The 21st century is kicking the 20th century's ass

[boy_bye]

Between SCOTUS's decision on DOMA -- unconstitutional!! -- and what went down in Texas last night, it is feeling like a pretty awesome day to be a progressive!!

[CanuckExpat]

And we don't even have to tell the government how we feel about it, they already know through efficiently monitoring our communications!

[footenote]

The U.S. will be dragged (kicking and screaming) into the 21st century... eventually.

Agree madgeylou - big smiles today.

Edit: Bold

[matchewed]

Very happy for a step in the right direction.

[arebelspy]

That one thing is amazing, agreed.

So many other things (Patriot Act, various Supreme Court rulings, etc.) have been taking us backwards though.  CanuckExpat's point is well taken.

But today is indeed a celebration of equal rights for all.  :D

[Jamesqf]

Between SCOTUS's decision on DOMA -- unconstitutional!! -- and what went down in Texas last night, it is feeling like a pretty awesome day to be a progressive!!

I agree that they're pretty great things.  Problem is, I'm not a "progressive" (Newspeak for "liberal" :-)), I'm closer to being a Barry Goldwater-style "get the government out of my bedroom, body, wallet, and damn near everything else" conservative :-)

[mpbaker22]

Ah, yes, it's so exciting that 400 people can unconstitutionally decide that murder should remain legal.  Democracy at its finest!  But yea, we're really progressing as a society, aren't we!

[.22guy]

What happened in Texas?

[mpbaker22]

What happened in Texas?

A pro-abortion rights group gathered in the Texas Senate chambers during the session, which is legal.  They basically shouted the entire voting session, making any vote physically impossible, something illegal.  Apparently, the security was not prepared for this protest, and therefore, was unable to stop it and allow the legislators to, you know, actually legislate.  Technically, every single protester is guilty of the grave crime of prohibiting democracy, though it appears they're unlikely to be charged with anything.

[NumberCruncher]

It wasn't just protesters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marathon-filibuster-protests-block-abortion-bill-in-texas/2013/06/26/10bb3574-de6d-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html

Huge filibuster by Wendy Davis.

Days before that, there was an epic citizen filibuster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/texas-abortion-citizens-filibuster_n_3479266.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[mpbaker22]

It wasn't just protesters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marathon-filibuster-protests-block-abortion-bill-in-texas/2013/06/26/10bb3574-de6d-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html

Huge filibuster by Wendy Davis.

Days before that, there was an epic citizen filibuster: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/texas-abortion-citizens-filibuster_n_3479266.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Yes, but the end result is that this bill would have been passed had the protesters been forced to follow the rules of law.  The end result is millions of children will needlessly die because the law was not followed.

[matchewed]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

[NumberCruncher]

Yes, but the end result is that this bill would have been passed had the protesters been forced to follow the rules of law.  The end result is millions of children will needlessly die because the law was not followed.

Or that millions of children won't have to suffer, millions of women maintain body autonomy, and a drop in crime rates - depending on who you talk to.

This is obviously an issue that has some very strong opinions on both sides, though, and likely won't be nicely resolved in an agreeable manner on an internet forum.

edit to add: ummm...yes, what matchewed said! (/waits for "traditional marriage" proponents to find this forum)

[CanuckExpat]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

[mpbaker22]

Yes, but the end result is that this bill would have been passed had the protesters been forced to follow the rules of law.  The end result is millions of children will needlessly die because the law was not followed.

Or that millions of children won't have to suffer, millions of women maintain body autonomy, and a drop in crime rates - depending on who you talk to.

This is obviously an issue that has some very strong opinions on both sides, though, and likely won't be nicely resolved in an agreeable manner on an internet forum.

edit to add: ummm...yes, what matchewed said! (/waits for "traditional marriage" proponents to find this forum)

So, we should sacrifice human life in order to avoid suffering (what kind of suffering are we talking about here?), allow women to control their own bodies (at the sacrifice of their child's body, why is that never considered), and a drop in crime rates.  Not even close to being worth the slaughtering of millions of children.


