laleo

Isn't there a little bit of irony on having a website devoted to the task of overcoming internet addiction? Well here it is: http://www.netaddiction.com/resources/inte...iction_test.htm I've gone back and forth on this. I've often wondered whether my time on-line is too much, but then again it's not really taking me away from anything, except maybe before I started spending as much time on-line as I do now, I had more of a social life, or at least made more of an effort to go places to be with people. I still spend as much time with my family as before, and with the people who are most important to me. It's some of the others who I've drifted away from. Now I just nudge my mouse, and viola, people and choices and knowledge and resources appear instantaneously. And that has left me more connected and more isolated than before. I don't know if that's good or bad or neither. Maybe just different. GreaseSpot is the only site I visit with any frequency. In a way I can't explain or don't understand, it keeps me connected to a part of me that believed, really believed, in the goodness of life. And to the people who I once knew, or maybe never knew. I haven't figured that part out yet. But still . . . how much is too much? Ever wonder? Or is this whole idea of "internet addiction" the brainchild of some enterprising (and computer savvy) psychologist who saw an opportunity, and created a diagnosis to support a new industry?

I googled Alvin Platinga and read the better part of one of his papers (or maybe it was only a small part; however much it was, it took a lot of time and concentration to follow him), Advice to Christian Philosophers. The questions he poses at the end are fair enough: Regarding epistemology: Suppose we do the best that can be expected of us, noetically speaking; suppose we do our intellectual duties and satisfy our intellectual obligations: what guarantee is there that in so doing we shall arrive at the truth? Regarding ethics: . . . How are right and wrong, good and bad, duty, permission and obligation related to God and to his will and to his creative activity? Any answers? I've been spending more time than usual lately reading GreaseSpot, and I've come across the usual set of opprobrious (did I pronounce that correctly? I hope so, because I think I'm using it incorrectly) terms that may fit your pejorative category, like the word Waybrain. I still haven't figured out what it means. And the meaning shifts frequently enough that it might be considered equivocal, too. Okay, I made the effort.

I'm not following you, doojable. Are you saying you want our comments to be confined to what is in the opening post? Like, do you just want to discuss the book?

Hey, Long Gone. How've you been? I agree with excathedra and sirguess on this point (as well as others, but for the purpose of this post . . . ): this may be a question of semantics. The definition I'm working with is this one, from the dictionary: forgive: stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw or mistake. If that's the definition, then I don't see the distinction you're making between "deciding not to seek punishment," if the person making that decision is at peace with it, and "forgiving the offense." Again, this may be semantics. And, furthermore, I think it's probably possible for a person to forgive, and still seek punishment (or, maybe more accurately, restitution). I'm hedging a little, because I can't climb into people's minds to know their thoughts and feelings, or all aspects of what motivates them. Anyway, the thing that put me off to that quote (other than that the first sentence seems twisted, although I can't precisely explain why it feels that way to me) is that the author attributes the "command" (I think it's a mischaracterization to even call it a "command") to perpetrators only. In other words, in that particular snippet, he doesn't allow for a caring person (NOT a perpetrator) to hold the position that forgiveness is in the interest of the abused, not the abuser. And not to impose it on anyone, but to help someone out of his misery, if one cares enough about the other to want him to find something better in life. I might be coming at this from an entirely different angle, but as I see it, if I release myself from the offense (and the offender), it strips the offender of his power. I'm out of his reach, beyond his sphere of influence. He's alone on the dance floor, unless he finds another partner, because I'm sitting this one out. (If only it were that simple, right? Oh, how I wish it were.) Another thing that bothers me about the quote is his certainty. Is he really that confident that he knows the course that "true" (as opposed to what?) healing might take, enough to know with certainty what the LAST step might be? "Living lie"? Then what to make of all the testimonies from people who found their own redemption in forgiveness? Also, the reason I question the writer's motives for saying what he said is that it's hard to deny that an entire industry exists to exploit and perpetuate psychological pain for the purpose of advancing itself. It's to the benefit of certain religious groups, leaders, self-help gurus, and others, to keep people in anger, shame, denial, and a host of other negative emotions in order to justify their own existence. And to get rich. Then again, maybe the fellow who wrote that is thoroughly altruistic. I wouldn't know. I agree that no one is obligated to forgive. And I also agree (if you're even saying this) that anger (a natural, and, I would say, healthy, response to betrayal) can be a force for social good, if it changes the system that perpetuates the abuse. Anyway, I sure don't know all the ins and outs of forgiveness. I mean, what's the goal? If it's to live a happy, healthy, productive life, and forgiveness can help get you there, what's the downside? Just a few thoughts to add to the thread. For what it's worth. Under what condition is "refusal to forgive . . . a better choice"? Just wondering where you're going with this. Take care, Long Gone. Hope you enjoyed your holidays. To excathedra: I wasn't sure how to read that "thanks, laleo." You did put that quote up there for discussion, right? My comments are general. Not specifically to you. I wasn't then or now making any recommendations about how YOU should feel, think, or proceed. Just saying how I would. With caution. (Which is how I proceed with most anything, come to think of it.)

