The Modernity Conspiracy

masadi #1-3 ``you have already borrowed most of what I say about it, ``
So, you have a copyright on the Quran!! I am sure Allah would be most interested in learning about this.

`` You try to play god, condemn people to hell and heaven, ``
You dont have to play god to be able to tell whether or not someone is following the Quranic injunctions. Indeed, an ounce of common sense would make it obvious to anyone that anyone claiming to be a muslim then has a fundamental responsibility to try and distinguish between right and wrong. You are one step ahead of the mullah, i have already acknowledged, insofar as you reject the hadith. To be a muslim in deed and in word, you need to take the next step and take on the responsibility of telling it like it is. Then I would take you more seriously.

The US is the pace-setter for human progress towards everything that is right. The US haters (the rogue mullahs who are no better than common criminals) are the hurdles to human progress. You ignore the latter and try to defame the former.

No amount of abuse and namecalling will change this fundamental problem. And that is why , as a muslim, I can tell you without playing God that you are headed for hell. Where you will enjoy the company of rogues like Maulana Maudoodi and General Zia.

This is quite amusing, these idiots using every excuse in the book and all kinds of sermons of hellfire and Guantanamo to make damn fools of themselves. Where should I start to mock their posts or should I even bother?

tahmed writes <<< I am glad you were honest enough to admit your mistake. But then, you negated that by trying to quickly cover it up by referring to some other board. I may have called you a ``pea brain`` (although I dont recall that), but that would have been directly to you out of frustration >>>>

What mistake was I trying to cover up? the one where I said you called me an imbecile when you had called me ``pea brain`` and that is a ``mistake`` that you are proud of pointing out. MashAllah, you cannot deal with one argument I put up against the US elite and their world system, and the error in my posts that tahmed is proud of is what, imbecile vs pea brain. Here indulge yourself, you called me a `pea brain` because you couldnt counter my argument but felt helpless to respond otherwise:

tahmed: <<< #139 by tahmed32 on March 11, 2006 8:37am PT
#135 dont expect me to spend time reading your lengthy posts, given the demonstration of your pea-brained capacity to think clearly (see #138 below).
Link: http://chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00006375&channel=civic%20center&threshold=1&layout=0&order=0&start=10&end=19&page=1#139

>>>


tahmed: << and dont talk to me about the Quran >>

I don`t have to, you have already borrowed most of what I say about it, even as you proclaim that I am a `mullah`. You try to play god, condemn people to hell and heaven, support the tryannous elite without reason or fact and then you tout the Quran. Hypocrite. And on top of that you encourage that damn fool Hamidm2 who finds excuses to use his dim wit intellect to poke fun at the Quran. You find him fantastic yet you criticize me. Your judgment is the domain of Allah but let me tell you, I would NEVER EVER want to be in your position when I go in front of God.

tahmed: <<< And you violate the Quran every time you try to defame a fine community of people, the United States of America >>>

First, I am not defaming the ``fine community of people`` as you state, I am defaming based upon fact and justice the tiny elite that oppresses humankind all over the globe including the ``fine community`` you talk about. Second, you idolator, you worship and proclaim the praises of this elite moreso that you do God, you cannot question them or thier motives or what they do or have done. Never have I seen you say a word that condemns even the worst atrocities that they have committed. Damn fool, you have the audacity to claim to be a friend of humanity or any community of humans and you have the audacity to claim following the Quran. You are a hypocrite and the worst among all posters here. Atleast the Islam haters are honest about their hate and are upfront, even though they are ignorant. You on the other hand, hide your idolatory, worship the American elite, while putting up a facade of Quran this or that, even though in essence you don`t believe it. You question God moreso than you question the deeds of the US elite. You are dispicable.

Hamidm2 writes

<<<< masadi,

.......... thamed is a true believer - he is merely following this koranic injunction in his struggle against your hypocritical evil :

``O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.`` >>>

We all know how much your intellect allows you to understand the Quran, so why don`t you can it, and play your role as the chowk (court) jester, like you have been doing since God knows when.

