Charles Lester

You funny!

Who? The criminal or society? A length of rope and a chair is all that is required for one option. I hate the idea of paying to house someone I detest the idea of, in order to let him off hard. Kill him and tax me less. Kill all criminals who harm other people through fraud or force. Because we can't trust them, and some might escape. Kill them. If they are dead, their responses are moot.

How does a theist cope with being a permanent paraplegic? The same way an atheist does. The same is true in regards to the loss of someone most cherished and loved. He will either 1). Accept the reality, and move on; or, 2). Commit suicide (quickly or slowly). Theists "confuse" themselves by choosing to believe that they will one day get to see the person again, but this is merely a rationalization that helps them take option 1. Then, perhaps you will pick option 2. I would like to hear your reasons for concluding that it was emotion that led man to create religion. I disagree. Man's mind is programmed to try and make order out of things. A conclusively non-emotional example of this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision) . Not quite human--hominids (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon) invented religion--out of their need to have order--and passed it on to us, who are almost done with it all together... at least those of us furthest away from our lowly ancestors. Good question. Think of it this way. If someone were to blow 190 proof alcohol at you while holding a match in front of their mouth, you would instantly feel fear, and recoil as the ball of fire hurls towards your face. The emotional response--fear--tells you nothing. It is a response to what you have already learned: Fire burns, and burns hurt really bad. The emotion told you nothing; your eyes and sense of touch did. In fact, emotional response is dependent on value judgements. Pick any emotion, and the same will apply. The realm of ideas provides a murky zone, where people's value judgements can be detrimental to themselves. Such a person may value a big butt, and taught huge breasts as most valuable to him, and have little to no value on character, honesty, integrity, etc., when assessing a woman; and, might fall in love with someone who is not a rational choice. But the fact remains, that the emotion tells the man nothing about what is good or bad for him, it is a response to his value judgements. What is key is to put reason first, then our emotions are not problems for us, but then (as with fire, drowning, falling, etc.) are always our allies. You do so already. When you break your leg, do you try and heal yourself with faith? Just add consistency, and decide to stop "faking the faith" is all you have left to do. What you are really asking is: is it ok for me to fake like I believe in "god" sometimes still? As I said already: Put reason first, and you emotions will follow.

No you didn't. You unknowingly participated in a fraud; you were part of a crime. Get it? There is no similarity in buying a record, where the record plays the songs that you expected, and buying into a cascading fraud... Sad that you would still try and argue in such a way, but your choices about who you want to be are yours to make. Dood, are you really this confused? Someone who sincerely buys into intelligent design, palm reading, fortune telling, etc., are all ripped off, and will learn this invariably. Those who are not what I would classify as "serious," are ones who are not buying the stated "product," but are buying assistance in their various evasions. The bottom line here is that someone who hears a song on the radio, hears the actual song, and knows full well what they are receiving, and if the song gives them positive inspiration or positive feelings, then the money was well spent. There is no similarity in your analogies again. This analogy is not as bad; however, it still fails. In order to properly evaluate Obama, one has to ask: Does Obama promote or sabotage freedom; and is he qualified to be an executive responsible for upholding the rights to freedom of his posterity? Such an evaluation would conclude that Obama is indeed a piss-poor president, and, now perhaps your analogy with Madoff would be more appropriate. Now in regards to Michael Jackson, one has to first see that his work lies within the context of esthetics, and should be judged as such. In regards to esthetic appraisals, I quote my girl Ayn: "The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life" Unless you try and do what christians do when confronted with a scripture they don't like, you have to concede. In John Gault's name, Amen!

No, and no. The analogy is a bad one. You should acknowledge your mistake, and think up another one. It's a small person who can't admit when they are wrong, and it only serves to reinforce erroneous "thinking" on their part. Make the choice for yourself. I am done with the matter; it is evident that you were wrong to draw such a comparison. "When people refuse to consider the source of wealth, what they refuse to recognize is the fact that wealth is the product of man’s intellect, of his creative ability, fully as much as is art, science, philosophy or any other human value." - Ayn Rand.

I "got" your joke. It was just lame. Your sense of "irony" is a bit skewed, and lacking necessary relevance. Cry baby! Don't start things that you aren't man enough to take when they come back your way!

