tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post5895596310754400507..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: QotD: Luxurious Idiocy Edition...Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83750974909844000902013-11-26T15:22:01.024-05:002013-11-26T15:22:01.024-05:00I don't know if there was a round chambered, b...I don't know if there was a round chambered, but that dropped rifle indicates clearly why a solid sear engagement is a GOOD THING. It appeared to be directly pointing at the hunter on the ground. <br /> At one time years ago I read everything I could find on African exploration, big game hunting etc- and one concern of PM's was getting shot by a client if the PM was being mauled by a cat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-43908076628340454202013-11-26T07:37:32.955-05:002013-11-26T07:37:32.955-05:00I'm no expert on lion behavior, but that doesn...I'm no expert on lion behavior, but that doesn't look like an attack to me. It looks like running the wrong way in sheer panic; the guy just happened to be in the way. However, he is very lucky that the lion didn't extend claws in a disemboweling swipe on the way past.markmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-16209846269235117942013-11-24T19:05:19.476-05:002013-11-24T19:05:19.476-05:00"You just choose to decide."
And the de...<i>"You just choose to decide."</i><br /><br />And the decision you make is largely moot, as you cannot live without killing something that eats and crawls about, even if it is only the bacteria in your gut that you condemn by taking a dump. That's life on this planet. You are part of it, and you can <i>decide,</i> if you want, to condemn yourself for an aspect of it that you didn't invent and cannot avoid.DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-77403588806763051292013-11-24T12:30:28.121-05:002013-11-24T12:30:28.121-05:00Chris, you asked a lot of questions that I already...Chris, you asked a lot of questions that I already answered. The short answer is, that I assign the same moral weight to pulling the weed as I do to killing the dog. <br /><br />At some point in human history, every humans has assigned less mroal weight, for instance, to killing the wogs than "Real humans" Your "Research" shows me that you have made a decision based on your prejudices, not any factual data. Life is life. it is either all valuable, or it is not. You do not get to decide. You just choose to decide. oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551049745184408924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-88648928999962089282013-11-24T02:09:08.144-05:002013-11-24T02:09:08.144-05:00On that, I think we can all agree.On that, I think we can all agree.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-742407798321870242013-11-24T01:30:59.534-05:002013-11-24T01:30:59.534-05:00I hope we can all agree that the existence of the ...I hope we can all agree that the existence of the FDA carries less moral weight than that of a single aphid.ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-53264946792510179752013-11-24T00:31:44.741-05:002013-11-24T00:31:44.741-05:00Wow, the thread that keeps on giving.
I believe m...Wow, the thread that keeps on giving.<br /><br />I believe marathoner Don Kardong once said "I don't actually like the taste of meat, but I like the idea of grinding up animals and eating them" or something to that effect when accosted by militant vegetarians. (And anyone who thinks militant vegetarian is oxymoronic ought to familiarize themselves a bit with the Cape Buffalo ....)<br /><br />Personally, I think it's disrespectful of my ancestors who clawed (or connived) their way to the top of the evolutionary heap to NOT eat meat. (Except sea urchin roe, that's just plain disgusting. Sorry, great-to-the-Nth granddad.)<br /><br />On accidental kills related to vegetables, I remember reading that the FDA allows up to 60 aphids per 100g frozen broccoli, 2500 aphids per 10g hops (so beer is right out) and so forth. <br />Mike_Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-5355078185891304442013-11-24T00:16:42.539-05:002013-11-24T00:16:42.539-05:00The article you cited exclusively discusses wheat,...The article you cited exclusively discusses wheat, so I think the author of that article, and you by citing the article, "said it was." Growing wheat for feed also requires far more inputs (acreage, fertiliser, water) than does growing other, more nutritious, crops for food because we filter those inputs through livestock before we eat them. Eating cows fattened on feedlots is an obviously more input intensive than is eating those crops directly or eating more nutritious alternatives. <br />I'm very aware that my actions have consequences, including possibly causing the deaths of animals, that's why I inquire into these consequences, consider their morality, and act in response thereto. I don't consider that to be "pretending."ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-23179546417759252132013-11-23T23:22:09.017-05:002013-11-23T23:22:09.017-05:00Not just soil degradation, and not just wheat(who ...Not just soil degradation, and not just wheat(who the hell said it was? that was just the example used); it's all the insects and varmints you have to kill to get the crop in. ANY crop in any quantity.<br /><br />Like it or not, every living thing depends on death: from the little things that die in or on the earth and quietly rot away to feed the soil, to the plants that live on those nutrients to the animals that live on the plants to the animals that live on those animals. You don't want to eat meat, doesn't bother me in the least; just stop pretending that because you hold some life in higher regard than others(and who doesn't, except for some 'ethics' and animal-rights retards?) changes that fact.