Saturday, November 24, 2007

Fear Me, For I Have the Power to Destroy You?

A couple of items caught my attention on the Drudge Report yesterday, but they have a common theme. One was a story from the UK Daily Mail about women who are having abortions or getting sterilized because they want to battle overpopulation, a problem they feel threatens the planet. One of the women quoted in the story said the following:

Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

And apparently, she was born without a sense of irony. The women in this article remind me of a point I've brought up in terms of the abortion debate. Have you noticed that all of the people who support the "right" to an abortion are alive? They should thank whatever deity they worship that their parents didn't decide to exercise the "right" they advocate.

The other story was from the London Telegraph reporting on two American cosmologists who believe humans are responsible for shortening the life of the universe. I'm not a scientist, but I'll do my best to explain the logic here. The hypothesis/philosophical debate is that the universe changes when we look at something. Using that logic, astronomers may have brought us closer to destruction by observing dark energy. Dark energy, according to the article, is an "anti-gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the universe." I'm not so sure about the validity of the idea that looking at something changes it, but I can say that people not looking at something has destroyed the film careers of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez.

The common theme in both of these stories is the assumption that humans have the power to destroy the planet and, apparently, the universe. As nifty as I am, I know my limitations, and I know I don't have the kind of power the anti-overpopulation women and the cosmologists think I do. And neither do you. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, the Earth has the ability to adjust to anything we do. Does this mean we should rush out and start dumping nuclear waste in our backyards? No. But it does mean we shouldn't worry that not recycling is going to cause the Earth to spin hopelessly down a spiral of environmental disaster.

But there is a flip side to the "humans are destroying the planet" idea. Could it be that the same people who think humans destroy the environment...also believe humans can save the environment? It fits with their general belief that if people listened to them, the world would be a better place. And what better way to feed your ego while appearing to be environmentally conscious than to elevate yourself to the level of God? That's why some people think of modern environmentalism as a cult or a religion.

But let me reiterate my main point: we don't have the power to save or destroy the environment on a massive scale. We are a part of the system, not above it, not below it. We're in it. And as such, what we do can be undone by other forces in nature.

Kinda puts your place in the universe in perspective, doesn't it?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

one can be thankful that these idiots have removed the possibilty of reproduction, at any rate.

Lindqvist said...

Kinda puts your place in the universe in perspective, doesn't it?

Nope, “kinda” demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Funny how you admit you're incapable of understanding quantum mechanics, yet feel free to draw philosophical conclusions from one of the mathematical peculiarities it produces.

I think the real point is how much you love professing your belief in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.
It must be so proud of you!

TLindaman said...

Lindqvist said...
Kinda puts your place in the universe in perspective, doesn't it?

Nope, “kinda” demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Funny how you admit you're incapable of understanding quantum mechanics, yet feel free to draw philosophical conclusions from one of the mathematical peculiarities it produces.


Well, gee. You talk about how intellectually limited I am...while completely missing my point about how humans lack the ability to impact the Earth and the universe in any meaningful way.


I think the real point is how much you love professing your belief in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.
It must be so proud of you!

November 24, 2007 6:53:00 PM CST

Funny thing about that. Seems Albert Einstein believed in God, too. Are you smarter than he is?

Rachael said...

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! I've been saying this very same thing for years. People need to get over themselves.

Lindqvist said...

You are welcome to your beliefs. Just don't expect your silly logic or deceptive misinformation to go unchallenged.

Einstein talks about god:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)


"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."(Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)

"Religion is concerned with man's attitude towards nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with human mutual relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science." (Albert Einstein, 1948)


So by all means, please tell me again how Albert Einstein believes in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.

TLindaman said...

So by all means, please tell me again how Albert Einstein believes in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.

For one, there's his oft-quoted statement, "God does not play dice." Why would Einstein mention a God he didn't believe in?


Here's a link that should help you.

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm

But to quote it directly...

On the subject of Einstein and God Friedrich D├╝rrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." 2

Again, why would Einstein speak of a God he didn't believe in?

Furthermore...

Einstein regularly read the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike (which he continued to do throughout his life).

Why would Einstein read something he didn't believe in?

Want more?

