Don Gwinn

So. . . . I'm a little lost. Extremism? The attacks in NY? How are those things related to the NRA or the ACLU lobbying Congress or bringing a lawsuit when they perceive a problem? One of the freedoms "they" don't have "over there" but that is guaranteed by our Constitution is the right to petition our leaders for redress of grievances. Can't keep that for long if we decide that it's too extreme to allow citizens to file lawsuits or lobby their legislators. I'm aware of the problems you're citing, but we have to consider the alternatives before we blindly abandon our system for them. Be careful what you wish for.

No, science requires no faith. Many may accept scientific discoveries on faith (I myself have not worked out the geometry of our solar system, I simply accept that it works as presented) but that does not mean that science requires this. No one who tells you that the Big Bang is factually known to have occurred is a scientist. That's why it is always referred to as the "Big Bang Theory." It's a theory, and theories are not facts. That doesn't mean it didn't occur, but the leap of faith is not demanded in order to be a physicist, whereas you cannot legitimately be called a Christian unless you believe Christ was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead and healed the sick by miraculous powers. Thus Christianity requires faith where science does not. Whether this means that science is superior to religion because science can't be wrong (only individual theories) as long as it's applied rigorously, or whether it means that religion is superior because it allows us to believe in things that science can never establish as fact (like the existence of God) is up to you.

That sounds good, but people coming together to work for a common cause is exactly what gives rise to "Special Interest Groups." They're nothing more than groups of people who have a common interest. The NRA, for example. I often disagree with the NRA, and it certainly doesn't represent my views exactly--they spend way too much time compromising and they've written and proposed more gun control than they've prevented in the last 20 years. But I couldn't accomplish a thousandth of what they do by myself, because in a republic it's numbers that count. I know what you're thinking--what about money? Well, for a grassroots group like the NRA, money comes from numbers and nothing else. Handgun Control Inc. likes to whine that the big, evil NRA has too much money and so too much influence, while poor little HCI is not so rich. But WHY does the NRA have so much money? Simple--because they have almost 4 million members, and HCI might have 100,000 if you count the membership they absorbed from the Million Mom March. The only reason they're competitive at all is that they don't have to spend money to get their views heard like the NRA does; HCI can snap its fingers and have ten "journalists" ready to "do something about gun violence" come running to print whatever they say. Does all that mean that HCI shouldn't be allowed to exist? Of course not! Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that they don't have the right to ask for money or free press coverage, and those "reporters" have the right to write whatever they want. I disagree strongly with the ACLU and I despise them for their hypocrisy and dishonesty, but I'm not willing to live in an America where citizens can't come together to accomplish political ends. Finally, I must take issue with your "petty differences" comment. I doubt members of the NAACP or the KKK see racism as a petty difference. I know that I don't consider myself petty for fighting to see that my property and my right to defend myself are not stolen from me by well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) politicians.

I hope I haven't made anyone shy away. Everyone here spends his or her spare time getting punched in the face, right? Surely we can all deal with having someone express a different opinion. No, I don't hate Democrats. I believe that most (not all) Democrats believe that they're doing the best thing for America. I disagree with them most of the time, though. If it makes you feel any better, I disagree with just about everybody most of the time. I believe in the power and the responsibility of human beings as individuals. I have no interest in joining a herd, a hive, or a collective, and I think it's insane to try to engineer a Nerf Utopia by writing a restrictive law for every possible circumstance. That scares the Hell out of most people for some reason. Are you familiar with the Libertarian Party? That's the closest thing to a party affiliation I have. If you reread what I posted above, I think you'll find that there's nothing hateful about it. If I'm wrong, I'd like you to point it out. If you don't want to do so publicly, you can use email. I won't take it personally, I just wonder what sounded hateful to you. I realize that I am less than subtle when it comes to politics, but after all, politics is all about strong disagreements over what is to be done. I haven't flamed or insulted anyone, and I won't. And if there's anyone out there who isn't posting because you don't want to see my response, just say so. I don't have to respond to everything that's posted. As for your spelling, don't sweat it. I was just making a small jest. If it hadn't presented the opportunity for a Nakedness Joke, I wouldn't have pointed it out at all.

