The perils of civility

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

OPINION

The perils of civility

By Paul Rogat Loeb

SEATTLE

Imagine Martin Luther King Jr. proclaiming, "Let civility roll down like waters, and politeness like a mighty stream."

This, alas, would be how we'd remember King's speeches if they'd been written by our current Democratic senators.

It's been painful to watch the Democrats roll over and play dead for George W. Bush since his coronation. They don't seem to realize that they can stand firm without reenacting Newt Gingrich's scorched-earth destructiveness. They might do well to remember (or learn) some basic lessons of nonviolence: When facing a bully, you don't have to demonize. You can speak to your opponents' core humanity, and even at times work together. But you don't have to give your cooperation just because they tell you to do something. And you have to honestly challenge actions you oppose.

It may seem odd to compare our Senate millionaires to civil rights freedom riders, the massed citizens who brought down illegitimate governments in Serbia and the Philippines, or the Seattle protesters against the World Trade Organization. But if the next four years are going to bring anything but a continual rollback of gains that took decades to achieve, Democrats are going to have to learn to draw the line.

They don't have to go to jail. They don't have to sit in, block streets, or be beaten by police. Unlike the rest of us, they don't have to march, write letters, and organize to be heard, although the more they reach out to their engaged constituents, the stronger they will be. They merely have to use a power that they already have, the filibuster in the Senate, to stop any of Mr. Bush's actions that will damage our common future.

Why did the Democrats cave and refuse to block the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general? They wanted to be bipartisan and work together. They deferred to Bush's presidential prerogatives, and to the collegiality of the Senate.

Missouri Democrat Sen. Jean Carnahan had asked them not to filibuster, since Ashcroft didn't challenge her appointment to her dead husband's Senate seat. Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold refused even to vote against Ashcroft, because he needs colleagues across the aisle to pass campaign finance reform. They wanted their politics to be civil, not a permanent state of war.

Civility has its place, in politics and in general. But it's what Italian essayist Natalia Ginsburg has called a "little virtue," not a great one. As Mr. King made clear, civility must be subordinate to the larger goal of justice.

Learning from King, it's far better to spell out the destructiveness of Bush's policies than to call him "dumb." King respected the core humanity of even the worst segregationists, but held them responsible for their choices. It's both politically and morally wiser to focus on whether our leaders create a more or less equitable society than to create slash-and-burn campaigns against their character. But it's not a gratuitous personal attack, just being honest about Ashcroft's past, to point out that he blocked efforts to boost voter registration in inner-city St. Louis, blocked school desegregation until forced to back down by a judge, and gave a fawning interview to a neo-Confederate magazine, Southern Partisan.

Likewise, the Democrats have an obligation to point out that Bush's tax plan will overwhelmingly benefit that tiny minority of Americans who already control far more wealth than all the rest of us combined. Justice demands accountability.

Pleas for bipartisan collegiality don't excuse cooperation with truly dubious actions, especially since this is no normal presidency. Bush lost the popular vote, we need to remind ourselves, by 540,000 votes. He was handed a victory when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his cohorts abandoned their own long-proclaimed principles of states' rights to block the reexamination of contested and discarded ballots. When Justice Scalia cynically used the rhetoric of equal protection to hand Bush the victory, it mocked the thousands of African-American registered voters who talked of their ballots being tossed or of being turned away from the Florida polls.

The Democrats can bury this history, as they mostly have so far. Or they can use it to refute any notion that Bush has a mandate. Every time he talks about fulfilling his campaign promises, they can remind him, straightforwardly, that a majority of Americans rejected his path. But they need to do more than hold out their bowls, like Dickens's orphans pleading for gruel, hoping for a few morsels of bipartisan decency.

They might remember that social progress can roll backward as well as forward. And that the last election where the popular loser was enshrined, that of Rutherford B. Hayes, brought about nearly a century of racial subordination by ending Reconstruction and ushering in Jim Crow. In fact, the current Republican base is inseparable from the legacy of that retreat.

In the wake of his Ashcroft victory, Bush is now pushing a series of highly regressive proposals, from his tax cut to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He's already banned aid to international family planning agencies that even mention abortion. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's missile defense system risks a quarter century of arms treaties to give pork to Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Had the Democrats blocked Ashcroft, they'd have sent a signal that this presidency is different, that they will insist their concerns be heeded and respected, not just condescended to with sentimental rhetoric. They'd have made clear that certain reversals of justice will not be permitted, and that if Bush wants to make his mark on history, he must address the concerns of the majority of Americans who opposed him.

Instead, the Democrats face the next round of destructive proposals with less strength and momentum, having angered and frustrated their core supporters, and with the fundamental questions about Bush's legitimacy further buried.

Eventually, as the Republicans continue to push, I hope the Democrats will discover some lessons about nonviolent perseverance and finally block some of the most dangerous proposals - either by convincing a few moderate Republicans to cross over, or by using the filibuster. The sooner they can do this, the sooner they can begin to reclaim their power to head this country down wiser paths.

• Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of 'Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time' (St Martin's Press) Log on to www.soulofacitizen.org. http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/02/15/fp11s1-csm.shtml

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 22, 2001

Answers

No comment ;-D

-- (Netsc@pe 6.1), February 22, 2001.

Did I fix it that time?

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 22, 2001.

Dang, Cherri. I give up.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 22, 2001.



-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 22, 2001.

Now I get it, Bob. One must st-t-tu-tter to clear the tags.

/b - /b - /b /boy, that's a good lesson to learn!

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 22, 2001.



Since when was there any difference between a fat-cat Democrat Senator and a fat-cat Republican Senator. Do you really think that Ted Kennedy is going to do anything to lessen his family's enormous wealth in relation to the poor folks who clean his mansions? Be real for once. Either way they keep their money through tax dodges and trusts. Believing that Hillary Rodham cares anything about anyone but Hillary is just so much vomit spewed. The only difference between Dems and repubs is who they pander to, but I sicken of the drivel that dems have made life any better for minorities in the past 40 years. In the past 8 years of the Clinton administration the gap between rich and poor has widened. Open your eyes, rich dems have no more interest in seeing others do as well as them as rich repubs. Do you seriously think Barbara Streisand would ever want you to associate with? Cherri, you've got your head up your ass.

