number of people who could reasonably have been provided with antiretroviral therapy or treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission, the investigators noted that HIV treatment became significantly more accessible between 2000-2005. This was because:
* The price of anti-HIV drugs fell significantly in this period.
* More money was available for donor organisations, such as the Global Fund and PEPFAR, to purchase antiretroviral drugs.
Nevertheless, the South African government still maintained opposition to the provision of HIV drugs.
To estimate the number of people who should have been eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy, the investigators obtained from UNAIDS the number of HIV-related deaths in South Africa between 2000-2005. Patients who died of HIV without receiving anti-HIV drugs lost the entire potential benefits of antiretroviral therapy.
Next, the investigators obtained figures showing how many individuals received antiretroviral therapy in the same period. Their sources were UNAIDS and the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “3 x 5” antiretroviral treatment access programme. These figures showed that fewer than 3% of patients received antiretroviral treatment in 2000, increasing to approximately 10% in 2003 and 23% in 2005.
The researchers considered it reasonable that South Africa could have treated no more than 5% of eligible patients with HIV in 2000. However, because drugs became less expensive and more international funding became available, “ramping up” access to treatment was feasible, meaning that by 2005, 50% of HIV-positive patients in South Africa should have been receiving antiretroviral therapy. They note that the maximum of 50% treatment coverage is significantly lower than the 71% achieved by Namibia and the 85% achieved by Botswana.
Finally they estimated the number of life years that would be gained per patient due to antiretroviral therapy. They used the most conservative estimate of 6.7 years.
Their calculations showed that 330,000 lives and 2.2 million person years were lost because the Mbeki government resisted the implementation of a reasonable antiretroviral treatment programme.
They tested their model using a number of other assumptions. For example, if they reduced the number of patients who could reasonably be expected to receive antiretroviral therapy in 2005 to 40%, then the number of lives lost fell to 226,800 or 1.5 million person years.
Consequences of opposition to treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission
The researchers' model to test the impact of the Mbeki administration’s opposition to treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission also included a number of conservative assumptions.
First, they calculated the number of children infected with HIV vertically. They looked at a number of sources and selected the lowest estimate of 68,000 per year and revised this down to 60,000 to take into account the high adult HIV population and marginal increase in population growth in South Africa during this period.
A number of sources suggested that in 2005, coverage of treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission was 30%, having increased from below 3% before 2000.
To estimate the proportion of women who could have received treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission, they considered that treatment would have been free during this period, that it is easy to administer and that 84% of pregnant women in South Africa receive antenatal care.
Based on these assumptions, the investigators calculated that no more than 5% of women would have received treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission in 2000, but that this could have increased to 55% by 2005.
Next the investigators estimated the efficacy of such therapy, taking as their benchmark the HIVNET 012 study which showed that single-dose nevirapine reduced the risk of transmission by 47% compared to short-course AZT amongst women who breastfeed.
Finally, they assumed an average life-expectancy at birth of 48 years, and subtracted from this the average three year life-expectancy of infants infected with HIV at birth.
The investigators therefore estimated that 35,000 cases of mother-to-child transmission (or 1.6 million life years) were the result of the Mbeki administration’s policies.
One again, the investigators tested their results using other assumptions. If they accepted 40% coverage of treatment as acceptable, then the excess number of babies infected because of government policies was 18,000, a loss of 800,00 life years. However, had there been 70% coverage (still below what was achieved in Namibia and Botswana), then HIV infections in 44,000 babies (or 2 million life years), would have been avoided.
When the investigators combined their two estimates – years of life lost because of opposition to antiretroviral treatment, and life years lost because of the failure to provide treatment to prevent vertical transmission – they found that some 3.8 million life years were lost because of the Mbeki administration’s policies.
They conclude, “in the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of failure to accept the use of available antiretrovirals to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner.”
Reference
Chigwedere, P. et al. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 49: 410-15, 2008.
Anecdotes urbaines: M.W avait crié le nom de son amie mais elle l'avait ignoré. #bnw #bnwphotography #photography #photooftheday #montreal #picoftheday
MNCW GP40FH-2 No. 4905 leading train 435 departs Far Hills, NJ on her way to Gladstone where she will turn back east for Hoboken.
Greater Crested Tern and juvenile
Bird Island, Seychelles
The youngsters seem to spend all of their waking hours 'peeping' at their parents for food - and mum and dad just ignore them!
I made this image twice: once with text alone, and once with a section of the typewriter included. I found it to be a much more effective image with more than just text.
in The Four Loves, the full quotation (with context) reads:
“Finally, we must notice that Friendship is very rarely the image under which Scripture represents the love between God and Man. It is not entirely neglected; but far more often, seeking a symbol for the highest love of all, Scripture ignores this seemingly almost angelic relation and plunges into the depth of what is most natural and instinctive. Affection is taken as the image when God is represented as our Father; Eros, when Christ is represented as the Bridegroom of the Church.
Let us begin with the suspicions of those in Authority. I think there is a ground for them and that a consideration of this ground brings something important to light. Friendship, I have said, is born at the moment when one man says to another "What! You too? I thought that no one but myself..." But the common taste or vision or point of view which is thus discovered need not always be a nice one.”
Bonkers (foreground) and Norio (background) are ignoring me as I take their picture on the bed. I think they were a little sleepy (although Bonkers awakens several time a night and wanders around (and up and down stairs)).
©2008 Alex Suárez. All rights reserved.
Driving in to Camp Champions you encounter several amusing sings along the way, this one read “Ignore This Sign.”
--
Took the kids to a YMCA Adventure Guides camp out at Camp Champions (http://www.campchampions.com/) near Marble Falls, TX and took a few photos at the facility while I was there.