It was so nice that someone would actually explain this to me, instead of pushing dislike like a mindless monkey just because they red something they don’t like. Thank you very much!

Well, sadly 1.4% growth is still growth

I see. Sad times, thanks for the info.

I’ve red them. They basically say that polar bears aren’t endangered enough to get the highest level of protection (Appendix I, CITES), but at the same time they give a lot of recomendations to stop hurting their poblations.

And we can agree that polar bears should have the highest level of protection. In my opinion WWF should grant them that status, it seems a little bit unethical fron a “green” organization to say that is ok to trade with polar bear furs.

That is one thing. But to say that WWF is benefitting from trading with polar bear furs? Like wtf, it seems like a HUGE misconception argued in bad faith. As I said, where is the proof?

Well, I’m not saying it is not true, but I looked up in internet and no news site has echoed this specific information. The article doesn’t even say how WWF is involved. Where is the proof? It appears to be misinformation against WWF.

For physical games you should try Smart 10 or Beezzerwizzer. They’re pretty light and fun to play.