cthulu23

I'm more concerned of what the completely knowledgable people would do with such a system....talk about rife for abuse. The history of poll tests has been one of intentional disenfranchisment of minorities or other groups. You say that we already have massive fraud in our elections so why reintroduce such an easily abuseable "protection" as a poll test?

Voting abuse via poll tests could produce lots and lots of cases of wrongful disenfranchisment...this has been it's most common usage throughout our history.

The idea of amending the constitution to okay a poll test makes me a little queasy...see my above statements.

OpieCunningham

I don't see how this would produce any more abuse than we already have - what with people in some areas being told they will have to pay their parking tickets if they show up at a polling station.

As I said - there is always the potential for abuse in all things - but we do not always aim for the lowest common denominator, and when we do, I oppose it. As such, I oppose the right to vote being given to people that are clueless as to the basic information they are exerting their power over.

You state that there have been tests in the past that have proven detrimental. Like what? When?

cthulu23

They were proven detrimental because they were used to wrongfully disenfranchise blacks, other minorities, poor whites and many other less-powerful types. This is standard knowledge and has been stated in this thread already. Your test may be different on the surface but it is still the spiritual descendent of the ugly tests of the past. I doubt that it would take very long before someone perverted it for their own gain again.

The difference between voter intimidation and the abuse of your proposed poll test is that voter intimidation is already illegal, not a standard part of the process that is written into the constitution.

SecretMethod70

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow

It would be nice to come up with a way to have a constitutional amendment which leaves no room for misues, but I'm just not sure it's possible, not to mention affordable. I don't think it's feasable, unfortunately, for every polling station in every nowhere, America to provide support for the endless number of languages possibly spoken here.

Don't get me wrong Opie, I understand what you're getting at and I do sympathize, I just really don't think, sadly enough, that there is a truly fair way to do it.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

todapam

Who decides the "intellectual" criteria? Congress? Aiiiiiee. Democracy is just that. The great unwashed make decisions that certain classes do not agree with - therefore they should not have the right to vote.....

Hmmm What's the next step?

mattevil

I think until more than half the country votes we really shouldn't have to worry about excluding people.

OpieCunningham

I don't see how a comparison to racial segregation makes any sense - unless you mean we would be segregating people who do not have enough information to make a valid judgement. But that is precisely the point.

The language aspect I already spoke to - ballots are not provided in every language on the planet, so if language is not an issue with the ballots, it would not be an issue with the tests.

t193r7

The process of democratic election should be "DEMOCRATIC", thus a true representation of different opinions of the ENTIRE (sound minded) population- 'a cross section' as one said before in this thread.

The problem of stripping 'uneducated mass' their right to vote based on their academic record will be:

* The 'educated mass' is very likely to have some what different social ecomnomic status from the 'uneducated mass', this no doubt in my mind will bring a confilict of interest. If the 'uneducated' 'irresponsible' gave up their rights to the 'educated' 'more responsible', what will stop the 'educated' population from abusing their own voting rights to only benefit themselves? Isn't this the problem why democracy is created in the first place?

SecretMethod70

My point is that in order to have testing it would have to be EXTREMELY specific for one thing. No grandfather clauses at all. And how do we know the test is compiled fairly, unlike the "literacy tests" given to blacks?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

OpieCunningham

How often do you hear about grandfather clauses, racial segregation or fraud when it comes to the content of drivers tests?

There are certain empirical facts which lie outside the realm of cultural subjectivity. These facts would make up the test. As I demonstrated with the sample questions listed above.

This is not a "if you're not really damn smart, you're not voting" thing - it's basic information that anyone spending a marginal amount of time paying attention to the candidates and the issues would know.

Who makes the test? A bipartisan organization with an oversight committee with multiple University Political Science dept. reviews.

Ustwo

Perhaps we should just allow land owners to vote?

Or perhaps white males (as testing has shown that they are the best educated on political issues).

Or perhaps white male landowners. That rings a bell for me.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

I've never heard of fraud in driving tests, but I have heard of widespread voting abuses. It seems that what works for one might not work for the other.

Your idea does seem both logical and reasonable but there is a reason that most restrictions on voting have been removed over the course of American history. Many of these barriers were designed to remove the political power of some of the least powerful Americans. We should seek alternate methods to overcome voter apathy or ignorance...the potential for abuse and inherent elitism of a poll test disqualifies it for consideration in my mind.

t193r7

Just a thought:

Educated, informed, intellegent, does not equal to: Responsible.