And if you want to talk about gay marriage, it seems pretty silly to celebrate a contradiction ... so I will not say yay as a response to the destruction of real marriages.

[matchewed]

Yes, but the end result is that this bill would have been passed had the protesters been forced to follow the rules of law.  The end result is millions of children will needlessly die because the law was not followed.

Or that millions of children won't have to suffer, millions of women maintain body autonomy, and a drop in crime rates - depending on who you talk to.

This is obviously an issue that has some very strong opinions on both sides, though, and likely won't be nicely resolved in an agreeable manner on an internet forum.

edit to add: ummm...yes, what matchewed said! (/waits for "traditional marriage" proponents to find this forum)

So, we should sacrifice human life in order to avoid suffering (what kind of suffering are we talking about here?), allow women to control their own bodies (at the sacrifice of their child's body, why is that never considered), and a drop in crime rates.  Not even close to being worth the slaughtering of millions of children.


And if you want to talk about gay marriage, it seems pretty silly to celebrate a contradiction ... so I will not say yay as a response to the destruction of real marriages.

You are welcome to your opinion. Have a wonderful day.

[mpbaker22]

You are welcome to your opinion. Have a wonderful day.

I'm not the one who started a topic celebrating the destruction of human life

[matchewed]

They are also welcome to their opinion and have a wonderful day?

[Fletch]

Unwanted children, children conceived through rape, restricted access to the kinds of clinics that provide low-cost pre-natal care and birth control, and fetal abnormalities incompatible with life destroy educational, financial, and health prospects (which are important to my definition of "life") of the lives of the women and families who would bring them into the world.

No one here is celebrating the destruction of human life, they are celebrating the freedom of women and families, in private, with their doctor to decide the fate of their own lives without the interference of the government. The same way they are celebrating the freedom of gay men and women to receive all the rights afforded to straight couples (in certain states, etc).

Pursuit of happiness and liberty for all, it is a day I'm extra proud of the 21st century.

[Rickk]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

Dangerous territory it is!

You can only go back to your cheering if we redefine the English language and human history (and biology) to a new "understanding" of marriage.
I would be much happier with the situation if people really just pressed for the end game on this (gay marriage is just the start) - any group of any size being able to claim all members as "related" through a government sanctioned contract that gives them benefits over other groups - why the government should support this I do not know.
 
I think people have lost track of the original purpose of marriage (making more humans) and why the government wanted to encourage it through benefits (the government is a ponzi scheme and needs more participants).

[boy_bye]

You are welcome to your opinion. Have a wonderful day.

I'm not the one who started a topic celebrating the destruction of human life

that's your opinion and possibly your religious belief ... not the law.

my opinion is that there is no possible way that women can be free without control over what goes on inside their own damn bodies.

rick perry's underhanded attempt to take away the most basic level of bodily autonomy of half the population of texas has been thwarted by the good old-fashioned process of people getting pissed off and deciding not to take it. this is something we see far too little of in the states, especially on the left.

this is why i celebrate.

[Rickk]

my opinion is that there is no possible way that women can be free without control over what goes on inside their own damn bodies.

rick perry's underhanded attempt to take away the most basic level of bodily autonomy of half the population of texas has been thwarted by the good old-fashioned process of people getting pissed off and deciding not to take it. this is something we see far too little of in the states, especially on the left.

this is why i celebrate.

please, do still have a wonderful day.

ummm . . . perhaps you need to read up on biology. 
Both the fetus and the placenta are not the woman's body, the fetus is a new human (this is science not opinion) - the placenta is an organ generated by the fetus (not the mother). 
You are correct that the new baby needs to live inside the mother and therefore is dependent on the mother - but a one week old baby isn't different in that regard.

[CanuckExpat]

In light of MMM's recent post, I thought some back of the napkin math would help clarify the gay marriage part of this discussion. Here it is is chart form:

Regards

[matchewed]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

Dangerous territory it is!