He never lost his admiration for the fundamental ends and aspirations of the "Jewish-Christian religious tradition", and had no doubt of the significance of what he called those "superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation". 4

Gee. Certainly sounds like he believed in a God to me.

You're free to check out the URL I posted. It's full of more information on the subject than apparently you've researched.

Now, you were saying something about "silly logic" and "deceptive information" before you found a size 12 Nike lodged in your throat?

Oh, and by the way, I didn't mention God in my initial post. You read Him into it as a means to try to attack me. Instead of being an anti-Christian bigot, why don't you address the fact that mankind lacks the ability to impact the Earth that much?

Or would that ruin YOUR religious beliefs?

TLindaman said...

And before you get too high and mighty, let me post the following from the URL I posted in my previous response.


This is clearly reflected in an interview which Einstein later in life gave to an American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7


Consider yourself intellectually pimp-slapped. :-)

TLindaman said...

And while I'm here, I figured I'd post yet an Einstein quotation you should keep in mind.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Consider yourself warned. :-)

Lindqvist said...

"Consider yourself warned. :-)"
I consider myself vindicated. You responded with the same silly logic and deceptive misinformation I spoke of earlier.

But perhaps you do not know you are providing misinformation.

Please cite the source for the quote “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for supporting such views.”

Einstein specifically rejected the notion of the personal god. His pantheism is completely contrary to the very theistic concepts and stories in Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon literature. To believe that the man Jesus existed is not to believe he was the son of god or the messiah. Surely even you are not making such an illogical leap. Having an appreciation for Judeo-Christian religious traditions is in no way an acknowledgement of the dogmatic beliefs of those traditions.
But my favorite part of your rant was your claim that you “didn't mention God in my initial post. “

It is the epitome of silly logic for you to make such a claim after writing “And what better way to feed your ego while appearing to be environmentally conscious than to elevate yourself to the level of God?” in your initial post. I am quite looking forward to your inevitable semantic gymnastics.

You still have not provided any evidence that Einstein believed in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.

Your assertion that mankind can have no effect on the environment is not supported by evidence. Have you forgotten the devastation of Chernobyl or Bhopal? Or the depletion and subsequent recovery of the ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere? Because mankind is not the only source of climate change or because mankind does not have total control of climate change means that mankind can have no effect at all? More silly logic.

Believe all the dogma you want. Just don’t expect to be able to claim intellectual or logical support for it.

TLindaman said...

Lindqvist said...
"Consider yourself warned. :-)"
I consider myself vindicated. You responded with the same silly logic and deceptive misinformation I spoke of earlier.


Oh yes. Posting direct quotations from the man I said believed in God that, well, prove me right is "silly" and "deceptive" on my part. LOL


But perhaps you do not know you are providing misinformation.


I don't know that I'm providing misinformation...because I'm actually NOT. :-)


Please cite the source for the quote “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for supporting such views.”


I did. ALBERT EINSTEIN. LOL


Einstein specifically rejected the notion of the personal god. His pantheism is completely contrary to the very theistic concepts and stories in Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon literature. To believe that the man Jesus existed is not to believe he was the son of god or the messiah. Surely even you are not making such an illogical leap. Having an appreciation for Judeo-Christian religious traditions is in no way an acknowledgement of the dogmatic beliefs of those traditions.


Funny, but the URL I posted and the direct quotes from said URL from Einstein and others prove exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said. Why do you accept YOUR Einstein quotes, but reject mine? LOL


But my favorite part of your rant was your claim that you “didn't mention God in my initial post. “

It is the epitome of silly logic for you to make such a claim after writing “And what better way to feed your ego while appearing to be environmentally conscious than to elevate yourself to the level of God?” in your initial post. I am quite looking forward to your inevitable semantic gymnastics.


I stand corrected.

However, you're still avoiding the main point: that the environmentalists are trying to elevate themselves to the level of a deity by thinking that they can save the planet.

I'm awaiting YOUR response to that, and to the rest of my post in any significant manner. I will await your rhetorical gymnastics to explain away why you can't or won't discuss the main point of the blog post.


You still have not provided any evidence that Einstein believed in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god.


The URL I posted proves otherwise.