#100 thank you, hamidm. a very relevant verse from the Quran you have quoted, if i may say so in all humility!!

masadi: ``Oh, my error. You called me a pea brain (on HP`s Iran thread), a much grander honor than imbecile. ``

I am glad you were honest enough to admit your mistake. But then, you negated that by trying to quickly cover it up by referring to some other board. I may have called you a ``pea brain`` (although I dont recall that), but that would have been directly to you out of frustration (as no doubt you must have heard your teachers say a million times to you: ``You knucklehead , Asad!! You forgot to pack your brain to school. Again!!

and dont talk to me about the Quran - while I am glad you reject hadith, you violate the Quran every time you try to be clever by being dishonest. And you violate the Quran every time you try to defame a fine community of people, the United States of America. So go to hell.

masadi,

.......... thamed is a true believer - he is merely following this koranic injunction in his struggle against your hypocritical evil :

``O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.``

............ you, sir, are a very bad man and deserve what is coming your way - guantanamo for three years, followed by eternity in hell ........... repent, while there is still time ...

#97tahmed writes <<< God`s orders for ``talaash-i-goomshooda`` may now be rescinded, and the Day of Judgement court will be back in session >>>

If anyone has illusions of grandeur, it is you. You are trying to make a mockery of the Quran by trying to play God. Like Hamidm2`s attempts at mockery, the last laugh will be on you

tahmed: <<< Kindly refrain from questioning the qualifications of the court appointed psychoanalyst. Mr. tahmed his a psychiatrist with many years of experience >>>>

Countering rational argumentation with labels or psychoanalytic diagnosis of motivation just does not cut it. I thought professionals in the field, the qualified shrinks were not so slip shod regarding their field. You sound like a teenager throwing around his or her knowledge of psychology after taking a freshman level course, with zero evidence or credibility.

tahmed: << The hon`ble Tahmed never called you an imbecile.... >>

Oh, my error. You called me a pea brain (on HP`s Iran thread), a much grander honor than imbecile.

tahmed: <<< What you write speaks louder than anything anyone can say about you..>>

Yes it does, and what I write is what ruins your happy world view and brings out all kinds of irrationality in your friends, it even forces hamidm2 to quote the Quran.

Yeah, let`s have some more posts from fuzair trying to save face for tahmed by reminding him how I entered a particular room, left foot first instead of the right and how that ``proves`` I am an imbecile, and let us also have hamidm2 quote some Quran to admonish me; atleast he is looking in the right spot. What a grand achievement for me, to have made hamidm2 look deeply into the Quran for wisdom

masadi #93 Good to see you back. God`s orders for ``talaash-i-goomshooda`` may now be rescinded, and the Day of Judgement court will be back in session per the schedule in the Great Court Docket.

But first, a couple of administrative things.

You write to fuzair: ``You, like tahmed who is busy psychoanalyzing my motivations (without having any qualification to do so) just make claims.``

Court response: Kindly refrain from questioning the qualifications of the court appointed psychoanalyst. Mr. tahmed his a psychiatrist with many years of experience with chowk cases. He has been prescribing pills for basket cases from India as well as from Pakistan.

You write to fuzair: That damn fool (meaning, the learned amicus curiae Tahmed) comes up with fiction tales and then calls me an imbecile.

Court response: Let the court record this as perjury. The hon`ble Tahmed never called you an imbecile. What you write speaks louder than anything anyone can say about you.

Finally the court has already heard from the left hand and the right hand of Masadi (as noted earlier by the amicus curiae. Testimony from Masadi`s left foot and right foot concerning how he wasted his Life on Earth will be heard in due course.

#90, tahmed writes <<< I think people like masadi (and I know you are reading this masadi, and dont pretent otherwise!!) badly need to read the long-standing best-seller book ``Getting to say Yes`` >>>> (emphasis mine)

Since the poor fellow cannot deal with the evidence I present in my posts to support my claims, he wants to point me to a totally unrelated book so that somehow I can numb my senses and accept his BS. Then his post shows extreme obsession with my posts, something that I had told Mr. Sohail (in his article about the internet & community) about, as I sought his help for tahmed:

<<<
#1 by masadi on March 9, 2006 10:33pm PT
The author writes <<< There is no doubt that the internet has revolutionized how we communicate with the rest of the world >>>

On the contrary there is much doubt about any beneficial ``revolution”-taking place. The internet fits into the same tradition of making all human relationships superficial and ``touch and go``, put into place by industrial capitalism, similar to the TV that played its role in breaking up community, fire side tales and social tradition. All steps towards the dumbing down of the human race as detailed prose is replaced by short memos or one liners and smilies, while the onslaught of corporate culture colonizes social tradition. Much more effort and as a result, sincerity and concern, went into the snail mail letter writing than goes into emails, the letter as such has lost its literary value.