There are a few assertions of fact above that are false, and I'd like to address them in no particular order: 1. "Both elections went for the Republicans." No. The Presidential election did, and that was perfectly correct. Insinuate all you want, but can you tell me WHY you think the Republicans shouldn't have won that one? The more recent election, as was pointed out above, was a Democrat primary. More importantly, when the dust settled, it was the candidate who was the biggest threat to Jeb Bush who won. Bush would have stomped Janet Reno's butt into a mudhole and walked it dry, and everyone knew it. If he were rigging the election, why not have her win? 2. "Gore won the vote, Bush won the election." Actually, that's supposition that was never proven. Many places, like California, stopped counting votes when it became mathematically impossible for one candidate to catch the other in that state. Bush, for instance, clearly lost California's popular vote, and that's all that mattered since the electoral vote was winner-take-all. However, total up the remaining votes in all those states, and it is entirely possible that there were enough Bush votes left to show that he won the popular vote as well. You must also take into account the massive amounts of fraud perpetrated by the Democratic Party and, probably, the Republicans as well. In St. Louis, not far from where I live, the Democrats persuaded a Democratic judge that the lines at the polls had been too long for the last hour of the day (6:00-7:00 pm) and got him to order the polls kept open indefinitely--but only in St. Louis, where the Democrats dominate! (St. Louis is so overwhelmingly liberal and so far out of touch that three years ago there was a referendum on whether to pass a Concealed Weapons bill. It passed in every county in the state except for St. Louis, but lost so big in St. Louis (after a convenient computer problem) that it still failed statewide. The Democrat Governor or Missouri, Carnahan, then refused to certify the results so that no official fraud investigation could take place.) The upshot is that Democrats in St. Louis got in several more hours of voting after the rest of the state, which would have been overwhelmingly Republican, was forced to shut down. 3. When did "Special Interest Group" become a dirty word? You people really hate the NRA that much? AARP? Any of you Union workers? Is the ACLU evil? Special Interest Groups are nothing more than groups of citizens with a common concern who pool their resources. Nothing wrong with that at all.

1. Depends on where you live, because voting procedures are not monolithic. They're different everywhere. I live in Illinois, and here, I don't see how you could make it significantly easier or more convenient. You show up, sign your name, they give you a ballot. You walk into a polling booth, put your ballot in the holder, and use the stylus to poke a hole next to the name of each candidate you think should win. Should you be an idiot who can't handle this, there are written instructions about everything--they even warn you to use the small end of the stylus. Should you be an illiterate idiot, someone will talk you through it. In third-world countries, if they get a chance to vote, people will stand in line as bullets fly past. I know a man who personally watched a line of people scatter as a government soldier in a jeep flying past heaved two grenades at them, then form back up and wait patiently. It took so long some of them waited four hours or more in the sun. Americans whine about being too stupid to read a ballot. 2. Of course it's something of the past--that's when it was created. But it is not an anachronism, if that's what you're asking, and that does not make it bad or less useful. The Electoral College is an essential part of our process because it is the only thing standing between the urban, densely populated states and total domination of each and every election. You really want Chicago, LA, New York, and Philadelphia to decide every election? You want Montana, both Dakotas, and Idaho to have no voice at all? That's what a popular vote does. Absolutely everything should have more baring. Voting is no different. Nude voting now! Nude voting now! Nude voting now! Nude. . . . Oh, you meant bearing. No, I don't. It has exactly the bearing on the result that it was intended to have, which is that the will of the people is influential, but the input of different regions also matters. Honestly, can't you think of any situation where New Yorkers and Chicagoans, for instance, might vote for things that would be disastrous for, say, South Dakota? I can. Seriously, if you really want to abolish the Electoral College because it's unfair, have you thought about abolishing the Senate? After all, it runs on the same principle. The aim is exactly the same--to give California and Nevada the same number of Senators, even though California has more people, so that California cannot dominate Nevada politically and force unfair results in the Congress. And it works! That's exactly what we do now, state by state. To change it in the way you suggest would, in effect, abolish the Electoral College. I disagree with it for the reasons listed above for that suggestion. If I were in charge? Civics education in this country would have real teeth. Flunk civics (which would be required every year) and repeat it the next year. Nobody graduates until he has fulfilled every single civics requirement. Civics classes would begin in the 7th grade with the state constitution and progress through state laws (not law school, but basic familiarity) and then Federal Constitution and laws. Also, I would do everything possible to break up the two-party system. It wouldn't be a solution, but it would provide more choices. Much as I hate Ralph Nader and the Greens, the fact that he couldn't participate in a debate was a joke. The Libertarians had to fight and struggle tooth and nail to get Cal Skinner on the Gubernatorial ballot in Illinois, and even then the Republicans have been working hard at smearing him with false allegations of child abuse! The main problem with our system is nothing as easy as "change this law, and we'll have utopia!" The main problem is that two giants sit at a table and divide up our nation every few years, and if you don't want one, people believe you have to vote for the other. Help in what way? By adding the votes of people too stupid or too lazy to vote on Election Day? No. We already give more than one day to the only people who have a valid reason to need it--absentee voters. Absolutely. The turnout of dead cats and dogs in Chicago voting Democratic alone would probably double. A bigger turnout of legitimate, breathing voters? No. Just a lot more fraud. Obviously that's not a matter of public policy that can be changed (unless your panel wants to recommend a law forcing Republicans to vote for Democrats.) It's a personal choice. I often don't vote Republican OR Democrat, so obviously I could care less, but that's my choice. If you want to vote straight Democrat, I respect your right to do it. That probably happens with a few people, but there's only one reason those ads run--they've been proven to work, time and time again. Draw your own conclusions about what that says about the American people, but no matter how much they bitch and moan, they respond to those ads and are persuaded by them in large numbers. If they weren't, no one would go to the expense and trouble of making them. See, this is why I stressed education. Who ever told you that you can't do this? This is already an option and has been since the beginning of elections. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, don't cast a vote for that election. We don't need to add more choices to the ballots, we need to educate people on the choices they have. I don't mind being asked questions, but I get a little irritated when people ask questions just to get a given answer. The Florida voting system did not cause scandal. One party was desperate to find or create a scandal because they were losing, and they seized on the stupidity of voters in one part of Florida. However, they couldn't blame the voters for being idiots and still remain sympathetic in their victimhood, so they blamed the system. What they did not do, ever, to this very day, was provide one iota of evidence that the "system" had any part in causing any problems.