-- dems are for the poor and downtrodden, thats news (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 22, 2001.

Mr. Loeb feels civility is nifty, but secondary to forwarding the liberal political agenda. Unfortunately, Mr. Loeb has not learned that peppering his essay with liberal jargon and biased language is not conducive to civil discourse. The essence of civility is extending courtesy and respect to one's opponents. This end is not served by describing an alternative politic philosophy as "scorched earth" or "bullying." It is clearly baiting to refer to the recent presidential election as a "coronation." The examples are manyfold.

More unfortunately, Mr. Loeb lumps the activities of oppressed foreign citizens with with the Seattle protestors--a grouping not unlike pairing Holocaust victims with young anarchists unhappy about the lack of a good organic coffee at the corner store.

Mr. Loeb does not have sole ownership of the "common future." Equally entitled to this claim are the citizens who do not feel a collectivist government is a solution for every social problem. Equally entitled are those who reject the dogma of American political left. Equally entiteld are those who have been damaged by the "good intentions" of government.

Civility is not a "little virtue." Without civility, we have open warfare between political and social factions. We have a coarse, vulgar society that easily dismisses the value of considerate behavior. In short, we have essays like Mr. Loeb's that snap and bite at the reader because impolite behavior is "justified."

I may not share Mr. Loeb's notion of justice. I may not share his vision of an "equitable society." Personally, I'd like to know how exactly the collective and/or coercive power of government can create an equitable society. Whatever our differences, civility and restraint offer us the opportunity to at least disagree respectfully.

This is a difficult process when Mr. Loeb's langauge has an overtly moralistic tone. The tone of his essay makes certain that Mr. Loeb believes in his liberal doctine as fervently as any revival preacher believes in the Holy Bible. In my experience, civility is difficult when disagreeing with any "true believer."

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 22, 2001.


Cherri you are now and will always be a commie cunt.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), February 22, 2001.

Rah, rah, siss boom bah!

Senor Ortega, job well done. I'll be starting on one of your works tonight, BTW. Haven't decided which, yet.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 22, 2001.


The only question that matters is:

"are the Clintons better off now than they were eight years ago?"

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 22, 2001.



"Mr. Loeb believes in his liberal doctine as fervently as any revival preacher believes in the Holy Bible."

Jose, may we take it as read that you believe in neither?

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 22, 2001.


Liberalism aims to solve difficult social problems through collective action. I must observe many churches make this same effort. The church, at least in most nations, does not have the power to appropriate the property of its citizens. The government does.

When I contribute to a church or other charitable institution, I have the right, nay obligation, to consider their work and base my decision on this analysis. An institution that performs well garners not only my support, but the interest of other donors. In short, there is a direct relationship between the institution's performance and its support.

Unfortunately, this same linkage does not exist in government. Witness the tenacious existence of programs that have long outlived any reasonable semblance of utility. Nobly intended, many government initiatives fail, or even harm those they strive to help.

Liberalism, like Marxism, can sound quite compelling in theory, but tends to fail miserably in practice. Any civilized society will experiment with new policies to improve the lives of its citizens. When this experimentation is funded by involuntary taxation, I think the society bears a high burden of proof. Liberalism is high minded, but it has failed to prove effective as a governing philosophy.

As for my personal faith, that is not a matter for discussion here.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 22, 2001.


Jose, I have noticed that the preponderance of your political commentary makes clear what you think does not work in the way of governance. You are good at stating principles and standards and deploring how our current governments fall short in these departments when compared to what you believe would be best. Your stance seems very clear when negatively defined in this way.

I am curious to know whether you believe any nation or people in the history of the earth has ever been well governed, when judged by your principles and standards. Could you please consider whether, in your estimation, there is (or ever was) a practical example of what you think is fitting and proper in the way of government, or are you asking for something that has never yet existed, except in your imagination?

To be a bit clearer, I do not want a piecemeal answer, along the lines of "the freedom of thought of ancient Athens combined with the justice of the Roman Republic and the religious freedom of modern America." This simply evades the question. I am talking about the whole package - a good government.

If your answer is that there never has been a good government - that all are flawed - then wouldn't that put you in the company of people who inflate their own sense of personal granduer and worth, by finding fault in others?

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 23, 2001.


The short answer is, "no."

You were doing fairly well until the flawed logic and crude trap at the end.

First, one may be pessimistic about government and quite optimistic about the success of other human endeavors. One can observe the advance of science and technology, the increased recognition of basic human rights and the elimination of many totalitarian regimes. The success of capitalism and market economics ought not go unnoticed. These are "salad days," at least in the developed world. It would seem a personality is far more than one's attitude towards government.

Second, I recognize that some governments have done better than others. By comparative standards, the American constitutional republic seems far superior to theocracy/fuedal systems of Europe in the middle ages. Let us not forget, however, that this same noble American government allowed institutionalized slavery, committed genocide against the Native Americans, denied women the right to vote and allowed medical and radiation experimentation on unknowing citizens. Would you call a government that allowed (even mandated) such atrocities a "good" government? How does one define "good" anyway?

Third, your historical question is flawed. I note that alchemists (nor modern scientists) have yet to transmate lead into gold. Making this observation does not mean I have no faith in science. Nor do this mean I think transmutation will never work. It may... but it hasn't worked thus far. Of course, you may think this is just hyper- critical and I'm only criticizing alchemists and scientists to inflate my personal sense of grandeur.

Governance is difficult. Why? Because of the age old riddle of economics.... how does one satisfy unlimited demand with scarce resources? Since I am not an anarchist, I have concluded some level of government is necessary. The only way to fund the activities of government is to take them from somewhere, i.e. taxation. Taxation gives government the power (and resources) to attempt to shape society... to meet the unlimited demands of its citizens. Here begins the fool's errand.