You said--among other things--initially, "Consider bernie Madof(sp?) he got people to invest billions on his scam. Did that popularity and huge monetary value made the Madof scam a good investment?" <-- This statement established the criteria for evaluation, and the context in which my response was directed. As such, my statement, "In short, unlike Madoff, Michael delivered what he promised. There were no protesters at the memorial service with signs that read, 'Michael robbed us!'(un-redacted version)" is not irrelevant in any way. You can't establish a context and criteria of evaluation through an analogy, and claim lack of relevance, when someone points out the flaws in your analogy. My statement--"Now, to address the "spirit" of your argument, I will state again in Ayn Rand's words: Value is a function of, to whom, and for what. An objective measurement of value that encompasses these two variables is $."--carefully uses the term: value. Changing my words is likened unto creating a straw-man. Boy, where did you guys learn philosophy? I am not measuring "popularity," I am measuring value of Michael Jackson's art, to some people, for some purposes, as expressed by $!

Here's another: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

QuoVadis is right; cranky day be damned! Every generation needs a new revolution. Thomas Jefferson Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. Thomas Jefferson

Valid argument, but not sound. Madoff or whatever the spelling of this crook's name is, was just that: a criminal; one who's crime was fraud even. Michael Jackson sold music, performances, music videos, etc., and was not like Milli Vanilli. He did write his music. It was him dancing, etc.. In short, unlike Madoff, Michael delivered what he promised. There were no protesters at the memorial service with signs that read, "Michael robbed us!" Now, to address the "spirit" of your argument, I will state again in Ayn Rand's words: Value is a function of, to whom, and for what. An objective measurement of value that encompasses these two variables is $.

Dummy, for the last time: I am not arguing Michael Jackson's music as a "stand alone," but, I am arguing Michael Jackson's performance (videos, dance, music, acting, directing, etc., i.e. his creative process) as noteworthy--world class even--art. The entirety, not a simple component which you insist on reducing his art to being, oh silly small man of limited scope. I say that dry, subjective, bigoted, evasive, reductive, slanderous, and down right dumb commentary is worse, my dry, subjective, bigoted, evasive, reductive, slanderous--dumb--friend. Be embarrassed for yourself! You are the one reduced to misrepresentations, context dropping, outright evasion, and dogma, in order to rationalize your bigoted "opinion." As for your categorization of my discourse as "Urban vernacular:" humbug! Ask your mama, she probably knows far more about "urban vernacular" than you do--if you get my meaning. When did I offer a "black perspective," or tell you what "black people" think? In fact, the vast majority of what I have written, have been questions of your "reasoning," albeit, under the bad assumption that you are capable of such a feat. Sonny, your preoccupation with racial categorizations are starting to give a huge clue as to the real "reasons" expressed in your biased views towards Michael Jackson. Just sayin'. Here you go again with that "heritage" stuff, and then following with remarks about how I should "act" as a human being. Just thought I'd mention that before I discussed how this sentence makes absolutely no sense! I should not "go in and out of irritating people that you can't talk to"? Well, what if I know the person, but you don't? What if I am next to the person, and you are a thousand miles away without a phone? Do you see how retarded you sound? You probably need to concentrate more on your grammar, as you already conceded the spelling of English to me! Again, just sayin'. I guess that this is your attempt at non-"ethnic vernacular" humor? You failed.

Since you accused me of "idiocy," I will drop some of my tact as well. I am not as you assert trying to change your silly opinion on the matter; I have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so; I don't admire you; nor, am I trying to sell you my Michael Jackson record collection. Belay your delusions of grandeur! Once again (hopefully you can understand this time), you said, "I'm sure he was great in concert, but we're discussing the albums-people did not buy videos of him dancing, they bought the albums." Then, I said, "EXACTLY! Who are you to say that someone listening to a Jackson song in his car, but envisioning Michael's performance of the song whilst listening, is not in appreciation of great art?" If you had sufficient intelligence, you would easily see that your statement--once again--is bigoted, and dogmatic. You declare: "People bought Michael Jackson albums; so, regardless of their reasons why, I will play god, and declare that their reasons for buying MJ's music for themselves are invalid. They should have judged his music by my standards, which would have been: music alone!" You are a silly, small man. Admittedly, by my standards. Money IS an objective standard by which something's value can be judged. Under a capitalist system, money accumulated by someone, in exchange for the products of their mind, is an undeniable testament of how valuable his product was, to the people who purchased it. It is "quality music" to the 750 MILLION people who bought it... objectively speaking. “Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it. “Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? - Ayn Rand Silly child. No I didn't! I have tried to believe that your past misrepresentation of my statements was due to error, but you do it too often. You are either 1). A pathological liar, or 2). Too dumb to have a discussion with. I said: Slanderous twit--as if you didn't already know--I suggest in my statement, that your insistence that Michael Jackson should be judged as an artist for only his music is irrational. People who bought his recordings were buying more than music was my point; and, the mention of how many people who bought more than the music, was only a "cherry" on top of the argument! Your mama don't understand music. Twit.