OpieCunningham

There are a couple of fundamental differences with all voting restriction of the past vs. this political test:

1- None of those voting restrictions were intended directly address the issue of ignorance. Ostenisibly, those in favor of those restrictions may have claimed that the goal was to create a more accurate poll of knowledgeable public opinion, but the reality is they did not target knowledge - they targetted whatever they predetermined was a seperation between those with knowledge and those without. In most cases, this broke down along racial lines.

2- None of those voting restrictions were avoidable. Because they actually had nothing to do with the knowledge of the person affected by the restriction, there was nothing that an excluded person could do to become included. In my example, that situation is not present. If you fail a test, you are not prohibited from ever voting, you simply have to learn the very basics of the issues by paying a marginal amount of attention to society and pass the test when you retake it.

I do not see any inherent avenues of abuse or elitism with a basic knowledge test.

OpieCunningham

There's a whole thread around here discussing responsibilty. Essentially, responsibility is contingent on being educated and informed. If you lack information, you are unable to judge what is or is not the responsible course.

host

This thread's title gives me inspiration to start a new one:
"Should people who aren't that bright be allowed to be president?"

I can think of recent two presidents who did not display the intellectual capicity to adequately comprehend and carry out the intricacies and duties of the
POTUS. Maybe we should tackle that question before we further examine the
voter question. After all, presidents who do not have the reasoning ability of
their predecessors might cause some damage to the country, like.....oh.....let me...see.......signing legislation and executive orders that result in trillions of dollars in new deficits. <a href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:rjY7FT6e22MJ:ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/Republicans%2520and%2520Democrats%2520Have%2520Switched.PDF+Jeffrey+Frankel+switched&hl=en">
When it comes to White House economic policy, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched places since the 1960s.</a>

GMontag

Why would it require a constitutional amendment? There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees *anybody* the right to vote. Its all up to the states. A state can decide to not let anyone vote if they wanted to. All the constitution says about voting is that you can't deny someone the right to vote for specific reasons (race, gender, age if you are over 18).

hannukah harry

out of curiosity, who's the other?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

SecretMethod70

All you have to do is live in Illinois - you'll hear LOTS about it

Opie, I'd LOVE to think of a fair way to do it, I just can't. Can you give some example of how you would word legislation to avoid any possible loopholes to use the test for discriminatory purposes?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

t193r7

A responsible person is likely to be an educated and well informed person, I agree, but is the reverse true? A irresponsible person doesn't have to be uninformed and not educated.

host

From 1981 until 1993, the federal debt increased from $994 Billion to
$4351 billion, or $4.35 trillion. This amounted to $3377 of new debt amassed
during 12 years of combined Reagan/Bush I presidencies.

From 1993 to 1999 the debt increased an additional $1254 billion, in
the first 6 years of Clinton's presidency. From 1999 to 2001, during Clinton's
final 2 years, the debt increased only $164 billion. Total new debt added in
Clinton's 8 years was $1418 billion. Total new debt added in just 4 years
under Bush I was $1484 billion. Bush II took office in 2001 with the rate of
debt increase slowed to 50 percent of the rate during his father's term.
In the 8 years before Reagan took office in 1981, the federal debt had
increased by $566 billion. During Reagan's 8 years, the rate of new debt more
than tripled, to $1893 billion during his presidency.
In the 4 years since 2001, the debt is increasing $1717 billion, compared to
$400 billion from 1997 to 2001. From 1981, when Reagan took office, the
federal debt has increased from $995 billion, which was accumulated from
1789 until 1981, to $7486 billion, or $7.486 trillion.
Recap:
Carter 1977 to 1981 $288 billion of new debt
Reagan 1981 to 1985 $908 billion of new debt
Reagan 1985 to 1989 $985 billion of new debt
Bush I 1989 to 1993 $1484 billion of new debt
Clinton 1993 to 1997 $1018 billion of new debt
Clinton 1997 to 2001 $400 billion of new debt
Bush II 2001 to 2005 $1717 billion of new debt (projected)

smooth

I personally know a number of people who can't answer any of those questions, but will be casting valuable votes nonetheless. They may not know the answer to those questions, but they are informed (by me) on a number of issues we feel are important to us.