You can only go back to your cheering if we redefine the English language and human history (and biology) to a new "understanding" of marriage.
I would be much happier with the situation if people really just pressed for the end game on this (gay marriage is just the start) - any group of any size being able to claim all members as "related" through a government sanctioned contract that gives them benefits over other groups - why the government should support this I do not know.
 
I think people have lost track of the original purpose of marriage (making more humans) and why the government wanted to encourage it through benefits (the government is a ponzi scheme and needs more participants).

But this does not harm you in any way. It is something which makes a group of people happy without harming someone else. Why is it bad? Do you not like others using your word for the union of two people? Does changing it to two people instead of a man and a woman somehow invalidate all other marriages? Words can be redefined we have the ability and the history to demonstrate that the meaning behind words change. This is just another one. And while you may not agree with the change it will change. The trend of the world is becoming more inclusive of consensual activities which do not harm other people.

[NumberCruncher]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

Dangerous territory it is!

You can only go back to your cheering if we redefine the English language and human history (and biology) to a new "understanding" of marriage.
I would be much happier with the situation if people really just pressed for the end game on this (gay marriage is just the start) - any group of any size being able to claim all members as "related" through a government sanctioned contract that gives them benefits over other groups - why the government should support this I do not know.
 
I think people have lost track of the original purpose of marriage (making more humans) and why the government wanted to encourage it through benefits (the government is a ponzi scheme and needs more participants).

I don't really understand giving married people tax benefits anyway (ditto w/housing). I'd be fine with leaving the definition up to the people and having a generic "we're a family now" paper to sign for legal custody issues and all the other automatic property distribution in case of death, etc. Then everyone would be able to be "legally joined." - Still a serious commitment (I doubt many would sign up for this "for funsies," especially with no tax benefits).

That said: rebuttal to the biology business- I have no intention of baby-making...so I shouldn't be married?

reply: "but there's the possibility - there is no possibility of life with two men"

me: "so my grandmother who is not of child bearing age shouldn't get remarried?" (or "so if I had a hysterectomy I shouldn't be married?")

*Edit: minor grammar error

[footenote]

Hmm I can see this thread drifting into dangerous territory. Can we go back to saying yay for more people being allowed the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government?

I think people have lost track of the original purpose of marriage (making more humans) and why the government wanted to encourage it through benefits (the government is a ponzi scheme and needs more participants).

That said: rebuttal to the biology business- I have no intention of baby-making...so I shouldn't be married?

reply: "but there's the possibility - there is no possibility of life with two men"

me: "so my grandmother who is not of child bearing age shouldn't get remarried?" (or "so if I had a hysterectomy I shouldn't be married?")

*Edit: minor grammar error

That is the underlying problem with this argument: marriage between a man and woman is valid only if the couple know they can procreate and intend to procreate. So have those fertility tests up-front, kids, because "If you can't mate, you shouldn't date."

And, to NumberCruncher's point, under this definition of marriage, forget about it if 1) you're too old to procreate or 2) you know upfront that one or both of you are infertile or 3) you just don't choose to procreate. Note this definition would exclude even a heterosexual couple who are capable of procreating, but intend to raise a family through adoption instead. That definition narrows the marriage franchise quite a bit!

[mpbaker22]

You are welcome to your opinion. Have a wonderful day.

I'm not the one who started a topic celebrating the destruction of human life

that's your opinion and possibly your religious belief ... not the law.

my opinion is that there is no possible way that women can be free without control over what goes on inside their own damn bodies.

rick perry's underhanded attempt to take away the most basic level of bodily autonomy of half the population of texas has been thwarted by the good old-fashioned process of people getting pissed off and deciding not to take it. this is something we see far too little of in the states, especially on the left.

this is why i celebrate.

So when do you believe life begins?  I think that's the real crux of the argument, except for the absolute crazies who believe a little suffering actually trumps a human life ... maybe you're one of those crazies, maybe not.  And no, it was still 400 people deciding a bill instead of the elected representatives, elected by millions.

