[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican? [/QUOTE]
Bingo.
Just another "third Party" type guy who uses the same old tired argument the others use. "The Dems & Reps just argue and don't get anything done. I will make a difference, because I'm in touch with the people."
Remember, this guy was on Jay Leno last month which also included a musical performance by The Sex Pistols. Now either Ron or one of "his people" must be a little out of touch. Or was he correct in referring to the lead singer as the great Sid Vicious?
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"bon jovi is better than queen" hahaha[/QUOTE]
I got better ones:
Freddie Mercury is Iranian. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ron Paul is a good choice. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
There's a chip in my head. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
My band is better than all bands but Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
My music skills are 2nd to Fred's. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Paul Rodgers isn't Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Why don't you go vote for Ace Frehley? I just voted for Bon Jovi again. But I will never ever vote for Queen on that site, just so it cancels out your vote. Then Queen will be just like those other shitty bands: Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc.[/QUOTE]
Thread
Posts in chronological order
HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you just to have you available to display that kind of cynical yet accurate analysis at source material when I'm working on an article, I think I won't for the display of cynicism which is both accurate and moderately (I'd say about 4/10) disturbing. Oh, and you're over-stating the relevance of political rhetoric.
Paul's supporters go far beyond YouTube, he has had more supporters at his rallies than any other (by FAR) he has had more donations from the military than any other, he had 10% at the primaries in Iowa, and have you seen the amount of money he raises in those daily online contributions? He's the only candidate who isn't another run of the mill crook with his head shoved up his ass. His supporters are growing by the hour.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?
Can I be the Best Man?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian)
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it.
You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!
[/QUOTE]
I am well aware of power's ability to inevitably corrupt. It is in that understanding that I have become a staunch supporter of limited government. As of right now, Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports such a view. Once again, I am not saying Ron Paul is this unimaginably impeccable being. All I am saying is he's the best option that we Americans have, understanding the points you have made above.
I agree that the notion is somewhat flawed when considering history in its aggregate. However, when you consider Ron Paul's history, you will find that lobbyists do not even visit Ron Paul anymore due to his political convictions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?
[/QUOTE]
That is clearly a cheap shot, and if it's seriously the best you can come up with, don't you think you could cut me a break here? Those comments (along with several others in that newsletter) were written by a ghost writer and do not reflect his views or anything he has ever said. Yes, he is ultimately responsible. However, I don't think this is a serious aberration to his political convictions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.[/QUOTE]
Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is my opinion, and I stand by it. I do have objective reasons, but they are formulated through many hours of extensive research over his past actions, speeches, etc. and cannot be easily summarized here.
====
Will continue later.
So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian)
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams
To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it.
You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!
[/QUOTE]
I am well aware of power's ability to inevitably corrupt. It is in that understanding that I have become a staunch supporter of limited government. As of right now, Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports such a view. Once again, I am not saying Ron Paul is this unimaginably impeccable being. All I am saying is he's the best option that we Americans have, understanding the points you have made above.
I agree that the notion is somewhat flawed when considering history in its aggregate. However, when you consider Ron Paul's history, you will find that lobbyists do not even visit Ron Paul anymore due to his political convictions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?
[/QUOTE]
That is clearly a cheap shot, and if it's seriously the best you can come up with, don't you think you could cut me a break here? Those comments (along with several others in that newsletter) were written by a ghost writer and do not reflect his views or anything he has ever said. Yes, he is ultimately responsible. However, I don't think this is a serious aberration to his political convictions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.[/QUOTE]
Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is my opinion, and I stand by it. I do have objective reasons, but they are formulated through many hours of extensive research over his past actions, speeches, etc. and cannot be easily summarized here.
====
Will continue later.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Awesome!
I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Awesome!
I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And since when are we all prosperous under capitalism? Fallacious argument yet again.
[/QUOTE]
I could write pages on the virtues on capitalism, but there's nothing I could write that the Austrians or the Chicago School (as well as mostly every educated economist) haven't written before. Prosperity is measured by quality of life. Essentially, you could look at the United States, for example. Some of the poorest people in this country have houses with multiple bathrooms and color televisions. Most of them have automobiles as well. You could also compare North and South Korea for a modern example. One is a free market economy that has prospered, and the other is centrally planned and has largely failed.
Austrians such as Hayek debunked the virtues of a centrally planned economy over fifty years ago, and it's not exactly a hotly debated topic in the world of economics, so I fail to see what you're getting at.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Not only are you distorting the truth (regarding the 'Founding Fathers', who were not monolithic in views and certainly not libertarian), you also deny any sense of (Christian) morality: you deny responsibility for those who did not have your opportunities, pretending that those are fairly distributed.
[/QUOTE]
I am in no way suggesting that opportunities are currently fairly distributed. The idea of Libertarianism is to fairly distribute opportunities as much as possible, which differs from the idea of Socialism, where everything is distributed equally regardless of anything. I think both ideals are fair. However, only one is effective for quality of life and technological improvement.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
Alright, once again, this reverts to the capitalism vs. socialism debate. Prosperity vs. equality. Under pure capitalism, everyone would be better off than they would be under pure socialism, but the prosperity would not be equally divulged. I suppose the proper balance is entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]
Unsupported fallacious argument.
[/QUOTE]
I am not arguing that this is the truth. I am assuming it is and explaining it is because this argument has already been settled among economists.
[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And since when are we all prosperous under capitalism? Fallacious argument yet again.
