Russia Today (RT): Conspiracy theories arise from underpants bomber story
-
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
This was your original, I believe. At least, this is what I originally responded to. So I have to assume it's "people who are fearful of how random life is and would rather believe that someone is in control". This is precisely why a government is created in the first place! And you believe in the government, and that it should have some form of control on situations. So you DO believe in conspiracies! I'm not trying to move your words around at all, but look at these things from all aspects. You would rather believe that governments actually can control any and all situations, nevermind who is in charge of that actual organization in the first place. And that's precisely where the fallacy lies. It's not a question of whether someone is using it for evil. It's the very fact that an organization has a monopoly on a certain thing (or more) in the first place. Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought. It does have a random element to it. Good people or evil people could come to power of any organization, no matter how well structured. And if people let their guard down for too long... they're screwed. Meaning, we are screwed, right now.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
LunaticFringe wrote: Faith is supposed to transcend proof and render it unnecessary. Amusingly, the bible says the opposite.
Really? How so?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can God prove Himself in a non religious way ? Why does His refusal to offer the proof that we may define, prove that He offers no proof at all ?
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Really? How so?
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic cause of all conspiracy theories is people who are fearful of how random life is, and would rather believe that SOMEONE is in control, even if it's for evil.
This was your original, I believe. At least, this is what I originally responded to. So I have to assume it's "people who are fearful of how random life is and would rather believe that someone is in control". This is precisely why a government is created in the first place! And you believe in the government, and that it should have some form of control on situations. So you DO believe in conspiracies! I'm not trying to move your words around at all, but look at these things from all aspects. You would rather believe that governments actually can control any and all situations, nevermind who is in charge of that actual organization in the first place. And that's precisely where the fallacy lies. It's not a question of whether someone is using it for evil. It's the very fact that an organization has a monopoly on a certain thing (or more) in the first place. Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought. It does have a random element to it. Good people or evil people could come to power of any organization, no matter how well structured. And if people let their guard down for too long... they're screwed. Meaning, we are screwed, right now.
josda1000 wrote:
So you DO believe in conspiracies!
ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
josda1000 wrote:
Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought.
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Really? How so?
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So it's dependant on faith, isn't it? You've placed it outside the context of logic and verifiable evidence
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Christian Graus wrote:
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this. I've always reasoned that if god did exist, trying to apply any kind of ethical or logical framework to it's actions would be an exercise in futility; I mean, a god by definition would be beyond our ken, our understanding, right? So those principles wouldn't apply. Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Christian Graus wrote:
In a number of ways. The book of Acts constantly points to conversion being an experience that comes with evidence.
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Christian Graus wrote:
My point was that as soon as God is involved, it's about religion, by definition. And, the other point was, if God won't do tricks for you, does that prove that no proof exists, or just no proof that you're willing to consider ? If God was real, and He was God, why would He let you define the proof that He offers ?
Actually, I'm in agreement with you on this. I've always reasoned that if god did exist, trying to apply any kind of ethical or logical framework to it's actions would be an exercise in futility; I mean, a god by definition would be beyond our ken, our understanding, right? So those principles wouldn't apply. Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Well, it's external evidence. Read Acts 8, down to about verse 19. None of that makes any sense if there is not external evidence. Acts 2, 10 and 19 all record the same external evidence when someone becomes a Christian. However, the point is not to get recognised by courts, and I did not claim that was possible.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
Sure - I am glad you at least agree that people who say 'if there was a God, He would do XXX' are mistaken in their thoughts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
So you DO believe in conspiracies!
ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
josda1000 wrote:
Once this organization has control on it, for good intents or otherwise, bad people will either take control of it eventually, or people will be bought.