[Rickk]

But this does not harm you in any way. It is something which makes a group of people happy without harming someone else. Why is it bad? Do you not like others using your word for the union of two people? Does changing it to two people instead of a man and a woman somehow invalidate all other marriages? Words can be redefined we have the ability and the history to demonstrate that the meaning behind words change. This is just another one. And while you may not agree with the change it will change. The trend of the world is becoming more inclusive of consensual activities which do not harm other people.

I will leave out the religious discussion as this forum seems to be fairly anti-religious.
Marriage has financial effects, the government offers benefits that cost money.  So legalizing gay "marriage" will cost me money.
Second - as we move towards universal health care the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

[matchewed]

Are you trying to say anal sex causes damage? Because you don't have to be gay to do that one.

Straight marriage costs you money as well. Why are you not championing the removal of that? In fact there are more straight people than gay people. OMG straight marriage is costing you even more.

[KulshanGirl]

I will leave out the religious discussion as this forum seems to be fairly anti-religious.
Marriage has financial effects, the government offers benefits that cost money.  So legalizing gay "marriage" will cost me money.
Second - as we move towards universal health care the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

Name one damaging "homosexual act" that costs more healthcare dollars than a pregnancy.  Go on, I'll wait.



   

[Rickk]

That is the underlying problem with this argument: marriage between a man and woman is valid only if the couple know they can procreate and intend to procreate. So have those fertility tests up-front, kids, because "If you can't mate, you shouldn't date."

And, to NumberCruncher's point, under this definition of marriage, forget about it if 1) you're too old to procreate or 2) you know upfront that one or both of you are infertile or 3) you just don't choose to procreate. Note this definition would exclude even a heterosexual couple who are capable of procreating, but intend to raise a family through adoption instead. That definition narrows the marriage franchise quite a bit!

This is a perfect lead in to the question:  Should the government even be in the marriage business????
Given the responses I have seen on this thread - I don't understand why everyone isn't up in arms to simply abolish marriage all together!
It would seem to solve the problem by making everyone the same - isn't that the desired outcome?
I also saw a thread response for a contractual grouping instead of marriage - this would solve the problem of who gets to visit you in the hospital and such.  This way if an entire town wants to become legally "grouped" they could, and why not?

[Rickk]

Name one damaging "homosexual act" that costs more healthcare dollars than a pregnancy.  Go on, I'll wait.

Did you perhaps forget to include future taxes paid by the new person ?  . . . . .
Go on, I'll wait.

[Spork]

I also saw a thread response for a contractual grouping instead of marriage - this would solve the problem of who gets to visit you in the hospital and such.  This way if an entire town wants to become legally "grouped" they could, and why not?

It's unromantic.  But that's really all marriage is: a business partnership.  The partners just happen to be sleeping together.

[hoodedfalcon]

Name one damaging "homosexual act" that costs more healthcare dollars than a pregnancy.  Go on, I'll wait.

Did you perhaps forget to include future taxes paid by the new person ?  . . . . .
Go on, I'll wait.

Not sure that really answered the question...

[CanuckExpat]

Getting back to the idea of progress, a little history from another country (with some more rough numbers) might help guauge what will probably happen sometime in the future. In Canada, after a series of court rulings essentially forced their hand, the federal government legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2005. At that time, only approximately 33% of population supported gay marriage. Eight years later, gay marriage was still legal, and support was now up to 66%. People get used to change, and older people die, this is why new ideas eventually win.

Speaking of old people (I assume):

...the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

That quote is awesome. You made my day. Thank you for that.

Edit: Removed less than civil comment

[Spork]

Getting back to the idea of progress, a little history from another country (with some more rough numbers) might help guauge what will probably happen sometime in the future. In Canada, after a series of court rulings essentially forced their hand, the federal government legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2005. At that time, only approximately 33% of population supported gay marriage. Eight years later, gay marriage was still legal, and support was now up to 66%. People get used to change, and older people die, this is why new ideas eventually win.