Cynic, what is this thread about? :blink:

Speaking only for myself, excathedra, not for you, because I know you have your own pathway to find, which will be different from mine, but if anyone gave me the advice you just quoted, I'd run fast and far. I would seriously question his own motives, and wonder what stake he had in my dysfunction. Again, that's just me. But I wouldn't follow that advice. I hope you seriously consider what that person is saying to you. If you decide it works for you, fine. But it makes me shudder. Edited to fix gender.

I have a friend, a casual friend, with whom I get together from time to time. I got to know her a few years ago when she asked me to edit a book of (awful, though heartfelt) poetry she was self-publishing as a fund-raiser. She's a parish nurse at a local church. One day, about twenty years ago, she woke up in a cold sweat with a high fever -- a flu she couldn't shake. She went to the doctor, who prescribed antibiotics, and in a week, she hoped she would recover. Instead, she began experiencing curious symptoms, mostly involving pain in her joints. She went back to the doctor, and after many tests, she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, and that began twenty years of many medications (none worked), tests, surgeries (more than twenty), and pain, terrible pain, which she has never been entirely free of. During her illness, she began concentrating on her spirituality, figuring if she couldn't find a cure, at least she might find peace in her suffering. She is often a guest speaker at spirituality workshops, and routinely counsels people who are experiencing chronic illness. I phoned her once, a few years ago, when I was having a mini-crisis of my own, when my anxiety levels were beginning to skyrocket, and we got together. When I told her all of my problems, she looked me dead in the eye and asked, "Why are you holding onto this?" What was I holding onto? I knew the answer. My pain. Psychic, for sure, but pain nonetheless. I looked at her, a little surprised, then laughed when I realized how correct she was. Why was I holding onto the things that were making me miserable? I didn't know or care what the answer was, but I knew it was time to let go. So I did. Not in ten minutes, but over the course of the next weeks and months. I didn't look for any big resolutions to all that was vexing me. Instead, I looked for little sources of happiness, and tried to increase those. Anyway, a few months ago, my friend and I went out to lunch. She has a new doctor now, a specialist who will treat her condition far more aggressively than what her previous doctor had been doing for twenty years, now that she knows what her condition is. She's in the end stages of lyme disease, having been misdiagnosed and mistreated for two decades. "Why aren't you angry?" I asked her. She told me she didn't have time for anger. She was putting all of her energy into her new medical regime, grateful for as much of a cure as can be offered her at this point, even as she is beginning to experience the first stages of heart failure. Meanwhile, I was thinking of lawsuits, and retribution, and justice -- all those things that so many here feel are so important to the healing process. She sees it differently. For her, forgiveness doesn't mean passivity; it means she is free to actively pursue her own healing without being weighed down with regret. "Maybe later I'll be angry," she told me. "Right now I just want to be well." Resentment keeps us in relationship with the people who hurt us. Forgiving someone who is in the process of hurting us is self-destructive, for sure. It seems to me that, first, it would be wise to get some distance from the source of the pain. But once the source is removed, holding onto that resentment, now that the danger has passed, seems even more self-destructive. Maybe the resentment is part of a cycle, where the memory of pain becomes the source of the pain, and around and around it goes. doojable, I enjoyed your post. I read a book a few years ago -- recommended on a thread at GreaseSpot, come to think of it -- called The Forgiving Self. That author's approach is more secular, but it sounds like some of the conclusions are the same.