That said, Sohail sahib, tahmed is in dire need of your Internet psychiatry services. He has been obsessing over my posts and imagining them even when I don`t post. I am gone a few short hours and he is already worked up about why masadi hasn`t written on here. What label from the DSM fits his ailment?

>>>

Enjoy.

Here is fuzair`s post on what he claims was my ``Islamic banking piece`` that I didnt answer. Let`s see the calibre of his post once again (and I`m sorry for detracting from the topic, but I want to show you all how worthless these liars are).

<<< #5 Muslims and Modern Banking: A Rejoinder on March 1, 2006
OK, I found an old post of mine that is on topic here. It`s from ``Interest Free Pakistan`` (http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000982&channel=market%20street&threshold=1&layout=0&order=0&start=200&end=209&page=1#66)
and it might be interesting to some.

Mr. Asadi might be interested in learning a little bit more about the topic rather than just repeating ``just because`` but sociology is notoriously deadening for the brain....

#66 by fuzair on January 23, 2001 9:42am PT
We have to realize that banning interest is a common feature of many primitive economic systems. Scarcity/subsistence economies favor `profit/loss sharing` (PLS) institutions because this is a risk reduction mechanism. If you are living on the margin of existence and you borrow money for a business/trading venture which fails AND you have to repay the entire loan PLUS interest, you and your family starve. However, if this is not a loan but an equity stake, then you and your investor lose out (you lose some time and your part of the investment, he is out money) `equally` and you and your family don`t starve.

I believe Aristotle wrote against interest, the early and medieval Catholic church banned it and thought it work fit only for Jews when it had to be done and now it us benighted Muslims that are going to repeat the mistakes of centuries ago. Oh, thats right, we are in the 15th century.

So what is wrong with non-interest based systems? Many things.

First, what is interest? They teach us in Econ 101 that it is the `cost` of borrowing money since money is a commodity like corn or steel. Actually, it is more like the `rental` fee for using money since it has to be returned after use!

However, interest is also what equates the value of future consumption with that of present consumption. Without going into present value calculations, it is clear that the future is worth less to us than the present. Why? Because the future is by definition unknown. As Shakespeare said, it is the unknown country. We might be run over by a bus next month or shot by the Taliban next year for not having a beard. So to persuade us to save some part of our income for the future, we are paid interest so that the additional income we receive in the future compensates for the greater risk attached to postponing current consumption.

We could of course, being rational and knowing that we have to save for the future since we are likely to live on for a few more years, convert our unneeded camels into gold and bury it under our tent but that deprives the economy of the money needed to maintain a high level of economic activity.

So whats wrong with PLS systems? They work reasonably well in very restricted economic systems where everybody knows everybody else and the relative risk of the venture and the relative trustworthiness of the participants is common knowledge. However, in larger and more complex economic systems, such knowledge is NOT common. Then you have the problem of assymetric (one-sided) information (I know that I am a cheat but you don`t) and moral hazard (if I decide not to work as hard at making the venture a success, then I lose only half, not all) and adverse selection (I invest in a bad man`s camel trading venture) make it harder for PLS to work. There is a basic principal-agent problem here but that is covered in the moral hazard and adverse selection problems.

But why all these problems? Because there are too many people and too many businesses and we are only boundedly (not infinitely) rational.

So interest-based banking fits in quite nicely here. The savers (the source of the funds) are guaranteed their nice, safe but small return. The bank does the basic information gathering (credit reports) to rank-order the creditworthiness of borrowers and makes its decisons accordingly. We still have some of the same basic problems as before (some loans--in Pakistan all big loans--do go bad) but at a much smaller scale.

Now, interest-based banking also provides security to the small savers ( I KNOW that I will be earning 6% p.a.) that, theoretically, is not there in PLS systems. If the principal is guaranteed, that is NOT Islamic since then there is no risk. If a minimum return is guaranteed, that is also not Islamic. In advanced economies, if people want a higher return, they can invest in the stock market--riskier but PLS--or venture capitalism--very risky but real PLS!

