Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, you do as you please and what makes sense to you, within reason of course.
Of course. I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
josda1000 wrote:
Good, I don't drink soda either usually.
I didn't anyhow, but I've been reading a book on how much it costs to create those little cans. It's almost as stupid as bottled water. I buy juice, or I make juice out of my own fruit, or I buy from smaller, local suppliers of soft drink if I am out. We also have a sodastream, if we MUST have something with bubbles in it.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, break the mold.
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
josda1000 wrote:
Why are you so cynical?
Are you in your 20s ?
josda1000 wrote:
And be open to ideas of change (real ideas of change, not just a catchphrase that says "Change you can believe in.")
I am always open to ideas of positive change. I just have no faith in politics as an arena where I can expect to see anything positive. Examples of things I do to try to be a force for positive change: I avoid all plastic containers when buying things like milk I pay more for milk in order to buy from a smaller local producer. I do the same for meat and other produce I never buy supermarket branded items, because I am convinced if they get a monopoly, they will not use it for good I grow as much of my own food as I can, and give it away to people around me, so they can taste what real vegetables and fruit are like, too. We support a couple of third world charities, that are focused on the well being of children. I am all for being a force for good, and all for recognising how your choices affect more than you, and can affect you long term in a way that's not in your interests. But when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm 25.
Thought so :-) Nothing wrong with that. I wish my body was still 25. I'd not go back to being younger altogether, tho.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
I'm not saying you should! lol If you like Google, by all means! I'm not saying to make a statement. All I'm saying is that if Joe likes something else, he'll use it! Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
This is again, precisely my point. If you like Google, go ahead and use it. That's the true beauty of capitalism in the first place. A good product gets well used, and the company gains wealth because they took the time to put a good quality product out into the market. So, if you don't mind the analytics, by all means, go for it.
Christian Graus wrote:
when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
I definitely hear you on that one. That's why I've learned to do more research on people and really try to "break the mold", as it were. And honestly, I definitely don't see a problem with Paul at all, he seems sincere. Every vote he's ever made has been based wholly on principle, even if that meant being the lone "nay" vote a few times.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, atrophy is a whole different thing, that's how the world works.
Do you mean apathy?
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now.
Definitely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
This is a problem for me... I mean, I definitely understand why you would say this, but a libertarian has a problem with the FDA existing in the first place. IMO, the market would solve the problems of terrible chemicals in drugs, with good doctors and hospitals and such. As for the extra taxes, that falls under Congress directly anyway, from what I understand, so it has nothing to do with the FDA when it comes to the tax issue.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, we can learn from each other.
I'm sorry, I've known him a lot longer than you and all he's taught me, is to stay off drugs.
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.
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I think the only regulation needed would be a requirement to measure potency. Nothing more. Fuck more taxes, we need less taxes, not more.
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)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
I'm not saying you should! lol If you like Google, by all means! I'm not saying to make a statement. All I'm saying is that if Joe likes something else, he'll use it! Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
This is again, precisely my point. If you like Google, go ahead and use it. That's the true beauty of capitalism in the first place. A good product gets well used, and the company gains wealth because they took the time to put a good quality product out into the market. So, if you don't mind the analytics, by all means, go for it.
Christian Graus wrote:
when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
I definitely hear you on that one. That's why I've learned to do more research on people and really try to "break the mold", as it were. And honestly, I definitely don't see a problem with Paul at all, he seems sincere. Every vote he's ever made has been based wholly on principle, even if that meant being the lone "nay" vote a few times.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, atrophy is a whole different thing, that's how the world works.
Do you mean apathy?
josda1000 wrote:
Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you mean apathy?
No, I don't.
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.
-
Well, that is true.
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:
Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you mean apathy?
No, I don't.
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: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
josda1000 wrote:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
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:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
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.
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
-
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
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.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You really want a dead man as Pres.? I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
josda1000 wrote:
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
And the fact that the man you like is quite likely to die in office in no way influences your vote?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
josda1000 wrote:
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes.
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office. (I was surprised, though, that the site did not block votes coming from outside of the USA.)
josda1000 wrote:
What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?
Obama was young enough, the others were too old. Other than that, what's to choose? They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
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 imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You really want a dead man as Pres.? I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
josda1000 wrote:
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
And the fact that the man you like is quite likely to die in office in no way influences your vote?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
josda1000 wrote:
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes.
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office. (I was surprised, though, that the site did not block votes coming from outside of the USA.)
josda1000 wrote:
What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?
Obama was young enough, the others were too old. Other than that, what's to choose? They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office.
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office? That is very poor judgement in my view, and you really need to reexamine your philosophy. Think about what you're saying: you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power than to have someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all, and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc. Again, if that's the only reason you have going for you, you have no real reason not to vote for him.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for. Otherwise, I think my argument is more than sound.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office.
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office? That is very poor judgement in my view, and you really need to reexamine your philosophy. Think about what you're saying: you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power than to have someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all, and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc. Again, if that's the only reason you have going for you, you have no real reason not to vote for him.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for. Otherwise, I think my argument is more than sound.
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now.
Definitely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
This is a problem for me... I mean, I definitely understand why you would say this, but a libertarian has a problem with the FDA existing in the first place. IMO, the market would solve the problems of terrible chemicals in drugs, with good doctors and hospitals and such. As for the extra taxes, that falls under Congress directly anyway, from what I understand, so it has nothing to do with the FDA when it comes to the tax issue.
Hmm, I didn't get an e-mail for this reply... Bad CP! As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry. Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk. Anyway, you're right about the taxes being a Congressional issue, but I wonder if the influx of these things would add a financial burden to the government, in terms of extra enforcement and such... Actually, that would probably be offset by no longer having to hunt down the drug lords... Ok, I'll revise my position. I do still think the FDA (Or similar) would need to keep an eye on it, but an extra tax (beyond normal sales tax) might not be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
-
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Horde vs Alliance
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)