I think there are realistic ways of improving government. For example, I think the American constitution could be rewritten to limit the power of federal government, to separate the power to tax from the power to spend, to broaden the individual liberties of citizens. It would be imperfect, no doubt. All governments are composed of people and people are inevitably fallible.

But I am not content to say any existing government is "good enough." The only way any government will evolve (and hopefully improve) is if citizens consider, contemplate and criticize. Of course, you are free to consider it a character flaw... and I am free to wish more citizen suffered from this particular defect in personality.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 23, 2001.


SOB:

I'll take a crack at this. Your question rests on a false assumtion -- that there are "good" governments and "bad" governments, that fall into these two distinct groups with nothing in between. And to answer your question as asked, we must accept this false assumption as given.

It seems pretty obvious that to place a government somewhere along the line with "best" at one end and "worst" at the other, you must first define the purpose of government itself. Historically, various purposes have been proposed. For example, to bring forth the greatest good for the greatest number. For another example, to extend God's kingdom to include life on earth. Another example is to oversee the withering away of the state and the eventual rule of the proletariat. And most common seems to be to preserve and augment the wealth and power of the most ruthless while the common people live in irrelevant poverty.

Pick any of these (or your own) definition, and you have a very different selection of "good" and "bad" governments.

The US government is designed essentially to produced the greatest good for the greatest number, *except* that a certain measure of protection be assured to all citizens. If you agree that this is the proper goal of government (and many don't) then and only then can we consider how well we are accomplishing this.

Jose is pointing out that to achieve this goal, we must make tradeoffs. Some things that are good for the large minority are really awful for a small minority. Is this worth it? Other things that are great boons for a minority are slightly burdensome for the majority. Is that worth it? Clearly, we can make decisions and take political directions that move us toward or away from our original goal. It's easily possible for a "good" government to get better, or to get worse without becoming "bad" in the process, just not as good as they used to be. What's not so simple is to agree on whether a given direction is better or worse.

Jose also points out that ultimately, it's the individual who must decide whether or not s/he is better off. Collective actions must necessarily be imposed on individuals for a government to function, but the individuals must have some means of stopping or changing collective actions that make their lives worse. By our current definition of "good", policies we can't seem to change when they fail move us in the wrong direction.

Liberalism as we have come to know it tends to lock us in to expensive policies that make bad trades -- some groups are paying for benefits nobody is receiving (except that the regulators themselves live very well indeed). The problem isn't the bad trades -- we can't make improvements if we are unwilling to experiment. The problem is the refusal to kill policies that don't work or that make things worse, either because we refuse to recognize failure when our *intent* was so noble, or because the vested interests a policy has created have become too powerful to cross.

So every government has flaws. The goal is to identify and correct those flaws, not to make them permanent institutions. Identifying flaws is hardly "finding fault in others to inflate personal grandeur". Don't be petty.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2001.



Jose and Flint,

I suppose what I am driving at is I think it is a false position to criticize others for not achieving what you could not achieve if your life depended on it.

"So every government has flaws. The goal is to identify and correct those flaws"

That sounds all fine and good. But you cannot correct flaws in government in the same way you might improve the flaws in a golf swing, by standing off to one side and telling the golfer to keep his elbows straight on the backswing. Correcting the flaws of government first requires participation, then compromise.

What I notice about you, Jose and Flint, is that you never place yourself in jeopardy of having to make any compromises whatsoever. Your positions are always uncompromising. And you always assume a position of superiority to the flaws you disapprove of, without acknowledging even slightly that those who are engaged in the process of writing laws, levying taxes and providing services are doing more good than you are.

I figure you can't accomplish much if you aren't willing to get your hands dirty. And it rankles me to have you (yes, the both of you) acting as if having such clean hands gives you a license to take on airs. You sound like worst sort of teachers, in the sense of "those who can, do, and those who can't teach."

Just get off your high horses and you'd be a lot more palatable, guys.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 23, 2001.


Oh, I could achieve change... but I doubt any civilized country is ready for me as philosopher-king.

In a constitutional republic, one cannot "achieve" a new government unilaterally. It requires the support of the populace. The only way to create such support is to raise awareness. Unlike Mr. Loeb's favored children, I am not willing to ransack the local Starbuck's. I prefer to engage in civil discourse and, on occasion, participate in politics and government. Of course, you are free to dismiss these facts in favor of your preconceived notions.

I do not agree that change requires compromise. If enough people can be convinced of a good idea, then change is possible without compromise... at least in a democratic system.

There are times when compromise is pragmatic and reasonable. I understand realpolitik. In a philosophical discussion, however, I feel no need to "cut a deal." If you can show me where my philosophy is flawed, you will have earned my respect. Thus far, you have only expressed your contempt for my person.

You criticize without having any direct knowledge of how Flint or I live our daily lives. You have no idea how "dirty" or "clean" our hands really are. Perhaps our criticism of liberalism and government is based on real life experience?

You are welcome to disagree. You are encouraged to present an alternative view. Perhaps you can convince Flint or I that liberalism is really quite effective and centralized government surprisingly efficient. I am always open to consideration of evidence or a well-crafted argument. So what will you bring to the table? A stirring defense of government and/or liberalism... or more baseless personal attacks?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 23, 2001.


SOB:

Jose and I are trying to discuss ideas pertinent to good government. Ideas seem foreign to you, you'd rather say we could not achieve anything if our lives depended on it, that lawmakers are doing more good than we are, that we won't compromise, that we assume a position of superiority, that we don't acknowledge those who are making laws, that we won't get our hands dirty, that we take on airs, that we sound like the worst sort of teachers, that we are on high horses, and that we are unpalatable!