My experience of PLS banking in Pakistan is about a decade out-of-date but I can assure you that there was nothing Islamic about it. We literally used the same forms as before, just changing a few words (e.g., `rate of service charge` for `interest rate`). One key difference was that the maximum repayment amount was set (i.e., size of default penalty), which is not usually found in more conventional systems.

There was also nothing Islamic about our Modarabas, they worked on the same `sale and buyback` basis that we used in our hypothecation (i.e., collateral or security) agreements.

My point here is that we made banking `Islamic` by changing the words and not the practices. I`ve heard that the government is going to abolish Defence and other savings certificates since they pay a fixed rate of profit (note the usage mind you, profit and not interest). So what is the govt going to do? Technically it is always making a loss (have we ever run a budget surplus?) so how can it Islamically pay its bondholders? Incidentally, I`ve also read that the govt has assured the IMF and WB that it is not going to do away with its bonds.

Why would any one in his or her right mind enter into a PLS agreement with the Pakistani government?

So why do people with Ph.D.s in Economics blather on about Islamic economics? Why did Ph.D.s in Economics extoll the virtues of Socialism? Because they are ideologues and not practitioners. These people compare the theoretical virtues of an ideal system (true socialism or true Islam) with the very imperfect workings of the real world (e.g., the US economy). Guess what? The real world lost.

Now what about people like Maududi et al? For them Islam is perfection so Islamic finance MUST work. In any case, they are also ideologues not concerned with the real world workings of economies and so actually trying to work out a plan to implement it is not their concern.

In theory I guess you could work out people`s rate of time preference and so work out some sort of a `virtual` interest rate that would allow optimum resource allocation decisions between present and future consumption. However, this smacks of Alec Nove`s fatuous comment (I believe in the `Economics of Feasible Socialism) that socialism could work if they could just duplicate the price mechanism. So Islamic economics could work if they could just duplicate the interest rate! Wah ji wah!!

So why go through all these contortions trying to make elephants fly? Because we are stupid.

Regards. >>>>>

First there is no question, it is a copy paste from an earlier post of his. Let`s go through the post and see what he is selling:

Fuzair : ``Mr. Asadi might be interested in learning a little bit more about the topic rather than just repeating ``just because`` but sociology is notoriously deadening for the brain.... ``

If all he got out of the article was ``just because`` then I`m sorry no answer will suffice for him. The interest article was written first in 1991 and then revised in 1995. I constructed a econometrics model based upon it and tested it empirically regarding many of the claims that are backed up by authoritative sources, and the professor, not an Islamist by the way had great praise for it. It was not based on just because. Then this damn fool claims that sociology is ``deadning for the brain``. I can bet he does not even know the scope and meaning of the word, and I challenge him here to explain what sociology is without repeating the redundant definition ``scientific study of society``, which is a tautological explaination. Nothing in this part, so let`s move on

Fuzair: ``We have to realize that banning interest is a common feature of many primitive economic systems. Scarcity/subsistence economies favor `profit/loss sharing` (PLS) institutions because this is a risk reduction mechanism. If you are living on the margin of existence and you borrow money for a business/trading venture which fails AND you have to repay the entire loan PLUS interest, you and your family starve. However, if this is not a loan but an equity stake, then you and your investor lose out (you lose some time and your part of the investment, he is out money) `equally` and you and your family don`t starve. ``

Nonsense reasoning, the same argument can be made for people living on the ``margins`` in the so-called ``advanced societies``. The type of economy is not the factor in levels of risk for people living on the margins, they are equally suseptible to starvation, in fact they are dying in greater number these days than days gone by. And don`t forget rules were not set in societies based upon ``those at the margins``, so your entire thesis is based on whim and not much else. It was outlawed by Islam, because it made the rich richer while impoverishing the poor, regardless of risk. Can you produce one verifiable reference (compared to the many that I produce in my article) that backs you half baked ``thesis``?