And what is this "marketing campaign" selling? Is it selling more selling, of, more selling, of even more selling? Are you serious? I suggest this url for your consideration, and offer that perhaps you have a bias against the man, and are not being honest in your critique. Michael's music was "pretty," and most expressive. Simplicity is not shameful in art: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unzjah4gm-8 EXACTLY! Who are you to say that someone listening to a Jackson song in his car, but envisioning Michael's performance of the song whilst listening, is not in appreciation of great art? I suggest that some people--perhaps not you--are capable of using their minds to recreate what they have seen. Listening to a song that was playing during awesome, majestic, and emotionally charged dance--I suggest--can assist the mind in recreating the experience over, and over again. This is why the man has sold almost a billion records. ... Thus, said the Lord. From the book of Dolikemedius, Chapter 2 verse 1. You funny.

So, just to be sure; good music, is by your definition, any music that you like, or others that share your musical "taste"? If it is something other than this, please be specific. You stated earlier that people such as myself are essentially retarded/brainwashed/uncultured/etc., and that's why we like Michael Jackson. I am seeking enlightenment from you, and wanna know what specifically I should look for in "good music". So far, I am not getting much from your description. I know it could not be true that you would give quite subjective reasons for your objective conclusion of Michael Jackson's inferiority, so i am simply asking that you give some of your objective reasons. C!

At the risk of angering you my sensitive friend, what defines "better music?" and why should one's evaluation be limited to the music only as opposed to the entire performance? Just askin'.

So that I am clear on what in your view is "the good" in musical performances, I will simply as you: who would you say has talent, and in what regard they are superior to Michael Jackson?

I never knew that Frank Miller is an objectivist! I absolutely loved the Dark Knight Returns, and never knew that there was a sequel (which I am out to get right away!).

You funny! I have to say it: Michael was better than Marceau, however, it was nice to see the two of them on stage together, and Michael looking rather amateur in doing mime with him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj8oIrdGNiw As far as Mike's music: He was a genius. It's sad that some will refuse to see what's undeniable. Is it a form of evasion? C!