<br /><br />Firehandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-34977761192184013592013-11-23T18:05:34.948-05:002013-11-23T18:05:34.948-05:00Firehand, a mate posted the same article you'r...Firehand, a mate posted the same article you're quoting from on my facebook wall a while back and I had a look through it. From what I saw, most of his citations are either to dead links or to the purchase page for various books, which makes his claims pretty hard to verify. This is a problem because the essence of the article is a numbers to numbers comparison of vegetarianism to beef consumption (with some stuff about roo thrown in). The links that DO work don't seem to support his thesis either. He claims that only 2% of Australian cattle are on feedlots and links here http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-analysis/Beef/Lotfeeding. When I click on that link, I see no mention of the two percent figure, but I did read this: "Feedlot utilisation levels also rose from the corresponding period [Q1] in 2012, to average 67% nationally." Maybe I'm misreading that sentence, and I'd love to be told which number I should actually be looking at, but that looks a LOT higher than his numbers. I did a little research of my own and found that the Aus. Bureau of Statistics reports that Australia produces 26m tons of wheat annually, of which 20.5m tons are exported. Of the remaining 5.5m tons, .5m is used for seed, and the rest is split evenly between direct consumption and livestock feed. That doesn't seem to support the author's argument that wheat production is a problem caused by domestic direct wheat consumption. I'd be very curious to see what portion of the exported wheat is used for livestock feed, also. So right off the bat I have a lot of trouble believing the numbers this guy is using.<br />2) The strawman proposition that one must either eat meat or eat a diet almost entirely reliant on wheat isn't terribly convincing either. I don't know many people who advocate for a vegetarian diet that relies primarily on wheat, rather than fruits, vegetables, and numerous other crops that might not require the level of soil degradation this guy uses as an argument against wheat.<br />It's a great point that simply not eating meat isn't a perfect way to stop animal suffering, but this article makes that point with bad data and worse logic. I'm sure my diet causes <i>some</i> suffering, but I'm also quite confident it causes less than alternatives in which I would eat meat. ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-22763566222538775382013-11-23T17:51:31.398-05:002013-11-23T17:51:31.398-05:00OG, you're right that I have not independently...OG, you're right that I have not independently verified the mental function of plants. I'm not a biologist, a psychologist, or any other flavour of scientist who might have something contribute to this field. There are all sorts of scientists who have researched this and have made their research available, however, and I have tried to learn what I can from their work. My lack of direct study is no more a hindrance to my ability to form an informed opinion on this than it is to my ability to know that the Earth revolves around the sun or that red blood cells help transport oxygen around the body. You earlier expressed an opinion on the truth of global warming. Is your opinion worthless unless you are a climatologist? I hope not. I would expect that you attempted to form your opinion from careful, skeptical study of the available evidence and findings. I try to do the same. <br />I also hope that you do distinguish between different forms of life. You may have no moral qualms with eating a human, but I assume that you have an objection to killing one without just cause. Perhaps you also recognise that removing mores against eating humans would create the perverse incentive to kill humans solely to eat them. I hope we agree that this would be bad. <br />You recognise some factual distinctions between the way humans, non-human animals, and plants experience life. Do these differences carry no moral weight to you? Do you see no moral difference between pulling a weed and killing a dog? I do see a difference. I privilege most human life over most non-human animal life, and both of these over plant life. I do this because I believe (yes, based on what I have read) that animals are sentient and that sentience carries moral weight. <br />The argument from evolution has never had much appeal to me. I have evolved to be able to curl my hand into a fist. That does not make striking someone with my fist morally right. The morality of the act is determined by its circumstances and results, not by my ability to perform it. <br />As for your last point: I'm not sure what I've done to make you think that I'm being "a dick." I shared an alternate opinion on the original subject matter and brought up my own diet only when asked. I've been respectful of your opinions and tried to respond thoughtfully to each of your arguments. Practically speaking, though, I grew up eating meat and I'm aware that it's delicious. I've been vegetarian for more than ten years and this is maybe the first public forum in which I've had a moral debate of this sort. If I gave up eating meat just to antagonise people on the internet, I'm playing a real long con.ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-53978113921861216332013-11-23T11:54:32.130-05:002013-11-23T11:54:32.130-05:00Again, not the one I was looking for, but interest...Again, not the one I was looking for, but interesting:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG1NLAMQm2MFirehandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-73333091454017289892013-11-23T11:52:41.769-05:002013-11-23T11:52:41.769-05:00Not the video I was looking for, but ran across th...Not the video I was looking for, but ran across this on the current problems with lions:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBz9VQDuJ-0<br /><br />Several years back Animal Planet had a show I somehow caught on African lions that was very straightforward on just how bloody dangerous they are. Among other things, people trying to sneak into South Africa(because even with its problems it's better than the country they were leaving) were cutting- at night- through part of a national park, and the local prides had discovered they were a lot easier to eat than chasing down antelope or fighting Cape buffalo.Firehandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-58941300972802798912013-11-23T11:37:38.928-05:002013-11-23T11:37:38.928-05:00The problem with "I won't eat something t...The problem with "I won't eat something that has a face, I can live well on plants" is the number of animals/insects/etc. killed in order to grow those plants. This from Australia:<br />"Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:<br /><br /> at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein<br /> more environmental damage, and<br /> a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.<br /><br />How is this possible?<br /><br />Agriculture to produce wheat, rice and pulses requires clear-felling native vegetation. That act alone results in the deaths of thousands of Australian animals and plants per hectare. Since Europeans arrived on this continent we have lost more than half of Australia’s unique native vegetation, mostly to increase production of monocultures of introduced species for human consumption."<br />Etc.<br />http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659<br /><br />Simple fact is that EVERYTHING lives by the death of something else. You can decide that some deaths don't bother you, but it doesn't change that things die so you can eat. <br /><br />Or live, in the case of a cat that's developed bad table manners.<br /><br />Firehandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-23559244500921635532013-11-23T00:02:34.749-05:002013-11-23T00:02:34.749-05:00Morality is subjective unless you are a religious ...Morality is subjective unless you are a religious person.<br /><br />Why would you say that? I know a powerful lot of completely non religious persons who are wonderfully moral. Oh, sure, Catholics consider it immoral to, for instance, masturbate. Wheras other faiths do not. But theft is certainly immoral outside of any theology. As is murder. If anything, a lot of religions pervert what is secular morality by making it subjective, not the other way around. oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551049745184408924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-63326845718682521842013-11-22T23:35:43.183-05:002013-11-22T23:35:43.183-05:00og:
You can't have a perfect standard of mora...og:<br /><br />You can't have a perfect standard of morality or rights without invoking religion.<br /><br />If someone tramples my basic right of self-defense, the hand of god will not come out of the sky and squish the malefactor with his thumb.<br /><br />We have rights because we have decided that these things are important enough to defend the ability of others to do them.<br /><br />Morality is subjective unless you are a religious person.<br /><br />I personally disagree with ChrisCM's definition of moral behavior.<br /><br />Fortunately for me, he is in a small minority, too small for anyone to want to codify his jainist tendencies in the Constitution.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-60870142381559531392013-11-22T22:47:13.681-05:002013-11-22T22:47:13.681-05:00Someone didn't just "say" that plant...<b>Someone didn't just "say" that plants are sentient. </b><br />In other words, as I said, you read something you decided to agree with and it must be true. You have only your own conjecture on which you base the concept that plants do not experience pain. Don't bother to do any more research, you will probably not like what you find. Plants have been shown to be able to recognize their genetic kinfolk. To develop and store memories. To react to inflicted injury. <br /><b>Your reductio argument--we might learn that plants have feelings, therefore it is right to eat animals--is just as persuasive to argue that we might as well eat humans.</b><br />Well, that would be absurd, wouldn't it? Except that's not remotely what I said, at all. I do NOT think it's ok to eat animals because plants have feelings too. I think it's OK to eat any damned thing I want to eat, despite it's having feelings. It is my personal opinion that it is inappropriate to deliberately cause anything undue suffering, prior to killing it and eating it. <br />I assign all life the same value. Why hunt a lion for a trophy only, when there are lions that need to be killed to save lives? I consider mowing ones lawn to be exactly on a par, morally, with trophy hunting. It is the killing of a living thing to satisfy your own desire to have something you enjoy looking at. . And yes, I mow my lawn, and I take the moral responsibility for doing so, exactly as I take moral responsibility for the death of every damned thing I have ever eaten in my life.