Whew! That's an impressive list of ad hominum attacks made without addressing a single point we raised. Is this really where you wish to drag this discussion? Why? I'm interested in discussing good government. Write back when you are ready to join in. In the meantime, and in the interests of civility, I'll assume that you really do know something about government, but that you're instead posting a stream of personal attacks as a clever ploy to keep your knowledge a secret from everyone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2001.


Well, at least the two of you have made it pretty plain that you each believe that you have absolutely nothing to learn from me, and that I am such a poor grade of student as not to be worth your time.

One last question: when you guys look down, how many people do you see gathered at your feet, looking up eagerly for your next word of wisdom? I expect it isn't near as many as your hearts would desire. I'm too old for that kind of nonsense myself. Listen to an old man: get over yourselves. You may be better than some but there's no need to puff yourselves up so much.

Like Molly Ivins said in her last column, I have't seen so much pseudo-gravitas in a room since Henry Kissinger dined alone.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 23, 2001.


SOB:

What are we supposed to learn, when your last two posts contain *nothing* but personal attacks? We have tried to discuss government, but you don't bother. We have asked if you can do *anything* besides attack, and you respond with more attacks. We have raised numerous points, both logical and practical. You respond with attacks.

GOOD work, SOB. If you feel you have something constructive to offer, why continue to keep it such a secret? You have *earned* the attitude you see.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2001.


Whoa! Mr. Flint! If you feel so severely attacked, I must have whomped you pretty good is all I can say. Does Robert Redford feel all weepy when someone calls him butt-ugly? I doubt it. But maybe Joe Schmoe does.

But you are right about one thing, I did get personal. That's kosher in my book, if what I had to say was applicable to how you come across as a person. But, you are correct that whatever your personal shortcomings may be, it doesn't mean you draw wrong conclusions about what to feed tropical fish when they have moldy gills. But when you conclude you are Nature's fair-haired boy and can do no wrong - which how you come across, pardon the expression - you are just wrong as all get out on that particular head and need to be told so before you puff up so much you block out the sun and leave us little folk looking up at your heinie and wondering where the sunshine went to - because it does not shine out your ass, sir, no matter what you think.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 24, 2001.


SOB:

Your attacks don't bother me, but your inability or unwillingness to consider the topic under discussion does. The only aspect of government that seems to cross your mind is that those who understand it and discuss how it works offend you with their knowledge and their ability to put it in writing.

I reread this thread, and I'm not sure what you're referring to, although you keep saying it over and over. Can you select a single statement either I or Jose made about government, and find something to be said for or against it *on its own merits*, rather than simply attack us for saying it in a way you find offensive?

I write for adults. I'm not about to make my ideas simple-minded or reduce my language to match the lowest common denominator. Deal with it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 24, 2001.


- because it does not shine out your ass, sir, no matter what you think.

I am laughing so hard I can barely type.

No offense to any of you, but on a Sat morn (at work :-( I needed the laugh.

I admit I didnt read all of it to see if personal attacks were thrown around or not, but guys I gotta tell ya.....You do have me laughing this am.

Thanks :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 24, 2001.


It would have been much easier simply to take exception with Flint or me. If you do not like the "tone" of my writing, this is a fairly easy (and brief) criticism to make. The attacks on my experience, involvement in politics/government, personality, etc. are baseless. To make these sweeping judgements based on reading a few paragraphs of anyone's online scribblings is foolish.

You have yet to present anything resembling a reasonable critique or a counter-position. If Flint or I are badly misguided about government... please be so kind as to share with us the error of our ways. As I have said before, you will earn my respect with a thoughtful defense of liberalism... or a well-crafted criticism of my political philosophy. As Flint aptly notes, this is how adults discuss serious issues.

A serious discussion is not:

Flint: It is my opinion the government should limit its activities to essential public services that cannot be provided by the private sector.

SOB: Well, you suck!

At present, you are acting like the person who is accustomed to being the political "expert" in the neighborhood bar and is shocked anyone has the temerity to disagree with him. I know you don't like tone... now do you have anything of substance to say?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001.


"...you are acting like the person who is accustomed to being the political "expert" in the neighborhood bar and is shocked anyone has the temerity to disagree with him... now do you have anything of substance to say? "

LOL! Jose, that has got to be the most civil way anyone has ever told me his dick is longer than mine!

Sorry, ducks, but if you get to decide what has substance and what doesn't then this game is rigged. I know enough about poker not to call your bluff when you're the dealer and you own the deck.

Here are my rules. I say what I say. You pay attention or don't. I reply when I get around to it and sometimes not. You might have the biggest dick, but I say when mine comes out and when it stays in. OK?

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 24, 2001.


For future reference, it is much easier simply to answer, "No, I have nothing of substance to say." Feel free to add "to you" if this makes the retort palatable. This allows you to leave pride intact and me to avoid the unpleasant work of utterly deconstructing faulty logic and ad hominem attacks.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 24, 2001.

Is Decker aka Jose a dick, (not in the *good* sense) or what?

Decker is it your intention to harass people on line for the rest of your life? Is this how you find fulfillment?

If you didn't make me sick to my stomach I'd almost feel sorry for you.

-- ((Tired @ of this crabby arrogant .asshole)), February 25, 2001.


Call me whatever name pleases you... Richard to "Dick."

"SOB" is not unlike many in the Internet world who fail to understand a string of sentences does not a logical argument make. Failing to provide anything resembling a coherent position, he attacks his opponents tone or attitude or shoe size... perhaps hoping no will notice the paucity of his own thought.

Of course, there is always some observer who refuses to notice the fact a poster like "SOB" entered the discussion slinging personal insults. Rather than actually assist the attacker by providing a coherent argument, the observer has nothing to offer but catcalls.

"Dick": "The inherent desire of the capitalist to monopolize free markets forces government to take the role of countervailing power. Government must have at least enough power to preserve freedom in the marketplace, but no more."

SOB: "Well, you suck."

Tired: "Yeah, you really suck."

Impressive.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


Ken, my comment had nothing to do with SOB. It merely had to do with the state of your mind and life.