Okay, famous people . . . well, there's always Mary Poppins. She's famous, right? Let's see what happens when I put her in my state-of-the-art, super deluxe, computer powered random word generator (Sudo, you really ought to get one of these; a must for any dentist) -- ah, look at the possibilities (too bad none of them make sense): Mary Poppins = snappy primo; a snippy romp; pray spin mop Well, I tried. Welcome to GreaseSpot.

powerfilled = lewd profile

I guess I feel the opposite -- that when I DO assume that something that cannot be true to fact is a myth, then (maybe) I find whatever "truths" lie therein. I'm no Genesis scholar, so keeping that in mind, this might be yet another of my pedestrian interpretations, but why can't the theme be as simple as "Be careful what you wish for . . . "? I mean, here we have Adam and Eve, both busy and happy and productive and in harmony with life and nature, then Eve is seduced into wanting more. When she gets more, she suddenly wishes she had less, because self-knowledge can also bring the curse of seeing yourself for who you are, and being not only shamed by that knowledge, but also not yet having the wisdom to rise up to the responsibility that knowledge might bring. Didn't the idea of tikkun olam (that the human task is to repair the world) arise from the creation account? -- because God brought order out of chaos, and man, at the fall, became God-like, knowing good and evil, it is now man's responsibility to create order out of chaos. Or something like that. I guess my point is that we can all read the Genesis account and get something out of it, which may or may not be the same for each person, but if it directs us toward some greater good, then maybe it's what the writer (even if the writer is God) intended. Jerry, lots of people have had powerful experiences resulting from their study of Scripture. It doesn't mean each account is literal. The Bible incorporates a lot of different writing styles, different perspectives, different approaches to understanding God and creation -- historical accounts, myths, prayers, parables, poetry, musings, dictums, you name it. It seems to me that the unifying element might be along the lines of the basic assumption that a sovereign God exists. After that, God seems to make himself known in a variety of ways to a variety of people, and some of it will speak to you and some of it won't. It would only make sense that if you are one who is seeking God, or some type of ultimate reality, you would feel an affinity to those who went before you, and cleared part of the path. Wouldn't it? Don't reach for those checkers yet. Besides, that's a seedy crowd that hangs out on the boardwalk at Coney Island. Maybe you'll just join some mainstream, contemporary, middle-class, Christian denomination and blend in like the rest of us.

How come? Seems to me that releasing ourselves from having to convince ourselves that something like the creation story is true to fact might actually free us to hear the message, rather than get bogged down in the improbabilities of permanently flaming swords (is there a tireless, if perspiring, cherub somewhere in the Middle East still guarding the firey entrance to paradise?), talking serpents, trees that dispense life and knowledge, and poison fruit. Re-reading the creation story reminded me of a contemporary author out of Uruguay, Eduardo Galeano, who wrote a story titled The Story of the Lizard Who Had the Habit of Dining on His Wives. I wish I could find an on-line version of the tale, but it's still copyrighted, so if you happen to find yourself at a library or a bookstore someday, maybe take a few minutes to read it (it's short). It's published in an anthology called The Art of the Story. Real short synopsis: While a woman is sitting by the river reading a story about a lizard who eats his wives, she meets a lizard man and eventually marries him and eats him on their wedding night. What does this have to do with Genesis? (I knew you'd ask.) The animal imagery, for one. The complex theme, for another. Also, in this story, when the lizard man meets the woman, he asks: I'm reading a book right now, although I haven't gotten past the introduction. It's by a (now deceased) Dutch priest/scholar/psychologist/author (Henri Nouwen) who found meaning and inspiration in a Rembrandt painting of the Prodigal Son. In fact, he found so much meaning and so much inspiration that he not only traveled to Saint Petersburg to spend six hours in the Hermitage studying the original, while the changing patterns of the sun brought different details to light (way more time than I would have spent), he also spent the two years previous to that with a reproduction hanging above his desk. He wrote an entire book about his encounter with this painting, which, so far, is keeping my interest. My point? (I knew you'd ask.) I think some things (and people) become what we need them to be for us at a certain time in our lives, often not because it's what they actually are, but because it's what we long for. Example: The Way. One of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time trashing it, other than to say that most of the teachings were silly, most of the leaders foolish, and mostly a waste of time (okay, so maybe that is "trashing it," depending on your definition), is because for those many years it fulfilled something that I needed it to be. Same with the Bible. Maybe in the same way that Rembrandt (long dead) became one of Nouwen's teachers, the Bible was one of mine. And yours. But I can't take it literally anymore. Think about it. There are two versions of the creation story, each with a different take on the series of events. Even beyond the improbability of either of them being literally true, there are other things that can't be true. Like, Cain, for instance. God puts a mark on him so no one will kill him, then he settles in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Funny thing is, Nod is already populated. With people. Where did they come from? Just exactly how fertile is Eve that she can bear enough children to populate an entire city, and the rest of the known world? Really, Jerry, how can those facts be taken literally? Taken for what it is -- a story, or an imperfect history of the Jewish people -- certain "truths" about life, and power, and relationships, and purpose can be read and understood while still acknowledging certain things that we all know to be real; such as, serpents don't talk, God doesn't walk, trees don't know or care or bequeath wisdom, and all the rest of it. And, yeah, there are a lot of political implications to the question of what is good and what is evil. socks, I enjoyed your post. Lots to consider, for sure.