<br />As far as eating humans, well, if someone plopped a nice big Chrisburger down in front of me, I would eat it with relish. I like Hunts, but Vlasic is ok too.. Once a human dies, they are just meat. The taboos against long pig are not shared by all humans. <br /><b> We do the best we can with the information available to us. </b><br />So long as it sounds cool and we can assert some moral authority over others. <br /><b>It's a silly argument. </b><br />Sure. And as I said before, it's not the argument I made. Or are you saying my argument is silly because (In your opinion) plants are dumb?<br /><b> One can make similar observations regarding animals. </b><br />But don't make those same observations about plants. The fact is, that humans are alive. The fact is, that animals are alive. The fact is, that plants are alive. Humans are not alive in the same way that plants are alive, but neither are humans alive in the way squirrels are alive. Because you personally do not experience the death of a plant in the same way as the death of a human, it is acceptable. The truth, actually, is that it is still the death of a living organism. <br /><br /><b> I am singularly responsible for learning what is morally repugnant. </b><br />Actually, that's not quite true, is it? You are singularly responsible for choosing what you want to believe is morally repugnant. I respect all life. And I respect the way all life tastes. I appreciate the effort the tomato plant took to create such a juicy treasure, and all the exercise the Holstein took that made it's loins so tender, in equal measure. <br /><b> I owe it to myself to actively find out these truths through rational inquiry. </b><br />So long as your rational inquiry never leads you to suspect anything other than your preconceptions. Because that would be bad. Look, I don't give a rats ass what you do. But for a moment, stick your index finger up under your upper lip. Feel along the top of the gums. Feel those? Those are the roots of your eyeteeth. Lots of animals have sharp incisors but only the omnivores and carnivores have roots that deep, and it's to allow you to bite hunks of meat off dead things. You were born an omnivore, and you will die one. You can chose vegetarianism for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, but my experience has been, if you go into forums or blogs talking about the moral high ground on which you stand vs those who kill and eat animals, you're choosing vegetarianism just to be a dick.oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551049745184408924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-52699263651782320582013-11-22T22:37:49.990-05:002013-11-22T22:37:49.990-05:00You know, I keep coming back to a comment from de ...You know, I keep coming back to a comment from de Saint-Exupery..."People have forgotten this truth, but you mustn't forget it. you become responsible forever for what you've tamed..."<br /><br />We have tamed the world, and now in our arrogance we pretend that we haven't. I have hunted game in Africa, and I've seen the local Bushman tribe — the same tribe our trackers hailed from — line up for the meat allocation from the eland I shot. Every singe part of that eland was used by the tribe. We visited the Bushman village without escort and saw rack after rack of biltong drying in the heat.<br /><br />Can someone explain to me why that is a worse system than visiting the Uber-Mart and outsourcing our killing to factory farms?<br /><br />Secondly, I and other hunters bring something important to the table—money. Look at the Kenya model, which sought to replace the dollars bought in by hunters with ecotourism dollars. Lots more infrastructure to accommodate the larger numbers of eco-tourists (who spend proportionately fewer dollars than hunters and yet require a greater infrastructure to support them) and lots fewer animals...some estimates are as high as 80% reduction of animals since the end of sport hunting.<br /><br />And to the vegetarians among us — and I count my Sweetie among them — I strongly recommend THE MINDFUL CARNIVORE: A Vegetarian's Hunt for Sustenance. Author Tovar Cerulli makes the point that the nature of the food chain is we all kill at one level or another. <br /><br />I share my parrots' love of soybeans —edamame. I grew up in the South, and we all understood what happened to the deer that liked edamame as much as people did.<br /><br />Sport hunting works amazingly well in many many countries. The simple truth is that if animals — game — have no value to a community, especially a 3rd World community that remains far too close to the subsistence line, then those same animals have zero life expectancy. <br /><br />I love the big cats and have made the choice not to hunt them, but when we had a mountain lion picking off neighborhood dogs (and the occasional horse), had I seen it I would have killed it on the spot, as one of my neighbors eventually did. The top of the food chain does not get to live in my backyard.<br /><br />I understand why villagers poison leopards or are willing to help poachers kill elephants. Unless we want to turn Africa into the Busch Gardens Veldt "Experience" (and what's left of the Rocky Mountains into the "Jurrasic Park Grizzly Tour"...don't exit the vehicle, please!), we have to accept that in the world we have tamed, even "wild" animals must have a value if they are to survive. Eco-tourists can't or won't pay the freight. Hunters do.<br /><br />Tam, as always, my best...<br /><br />Michael B<br /><br />Michael Banehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630187848984050478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-45389363636873426832013-11-22T20:29:04.695-05:002013-11-22T20:29:04.695-05:00And lions are so cute and innocent, wait I wanna g...And lions are so cute and innocent, wait I wanna get a closer shot!