Son is a great guy, and I admire him, but he and John told me I should stay put, take care of the kids and make sure the family works, and that's what I'm going to do. But yes, in any group there are more talkers than doers. And yes, people born in America find it too easy to forget that this could still all go away.

Bitseach, you really want fellow traveler Mugabe dead? To borrow a line from you, sir, perhaps I have underestimated you. As for the stats, your quotes included the reason we should be so wary of them. First of all, even if you got them from UNICEF, that doesn't mean UNICEF was in-country and generated the stats. The Baath Party probably did that. But again, if we assume that they're true for the moment, what do we find? That the supposed number of deaths is nothing more than a projection of what might have occurred! "If the trend in reduction of infant mortality had continued. . . ." What if it hadn't? It does seem at least that you and I agree on the important part--the sanctions must have contributed to at least some suffering in Iraq, and it is entirely the fault of Hussein that the sanctions are in place. Quite frankly, the citizens who chose him and still cheer him share some of the blame for their own predicament. My own state governor is a criminal (not an exaggeration, he's a felon several different ways) and two other honest-to-God criminals are vying to replace him. I hate this, but the people of my state are choosing these idiots, so I can't very well claim that we bear no responsibility. Hussein is up for "election" in a week or so. Maybe we'll see him voted out.

Patrick, if you meant that there should be no discussion of those statistics at all, feel free to delete this without notice. I won't mind; I'd just like to respond. I, too, would like to know the source for both allegations. I hear the "500,000 children" remark bandied about quite a bit. I would point out that I've never heard of any outside organization confirming this Iraqi number, which makes it VERY suspect in my eyes in the first place. However, if we assume it is true, that leads us to my real objection. HOW did the U.S. kill 500,000 children? The mechanism cited is that American sanctions caused that many children to die of disease and/or starvation. That is, of course, ridiculous, because it blames the U.S. for the terribly evil action of having enforced the treaties Iraq signed after its defeat in the war it began by invading and plundering its neighbor. Worse, it also absolves Iraq of any responsibility for having broken the treaties! Incidentally, it also ignores the fact that the U.S. and U.N. allow limited Iraqi oil sales which are supposed to pay for humanitarian efforts of exactly the type Hussein claims he would be funding if there were no sanctions, but there's no evidence that any children are saved by this concession on our part because the Baath Party pockets most of the money. So in case you're keeping score at home, kids, it's bad to stop aggressors. It's bad to force the aggressor to promise to get rid of his weapons, even the nuclear and biological ones, and it's wrong to demand that he let you check to make sure he complied. However, it is NOT wrong to invade your neighbor, get defeated, then ignore the treaties you signed in defeat. In fact, if you do those things and anything bad happens to your people as a result, you can blame it on the nation that stopped you in the first place! This is akin to the guy in California who sued a homeowner because he was injured and unable to work after he fell through the homeowner's skylight while trying to burglarize the house! As for the 1 million Iraqi civilians, that would mean we killed about the same number of civilians in Iraq in one short blitz-style war as Iran and Iraq together killed in eight years of some of the bloodiest fighting of this century. Not the number of civilians they killed, but the total number dead from both countries. You honestly believe this?