You have become increasingly irritable over the last year, chosing to post only to people you disagree with. If you chose to spend your life pissing people off on the internet that's your choice.

My post had nothing to do with SOB's remarks to you. I only asked: Decker is it your intention to harass people on line for the rest of your life? Is this how you find fulfillment?

I didn't say you suck - you did.

Perhaps you're right.

FWIW

-- (Tired @ of this crabby arrogant .asshole), February 25, 2001.


What was once a thoughtful thread has been overrun by those not capable of thought, and who substitute mindless resentment of those who are.

But this has been the typical fate of threads since I first discovered the pre-censored TB2K forum. Someone posts an idea, others begin to discuss it, and the trolls roll in and destroy it. The more thoughtful the ideas presented, the more virulent the jerks. Time to move on to a thread the vandals haven't trashed yet. Such is life on the net.

But in a strange way, this reflects the tension between government and the free market. Unreglated markets, like unmoderated fora, soon fall victim to the lowest common denominator, which is simply too low to sustain useful activity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.


Ah, another "do you only beat your wife on Sunday question."

"Disagree" and "harass" are two different verbs. I do not agree with the original essay on this thread. I explained this with no personal attacks directed towards Mr. Loeb or Cherri. "SOB" weighed in with some questions that poorly hid a crude logic trap. This was followed by a series of personal attacks about my experience, personality, etc. I have patiently waited for him (or her) to produce something more compelling than a string of unfounded accusations.

You make the same mistakes as SOB by assuming you can draw conclusions about my "state of mind and life" from a few Internet paragraphs. I can assure my life is far broader and more enjoyable than quibbling on the Internet though it is a decent way to pass the time while clothes are in the dryer.

To answer your question, I will continue disagree with flawed logic or sloppy thinking. The decision to become angry about this is not mine, but yours and anyone else who bothers to read my posts. Your anger is your problem, not mine. My "life and state of mind" are my concern, not yours. It is quite easy to scroll by anything written by me. Try it. It will save you the negative emotion of anger and me the tedious work of explaining this again and again. It will also save me asking you to extend the simple courtesy of addressing me by my name rather than who you think I might be.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


Senor Flint,

Well spoken. I am writing off-line trying to encapsulate my social and economic ideas into a more comprehensive work. Of interest lately is the dynamic of class in America. Europe has a long history of discussing the phenomena of class. America seems stuck on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A market economy inevitably produces inequalities in the distribution of income. The liberals gnash their teeth of this, but the more interesting phenomena is that of class. I wonder if issues like race and gender simply distract the poor from the larger issue of class? Any thoughts?

What was once a thoughtful thread has been overrun by those not capable of thought, and who substitute mindless resentment of those who are. But this has been the typical fate of threads since I first discovered the pre-censored TB2K forum. Someone posts an idea, others begin to discuss it, and the trolls roll in and destroy it. The more thoughtful the ideas presented, the more virulent the jerks. Time to move on to a thread the vandals haven't trashed yet. Such is life on the net.

But in a strange way, this reflects the tension between government and the free market. Unreglated markets, like unmoderated fora, soon fall victim to the lowest common denominator, which is simply too low to sustain useful activity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


Ah, so! You think we are all stupid, right?

Most of us know Jose is Ken Decker. It's easy to spot a one-trick pony. Besides, Flint also acknowledged you are Decker in an earlier thread.

Will you state for the record you are not?

I will say it once again, and hopefully you gentlemen won't get off- track this time...

My post has nothing to do with government, the economy, SOB or anyone else in this thread. I am only stating Ken Decker has become increasingly irrational and irritable over the last year. More so the last month!

Flint, I don't have to argue politics with an arrogant opinionated asshole like Ken to reduce this thead. Ken's impatient irritable comments to SOB already reduced this thead to dust.

-- (Tired @ of crabby arrogant .Decker), February 25, 2001.


I do not know if you are stupid. How much can anyone know about another anonymous heckler on the Internet like you? Flint has guessed I am really Senor Decker, but this was simply a guess. Obviously, he and you have no way of determining if my name is Jose, Dick or Jane. Perhaps when you are inclined to post your real, verifiable personal information on the forum, others will be inclined to join you. I will wait patiently.

By the way, if literacy and logic are my "one trick" pony... I am delighted to have such a steed.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


Tired:

So just skip the posts you don't like, and go on to the next. Why risk straining your back reaching to bite the ankles of those willing to talk about ideas rather than doing nothing but initiating childish attacks? Why not insult SOB instead? He seems to love that sort of thing.

Jose:

My initial reaction is that the concern about class in the US is overrated. There is simply too much social mobility, in all economic cohorts. The "poor" have something like a 50% turnover rate of individuals each year, and over 90% in a 5 year period. The rich are at least as volatile internally. The dot-com craze created thousands of millionaires one year, and impoverished most of them the next. Even old money isn't immune -- I see that another of the Kennedy clan disgraced himself recently.

But as important as the stability of membership in a "class" is the perception of class. And I don't think that's there either. Relatively few people consider themselves either doomed to poverty unto the Nth generation, or blessed with untouchable riches. There is a regression force toward the mean, so that remaining either very poor or very rich requires constant effort and maintenance.

So while we have, as a national policy, been trying desperately to subsidize poverty and erect barriers to escape it, we have succeeded only in keeping the membership in that group high, and NOT in keeping the same members trapped. Even a concerted national effort to penalize success and use the proceeds to reward failure seems to run counter to the human spirit, and the entitlement programs' most unambiguous success applies only to those who administer them.

So while it's safe to look down on those below you as being a lower order of being, this attitude is most safely applied to a category and not to real people. Next year, one of them might be your boss.

I've seen class-oriented arguments made, but they always strike me that the definition of "class" is flexible enough to encompass whatever bothers the author this week.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.