[/QUOTE]
I could write pages on the virtues on capitalism, but there's nothing I could write that the Austrians or the Chicago School (as well as mostly every educated economist) haven't written before. Prosperity is measured by quality of life. Essentially, you could look at the United States, for example. Some of the poorest people in this country have houses with multiple bathrooms and color televisions. Most of them have automobiles as well. You could also compare North and South Korea for a modern example. One is a free market economy that has prospered, and the other is centrally planned and has largely failed.
Austrians such as Hayek debunked the virtues of a centrally planned economy over fifty years ago, and it's not exactly a hotly debated topic in the world of economics, so I fail to see what you're getting at.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Not only are you distorting the truth (regarding the 'Founding Fathers', who were not monolithic in views and certainly not libertarian), you also deny any sense of (Christian) morality: you deny responsibility for those who did not have your opportunities, pretending that those are fairly distributed.
[/QUOTE]
I am in no way suggesting that opportunities are currently fairly distributed. The idea of Libertarianism is to fairly distribute opportunities as much as possible, which differs from the idea of Socialism, where everything is distributed equally regardless of anything. I think both ideals are fair. However, only one is effective for quality of life and technological improvement.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]
Alright, once again, this reverts to the capitalism vs. socialism debate. Prosperity vs. equality. Under pure capitalism, everyone would be better off than they would be under pure socialism, but the prosperity would not be equally divulged. I suppose the proper balance is entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]
Unsupported fallacious argument.
[/QUOTE]
I am not arguing that this is the truth. I am assuming it is and explaining it is because this argument has already been settled among economists.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!
[/QUOTE]
I really do enjoy battling wits with you, and I don't mean to get personal, despite my tendency to snipe. So yes, en garde.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.[/QUOTE]
This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise.[/QUOTE]
It is a fallacious assumption to assume the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the absolute be all and end all. Granted, I agree with you, and am very pro-choice myself. However, your proposed method is one way, but to say it is the only way doesn't make sense to me.
I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!
[/QUOTE]
I really do enjoy battling wits with you, and I don't mean to get personal, despite my tendency to snipe. So yes, en garde.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.[/QUOTE]
This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise.[/QUOTE]
It is a fallacious assumption to assume the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the absolute be all and end all. Granted, I agree with you, and am very pro-choice myself. However, your proposed method is one way, but to say it is the only way doesn't make sense to me.
Ah, but I would take it that international law should be a basis for every debate on what is just or unjust, is it not? I therefore presented you with a simple two-way choice: either pro-choice in compliance with international law, or pro-life, implying that international law has no validity in the USA. Of course, anyone is free to choose the latter (despite not offering someone *else* a choice), but that choice results in the need to reformulate standards of international law, which is why I brought up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Awesome!
I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.[/QUOTE]
As above.
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Awesome!
I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.[/QUOTE]
As above.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ah, but I would take it that international law should be a basis for every debate on what is just or unjust, is it not? I therefore presented you with a simple two-way choice: either pro-choice in compliance with international law, or pro-life, implying that international law has no validity in the USA. Of course, anyone is free to choose the latter (despite not offering someone *else* a choice), but that choice results in the need to reformulate standards of international law, which is why I brought up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is debatable that international law is ineffective and unfair, as it can only exist with the participation (and under the vast influence) of the most powerful nations. So even if it is in compliance with international law, I still believe there must be reasons above the mere fact that it is international law.
1) It is impossible to enforce. At the very least, abortion should be available in the cases of rape or the endangerment of the mother's life. It is beyond me how any pro-life argument can be rationalized to not include these exceptions. I am not sure how such exceptions would be proven in time, if it is even possible.
2) On such a widely debated issue, it should be left up to individual citizens to decide the morality of it. It should not be left to the states because they do not even have the right to legislate such morality.
While I agree that every person has the right to their body, I think that is not as relevant to the issue as it seems. If you force someone to sustain themselves from your body, it is your duty to rescue them from that condition (or at least maintain it). The issue is whether or not an unborn child has rights. This issue may never be resolved. Therefore, it should be up to the individual citizens to decide. Although this may be a conflict of interest, the path of least governmental resistance is best, in my opinion.
Well, it is debatable that international law is ineffective and unfair, as it can only exist with the participation (and under the vast influence) of the most powerful nations. So even if it is in compliance with international law, I still believe there must be reasons above the mere fact that it is international law.
1) It is impossible to enforce. At the very least, abortion should be available in the cases of rape or the endangerment of the mother's life. It is beyond me how any pro-life argument can be rationalized to not include these exceptions. I am not sure how such exceptions would be proven in time, if it is even possible.
2) On such a widely debated issue, it should be left up to individual citizens to decide the morality of it. It should not be left to the states because they do not even have the right to legislate such morality.
While I agree that every person has the right to their body, I think that is not as relevant to the issue as it seems. If you force someone to sustain themselves from your body, it is your duty to rescue them from that condition (or at least maintain it). The issue is whether or not an unborn child has rights. This issue may never be resolved. Therefore, it should be up to the individual citizens to decide. Although this may be a conflict of interest, the path of least governmental resistance is best, in my opinion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.[/QUOTE]
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)[/QUOTE]
Hey, you walked right into this one Caspar! :-P
Besides, we're just picking. Honestly, first people think I have no sense of humor and when I let it out then they think I'm crazy...
*winks*
Can I be the Best Man?[/QUOTE]
*laughes*
Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form.
But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*[/QUOTE]
Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)[/QUOTE]
Hey, you walked right into this one Caspar! :-P
Besides, we're just picking. Honestly, first people think I have no sense of humor and when I let it out then they think I'm crazy...
*winks*
I thought it usually took 7 years to get to this stage ;-)