I haven't decided yet. It's a tricky subject for a citizen because I know I don't have the same information the leaders have--but that doesn't automatically mean that they're right. However, we might as well start concentrating on how we will go about it, because it's going to happen. I've been hearing from military friends (mostly Son Tao, mentioned in the other thread) since last year that an invasion of Iraq was coming. Son wasn't particularly happy about it, because he believes this time will be much worse. If we want to go in with the idea of imprisoning or killing Hussein, we're going to have to fight in Baghdad in a way that will greatly reduce our advantages, which generally revolve around technology and air power. It might be a bit like Somalia. However, we did learn some lessons there that could help. The Rangers in Somalia gave up key advantages like night vision and body armor because they thought they wouldn't need them for a short daylight raid. That kind of thing shouldn't happen again, but it will still be vicious, house-to-house fighting. B-52's and F117's will not be of much use in that battle. We will win if we stay the course, but will it be worth it? BlackI, I don't believe for a second that the whole world is against us. Britain is with us. Saudi Arabia said they wouldn't participate, but now they say they will. France and Germany will fall into line after their elections are over--Schroeder (sp?) just has to pander to his left wing a bit for the elections. There are many others. It's easy for Japan to say something like that, because it helps them curry favor with the oil states that they need much more than we do and doesn't cost them much because they weren't going to be contributing all that much anyway.

I should not have implied that Son had to go through the entire RIP twice--all he had to do the second time was to qualify with the weapons, make qualifying jumps and rope assaults, etc. He's one of the nicest people I've ever met, and I really mean that--I can think of maybe one or two nicer. But, yes, it's better to be on his side than the other! He's a tiny little thing, but I can't imagine beating him. It just seems like nothing hurts him.

My wife teaches autistic children for a living; I consider that her contribution. We just adopted two abused boys about a month ago, 6 year old twins, so I guess that could be considered service. If it can't, too bad, because it leaves no free time to do anything else anyway! Between the kids and my new job, I can't even get to the dojang for classes anymore. I did have two friends who joined up. John Shirley, who goes by "Spectre" at TFL, enlisted right after 9-11. He is an infantry puke who lugs a mortar base plate around and fires mortars, currently stationed at Ft. Lewis in Washington. Son Tao is an amazing guy. His family was Vietnamese, and they got out when he was a young child. They spent about a year in Malaysia before they were able to get here. When they got here all the adults took menial jobs until they could afford to pool their resources and purchase a store, and from then on everyone worked there. Son became a citizen, and when he was old enough, he figured he owed it to America to join the military so he joined the Army. Then he volunteered for the Rangers. He spent a few years in the Rangers and spent some time in the Balkans before getting out and getting his degree in computer science with some side work in physics. He considers physics to be the fun stuff. Before 9-11, he had been talking about taking a job teaching physics at some college. That would have been a significant pay cut, as he was making six figures, but he considered physics so much more enjoyable that he said it would be worth it. After 9-11, he dropped all that and re-enlisted. He did go back in as a Lieutenant, so at least he didn't have to do Basic at his age like John, but he did have to re-qualify for the Rangers. Oddly enough, that seems to have worked out well for him--maybe you really can be saved by good works. They shipped him out to Korea, where he met a beautiful woman from the Phillippines and fell in love. They're going to be married here when his enlistment is up. They'll have a heck of a story to tell the kids. . . . .

Busta Rhymes is about the only one I can stand. I'm just not a rap guy. Fred Durst is annoying.

I'm what they call "internet famous." In other words, I'm well known, beloved and hated on a few forums, so when I'm at https://www.thefiringline.com I am treated a bit like a celebrity by about 16,000 people. Outside those people, I am utterly and completely unknown. But I did have a great uncle who was a Prophet of our Lord Jesus Christ. All you had to do was ask him, and he'd tell you.