You only wish logic were your steed. You have lost many arguments on the Lusenet fora, you are just to arrogant and deluded to concede the fact. The fact is; it is your habit to ditch the conversation when you're losing or twist what others have said.

We don't have to *guess* you're Decker. We know it.

I ask once again: Do you deny you're Ken Decker?

(I noticed you used your usual slippery tactic in you last post to evade the question.)

I'm going to tie you down on this one, Jose...

Are you Ken Decker?

-- (Tired @ of crabby arrogant .Decker), February 25, 2001.


To ask my identity while standing in the shadows is cowardly and hypocritical. Who are you to demand my identity? What authority do you have here? Why should I show the least interest in satisfying the idle curiousity of a person who has already leaped to conclusion after conclusion? You will believe what you will regardless of what I say.

It is the secret policeman's game, isn't it. You ask the writer if he is a communist. When he refuses to answer or sign a loyalty oath, he is convicted. You ask the woman if she is a witch. When she refuses to answer, she is burned at the stake.

I think I know you, Javert. Pardon me, Lady Javert.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


You think it's only women who find you objectionable?

-- R. L. (Tired@ of this arrogant .asshole), February 25, 2001.

"R.L."? Hmmmm, that must be a clue. "Retardo Laura"?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 25, 2001.

No, I'd say it's only people whose inferiority complexes derive from the fact that they really *are* inferior.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.

RL.... Russ Lipton (AKA "Big Dog")? Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was. Whoever this "Miserable SOB"/"Tired of crabby..." is, his/her style stinks of the same ad hominum tactics so often resorted to by those who found themselves in a whole when debating Y2k with Flint or Ken Decker.

Gasp - Can our man of the thousand page resume be far behind!?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.comk), February 25, 2001.


Senors y senoras,

If I may assist, you must look for clues in the writing. The author "Tired" uses the asterisk as a quotation mark. This is unusual in both Spanish and English, but a habit in some person's writings. Also note the use of profanity.

The nature of the attacks are personal, even bitter. This suggests a deep dislike of Senor Decker. "Tired" makes big statements about "state of mind and life." This language may be familiar to long-term forum readers. I shall offer you a clue, the psychological phenomena of projection. Is not it true that those with an unhappy life and unstable state of mind often accuse others of possessing the same?

Moving onward, "internet" is not capitalized, a small clue but one worthy of notice. The choice of the word "harass" is quite interesting, but we will discuss this later.

The author "Tired" is quickly defensive suspecting an allegation of stupidity when one has not been made. Paranoid, perhaps? The reference to Flint calling Gasset "Decker" suggest "Tired" is a careful reader of this forum. Who else would notice and remember such a small thing?

The other possibility is that "Tired" is actively perusing the forum hoping this Senor Decker will leave some clue. Why? I witnessed his departure. Perhaps this same person who bothered Senor Decker is still lurking.

"Tired" says Decker has became more irrational and irritable over the last year. From my contacts in the Bureau of Y2K, Decker was a pollyanna. Pollyannas were generally despised during 1999 and most of 2000 until the Time Bomb 2000 forum split.

What does this suggest? At one point, "Tired" found Decker's writings at least tolerable. This would point to a Y2K pollyanna or sympathizer who had become disenchanted with Senor Decker since January 1, 2000... or perhaps someone with a personal grudge.

Who would know Senor Decker had lost many arguments on the "Lusenet fora." Who in the hell calls this place a "Lusenet" anything? And how many people use the plural fora rather than forums? Intriguing.

Why is the identity of Gasset important to this person? What is the motive? Perhaps the murderer is in this room right now?

[THE LIGHTS GO OUT]

-- Detective Sargent Juan Valdez (juan_valdez@notmail.com), February 25, 2001.


"ad hominum tactics"

Let me get something straight. An ad hominem attack seeks to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. It is a logical fallacy and rightly despised.

But what I had to say to Jose and Flint had nothing to do with seeking to say they were wrong, right or inside out. I just thought they came off as pompous, arrogant, stuffed-shirt know-it-alls. I don't like being condescended to. Never have liked it. Don't have to put up with it.

They could be right. They might be giants. They might have degrees and titles hanging off the end of their names like toilet paper stuck on the heel of their shoe. They could have Nobel prizes for all I care.

It comes down to this: when you condescend to people, you get their dander up. Those two can spend the rest of their lives being right, but if they keep acting as smug as the cat that ate the canary, then they're going to be right and mighty lonesome.

That isn't not an ad hominem fallacy, CD. It's just a plain old garden variety poke in the snoot. They were asking for one. I obliged. Now they can talk back and forth to each other and be right as hell for as long as they feel like it.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 25, 2001.


Jose, you said "You ask the writer if he is a communist. When he refuses to answer or sign a loyalty oath, he is convicted. You ask the woman if she is a witch. When she refuses to answer, she is burned at the stake."

Tired didn't ask you if you were a communist or a witch. He only asked you if you were Ken Decker. This question has been asked by other forum members in the past and I thought of asking also. Would you please answer the question? There are some of us here who would like to talk to Ken and KNOW we are talking to Ken.

-- (Just wondering @bout.it), February 25, 2001.


[An ad hominem attack seeks to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. It is a logical fallacy and rightly despised. But what I had to say to Jose and Flint had nothing to do with seeking to say they were wrong, right or inside out. I just thought they came off as pompous, arrogant, stuffed-shirt know-it-alls...That isn't not an ad hominem fallacy]

Ah, I understand now. You weren't guilty of an ad hominem fallacy because you weren't trying to discredit the message. You didn't even show any signs of *understanding* the message. You just resent capable people, and want to poke them in the snoot on general principles. Problem is, you keep poking yourself.

CD, you might be right, but I wonder. Big Dog at least tried to discuss issues. Do you suppose the (thoroughly exercised) power to censor away ALL disagreement has atrophied his mind to this extreme state of intellectual squalor? Now, the best he can do is defend his own pettiness on the grounds that he doesn't *intend* more than pettiness. Sheesh.