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: So you DO believe in conspiracies! ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
I should have put a smiley at the end there, it was a half-joke lol ah well, the deed has been done.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
It happens for the very thing you said earlier: the random element. Humans are imperfect. We are subject to good and evil ourselves. Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here. But the point is, once you're in office, you feel empowered, because you ARE empowered. As for the USA's case, Powers are delegated to the Congress, and then they go and delegate Powers to the President. More and more power is given to that branch, and especially that one man. This is where it goes wrong. Yes, there have been checks and balances put in place, but many times these things are not executed. For example, Congress now doesn't declare war, they just leave it to the President. Congress doesn't create and coin the money, a bank does. Plus, more power has been taken away from the states. Many things are just going wrong. Power corrupts. That's just the way human nature is. I'm not saying it has to happen; it's just that it always has. And to say that it's just going to stop at the drop of a hat is naive. That's what I'm trying to point out. The failsafe you mention WAS the Constitution. But to say that it's a living document destroys the purpose. Yes, you can amend the Constitution, of course. But that's the extent of it. And you know the answer to your last question. The alternative is anarchy; but that would never work. IMO, republics are the best form of government; and theoretically we still have that form here in the United States. But the only way to keep a republic is with knowledge, not naivety and ignorance. I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: So you DO believe in conspiracies! ROTFL !!! Well, like I said, I know they exist. By what ever definition.
I should have put a smiley at the end there, it was a half-joke lol ah well, the deed has been done.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is this a given ? Why does it have to happen ? Why can't failsafes be built in ? What's the alternative ?
It happens for the very thing you said earlier: the random element. Humans are imperfect. We are subject to good and evil ourselves. Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here. But the point is, once you're in office, you feel empowered, because you ARE empowered. As for the USA's case, Powers are delegated to the Congress, and then they go and delegate Powers to the President. More and more power is given to that branch, and especially that one man. This is where it goes wrong. Yes, there have been checks and balances put in place, but many times these things are not executed. For example, Congress now doesn't declare war, they just leave it to the President. Congress doesn't create and coin the money, a bank does. Plus, more power has been taken away from the states. Many things are just going wrong. Power corrupts. That's just the way human nature is. I'm not saying it has to happen; it's just that it always has. And to say that it's just going to stop at the drop of a hat is naive. That's what I'm trying to point out. The failsafe you mention WAS the Constitution. But to say that it's a living document destroys the purpose. Yes, you can amend the Constitution, of course. But that's the extent of it. And you know the answer to your last question. The alternative is anarchy; but that would never work. IMO, republics are the best form of government; and theoretically we still have that form here in the United States. But the only way to keep a republic is with knowledge, not naivety and ignorance. I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
josda1000 wrote:
Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here.
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
I'd say that whatever happens, humans are imperfect, and there will never be a world where there is no reason to complain about those in power, to some degree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Especially if media is censored, and the better information is actually overseas. RT may have studios in DC and NYC, but it's broadcast in Russia, not here.
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
josda1000 wrote:
I'm not saying I have all the answers either, I'm not trying to make that argument and be egotistic. I'm just pointing a few things out.
I'd say that whatever happens, humans are imperfect, and there will never be a world where there is no reason to complain about those in power, to some degree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
For the most part, yes. The US is in debt, and we don't hear about it nearly as much as we should in US mainstream news. But I also don't just assume it. I research well enough. I have to for what I do.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you assume that what the Russian media says is true, but not the US media ?
For the most part, yes. The US is in debt, and we don't hear about it nearly as much as we should in US mainstream news. But I also don't just assume it. I research well enough. I have to for what I do.
Well, what strikes me is that the US is supposed to be at war, but nowadays, that's not meant to impact on people at home. Life is meant to go on, no matter what. And it's bound to all come crashing down. It would not surprise me if the Xmas bomb guy was being watched to try to catch people higher up in his chain of command, or whatever. IF the video alleges that they wanted him to succeed, or he was set up by the US government, I don't buy that for a second. I admit to not having watched the whole thing, I just got the gist.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ROTFL !!! Yes, I guess that some religions, the ones without any proof, operate on a similar theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the ones without any proof
Get over it. None have anything that even resembles evidence. It's amazing to me how you can check your logic at the door when anyone says religion. All those hundreds of other religions are false and mine is the one true one. And you say you're afraid of US religion and yet you can't comprehend that you've bought US religion hook, line, and sinker. Your church is just another basic US style fundie christian church.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the ones without any proof
Get over it. None have anything that even resembles evidence. It's amazing to me how you can check your logic at the door when anyone says religion. All those hundreds of other religions are false and mine is the one true one. And you say you're afraid of US religion and yet you can't comprehend that you've bought US religion hook, line, and sinker. Your church is just another basic US style fundie christian church.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Get over it. None have anything that even resembles evidence.
You in particularly like to keep saying this, but that won't make it true.
Tim Craig wrote:
Your church is just another basic US style fundie christian church.