The St. Crispin's day speech is a great passage, and Shakespeare is just so quotable. "Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war." "O, he is the courageous captain of compliments. He fights as you sing prick-song, keeps time, distance, and proportion; rests me his minim rest, one, two, and the third in your bosom: the very butcher of a silk button, a duellist, a duellist; a gentleman of the very first house, of the first and second cause: ah, the immortal passado! the punto reverso! the hai!"

Flinging insults and protesting when caught that your victims "can't take a joke" is a very old and ineffective gambit of bullies and jerks the world over. It fools no one. You make it even harder to believe you by continuing to mock us after protesting what a wonderful guy you are and how nice you've been to all us subnormals. Nothing I say or do is going to stop you, and I'm OK with that. I just don't want you to think that anyone bought it.

Aw, geez. I leave for a little while and you bring the gun issue back without me? I ask you, is that fair? In no particular order, I offer the following thoughts: 1. What, pray tell, is the appropriate training? Jeff Cooper would not agree with you. Nor would Gabe Suarez or Mad Dog. Ayoob would laugh out loud at that statement. Clint Smith would probably just lift one eyebrow and give you his look, but the meaning is there. These are the finest firearms trainers and tacticians alive, and none of them would claim to be able to give you any training which would make a gun at close range practically useless (you said as useful as a knife at long range.) How is it that you know this secret and they do not? 2. Prezackly. Was Musashi a coward? How can using a different weapon to do exactly the same thing make someone a coward? I don't want to hear about people being ambushed from afar, because bowmen did it all the time. 3. BS. There are no defensive weapons. There are only weapons. Guns, like all other weapons ever used by human beings, can be used either offensively or defensively. The warrior makes the choice. 4. Riiiiiight. So, today, I'm a coward for carrying a gun. But tomorrow, if I go out and join the local police force reserve, I won't be a coward anymore and I can still carry my gun? Does that strike you as stupid? Q. Why do law enforcement officials carry guns? A. Because they may have to defend themselves when they encounter criminals. Q. OK. Then why shouldn't citizens carry guns? A. Because citizens never have the need to defend themselves from criminals. Criminals never attack citizens; only police. 5. ZR440, at least, understands the problem with which we are confronted. To wit, we all know we could be attacked, right? Now, do we all believe that the police department can protect us? Even though it only takes a few moments to beat someone within inches of his life, or a few seconds to stab, cut or shoot one to death? Even though the best we can hope for is an ultra-fast 3-5 minute response time from the police? Even though they may all be across town responding to the last emergency? Of course not. This is no slur against the police; it is simply not humanly possible to do what most people blithely assume the police do routinely. The police exist to apprehend and punish people after they commit crimes. They are there to stop the NEXT crime, not the one currently happening. If you don't believe me, ask a few. They'd really, really like to interrupt your murderer in the act and save you, but they know it's most often impossible to do so. Time we all admit that to ourselves too.

Your conclusion as to the "Lesson" doesn't follow from your description of what happened. They were only arrested. They were not convicted or punished. For all we know they might have been released half an hour later and no charges filed, or they might have been charged but no-billed by the grand jury. If you are involved in a fight or, God forbid, a death, expect to be cuffed and detained when the police arrive. It doesn't matter if the police are personally certain that you are in the right. If they didn't do this, any murderer with a good story could walk away from the scene. IF these men are charged, convicted and punished, then we've got a problem. I would, however, like to point out one more thing. I see a lot of comments about how one should not use force to protect property. Of course, that's perfectly legal in some places, so viewpoints must vary somewhat. More importantly, though, from Monkeyninja's story, it seems that this is NOT what the two men did. They confronted the thieves and told them to stop and leave. Had they done so, we can only assume the pair would have let them go and called the police. Instead, they chose to attack. You ARE allowed to confront a criminal and warn him to stop what he is doing. It's iffy only because if he runs away or obeys your commands you must have the control to stop at that point. If he runs, you should let him go unless he was doing something truly dangerous--rape, armed robbery, beating someone, etc. You are NOT allowed to ambush the kid who's pulling the stereo out of your car and lay him out with an elbow to the head from behind before he knows you're there, nor should you shoot him without warning. However, if you confront him, and he makes the choice to attack you, you are perfectly justified in defending yourself. This may not apply in "duty to retreat" states, so YMMV.