This is a hoot! I think that most people that are attracted to Objectivism are those who were at heart objectivists before even an inkling of Ayn Rand or her ideas. True, as a philosopher, she did painstakingly lay out objectivist thought as a system of ideas; however, I for one could think for myself before her, and would have done about the same if she had never been born. I don't know where the hell Favela is, but I do know where I am from. I am from a very, very rural town in south Georgia, where the entire economy of our town subsists on the annual peach season. Ignorance, poverty, crack, heroine, are the daily routine for many, and the rest spend their hours scrounging up money to give to the church on the weekends. So? The fact that I am a senior level systems engineer, and now a college student studying for a career in law, is not a function of government handouts that were stolen from someone else, but through diligence on my part. The fact that my parents who both grew up in the segregated south, and in total poverty (no running water, no shoes, outdoor toilet, etc.) and have both achieved education to the masters level, and my father a doctorate, has nothing to do with government handouts; but, is the function of hard work and perseverance. What makes this possible here in America, as opposed to Favela? FREEDOM. Instead of trying to solicit miserable guests at your next pity party, why not read our constitution, and see how superior it is to the constitution of Favela? Why not moan and groan over the gross dictatorships that exist all over the world, and the fact that 90% of the world still lives under tyranny. Why do people from other countries seem to have a need to get Americans to become miserable with them, instead of trying to live better themselves? When I do travel, it is not to the bowels of whatever banana boat country I go to; I'll tell you that! Why would I spend thousands of dollars of my hard earned money to go and be miserable and experience hell first hand? Are you serious? If I see--"first hand"--a child in Africa with flies in his eyes, I will not suddenly recognize that the flies are somehow more emphatic than they were when I saw them on the television. Seeing them "first hand" will only serve to solidify my resolve, which is that every child living under any form of tyranny, is a living tragedy. That, his parents should have fought endlessly to overthrow their government, and copy the US constitution as their new one! I agree that the five thousand years of history before the US is significant. It clearly demonstrates what a magnificent achievement the United States of America is for all of mankind. It is sad though, that all human beings are seemingly resistant to change, and are taking so long to follow such a bright and glowing example. Whoa! Big and fancy words, that say nothing. I will demonstrate this by stating Objectivist premises, and leave it up to you to demonstrate how said premises are "false" and/or "constructed." 1).Existence exists. Everything in existence has a specific nature or properties that differentiate it from everything else. (For the purposes of this synopsis, the term "things" will be used hereafter, unless further differentiated) 2).There are two classifications of "things" or that which exists within the universe: living and non-living; giving full recognition that those things living are composed of non-living components. Living things can loose their lives, but their components will continue to exist. 3).Living things within existence have to do various forms of work in order to sustain their lives. The successes of living things' efforts in this regard, further the life of the living thing, and failures in the same regard, serve to shorten its life. 4).Man is one of the living things. Man, possesses a certain consciousness that enables him to not only perceive the facts of reality, but also, enables him to understand and use the facts of reality (the nature of things in existence) in order to sustain and further his life. Man's consciousness is not automatic, but is a function of his desire and ability to use it. 5).Man's consciousness--if used--requires that he gain knowledge in order to plan and use the facts of reality gained by his powers of perception. Objectivism holds that the only means at Man's disposal towards this end is reason. Objectivism rejects the notion of knowledge being granted to man through divine revelation; knowledge gained through osmosis; knowledge gained through inward reflection(unless the knowledge is about ones self); cosmic intuition, etc. All sages, shamen, prophets, etc., are con men! 6).The alternative of life and death, dictate the corralary to life: good and evil. Simplified: The good sustains--and/or promotes--life; and, the evil destroys or ends life. 7).The lives of men are not interchangeable digits, or subordinate to the lives of other life forms. Man is not a sacrificial offering. 8).Man--the individual--is the owner of his own individual life. These are the premises of objectivism in short form. The following are some objectivist conclusions: A).Given man's nature of a volitional consciousness, and that man's only means of gaining knowledge is reason, the conclusion as relates to morality is that man has to discover what is good and evil. .Man should be free to choose his own course in life, so long as his choices don't violate the lives of other men. Specifically, so long as no one uses force or fraud upon the lives of other men. C).Man, as a consequence of B, 8, 6, 5, 3, should be the benefactor of his efforts, and also bear the responsibility of his failures. Alone. Given all that I have stated so far, the only political system that encapsulates these premises and conclusions is Capitalism. I challenge you to refute any premise I have stated, and thereby discredit any conclusion. If you can't, be big enough to concede. No one said the Americans are superior human beings; and, I will stress to you that we are simply lucky enough to have been born in a country with a superior political system. Given our political system, we ARE capable of molding our lives. Not independent of the facts of reality, but GIVEN the facts of reality. "Circumstances" are merely a reflection or conceptualization of what facts of reality affect our lives. As Americans, we--compared to anywhere else in the world--have the ability to gather information about our "circumstances;" and, without interference of the government, or other men, choose a method for changing these "circumstances" into other "circumstances" that will hopefully make our lot in life better. First of all, whether or not someone who is given education and health care will turnout better is not the appropriate criteria for evaluation. I refer you to points 3, 4, 8, B & C. Condensed, what valid claim does the impoverished person have on the life and work of other people? What makes the life of the impoverished more important than the lives of the more fortunate? Why shouldn't I focus on educating and healing my own children, but, instead heal and educate other children? What is so detestable about my children? Why are poor children morally superior to my own? These are the relevant points, but there are other aspects to consider such as: Children born under tyrannical social/political systems have parents that are handcuffed by their society and/or government! This is not the fault of Americans. Our political ancestors saw this travesty and rebelled against the superpower of their day to change things for themselves at great cost to themselves. I believe these alleged facts. I refer you to the philosophic points, and questions I already have stated and asked. Further, I submit to you an additional statistic in regard to these unfortunate people: All of them live under socialist, communist, democratic, theocratic, monarchies and dictatorships. I suggest that instead of trying to take bread from my children, that instead, you fight to give these unfortunate people what my children have: Freedom. That way, nothing is taken from anyone, but everyone can potentially benefit!