Jerry, I'm going to take a stab at this, just from reading it. First of all, I'd like to suggest that it's possible to read the creation story as a sort of fun, lighthearted fable with a strong message, which might be something along the lines of: "Grow up. Be independent. Take responsibility. Make wise choices, because, if you don't, you will suffer the consequences." In its theme, I think this story is consistent with many of the other Bible stories, but in its particulars, it is not, especially in the attributes it assigns to God. The short answer to your question ("Who is us?") might be the pantheon you suggest. Or at least, that's what I'm reading in the passage. Reading the creation story without reading anything into it -- like everything we know from the New Testament; everything we've learned in PFAL; everything we imagine God to be -- the attributes of this God are pretty unique. He has a form, which makes Him finite. He makes noise. He asks questions. He talks and plans and listens and reasons and makes decisions based on the outcomes of conversations. So maybe the "us" means there are a lot more like Him. But for His magical ability to create, He seems sort of . . . human. If he is omniscient, this passage doesn't indicate that. If he is omnipresent, then why does he walk through the garden searching for Adam and Eve? Also, the serpent is an animal. There isn't anything in this story to indicate he is more than an animal. Now, maybe an argument can be made for imagery and foreshadowing, but I don't see it here beyond the obvious: the serpent as the embodiment of temptation and evil, but, so far as I can tell from the story, it is human evil and human temptation, and this is a fabled version of the natural world. Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like. Sometimes I think more is at stake here than just parsing verses, or arguing about morality. Laws and wars and social systems are decided by answers to questions like "What is man's natural state?" When we get it wrong, a lot of other things go wrong, too.

I found the Snopes article disappointing because it missed the point. I didn't take the first post literally. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether this conversation actually took place in a classroom. I tend to agree with the conclusion of the first post, though, or at least I think it has merit: "Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart." I may have worded it differently, or maybe it's too simplistic, but I wonder if the evil or wrongs that happen in this world are fundamentally due to a lack of empathy. And, if they are, how do we go about the task of finding a remedy? Also, even though I look at religion with a jaded eye, I give it credit for at least asking the questions: Why are we here? What obligation do we have to ourselves and others? What is the role of goodness in the universe? Is it worth pursuing, and, if so, where is it found? George, don't you ever wonder about those things? socks, where ya been? I've missed you. Jerry, I'm not sure I get the connection between nakedness and immorality and evil and death. Sounds like a sermon title by John Cotton. Why should nakedness be something to be afraid of?

I may be the only one at GreaseSpot who likes goodbye threads. Yeah, they can be a little on the dramatic side sometimes, but I sure prefer knowing what became of someone and why, rather than, poof, having someone disappear before the sentence is over, and that's the end of it. No explanations. No acknowledgements. Oakspear, for some reason your thread filled me with sadness, maybe just because it's a rainy day, and this seems like a rainy day kind of thread. If I could have been there, I would have happily celebrated with you at your wedding. Whenever you get around to bringing your new bride east, let me know. We'll take her down to the NYSE and put in a bid, just for old time's sake. Also, it took me awhile to figure out what to get for you as a wedding gift, but I didn't forget. I have your gift picked out (it's only going to make sense if you have a good memory). I'll put it in the mail, just as soon as you send me your address. I don't think anyone expects GS to be the "be all and end all" of social contact. If it is, it becomes the land of disappointments, maybe because none of us can measure up to expectations. No doubt you're busy with your new family, but I hope you'll still find the time to stop in.