This applies to no one on this thread, but maybe he didn't show you respect because we are conditioned in our society not to take martial artists seriously. Any drooling idiot can pay his money and call himself a martial artist, and after one lesson tell everyone he knows that he "knows karate." In fact, a whole lot of drooling idiots do just that. And an awful lot more martial artists with ranks much higher than yours couldn't fight their way out wet paper sacks. The average street punk has probably stomped the everloving hell out of several people who warned him that they were black belts. He can't be blamed for thinking it's all a joke.

I might believe you if you'd said that's how they convince some poor kid to go out and fight against Vanderlei . . . . .. Dog fights are one of the most horrible things men do. If you're accused of running them, you should be allowed to clear your name by lying on your back in a pit while your dog is released in it. I can do this anytime, because my dog loves me, which ain't that hard to do. If you're one of these idiots who wants to "make 'em mean" and force the poor thing to fight to the death purely for your own fun, you'll still get everything you deserve.

Taikudo-Ka, thanks for saying what needed to be said. I knew that those who would criticize the actions we've taken over the last few months were misinformed, misguided, or just plain enemies, but it's nice to have it confirmed. If we were attacked because we are willing to fight a war in the only way wars can possibly be fought--and that after years of mourning the victims of the worthless bastards we now have to kill--then it's clear we have no choice.

G95, I'm sure this is the response you were waiting for, but please explain how believing that there is no God is the same thing as believing in God. I should probably warn you that I have a low tolerance for doublespeak, so rationalizations like "well, it all requires faith, so it's really the same, so I assume we'll see you in church on Sunday" are not going to work well.

I wondered, Z, but I didn't think it would be polite to say that. Glad you're having fun. Too true. Now, in 1000 words or less and with no more than 4 visual aids, I'd like to see your plan as to how you would stop child abusers from having children. Since you feel free to criticize, I presume you have a plan. You severely underestimate stupidity, gullibility and the willingness of the average politician to pander to the biggest idiots in the room. Some would argue exactly that; many more will argue that any alcohol use at all should disqualify anyone. Once we accept the idea that "we" get to decide what is reasonable in someone else's life, how do we decided which "we" gets to decide? Slippery slopes do happen.

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to do better than popping up to make outlandish claims and then demanding that those who question you do research on their own to find out how right you are. Can you back up your claims or not? Yes or no? It is most emphatically NOT MY JOB to prove your wacky claims are true. You do that. Re: The Battery Market YOU are the one who claims that they have an infinitely better battery design all ready to go. You say the number of batteries sold per year now means they don't want to "lose that." The point is that whichever company brought these Super-Radical-Uber-Batteries to market could put all the others out of business and own the market. If your silly planned obsolescence claims were true, there would be no rechargeable batteries on the market, since they reduce volume the same way you think better batteries would. Re: Being happy with what you have. I'm pretty happy where I am too. You're the one who made a big deal about how terrible it was that someone would want more than they have. That means you think there's some innate virtue in having less, and that's ridiculous. The point was that all the things you have (and consider to be so very little) were invented and marketed by people who were unhappy with what they had and wanted something better. It's easy to preach about not wanting things when your idea of not having things allows you to keep your indoor plumbing, furniture, and computer (I don't care how you get access; you have it. If you pay your own way, the food in your belly was paid for by money from your employer too.) Oil companies make a lot of money in a year because they are the ones selling something that people are willing to pay dearly to get. Simple as that. I don't doubt that there are oil companies who manipulate the market, but if your alternative energies could match fossil fuels in performance or price, they'd sell themselves in the current political climate (The Age of the Self-Satisfied Liberal.) Anyone who could bring them to market would be filthy rich. Any oil company that cared to market such a product could put most of the others out of business within three years and own the entire market, thus becoming (say it with me) "FILTHY STINKING RICH." Your theories are downright silly, and the fact that you won't even try to provide any facts to make sense of them doesn't help. I'm not trying to be mean, but think about it! What would you say if someone came up to you and said "I'm the King of Siam, but I can't tell you any more about it. You'll have to look it up for yourself. In the meantime, bow!" You'd call him nuts. You'd be right.

CKStudent, they let known child abusers adopt children where you live? That seems . . . . odd. Are you sure? Be careful about setting yourself up as Prince of the Universe. The problem with drinking a "reasonable" amount is the same as "reasonable gun control." Who gets to define what is reasonable?