Interesting. Is such a thing always irrational? And if so, why? And, if: Breed=man-made. Race=Breed Then, Race=man-made. Who was the person/people responsible for breeding human beings into the races?

Obstinate one; aren't you? "parsing it too thin?" First you lie about what my argument was, and now you accuse me of context dropping. Obstinate and desperate, is what I should have said. You should be ashamed of yourself. How are "rules of evidence" relevant in my analogy? I was never speaking of the legal system, at that time or now. Again, as stated before, the mobs of people believed that the people they hunted down and tortured to death were guilty of heracy, where, they had no evidence. In the case of Salem, there was no evidence possible, since witches don't exist. At best, you are splitting hairs trying to justify your assessment of me and my argument, instead of being a big enough person to admit when you are mistaken or flat out wrong. There is no "essential difference" in the two things I analogized. You are starting to seem kinda' immature to me; how old are you anyway? As far as your alleged disagreement with my "assessment of him," under normal circumstances I would ask you why. But the truth of the matter is I already have on more than one occasion asked you to demonstrate Jake's "argument," and how he is "rational" about the allegations, that he so freely--and armed only with allegation--hurls about like a person hunting down a witch. Copy and paste are easy to do when there exists something to copy and paste. The fact remains, that you haven't done so, and I checked the thread myself. There exists no reason for your disagreement with my assessment of him; but, there does exist a ton of proof otherwise. I know, and so does anyone interested. It's listed by me all along the way. You funny!

True. But, I think that one has to accept the fact that we (as a species) are on a trip towards what could be and ought to be; the settlers were further along that journey, and it's good that "they" won. I placed parenthesis around the "they," because, as I already said, human beings--as a whole--are on a trip towards what is right and rational. When viewed from this perspective--the correct perspective--it's easy to see that individuals who can proclaim indian ancestry are better off in every relevant and essential way, and so too are the descendants of the settlers, who evolved into those who created the Constitution of the United States. Now, if one would believe that their individual self-esteem might be improved by knowing that a collective of indians "won" the war for North America, then, such a person would be a fool, as are any people descended from european settlers, who proclaim racial superiority for the same reasons. True, I would agree, that the settlers were savages in their own right (if viewed holistically and collectively), however, within their ranks and amongst their minds; even amongst some "indian" minds at that time, there were the seeds of an idea: freedom; which, is an idea or ideal that has yet to be realized; however, we are moving closer and closer. Ayn Rand and her ideas are the next step and much needed philosophic guidance for the journey ahead. It is up to us all; those who grasp, understand, and love the ideal of a nation of free men and women, to take things where they need to go such that the story of human beings goes on towards greater heights, and not lapse into chaos. The crossroads we have arrived at will make this determination; whether or not we choose freedom; whether or not we choose life; whether or not we go as 98% of all species that have existed on earth so far have gone: extinction; is up to us. Time is of the essence! Let's not let the deaths and lives of all of humanity past and present go in vain. Let's take the next step forward; instead of looking behind for "fault." If there is any "fault," it is probably in the mirror, as you allow imminent domain to go unchallenged. If there is any "fault," then, it is probably in the mirror, as you allow the government to take more of your hard earned money. If there is "fault," then, it is probably in the mirror, as you allow the government to play "proxy-looter" for any fantastic idea that some "genius" in Washington comes up with. Essentially, there is little difference between what our government has become, and what the Indian Chiefs 200 years ago were, except that the hypocrisy wasn't there. Let's commit ourselves to take back our freedom, otherwise, then, the fact that the indians were displaced WOULD be a moral atrocity, for there would be no existential justification for it.