Your assertion that mankind can have no effect on the environment is not supported by evidence. Have you forgotten the devastation of Chernobyl or Bhopal? Or the depletion and subsequent recovery of the ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere? Because mankind is not the only source of climate change or because mankind does not have total control of climate change means that mankind can have no effect at all? More silly logic.


Apparently you haven't paid attention to events from after those events. Seems nature has done a pretty good job in cleaning up those areas, which proves that anything man can do, nature can undo.

Which, by the way, was the main point of my blog post, which you have still not addressed in any significant manner.

Your rant reminds me of the environmentalists from the 90s who fretted over the ozone hole getting bigger. Of course, they didn't mention or didn't know that the hole got bigger...and then shrunk closed later in the same year. And it kept doing it year after year.

How do you remind me of the ozone hole worriers? Because you're coming into a discussion half-cocked and uninformed. And you claim I'M the one resorting to misinformation? LOL


Believe all the dogma you want. Just don’t expect to be able to claim intellectual or logical support for it.


Against you, it was no trouble. I merely proved what I said, provided proof that you've provided nothing but logical falacies, angry lies, and uninformed rhetoric to support your irrelevant claims, and pointed out how you have failed to address the central point to my blog post.

Your hatred of Christianity has been noted, but it's hardly logical.

By the way, if you knew anything about religion, you'd know Jews and Christians pray to the same God, but Muslims don't. That can be proven by reading the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran and comparing the three. Of the three holy texts, only one allows for lying, killing, and enslaving of non-believers.

It's not the Torah.

It's not the Bible.

It's the Koran.

Thank you for underscoring your lack of knowledge on the very subject you claim to know as it pertains to Einstein and myself.

Lindqvist said...

Provide your evidence that Einstein said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I believe it to be a fake quote.

When did he say or write that? If you claim that is not misinformation, then you must be able to substantiate it.

TLindaman said...

Lindqvist said...
Provide your evidence that Einstein said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I believe it to be a fake quote.

When did he say or write that? If you claim that is not misinformation, then you must be able to substantiate it.

November 24, 2007 11:49:00 PM CST

It was recounted in Towards the Further Shore: An Autobiography. The origin of the quote is a statement Einstein made to Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein made around 1941. It was also quoted in Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer.

And the more you dig, the more you find that Einstein believed in God throughout his life.

Lindqvist said...

"It was also quoted in Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer."

Actually it is not. I personally own that book and checked it again last night.

You are being very slippery with your statements. You have still never provided anything to substantiate your claim that Einstein believed in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god. You cannot because he did not. It is humorous that you keep trying to use Einstein’s theological beliefs that were fundamentally contrary to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon belief in a personal god to support your own beliefs. Perhaps some day if your beliefs mature a bit you will be able to see the irony.

"By the way, if you knew anything about religion, you'd know Jews and Christians pray to the same God, but Muslims don't."

While I do not claim to know the peculiarities you claim for your personal Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god, the cast of characters in the Torah/Nevi’im/Kethuvim, the Old Testament, and the Koran are the same. While there are self-serving cultural and theological differences, the fact remains their origins are evolutionary and they all worship the same deity. But thanks for demonstrating harmful tribalism from the barbaric Bronze/Iron Age that Jews/Christians/Muslims/Mormons insist on perpetuating. But I am sure your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god is the very best one!

The fact that nature has adapted and compensated for the disasters in Chernobyl and Bhopal does not negate the fact that those environments were fundamentally changed by mankind. Therefore the basic premise of your initial posting is wrong. Mankind CAN change the environment, for the worse and for the better. And I see your understanding of the ozone-oxygen cycle is as cursory and misinformed as your understanding of Einstein’s theological beliefs. Scientists had understood the cycles and dynamics of ozone in our stratosphere for decades before discovering the damage done by CFCs. Scientists even measured the damage to the layer done my natural emissions such as volcanic eruptions and thus were able to quantify their minor contribution relative to man-made CFCs. Once again you have made the logical fallacy that since mankind is not the exclusive cause of variation it therefore cannot be the primary cause for variation. It is a mistake that happens when you draw the conclusion before evaluating the evidence. You are welcome to claim faith in beliefs contrary to reality. Just don’t expect to claim logic or reason in support of them without being corrected.