What a wonderful illustration of the Gresham's Law of Internet Discussion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2001.


Interesting that a discussion on the perils of civility has degenerated into name calling and witch-hunting.

Flint,

I understand your point in regard to the lowest common denominator and unregulated markets. And even though this market is messy from time to time I intend to leave it highly unregulated. I still believe that people can choose to ignore the trolls and boorish posters if they wish to do so, and al-d and Manny have as much right (in my mind) to post here as you and senor Gasset.

And now, to complete the devolution of this thread, I will mention....

Hitler.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 25, 2001.


Ah, the beauty of clean laundry.

SOB,

The (apparently rhetorical) questions you posed about government suggested you might have some thoughts on the issue. Apparently, you do not. Not liking Flint or me as nothing to do with the relative merits of centralized versus decentralized government. In the future, I recommend you simply insult us without the pretense caring about the subject we're discussing. Perhaps biting satire, and an obscure literary reference is always appreciated.

In the thinking world, it all comes down to this--tone is secondary to content. You are welcome to spend your life in the company of polite and lovable idiots. They will undoubtedly agree with your every idea without hesitation. You will be cherished and never lonely. I suggest a large house with no sharp objects and cable television--the premium package with all the movie channels. I promise not to visit, if you will only promise the same.

Just,

In ther vernacular of slang English, "What part of 'no' don't you understand." I refuse to honor any request for information from an anonymous Internet poster. After you post your personal data, I will give serious consideration to posting mine... though I make no promises.

Flint,

Gresham's Law? How droll. Bravo.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (jose_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 25, 2001.


Amazingly, I've read this entire thread and yet my self-esteem remains in tact. Somehow I missed - or dismissed - the condescending tones and moved straight to the heart of the points Senor Ortega and Flint have so eloquently penned.

If there were a black belt awarded for achievement in the art of shadow-boxing, you two would have earned it long ago.

Anons, grow some balls. Tossing rocks from under cover is sissy behavior. We've been over this again and again. Personal squabbles are best worked out via email. Of course, this requires the parties involved actually provide legitimate email addresses. Last time I checked the NOAAH web site, Hell's weather forecast did not call for freezing temperatures any time soon.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 25, 2001.


Jose said: "Civility is not a "little virtue." Without civility, we have open warfare between political and social factions. We have a coarse, vulgar society that easily dismisses the value of considerate behavior."

Jose said: "In the thinking world, it all comes down to this--tone is secondary to content."

F*ck a d*ck, Jose! Which the hell one is it? An uncivil tone leads to a coarse society and we sure as damn well better all keep a civil tongue in our head? Or, in a thinking society tone is secondary to content?

I would love to see you reconcile these two quotes from your own pen. Since you are so big on principles, I'd especially like to see you reduce "nyah, nyah, you started it first" to some grand principle. Of course, you couldn't just be making it up as you go along like the rest of us, could you? No, you are a philosopher. You are above me, oops, I mean above all that.

God knows, your intellectual pecker is so huge that you will be able to reconcile these two quotes under some rubric. I am just settling in with some popcorn to watch you do it.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 26, 2001.


It is good to see you are attempting to think about my writing. I suggest "Nicomachean Ethics" as helpful background to my explanation.

Civility is a virtue. So is truth. The two need not be mutually exclusive. As noted by Aristotle, however, there are situations where one virtue must be chosen over another. In this taxonomy of virtues, there is a distinct hierarchy.

Imagine you are in a hospital waiting room. A loved one has just undergone surgery to extract a lump. This may be a benign cyst or a malignant tumor. The nurse approaches you and says:

"There are two doctors available. Dr. Philip Stein and Dr. Linda Simpatico. Dr. Stein is cold, arrogant and abrasive, but he has the test results. Dr. Simpatico is warm, kind and gentle, but she knows nothing about the surgery. With whom would you like to speak?"

In a perfect world, Dr. Stein would be saintly. Since we live in an imperfect world, I would disregard his incivility in pursuit of knowledge. Does this mean I approve of boorish behavior? No. It suggests the virtue of truth or pursuit knowledge may greater than the virtue of civility.

This does not mean one should dismiss civility to simply pursue a particular political agenda as Mr. Loeb suggests. It would be another matter entirely if he argued we may need to tolerate (or attempt) uncivil behavior to learn the truth about the effectiveness of liberal social policies.

Truth is the bedrock of all Aristotelean virtues. Without truth, we cannot know justice, beauty, courage, temperance.... Of course, I welcome a counter-argument rejecting this natural law ethical philosophy or even suggesting an alternative hierarchy of virtues.

The real point, however, is that my philosophy is internally consistent. If given a choice between a society built upon vulgar behavior and one built upon lies... I will choose the former over the the latter. And I will continue working for a society, and a forum, that is both honest and civil.

Why do I tolerate your coarse behavior, your profanity and obsessive references to my genitals? There is a greater virtue involved. You may eventually overcome your inherent dislike of me and learn something. Even better, you may start thinking and writing about issues and I might learn something. Like Faust, I would converse the Devil himself if it might grant me some insight.

Enjoy the popcorn.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 26, 2001.


Don't hold your breath for Decker the Pecker, SOB.

[THE LIGHTS COME UP AS THE SUN RISES SLOWLY OVER THE MOOR]

Enter: Iago

Decker, your complexion is like leather, like my shoe, your face nothing like so clean kept, for why, you sweat, a man may go over shoes in the grime of it

You are from head to foot as you are from hip to hip, you are spherical, like a globe, I could find entire animals in you

You are deformed, crooked, old and sere, ill faced, worse bodied, shapeless everywhere, vicious, ungentle, foolish, blun

-- Iago (Iago@y .Brabantio), February 26, 2001.


I prefer literary insults from those who have actually read Shakespeare... not those who simply use an insult search engine. By the way, "The Comedy of Errors" is low end Shakespeare. Try the Histories for a better class of insult (and writing). "Henry the IV, Part 1" and "Henry IV, Part 2," are personal favorites.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 26, 2001.