Fifty plus inches!!!! That is really unusual. Must have been a record breaking year. Unless you were in the northwest. I think they get more snow up that way, don't they? Between these photos and the fall foliage tour brochure that came with my vehicle registration renewal, I'm ready for the colors, although with the lack of rainfall this year, I suspect we'll likely go from green to brown. In another couple of weeks, I'll find out. Long Gone, you must be cooling a really large house. After we got our August bill for less than half of yours, we changed the setting on the thermostat to barely tolerable rather than comfortable. What has me nervous are the predictions for the heating bills. The gas company already raised the rates by 40%, and they're warning that the increase might go as high as 70%. Hopefully, global warming will set in, at least for this winter, so we won't have to sleep in our coats. I spent one summer in Houston, and that redefined the word "hot," until I moved to Florida. I like the beach, but there's something about the wind, and the colors, and the seasons, and the mountains that appeals to me more.

satori, My guess is that if the unlimited edit function were being used as you use it -- for expansions and clarifications; for additional "insights" and corrections (god knows you need it, and, besides, it wasn't a spelling error, it was an error in syntax, and you know what that does to me); and, on the rare occasion, to delete that stray post that under the strength of the noonday sun isn't nearly as profound nor as witty (nor as suitable) as first imagined -- I doubt time limits would even be an issue. As it is, what Paw is likely facing is the frustration of a disordered forum, and maybe even a few potential legal headaches, for all I know. I doubt it's a matter of whether there will be limits. There will be. For now. Maybe it's just a matter of adjusting how long the limit will be -- how much time is needed to preserve the writer's freedom of expression (and freedom to "take it back" for whatever reason, although a brief explanation would be considerate) versus how much time is needed to preserve the coherence of the forum. Six hours?

Kathy, I'm not totally following you. I see the editing time limits and the issue of abusive posters as two separate problems, sometimes related, but one doesn't cause or solve the other. Back awhile ago, when the search function was all awry, I asked Paw why I couldn't search anymore. From what he explained (not that I totally understood the techno-babble), the search function was crippled by the edit function. In other words, the more people edit, the more it screws up the search function. Now, that may not be an issue for some, but I like using the search function to find new posts, or find old posts, or to find certain people's posts, or for whatever. So when others heavily edit and delete their posts, it affects my use of the forum. I couldn't care less what they're saying to each other, I just wish they would leave it up on the board so that I can use the features I like to use. Plus, practically everyone is irritated by the annihiliated threads. Now, as far as whether someone decides to "spew," anyone who spews often enough at enough people will likely end up causing a headache for the admin whether they delete their own posts or not. I'm not following what you're saying as far as that goes. If someone can't or won't "control [his] tongue towards the greasespot community," two hours, ten hours, two months, or ten years isn't going to solve that issue. Two hours may help, in that if Paw gets complaints that someone is consistently abusive, he can read it himself and decide for himself if the posts, in context, constitute "abuse." Anyway, not that it matters, but, so far, the arguments presented on this thread have done more to convince me that having a time-limit is long overdue.

A couple of things aren't clear to me. First of all, for those who believe that individuals are responsible only to and for themselves, why even enter into a social arrangement? Anyone can type out anything he wants to say on his own word processor; edit, delete, rearrange, erase, re-word, bitch, moan, gripe, complain, swear at the gods and at the universe, whatever suits you. Be as vulgar, or as candid, or as nasty as you please -- you've got total freedom, and no one to answer to. Perfect arrangement for those who think their words don't extend beyond themselves. For those who enjoy interaction, who want to be read and understood, who like social arrangments, there are things like internet discussion boards, and each has its own quirks. If one is too restrictive, another is not. To me, it's a matter of finding the right one to fit my personality. Or adjusting my own expectations and preferences if I have other reasons to post at a particular one. Automatic settings are fair and impartial. They don't know or care or take into account or make judgments about whether a particular person drinks or doesn't drink, whether he is gay or Way-brained or verbose or annoying or popular, he is welcome to post within the parameters of a few automatic functions. No decision needs to be made by any administrator or moderator, who brings his own preferences and prejudices into the process, about the fate of any one poster. He decides his own fate, based on whether or not he is comfortable with and can tolerate the restrictions or the freedoms of any particular message board. Because GreaseSpot is a social arrangement, the way I see it, the alternative to Time Limits is to ban the posters who repeatedly make a nuisance out of themselves. Having time limits preserves their freedom to post. It may inconvenience others, but, overall, it is actually less restrictive, less damning of those who have personality quirks of their own.