No, it's not. Not even remotely. But, an armchair critic and generally uninformed person like yourself is obviously not going to be able to tell that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Get over it. None have anything that even resembles evidence.
You in particularly like to keep saying this, but that won't make it true.
Tim Craig wrote:
Your church is just another basic US style fundie christian church.
No, it's not. Not even remotely. But, an armchair critic and generally uninformed person like yourself is obviously not going to be able to tell that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
And your continuing to say the bible gives you proof of god's existence isn't going to make that happen either. I'd have to say I'm a lot better informed on this than you are even though you're the local expert on the US. You're the one who posted the link to your church's website. Believe me, they have the typical party line on the revealed word of god, our way is the only way to salvation, yada yada. Whoever started it did his homework in the US.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Sorry, but if it's only evident internally as a personal experience, I think you'd have trouble getting a court (for instance) to recognize it as 'evidence'.
Well, it's external evidence. Read Acts 8, down to about verse 19. None of that makes any sense if there is not external evidence. Acts 2, 10 and 19 all record the same external evidence when someone becomes a Christian. However, the point is not to get recognised by courts, and I did not claim that was possible.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying I believe it.
Sure - I am glad you at least agree that people who say 'if there was a God, He would do XXX' are mistaken in their thoughts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am glad you at least agree that people who say 'if there was a God, He would do XXX' are mistaken in their thoughts.
Yet, you persist in saying you know what god's intentions are and how people are supposed to do thus and so to gain the big guy's favor.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
And your continuing to say the bible gives you proof of god's existence isn't going to make that happen either. I'd have to say I'm a lot better informed on this than you are even though you're the local expert on the US. You're the one who posted the link to your church's website. Believe me, they have the typical party line on the revealed word of god, our way is the only way to salvation, yada yada. Whoever started it did his homework in the US.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
I'd have to say I'm a lot better informed on this
Well, to be frank, all I've ever heard or seen from you has made me think that you're extremely uninformed, except that you congratulate yourself on your personal wisdom on the topic. I find any attempt to respond to you to be tiresome because I know exactly what people like you are, and how you behave. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a militant athiest.
Tim Craig wrote:
Whoever started it did his homework in the US.
I am well familiar with the history of my church and it has no links to the US and predates any contact that such churches had into Australia. Any similarities ( 'revealed word of God, there is only one way to salvation ( and we do NOT say WE are the only way, so again, I guess you're not that well informed ) ) are probably based on people reading the same book, does that occur to you at all. The differences are mostly to do with things like theatre, which is very important in US churches and which we don't partake of ( such as pushing people over, dancing in the aisles, etc ).
Tim Craig wrote:
Believe me, they have the typical party line
I am well aware that to people who are ignorant of things like the Bible, or the differences between churches, the fundamental noises that are likely to be the same, are going to be all that people like you notice. It's not that different to me saying that all country music is the same. I confess I've never REALLY listened to it, just like you've never really paid attention or cared what any church has to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I am glad you at least agree that people who say 'if there was a God, He would do XXX' are mistaken in their thoughts.
Yet, you persist in saying you know what god's intentions are and how people are supposed to do thus and so to gain the big guy's favor.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
See, this is the sort of deliberately obtuse behaviour that makes me feel reluctant to waste my time talking to you on the topic. There's a big difference between saying that the Bible says something, or saying 'I reject the Bible, because I've decided if God was real, He should do what I think is right'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I'd have to say I'm a lot better informed on this
Well, to be frank, all I've ever heard or seen from you has made me think that you're extremely uninformed, except that you congratulate yourself on your personal wisdom on the topic. I find any attempt to respond to you to be tiresome because I know exactly what people like you are, and how you behave. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a militant athiest.
Tim Craig wrote:
Whoever started it did his homework in the US.
I am well familiar with the history of my church and it has no links to the US and predates any contact that such churches had into Australia. Any similarities ( 'revealed word of God, there is only one way to salvation ( and we do NOT say WE are the only way, so again, I guess you're not that well informed ) ) are probably based on people reading the same book, does that occur to you at all. The differences are mostly to do with things like theatre, which is very important in US churches and which we don't partake of ( such as pushing people over, dancing in the aisles, etc ).