I made no such argument or statement that in any way can be construed to mean that Jake was the same as people who make accusations of witchcraft. To the contrary, the argument that I made was that in essential terms, Jake was the same as the residents of Salem that participated in the hunting down, and/or conviction of said accused heretics; not those who made the accusations. If what you think I said were true, then, Jake would have to be one of the accusing parents or children in the Michael Jackson molestation case. Now that I have dealt with your straw man, I will get along to point two: What you describe is not a simple error in "thinking." As you yourself stated, you simply haven't digested for yourself his process of alleged "thinking." I suggest you do so, or simply read mine again. My statement on the matter in clear and concise terms is: In regards to him on this issue, he is either 1). not too bright, or 2). Dogmatic, but offering flimsy rationalizations of his dogma. Again I offer "his process" as proof, not evidence of what I say: If a sworn statement exists, then the sworn statement must be true. If there exists a rumor of evidence, then there must be evidence, and that evidence must be true. Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedophile and there is a sworn statement that supports this claim. There are rumors of plenty of evidence against Michael Jackson. These are his stated premises (if you can call 'em that), which are all--I'll be nice here--less than profound; wouldn't you agree? Just as a Christian who offers: "Well, how did all this get here?" as "evidence" or a "premise" to the existence of god, is being dogmatic, so too is Jake. It matters not that you like and/or admire him, if you do. And like dogmatic individuals tend to do, when called to task, and justify his "arguments" on rational grounds, he deserted and crawled away; pouting as a spoiled child, caught at doing something wrong. Jake committed an act--and a rather charlatan one at that--of rationalization and posturing as if he had valid or sound reasons for his conclusion. If I were to speculate as to why he would do such a thing, I would guess that he is jealous or envious of Michael, or some sort of closet red-neck. I don't know, but if I were forced to wage a bet on the matter, these would be where I placed my money; knowing that I just might loose my money. Again sir, you make statements in the wind. Where is there evidence and argument on Jake's part? Perhaps in the past Jake made valid or sound arguments on other topics; I seriously doubt this, however, in this thread, such was non-existent. If what you say is true, then you should easily be able to quote him and with great illumination make such a demonstration, since, "clearly" he did what you assert. Are you serious? Concede. It's better to be wrong and admit it, than to be stubborn and exposed as foolish. I am not saying that you would be such a person, but just in case you would, I had to say that little bit. In the name of John Gault, Amen!

Which won't change the fact one bit that you got spanked. Step your game up, and stop being such a cry baby.

Well, since at least couple of people here seem to a bit challenged when it comes to critical thinking, I will have to help out in this area, so that perhaps in the future, we can be on the same page when having adult discussions. If I were to say that "Western men who wear cowboy hats, have pretty good protection from the sun.", such a statement would not mean that all men out west, as a rule, wear cowboy hats. What this statement does mean, is that there are men in the west, and of those, the ones that wear cowboy hats have better protection from the sun than the ones who don't. Now, let's take this lesson and apply it to what I said. As before, I am saying that there are, or at least were, people in the south, and of those, some were/are racist. But the statement is even more qualified than that. My statement does not mean that all racists were lynchers either! But let's not get too much more diverted from salient issues. The essential thing in what I am saying about you, is that like the mob of southern racists, you don't require proof; ALL YOU NEED IS AN ALLEGATION. Again, you said: My analogy was/is perfect. If you want to back peddle, and quibble about whether or not you would take the law into your own hands is really irrelevant. The point I am making is that like the mob and the witch hunters, for you there is no burden or proof. Your mind is swayed by flimsy or non-existent evidence. You may as well be a Christian... if you aren't. I believe (or at least hope for your sake) that you aren't this silly, and really did understand such basic language and critical thinking. If it is the case that you really weren't silly enough to believe that I was placing all southerners in a "racist bucket," you should be ashamed of yourself for such a pathetic attempt at diversion and evasion. Thales, if you need it, I refer you to the critical thinking lesson that I gave Jake in the above paragraphs. As to your allegation of Jake's rational thinking, and that he "presents arguments," I will simply say: bah, humbug! Among rational and civilized people, there are conditions or rules with respect to arguments. The most basic condition or rules is: An argument is sound if the premises are valid and that they lead to the conclusion. Now with that being said, let's take a look at Jake's "argument" We already know his conclusion: What are his premises? In other words: If a sworn statement exists, then the sworn statement must be true. If there exists a rumor of evidence, then there must be evidence, and that evidence must be true. Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedophile and there is a sworn statement that supports this claim. There are rumors of plenty of evidence against Michael Jackson. Therefore: Thales, is this what you mean when you say: ? You guys are something special. Truly. Now THAT is something I was pissed about too! I am angry though that with me replying to all this BS on the thread, that I didn't get to say it first! QuoVadis, you da man! Let's have a LA tea party, and dump the body into the ocean! Just kiddin', but the city spending money on a memorial is ridiculous.