I see a good amendment of life in thee, from praying to purse taking

There is neither honesty, manhood or good fellowship in thee.

Commotion, ye fat guts

Decker sweats to death and lards the lean earth as he walks along

Why, thou clay brained guts, thou knotty pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow catch

What a slave art thou to hack thy sword as thou hast done, and then say it was right

d2fA

If thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my post

-- Iago (Iago@y .Brabantio), February 26, 2001.


Per your request, Part II:

Sit there, you lyingest knave in Christendom

Small curs are not regarded when they grin

Decker's red sparkling eyes blab his hearts malice, and Hampstead's cloudy brew his stormy hate

You put sharp weapons in a madmans hands

Base man, thy words are blunt, and so art thou

Decker's breath stinks with eating toasted cheese

-- (Iago@ cutting.you down to size), February 26, 2001.


Perhaps I did not explain. There is a difference between cutting and pasting from an Internet insult web site and reading some of the greatest literature in the history of western civilization. The insults would mean so much more if I sensed you actually understood the quotes you are diligently reproducing. An insult is best woven into the fabric of prose, invisible to its wearer but apparent to all others. (Name the Shakespearean allusion in the last sentence for extra credit.)

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 26, 2001.

Loeb: "When facing a bully, you don't have to demonize. You can speak to your opponents' core humanity, and even at times work together. But you don't have to give your cooperation just because they tell you to do something. And you have to honestly challenge actions you oppose."

JOyG: "This does not mean one should dismiss civility to simply pursue a particular political agenda as Mr. Loeb suggests."

Loeb: "Civility has its place, in politics and in general. But it's what Italian essayist Natalia Ginsburg has called a 'little virtue,' not a great one."

JOyG: "Civility is not a 'little virtue'."

JOyG: "Civility is a virtue. So is truth. ... there are situations where one virtue must be chosen over another. In this taxonomy of virtues, there is a distinct hierarchy."

JOyG: "The real point, however, is that my philosophy is internally consistent."

JOyG: "I know you don't like tone... now do you have anything of substance to say?"

JOyG: "The essence of civility is extending courtesy and respect to one's opponents."

JOyG: "...young anarchists unhappy about the lack of a good organic coffee at the corner store."

JOyG: "I will continue working for a society, and a forum, that is both honest and civil."

JOyG: "I do not agree with the original essay on this thread. I explained this with no personal attacks directed towards Mr. Loeb"

Loeb: "It may seem odd to compare our Senate millionaires to ... the Seattle protesters against the World Trade Organization."

JOyG: "Unlike Mr. Loeb's favored children, I am not willing to ransack the local Starbuck's."

JOyG: "The tone of his essay makes certain that Mr. Loeb believes in his liberal doctine as fervently as any revival preacher believes in the Holy Bible. In my experience, civility is difficult when disagreeing with any 'true believer.'"

JOyG: "Truth is the bedrock of all Aristotelean virtues. Without truth, we cannot know justice, beauty, courage, temperance...."

I must agree with that last sentiment, Jose.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 26, 2001.


You have demonstrated the ability to cut (and paste) trees. Next comes the forest. Mr. Loeb and I agree that there are greater virtues than civility. For me, it is the truth. For Loeb, it is the political agenda of Democratic party. The rest is window dressing.

As to civility here, I have shown restraint in responding to your heckling. By your own admission, your intent was not to engage in a conversation, but to "poke me in the snoot." I have tried to explain a philosophical position and you have spent considerable effort speculating about the size of my "intellect." I am content to let those observers like Rich draw their own conclusions.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 26, 2001.


Your inability to recognize the truth in regards to those "quotes" from Shakespeare is amazing. They all fit you to a "T".

The only reason one person here (Richie) has come to your defense is because he has the hots for you. In the honor of your union, I wrote you this poem:

Kenney and Ritchie sittin' in a tree,
k-i-s-s-i-n-g.
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes Richie with a baby carriage. %3/freE


-- (u@s.s), February 26, 2001.

Pecker,

I grow weary talking to you. There is no point in continuing this silly game because...well, frankly, you are too dense to recognize that no one here cares about you except your *boy*toys.

I'm going to sign off now because talking to a 350 lb. man who reeks of curdled milk is not my idea of fun.

Peace be with you.

-- (Tired@of this crabby arrogant .asshole), February 26, 2001.


OK, I too shall "come to the defense" of Senor Gasset. Not because I have the "hots" for him (he's much too burly for me) but because despite his acidic posting style I have always found his ideas to be right on. Well, with the exemption of his his ideas regarding a national sales tax proposal, but other than that he has consistently posted thoughts that I find myself agreeing with, including those posted here regarding governance.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 26, 2001.

I'm sure your matchmaking talents are much in demand, anon. In my case your efforts are for naught. Although I find the Spanish to be a beautiful, differentiated people, Senor Ortega doesn't have what it takes to make my merry-go-round, go around.

Now if you have a line on a senorita quien es muy bonita...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 27, 2001.


It seems poetry (like Shakespeare) is not adequately taught in the American schools. I think the most beautiful poetry is written in Spanish, but I am biased in this matter.

To the hapless and bitter Javert, you have my leave. Perhaps time (and some therapy) will heal your self-inflicted wounds. The bile and bitterness harm only you. Let them go.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 27, 2001.


Rich, you haven't figured out who the guy who keeps "pestering" on this thread? It's doc. But doc wants to stay anonymous because he knows Jose will shred him. Doc can do nothing more than taunt and snicker behind the comfort of anonymity.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 27, 2001.

Maria, I don't spend time trying to figure out who any given anon might be. I can't imagine someone like doc posting anonymously. No one with self respect attacks posters anonymously. From what I know of doc, I would be shocked if he were to do this. I'd be interested in reading why you suspect doc of such cowardly activity. My email is real.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 27, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