Why do you feel those questions are even relevant to who our next president should be? Now I understand you were just making examples, but hopefully you will rethink your position in light of the realization that many people feel strongly about one or two issues--and they vote accordingly. If my father-in-law wants to vote solely on whether abortion should be criminalized, that's between him and his deity. It affects me as a member of the larger society, but so my vote affects him in similar ways. What you may feel to be relevant issues, may not be (and most likely will not be) to someone else.

Why did I bother to answer this? We already have a buffer against the unintelligent masses making choices that could prove detrimental to the nation--the electoral college. It's almost silly that someone would support a test on political knowledge before voting when that person would flunk it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

DJ Happy

Interesting discussion.

I hear a lot of talk about the fact that all "sound-minded" adults should be allowed to vote, and it got me thinking of the definition of being of sound mind.

In my opinion it extends further than those who are diagnosed with a mental illness. [Edit: A man can be] brainwashed by baseless propoganda and he could well use that as the basis of his voting decision. He is not using his mind in a responsible manner, as the instrument of critical and inquisitive thought - he is just doing what he has been told. But then the question arises of, "Who decides what is propoganda and what isn't." Truth is a relative concept after all.

But I still feel that knowledge of basic issues should form some part of the basic requirement. In my first post I mentioned the case of the parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour because of a supposed policy of theirs which in fact is not a policy of theirs at all. Refusing these people the right to vote would not only save the electorate from being subjected to policies that the voters never intended to be put into practice in the first place but would spare his parents the embarrassment of playing a part in their own downfall. The problem is that we have people voting who don't know what they're actually voting for, in which case how is the vote representative of the will of the people?

How to implement these measures would be the problem, and I like Opie's suggestions, although I think that the tests should be more black and white ("Who is the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?") to limit the ambiguity of some knowledge and opinions.

DJ Happy

This, in my opinion, is another reason to ensure basic knowledge prior to voting. You are basically telling people how they should vote based on your own opinions and motivations. How is this in their best interests? They should be collating their own information and forming their own viewpoints. In essence, this practice could result in you casting 5 or 10 votes.

It's not that the answers to these questions are relevant to who should lead the country, but rather that being able to answer these questions would be evidence of being able to make an informed opinion about who to vote for. I would have no problem with your father-in-law voting solely on the basis of the issue of abortion - as long as he was knowledgeable enough to know each candidate's stance on it and his vote was an informed one.

smooth

political action and parties hinge upon groups of people forming ideas based on simlar ideals. it's in peoples best interest to vote on issues that are meaningful to them or the group of people they share views with. groups coalescing together and determing what is important to them, even if there are only 7 of them, is the very nature of politics. nothing is going to result in me casting 5 or 10 votes: I only vote once, and my friends, who share similar views on the issues that are important to us as a political group, will vote one time each.

That you would draw a distinction between me or a party official motivating people to vote in a particular way is very strange to me. It seems to me that I would know the needs and issues within my circle of friends better than a party official. I must say that I find your notion of representative politics very strange if you think that people should be tested whether they know enough of some outsider's opinions and views rather than if their information is formed within the circle of people they spend time with every day of their lives.

People will make an informed decision based on what is important to them--not what you (or anyone) else thinks should be important and subsequently placed on a test. My father-in-law only needs to know that his candidate doesn't want to allow abortion--he doesn't need to know what anyone else thinks about it in order to make an 'informed' decision. That's my point.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

DJ Happy

From the sounds of your original post I was under the impression that you informed your friends as to the stances of various candidates and the impact they would have on their lives if voted into office. If it is a genuine discussion, then fine. If it's you acting as their only source of information, then it is not.

If you worked in marketing you would know that the influence of someone that is known to you versus the influence of a stranger (you vs. a party official) is astronomical. Strangers are more likely to be viewed as information sources - acquaintances are more likely to be viewed as decision influencers. You are therefore more likely to influence a friend's vote and this is an influence that is easily manipulated. Again, an informed decision is not made, but an order is obeyed.

I don't think I understand the second part of your paragraph. If I understand it correctly, you think that people should be tested on the views of their circle of friends? When it comes to voting someone into power, unless that person is a friend of yours, the views of your friends are irrelevant. But I don't think I've understood you correctly.

The only problem being that not everyone will make an informed decision. And with regards to your father-in-law, I direct you to the example I've made twice now with regards to voters thinking that someone stood for something when in fact they stood for the complete opposite.

t193r7

I think that being well informed before the election and being ignorant before the election are simply two valid ways of choosing a candidate. This is a matter of freedom of choice.