Speaking of old people (I assume):

...the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

That quote is awesome. You made my day. Thank you for that. However, if you'll excuse us, the adults need to get back to having a serious conversation.
Regards

By the same logic of quoted-quote: lesbians are the chosen ones.  Less likely to transmit disease.  Less chance of unwanted pregnancy.  Less chance of "biologically incompatible acts"...   the list goes on.

[boy_bye]

my opinion is that there is no possible way that women can be free without control over what goes on inside their own damn bodies.

rick perry's underhanded attempt to take away the most basic level of bodily autonomy of half the population of texas has been thwarted by the good old-fashioned process of people getting pissed off and deciding not to take it. this is something we see far too little of in the states, especially on the left.

this is why i celebrate.

please, do still have a wonderful day.

ummm . . . perhaps you need to read up on biology. 
Both the fetus and the placenta are not the woman's body, the fetus is a new human (this is science not opinion) - the placenta is an organ generated by the fetus (not the mother). 
You are correct that the new baby needs to live inside the mother and therefore is dependent on the mother - but a one week old baby isn't different in that regard.

the fetus and the placenta are completely contained inside the woman's body. which means they fall within that woman's jurisdiction. not rick perry's.

[NumberCruncher]

the fetus and the placenta are completely contained inside the woman's body. which means they fall within that woman's jurisdiction. not rick perry's.

Have you seen this story: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130620/NEWS01/306200042/Medicaid-paid-abortions-need-governor-s-OK

If you're on Medicaid in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad has a personal say if the state will fund your abortion now.

[KulshanGirl]

Did you perhaps forget to include future taxes paid by the new person ?  . . . . .
Go on, I'll wait.

The future taxpaying new person will be born into a generation that, with the exception of some stragglers, will universally accept marriage equality and laugh at the dinosaurs who continue to rail against it.  So, hooray for that future new taxpayer!  Their tax contributions are not in effect today, so no, I don't count that.  They will have their own pregnancies to pay for.  I'm still waiting.

[Rickk]

Getting back to the idea of progress, a little history from another country (with some more rough numbers) might help guauge what will probably happen sometime in the future. In Canada, after a series of court rulings essentially forced their hand, the federal government legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2005. At that time, only approximately 33% of population supported gay marriage. Eight years later, gay marriage was still legal, and support was now up to 66%. People get used to change, and older people die, this is why new ideas eventually win.

Speaking of old people (I assume):

...the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

That quote is awesome. You made my day. Thank you for that. However, if you'll excuse us, the adults need to get back to having a serious conversation.
Regards

I guess I am done here - this thread is falling down into the level of trolling.
As to the quote above:
It is clear the group think here is "fall in line or leave" - I am sorry that you feel anyone who raises an argument against your religious beliefs is to be belittled and ignored.
I purposely used "religious beliefs" because that is what the "gay marriage" argument is about - otherwise the argument would be about creating "partnership contracts" because marriage between two people is discriminatory against groups of people who all love each other and want the same rights as "married couples".

madgeylou:
And I love the "if it is physically in your body you own it argument" - so if I swallow your money I get to keep it?

KulshanGirl:
A person is a huge net gain on society and government, I am sorry you can't see that. 
I also find it hard to believe on this forum that you can't understand the concept that as a society paying for a pregnancy gets huge financial gains in the future.  This is a central tenant in the MMM philosophy - minor up front payment for future financial gain.  Isn't that the whole point of saving and compound interest?

So I will be the grown up here and bow out - you all can claim victory and cheer and dance - enjoy!

oh - I almost forgot my favorite quote from earlier in this thread - "Have a nice day!" - don't remember who said it - but it is a great thought.
I really do mean that to everyone - have a nice day!