Tim Craig wrote:
Believe me, they have the typical party line
I am well aware that to people who are ignorant of things like the Bible, or the differences between churches, the fundamental noises that are likely to be the same, are going to be all that people like you notice. It's not that different to me saying that all country music is the same. I confess I've never REALLY listened to it, just like you've never really paid attention or cared what any church has to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I find any attempt to respond to you to be tiresome because I know exactly what people like you are, and how you behave. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a militant athiest.
And you're just as predictable as you think I am. Nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a fundie christian who keeps trotting out the same tired old rhetoric about how it's all in the bible if we'd just give it a chance, there's proof of god all around is if we'd just interpret it like you want us to, yada yada.
Christian Graus wrote:
just like you've never really paid attention or cared what any church has to say.
I had a traditional introduction to it but I figured out at a relatively early age that what they were telling me was a crock and from that point on none of what was said was going reach any standard of reason that was going to sway me. It's served me very well for over half a century now. I just refuse to defer to people like you who thinks what they have to say is somehow "special" when all you're doing is voicing an illogical dogma designed to make you feel superior.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I find any attempt to respond to you to be tiresome because I know exactly what people like you are, and how you behave. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a militant athiest.
And you're just as predictable as you think I am. Nothing more ignorant or tiresome than a fundie christian who keeps trotting out the same tired old rhetoric about how it's all in the bible if we'd just give it a chance, there's proof of god all around is if we'd just interpret it like you want us to, yada yada.
Christian Graus wrote:
just like you've never really paid attention or cared what any church has to say.
I had a traditional introduction to it but I figured out at a relatively early age that what they were telling me was a crock and from that point on none of what was said was going reach any standard of reason that was going to sway me. It's served me very well for over half a century now. I just refuse to defer to people like you who thinks what they have to say is somehow "special" when all you're doing is voicing an illogical dogma designed to make you feel superior.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you're just as predictable as you think I am.
So why do you bother trying to engage me on the topic then ? I never bother with trying to engage you, I know you won't listen and don't care.
Tim Craig wrote:
there's proof of god all around is if we'd just interpret it like you want us to
It's quite amusing how far this comment is from anything that I have ever said ( in fact, it's kind of the opposite of what I said ). Proves my point, really.
Tim Craig wrote:
and from that point on none of what was said was going reach any standard of reason that was going to sway me
Exactly. You experienced one thing in depth, and you've decided that anything you have casual experience with, should be seen through those glasses, and you've decided before you start that you won't listen, yet you love to talk about it. That's kind of what I was saying about you.
Tim Craig wrote:
I just refuse to defer to people like you
I never asked you to defer. I just pointed out that you're the one who always wants to talk to me about it. I am happy to leave you alone in your beliefs, which were obviously formed at an early age, and which you're fighting to make sure the world knows you're clinging to.
Tim Craig wrote:
" when all you're doing is voicing an illogical dogma designed to make you feel superior.
See, again, how quickly you judge me ? If you saw me in person, you'd know there's no chance of me ever feeling superior. I'll discuss God whenever people want to talk about it because HE is superior. I sure as hell am not. But, one thing that attracted me to my church, after attending many that I WOULD agree took the page out of the book of the US fundie movement, was that the things they preach actually ARE logical, the Bible IS logical, you don't have to leave your brain at the door. But, like I said above, I understand your confusion and your shallow level of understanding, I am the same about country music. I'm just smart enough to know that I am.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Fear has always been used by the US media to control people, it's nothing new.
Oh is that right? I had no idea :rolleyes:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
He was let on the plane WITHOUT a passport. Eyewitness reports say he was accompanied by a guy in a business suit, and a guy was video taping him the entire flight. The reaction from this is widespread expansion of the use of full body scanners. Micheal Chirdoff (former head of homeland security) has investments in the industry which indicates he knew the government would be purchasing tons of the units in the future. Also they are going into Yemen. This type of (police-state security/military/fear-mongering/unpopular legislation) expansion is continue and accelerate by using fear. Question is who is really the threat? It is our own government tyrannically abusing Americans the selectively other nations.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Question is who is really the threat?
People like you and your inbred offspring.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
It is amazing how mentally castrated CG is, simple common sense seems to have escaped him.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Hello Mr Pot, let me introducve you to Mr Kettle.. If I ever had to make the choice of listening to you or Christian, you would be my 10th pick.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H