How is "grace" different from "the freedom to harass others"?

satori, I never know how much fear is healthy, and how much is paralyzing. I mean, if I thought about it long enough, I wouldn't eat because of the health risk -- between mad cow disease, avian flu, and migrant workers touching my vegetables. Have you ever seen migrant workers? Back when I lived in Florida, there was a large Haitian population who worked on farms. The ones I knew and saw weren't big on hygiene. They also had an uncontrolled outbreak of AIDs, and this was long before it was really clear what caused AIDs and how it spread. Since then, I've always washed my fruits and vegetables as if I'm washing the dishes -- in a sink full of sudsy water. I'd probably soak them in bleach, too, if that didn't present a health hazard of its own. I don't know. If I consider all the risks, I spend too much time thinking about how to avoid death, and forget to live.

Actually, George, that happened in Pennsylvania just as you described. It was nothing to be concerned about, of course, but a few infected chickens were found on one farm in Lancaster County, but it was a minor outbreak, so minor that the Pa. Dept. of Health issued a statewide warning. Then they killed all the chickens not only from that farm, but from a wide area in Central Pa. (but, not to worry, it was just a minor precaution). Then they put an export ban on all chicken products from Pennsylvania. Nothing to be concerned about, though. Everything is under control. Just lots and lots of dead chickens. Hardly worth mentioning. In fact, it got very little media attention. They recently lifted the ban on Pa. exports. Something to think about.

Thank you, Kathy, for your answer, and, you are correct that I was speaking hypothetically, and not in reference to your own posts. I should have made that more clear. I like your solutions insofar as how to resolve the problem, but I do have one question. You said that you would alert the forum moderator if the problem persists. I'm curious about what you would expect the moderator to do after he got the alert. In other words, I'm wondering if this new editing time limit is because of all the complaints. Maybe the problem didn't solve itself in its own time.

It's been my observation that whenever questions of GS policy have come up, it's been the arguments for and against that have determined the changes (or not) in policy, not the results of the polls.

For what it's worth, I not only didn't remember it, it took me a minute to figure it out even after Long Gone explained the reference. I think what it comes down to for me is that while we all say things that in hindsight we maybe wouldn't or shouldn't have said had we not gotten caught up in the moment, I'd rather see the "disputes" play out, rather than allow for subterfuge. Kathy, would you feel differently about time limits, if, say, instead of that thread playing out the way it did, let's say wingnut posted his gesture after one of your posts. You saw it, but then when you got back to the thread, wingnut had already deleted it without explanation or apology. You post again on the thread, wingnut posts another gesture after your post, then deletes the second gesture after you respond, again, without explanation. It happens a third time, then a fourth. Each time, he deletes the post that offended you, without acknowledging the offense. What would you do? Would having someone free to post gestures after your posts have a "chilling effect" on your own desire to post, or would you take it in stride, figuring that's the price you pay to maintain your own freedom to edit? I went back a little while ago to re-read that old thread about Editing Time Limits from a couple of years ago to refresh my memory about the arguments for and against time limits. Turns out, that thread is yet another example of a mutilated GS thread, that now makes no sense. There are so, so many threads like that on the board. Does it matter?

Thank you, Long Gone. I couldn't get past the literal meaning of birds, like, did he mean vultures were circling above the forums, in sneaky blackness, swooping down for the kill, then swerving skyward, disappearing into the stars with their killer words tucked secretly in their beaks, leaving bloody remnants behind? Or did he mean squawking posters were taking off in a "V" formation in search of sunnier climes, after the "chilling effect" of time limits? Neither, I guess. He's no poet, that's for sure. Just a crude image to go with the crude gestures. Backatcha, wingnut: :P By the way, Long Gone, in counting up the people who have posted, pro and con, there are nine in favor of time limits, nine against, two who don't care either way, and two abstentions. You're one of the abstentions. What are your thoughts?