[cbr shadow]

This thread is JUST PLAIN ENTERTAINING.  I hope failure on anyone who tries to end it :)

[KulshanGirl]

A person is a huge net gain on society and government, I am sorry you can't see that. 
I also find it hard to believe on this forum that you can't understand the concept that as a society paying for a pregnancy gets huge financial gains in the future.  This is a central tenant in the MMM philosophy - minor up front payment for future financial gain.  Isn't that the whole point of saving and compound interest?

I never said anything at all about a person not being valuable.  I said that we spend a lot more taxpayer dollars on pregnancies than we do on anal sex injuries.  We spend more on gunshot wounds too.  And people breaking bones doing motocross. And probably on gingivitis FTLOG.  The argument that taxpayers' burden being at all increased due to homosexual sex acts is absurd.  That is what I'm trying to say there. 

[yolfer]

I will leave out the religious discussion as this forum seems to be fairly anti-religious.
Marriage has financial effects, the government offers benefits that cost money.  So legalizing gay "marriage" will cost me money.
Second - as we move towards universal health care the "normalization" of homosexual acts will also cost more money - these acts which are not quite biologically compatible cause damage to the human body which cost money.  So this will in effect raise the price of health care for all of us.

Rick, are you literally trying to argue that buttsex is (or will be) a strain on our healthcare system? I think you oughta try a little buttsex yourself, to get something lodged out of there.

[Russ]

I don't have any stats on this but my intuition tells me that the number of straight people doin' it up the arse probably still surpasses the number of people of other orientations doing the same

And no, it was still 400 people deciding a bill instead of the elected representatives, elected by millions.

Sounds like the pro-lifers dropped the ball by not sending their 400 people to Texas legislature ATMO

*popcorn*

[marty998]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

I suppose all I can say it that whether a woman chooses to keep or terminate a pregnancy is always a difficult and life changing decision, but it is a decision that should be made by her without the entire world imposing a view point.

The religious folk are entitled to their viewpoint, but FFS their problem is and always has been trying to control every aspect of other peoples lives. So I will tie the 2 threads we have here together...BUTT OUT....please.

[Jamesqf]

So when do you believe life begins?

Life began once, a couple of billion years ago.  Everything else is part of a continuum.  A fertilized human egg is no more, and no less, "life" than were the egg and sperm a few seconds before fertilization occurred.  Nor are they any more or less "life" that the cow, onion, or wheat plants that made up the hamburger you had for lunch.

Now if you want to talk about personhood instead, the fairly intangible something that makes you a person and a tree or jellyfish not...  Well, the best current evidence is that that happens around the age of two.  If nothing else, consider that you are in a real sense the sum of your memories and experiences, and AFAIK no one can remember things that happened before that age.

[boy_bye]

the fetus and the placenta are completely contained inside the woman's body. which means they fall within that woman's jurisdiction. not rick perry's.

Have you seen this story: http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130620/NEWS01/306200042/Medicaid-paid-abortions-need-governor-s-OK

If you're on Medicaid in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad has a personal say if the state will fund your abortion now.

That is unfuckingbelievable.

[boy_bye]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

[arebelspy]

I find it totally silly and inappropriate for any man to even think about commenting on abortion.

+1

Wow, I've never heard anyone take such a position, let alone two people.  I find it shockingly sexist for someone to not even be allowed to have an opinion on something.

If I'm a man (I am), it is apparently silly and inappropriate for me to say "let a woman decide about an abortion."

That seems as ridiculous to me as if there were a law about cutting off men's penises, and saying women have no right to comment because it doesn't affect them.  So?  They can still think it's wrong, and have an opinion.

I personally think general mutilation is wrong, whether Im allowed to have a say, because it's dicks being chopped off, or whether I'm (apparently) not allowed to have a say, because it's women being affected.

Or that'd be like telling a white person against slavery a few hundred years ago "well it's silly and inappropriate for you to even think about commenting on it."

Everyone has a right to an opinion.  Everyone.

If I know if something is morally wrong, I goddamn well have a right to have that opinion.

Hrmph.

[tomsang]

This forum may be the catalyst to implement the forum rules that Arebelspy was inquiring about. Keep it civil people!!!