TLindaman said...

Lindqvist said...
"It was also quoted in Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer."

Actually it is not. I personally own that book and checked it again last night.


Actually, it was corroborated on two websites dealing with the same subject. Two attributes trump your "I think it was a fake quote" line...



You are being very slippery with your statements. You have still never provided anything to substantiate your claim that Einstein believed in your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god. You cannot because he did not. It is humorous that you keep trying to use Einstein’s theological beliefs that were fundamentally contrary to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon belief in a personal god to support your own beliefs. Perhaps some day if your beliefs mature a bit you will be able to see the irony.


Funny, but I posted a URL that contradicts your claim.

Looks like you're stuck ignoring those facts that don't correspond to your bias.

Checkmate.


"By the way, if you knew anything about religion, you'd know Jews and Christians pray to the same God, but Muslims don't."

While I do not claim to know the peculiarities you claim for your personal Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god, the cast of characters in the Torah/Nevi’im/Kethuvim, the Old Testament, and the Koran are the same.


Wrong. For one, Muslims don't recognize Jesus as the son of God and consider him to be a minor prophet.

On the other hand, Christians believe Jesus was the son of God.

Looks like you're wrong again.

Checkmate.


While there are self-serving cultural and theological differences, the fact remains their origins are evolutionary and they all worship the same deity.


See above. Also, see where the Koran states Christans and Jews are not "People of the Book" and, thus, are infidels.

Checkmate.


But thanks for demonstrating harmful tribalism from the barbaric Bronze/Iron Age that Jews/Christians/Muslims/Mormons insist on perpetuating. But I am sure your variant of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon god is the very best one!


See above.


The fact that nature has adapted and compensated for the disasters in Chernobyl and Bhopal does not negate the fact that those environments were fundamentally changed by mankind. Therefore the basic premise of your initial posting is wrong.


Wrong again. Let me quote what I said directly:

"But let me reiterate my main point: we don't have the power to save or destroy the environment on a massive scale. We are a part of the system, not above it, not below it. We're in it. And as such, what we do can be undone by other forces in nature."


By your very statement that nature has adapted to Chernobyl and the Bhopal accident, you've admitted I was right all along.

Checkmate.


Mankind CAN change the environment, for the worse and for the better. And I see your understanding of the ozone-oxygen cycle is as cursory and misinformed as your understanding of Einstein’s theological beliefs.
Scientists had understood the cycles and dynamics of ozone in our stratosphere for decades before discovering the damage done by CFCs. Scientists even measured the damage to the layer done my natural emissions such as volcanic eruptions and thus were able to quantify their minor contribution relative to man-made CFCs.


One tiny problem with your analysis. I said ENVIRONMENTALISTS lamented the ozone hole, not scientists. There's a difference, and not all environmentalists are scientists. Case in point: Al Gore.

If you're going to try to refute my points, do me the courtesy of not setting up straw men by twisting what I actually said.


Once again you have made the logical fallacy that since mankind is not the exclusive cause of variation it therefore cannot be the primary cause for variation. It is a mistake that happens when you draw the conclusion before evaluating the evidence. You are welcome to claim faith in beliefs contrary to reality. Just don’t expect to claim logic or reason in support of them without being corrected.


Funny, but I've seen you be guilty of the very thing you claim I have. And yet, you have not refuted my main point. Instead, your words underscore my point.


Also, I've noticed a distinct hostility towards Christians, and towards me. And all because I point out a simple truth that your faith can't explain away. Hating my faith and me for your lack of answers doesn't solve anything.

All it does it make you look more and more pathetic as you try to windmill punch your way out of a paper bag.

Lindqvist said...

Two websites trump the actual book you claimed to quote? Hilarious! What about all the websites that claim the quote is a fake? I guess when you base your life on a series of lies, adding one more to the heap is not a big deal.

It is amusing that you accuse me of anti-Christian bigotry while displaying anti-Islamic bigotry yourself. Your Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon deity must not be too happy with such hypocrisy—or is that encouraged in your particular sect? I see that you have quit claiming the Abrahamic religions do not worship the same god. Your slippery logic has shifted to claiming theological differences instead. And you accuse me of straw-man arguments? Priceless!