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZm4ZgNHbsQThomas Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-18110261308506246242013-11-22T18:25:40.822-05:002013-11-22T18:25:40.822-05:00Someone didn't just "say" that plant...Someone didn't just "say" that plants are sentient. "Sentience" describes the ability of a being to experience stimuli, rather than simply react thereto. Evidence suggests that most creatures under kingdom animalia have some ability to experience stimuli with some individual (the brain-dead) and some class based (molluscs, I'd wager) exceptions. The fact that a lot of these creatures experience certain stimuli as suffering is sufficient for me to avoid causing that suffering unless causing the suffering is necessary to acheive a goal of greater moral importance. I have determined that the fleeting experience of eating meat for pleasure does not rise to that level. <br />Your reductio argument--we might learn that plants have feelings, therefore it is right to eat animals--is just as persuasive to argue that we might as well eat humans. Which is to say, it's not at all persuasive at either. We do the best we can with the information available to us. I could just as easily say "Maybe I'll one day find out that all other humans are figments of my imagination. Therefore I may treat them as I please." It's a silly argument. All the evidence available to me NOW suggests that other humans are interested beings who deserve some level of my respect. So I give them that. One can make similar observations regarding animals.<br />My point on consensus was in response to your question about who gets to decide what is morally repugnant. I don't contend that only I can decide what is morally repugnant, but I do contend that I am singularly responsible for learning what is morally repugnant. What is "good" or "bad" will be so independent of my decisions or my existence, but I owe it to myself to actively find out these truths through rational inquiry. ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-46697261102691685532013-11-22T17:41:29.334-05:002013-11-22T17:41:29.334-05:00So because someone said plants cannot be sentient,...So because someone said plants cannot be sentient, it is so. But plants respond to stimuli, can emit toxins if threatened, respond to their environment. They do so differently than humans or mammals or fish, but at some time or another someone has said all the things you say about plants, about animals, even humans. Of course it wasn't true, and who knows what we will discover about plants. <br /><br />So you might consider revising your code, because what you actually mean,is: You will live for no creature and will ask no creature to live or die for you- except those whose lives you consider it acceptable to destroy for your sustenance. Which puts you on an equal moral footing with us meat eaters, AFAIK. <br /><br />Incidentally, morality ha nothing to do with "Consensus", that's for the global warming morons. if something is immoral, it's immorality exists outside your judgement, and always will. oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551049745184408924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-35388574484797682142013-11-22T17:04:53.814-05:002013-11-22T17:04:53.814-05:00And because I don't want to leave your questio...And because I don't want to leave your questions unanswered: Yes. I get to decide. I don't recognise the legitimacy of morality (or knowledge) by consensus. ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83467660311923711912013-11-22T17:01:37.870-05:002013-11-22T17:01:37.870-05:00I'm still pretty reluctant to wade completely ...I'm still pretty reluctant to wade completely in to a moral debate about veganism here, but I guess we'll get told if we're out of line. I came to vegetarianism based on Bentham and Singer's discussions of sentience (halfway decent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Animal_rights_and_sentience and this little letter of Singer's here http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/12/nyregion/l-peter-singer-clarifies-his-attitudes-on-sentience-210803.html. But I recommend long-form Singer if you're interested). <br />Animal rights led me (after a number of years) to libertarianism (if I didn't have the right to tell animals when to die, how could I assert the right to tell humans how to live?), which is now I live by a simpler, paraphrased code: I will live for no creature and ask no creature to live or die for me. ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83863743983708444042013-11-22T16:19:54.739-05:002013-11-22T16:19:54.739-05:00Chris: Why is killing plants better than killing a...Chris: Why is killing plants better than killing animals? Life is life. When you take any life in order to feed, clothe or shelter yourself, how does it matter if it has a face or not? Morally, if taking one type of life is repugnant it is repugnant to take any type of life. Who gets to decide? You?oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551049745184408924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-55243951433397638052013-11-22T14:49:50.746-05:002013-11-22T14:49:50.746-05:00Tam, I only just started commenting here, but I...Tam, I only just started commenting here, but I've been reading your blog for long enough to know that you tend to voice your disagreements openly, honestly, and intelligently. Little chance of a mix up there, then. <br />Bit of a shame that somee other folks aren't capable of addressing the content of contrary views without resorting to a good old fashion "youse is probably a gay." Not much hope of settling these sorts of disagreements with words. What is it the kids say these days? "Come at me, bro"?ChrisCMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429791574022722620noreply@blogger.com