Fuzair: ``....So to persuade us to save some part of our income for the future, we are paid interest so that the additional income we receive in the future compensates for the greater risk attached to postponing current consumption.``

Not so, and this was answered in the article itself. First you don`t take note of the fact that what you get in the future, due to the inflation creating activities of money lending institutions and other reasons might not even make up the balance. Next, you ignore the fact that savings are not motivated by a higher interest rate, like the article stated quoting Dornbusch and Fisher`s standard Macro Econ book: ``But should we really expect an increase in the interest rate to increase savings? It is true that when the interest rate rises, saving is made more attractive. But it is also made less necessary. Consider someone who has decided to save an amount that will ensure that $10,000 per year is available for retirement. Suppose that the interest rate now is 5% and the person is saving $1,000 per year. Now let the interest rate rise to 10%. With such a high interest rate, the individual needs to save less now to provide the given 10,000 per year during retirement. It may be possible to provide the same retirement income by saving only about $650 a year. Thus an increase in the interest rate might reduce saving. (Dornbusch, Fischer 278)

Not only that I tested it using US data in 1995 and found a negative relationship between interest rates and savings. There, you pulled out BS out of thin air while I did real scientific work on forming my conclusion.

Then you talk about the Pakistan PLS system. I am not defending that at all. You are looking at the benefits of interest from the consumer of interest`s point of view. I am looking at it from the society and the globe`s point of view and the hazards that such lending practices and institutions have brought upon the world, like the IMF/World Bank, causing inflation, making sure that wealth circulates among a small select few while giving to most small investors even less than the rate of inflation makes it quite clear that there is no justification from a humanitarian point of view of interest based banking.

YOU LIED when you said I didn`t answer you. Your claims were infantile and half baked, ill thought out, which you had presented without any sources or evidence and many of the posts I did, did address the points raised in your post. The only thing you mention in the article is Econ 101 and then you have the audacity to say that I am an imbecile who says his point is right ``just because``. If I have missed answering any of your ``claims`` that are jumping out at you, let me know. I am fully capable of dismantling your ``whim based`` scholarship. Sociology is not deadning for the mind, contrary to that your posts reveal a dead mind. Sociology helps you see the BIG picture, which in your narrow, selfish mentality you are incapable of seeing. Now take you BS and return to that narrow hole that defines your existance.

Ms. Turkey. How about getting out of your unmodern cave and signing this petition?


MUSLIM MANIFESTO: Like men, women should have the right to decide how they will live, dress, travel, marry and divorce; if they do not enjoy these rights, they are clearly second-class citizens.

MUSLIM MANIFESTO: All critiques of Islam should be countered not by threats and violence, but by rational counter-argument

MUSLIM MANIFESTO: We strongly denounce anti-Semitism. We accept Israel`s right to exist.

MUSLIM MANIFESTO: We accept the legitimacy of the secular state and the secular law. Islamic law, or sharia, was developed at a time when Muslims were living in homogenous communities. In the modern world, virtually all societies are pluralistic, consisting of different faiths and of different perceptions of each faith, including Islam. In this pluralistic setting, a legal system based on a particular version of a single religion cannot be imposed on all citizens.

MUSLIM MANIFESTO: We support and cherish democracy — not because we reject the sovereignty of the Almighty over people, but because we believe that this sovereignty is manifested in the general will of people in a democratic and pluralistic society. We do not accept theocratic rule

MUSLIM MANIFESTO: we cherish religious liberty. Every human has the right to believe or not to believe in Islam or in any other religion All Muslims furthermore have the right to reject and change their religion if desired

Sign it here
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol_baran200603010816.asp

#86 fuzair writes <<< Why do you waste your time with this imbecile Masadi? >>>

Given the calibre of my posts vs yours, people can tell who the imbecile is. Read your post again, it has not a shread of evidence against or for anything, then go and read my posts, every single claim I make is backed by facts that you can verify or constructed in a logically convincing manner. It is very easy to claim three weeks after the fact that I ignored answering one of your questions out of the ten dozen that were thrown at me. Show me how your question was relevant and cannot be rationally answered. You, like tahmed who is busy psychoanalyzing my motivations (without having any qualification to do so) just make claims. That damn fool comes up with fiction tales and then calls me an imbecile, and you sorry sob have nothing better to do than tell people to ignore me even though you cannot logically/empirically challenge my claims

And tahmed, I have presented fact after fact which you dismiss saying that I do so because it makes me ``feel good``. Why aren`t more people doing that if gives people such a ``high``? Further, I am not going against the US when I condemn the US elite, the country is supposed to be described by its people not the tiny elite that has a social profile that does not match the vast majority of those in this country. You don`t understand a damn thing do you. You are so deeply buried in the official mythology of the corporate media concerning America and what it is so that you don`t even know who or what defines this country. In my books, you are a total damn fool.