So your argument is that “environmentalists” fretted over the annual ozone-oxygen cycle and not the actual depletion caused by mankind that concerned the scientists? I see you abandoned the silly semantics justifying your misstatement that you didn’t mention “God” in your initial post for this silly argument. Another lie for the heap for you!

Maybe the hostility you feel is your conscience weighing down on you. It must be difficult for you to maintain an existence on a web of lies. You will do much better to stay away from scientific subjects. The precise and factual nature does not seem to mesh with your online disposition.


But alas I feel we have reached an impasse. Being a member of the reality-based community, there is only so much one can when you cling so strongly to myths and lies. Something about bringing a horse to water comes to mind. But I must say I do look forward to your final response. Since my children are grown, I must admit sometimes I miss watching their delightfully irrational tantrums

TLindaman said...

Lindqvist said...
Two websites trump the actual book you claimed to quote? Hilarious! What about all the websites that claim the quote is a fake? I guess when you base your life on a series of lies, adding one more to the heap is not a big deal.


Funny how you keep saying it's a lie, but we have nothing but your word on which to support your claim.


It is amusing that you accuse me of anti-Christian bigotry while displaying anti-Islamic bigotry yourself. Your Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Mormon deity must not be too happy with such hypocrisy—or is that encouraged in your particular sect? I see that you have quit claiming the Abrahamic religions do not worship the same god. Your slippery logic has shifted to claiming theological differences instead. And you accuse me of straw-man arguments? Priceless!


It's not bigotry if it's true. And everything I've said about Islam IS true.

And you're still dodging the main point.


So your argument is that “environmentalists” fretted over the annual ozone-oxygen cycle and not the actual depletion caused by mankind that concerned the scientists? I see you abandoned the silly semantics justifying your misstatement that you didn’t mention “God” in your initial post for this silly argument. Another lie for the heap for you!


Again, all you have to support your argument that I'm lying...is your word.

And I've already shown your words to be little more than anti-Christian lies.


Maybe the hostility you feel is your conscience weighing down on you. It must be difficult for you to maintain an existence on a web of lies. You will do much better to stay away from scientific subjects. The precise and factual nature does not seem to mesh with your online disposition.

Again, you can call me a liar all you want, but when push came to shove, I had facts on my side. And all you had was...your word.

Oh, and you might want to check back and tell me what I got wrong about what the cosmologists said.

Ah, but then you say this...


But alas I feel we have reached an impasse. Being a member of the reality-based community, there is only so much one can when you cling so strongly to myths and lies. Something about bringing a horse to water comes to mind. But I must say I do look forward to your final response. Since my children are grown, I must admit sometimes I miss watching their delightfully irrational tantrums


So, in other words, you mock my scientific knowledge without ever telling me exactly what I got wrong. Must be because you realized early on that you couldn't point out a single thing I got wrong, so you set up straw men arguments to hide that fact while focusing on minutia.

Is that how you "win" debates? I would hope not, but I'm sure the opponents who have bested you have been glad to watch you "win" debates in this manner because it guarantees them a victory.

Just as I've secured a victory over you now.

But I'm glad you came to the conclusion that we were at an impasse. That should save you tons more embarassment at a) being caught claiming quotes were absolute truth...until I posted quotes that countered your argument, b) dodging simple questions that someone as educated as you seem to think you are would have been able to answer without so much vitriol, c) avoid real facts that contradict your erroneous conclusions, d) use anti-Christian lies to make claims that aren't substantiated by the facts, e) claim moral and intellectual superiority when your argument is neither morally nor intellectually superior, and f) resort to condescending comments to prop yourself up instead of earning a real victory by debating honestly.

So, feel free to run off with your head held high, thinking you've vanquished another foe. Those who have read your rants have enjoyed a chuckle watching you flail away without hitting anything while being intellectually bludgeoned by facts, truth, and logic.

In short, and I think I'll have to do it to make sure you can understand it...

I win. You lose.

Thank you for playing. Here are some lovely parting gifts.

Come back when you have a REAL argument for a change.