Saima, {``On the cusp of the East and the West, Turkey was the first to relinquish its pre-modern code for modernity. It has seen the dubious results of drastic reinvention in the modernization of Turkey. Turkey lost its script, its language and its clothes. Did it become a world leader of anything as a result? Ummm. Not really. One of the conundrums of the modernity brigade is that Turkey, after expunging dogmatic religion did not become an egalitarian, open society of exemplary tolerance. ..Quite ironically Turkey gave more to the world in the times of the Ottoman empire than in its modern incarnation 50 years ago. Its forced ‘modernization’, cut away the heart of its identity and it has never really found a replacement in post-modern materialism. ``}

Saima,
First let me comment on your article. It is written very well and you have presented you point of view effectively. I appreciate your effort in bringing an interesting and controversial topic to everyone`s attention. You have connected many unrelated and pertinent issues all into a condemnation of modernity - with all its problems of under-population, longevity, improved health, higher standard of living, reliance on automation for boring, mundane chores, and lack of back-breaking ordeals of toil and suffering. Yes, we need to hand it to you to bring back the good old days of pre-modernity. Needless to say, I vehemently disagree with your illogical conclusions.

Now, your comments about Turkey are not exactly accurate either. The ``lost script`` was Arabic and the ``lost language`` was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian. Thanks to Ataturk, Turkey switched to Roman script and restored the language, though, unfortunately not completely, to its original Turkic roots. The change in script has resulted in a literacy rate that is in the 85% range. The clothing you refer to - turbans, fez, shalwars, and flowing robes - were all borrowed from others and to this day one can recognize the rural poor by their baggy shalwars where the crotch hangs at the knees. Being a world power from the 14th through the 19th centuries, caused Ottoman Turkey to fight war after war, only to lose it all in 1917 thanks to the disloyalty of their Arab co-religionists and the infamous Lawrence of Arabia - so much for Islamic unity. It was non-existent even before it vanished.

Turkey, while far from being a true reflection of 21st century European society, is much more tolerant, modern, and egalitarian than most countries to its east. Turkey today is not a world leader in anything, except the dubious lead in production of sheep. However, it is a much better place in which to live than many countries of the world. The weather is gorgeous, the law and order situation is superior, and the people are well-fed, disciplined, helpful, and courteous. Women can walk safely in urban areas at all hours and religious bigotry is minimal - although there are some troubling signs of a resurgence of fanaticism. In Turkey you can drink locally-produced Efes beer while you listen to the beautiful Azaan - now in Arabic. Turks don`t drink in mosques and don`t pray in bars, while both flourish. Turkey is just fine, thank you. :)

kulharee jee: i just did a bit of intellectualizing myself in #90!! so what can i say about others. :-)

fuzair: i stopped taking masadi seriously though when i realized that communication for him was a one-way street: he talks and you listen. :-)

but then, there are not too many people on chowk who are capable of rational discussion or of changing their mind on anything. They will stick to their positions come hell or high water and keep ranting on the same bloody thing year after year.

I think people like masadi (and I know you are reading this masadi, and dont pretent otherwise!!) badly need to read the long-standing best-seller book ``Getting to say Yes`` (which they had us read in the organization i used to work for) - and which makes a sharp distinction between the position people take in discussions vs. the underlying reason they are that gave rise to their position.

So, the underlying concern in case of masadi and others who love to rant against the US (and this is my hypothesis) is the ego satisfaction from taking on the US. Try to present him with facts, and he will ignore that, and in fact further increase his ego satisfaction by assuring you that you are a slave of the US (meaning, he is not, because look, masadi spits at even the greatest US!!). So, while he may seem like an imbecile to you - i think it has more to do with ego needs rather than with a lack of intellect.

while i do come to chowk basically to kill some time, i must admit that i enjoy writing stuff here and a number of chowk posters - like hamidm - are fun to read regardless of whether you agree with everything they say.

Re: # 88

T-Bone Saab. You pull a brick, and you get a dilettante logician and a philosopher rolled into one. All you have to do is to look around.