On the otherhand we also should increase public awareness of the election to reduce confusion and 'mistaken identity' on the ballot paper, but should never bar people from the ballot box just because they choose to be or simply ignorant.

roachboy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...329858,00.html

i posted this on the general discussion thread about this guardian initiative.
i put it here too because it directly gives the lie to the collection of stereotypes trotted out above.

read through this and then let me know about the profound grasp of history exhibited by american conservatives.

o yes, it is most impressive.

beyond a certain point, you simply have to let conservatives talk and the need for comment simply dissolves.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

This statement from the thread starter:

"When I hear someone say that Al Qaeda hates America because of all the freedoms afforded to its citizens, I don't consider that person to be of sound mind."

tends toward undercutting any validity this thread may have.

This quote from the above poster:

"While I think there are people to stupid or uninformed to vote (I call these people liberals)..."

follows up on the same approach and baits flames as does the first quote.

Thanks to those who moderated their responses here. Considering the other side to be stupid, not-bright, not of sound mind, or uniformed is neither reasoned nor reasonable. Please carry on in a spirit more in keeping with respectful discussion.

__________________
create evolution

SecretMethod70

Yes, to echo art's points, it is detrimental to this discussion to make inferences that those with different opinions or perceptions of events are less intelligent than you.

I have edited out the above examples which art provided and tried to do so in a way that preserves the greater point of the post. I also want to thank those of you who did not take the bait in this thread. It has been an interesting discussion because of your resistance to the devolution of the discussion.



On topic with the thread, this is a perfect example of the problems that are present in voting tests. The only questions which are fair to ask are questions which are absolutely, 100%, black and white. And, in politics, almost nothing is.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ARTelevision

The thesis, then, is back to whether we want as near as possible a reflection of the constituency in our voting process. Personally, I do. If we are or become a nation of people who do not think very well, so be it. Natural selection is an unyielding and never ending process. I'll take my chances with it.

__________________
create evolution

SecretMethod70

A valid opinion. One which I don't agree with, but a valid one nonetheless. I believe that there is a reason we are a republic as opposed to a straight democracy, and I believe that this is one of those reasons - a recognition that there are some people more suited at making decisions than others. Personally, I would like to see a way to fairly extend this to voting (erring on the side of caution), but I cannot seem to find a way that is completely safe from covert and even unintentional discrimination . So, I am forced to agree for the time being that the current way is the best we have. To work within this realm, changes must be made, instead, to provide more clear and objective knowledge to voters - something the media is becoming ever worse at.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

DJ Happy

Sorry, but I don't consider what I wrote to be flaming. The example that I have given above is an example of what I call an uninformed decision. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and there never has been, so to me, someone making their voting decision based on this "opinion" is not making an informed decision.

It is not so much an opinion that I do not agree with as a baseless opinion.

host

ARTelevision, I'll admit that I was aggravated from the moment Bush "took"
office because it is reaonable, in my mind, given the facts that I have posted
all over these threads, to have the informed opinion that the Supreme Court
of the United States, in concert with Bush, his brother and his backers,
preempted the rights of the voters in Florida, and subverted the U.S. Constitution by installing Bush in the POTUS by judicial edict.

Bush had deliberately misled this country into a war that has needlessly
resulted in the deaths of too many Americans and Iraqus. He has attacked
and diminished the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention by denying
Citizens and foreigners who have been accused of crimes, a right to an
attorney, and an opportunity to appear before a judge, holding unindicted
individuals for as long as three years now. Bush's economic policies and
government budget management have been disasterous to our future
credit risk, and to the soundness of the dollar. He has conducted government
in secret unless forced by legal action to disclose the deliberations that the
people have a right to observe. He has appeared for only 25% of the press
conferences that recent past presidents have participated in.

I observed Republicans in the federal legislature react to the point of impeaching former President Clinton for lying under oath about an adulterous
affair, in a deposition that occurred because conservative Republicans known
to Bush financed the litigation that made the deposition possible.

I lived in Manhattan on 9/11, and now I observe that in a recent poll, nearly
half of NYC residents believe that Bush and his government had enough
advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack to prevent or minimize it's effects if
they had made doing so a priority. It is clear to me that Bush and Cheney
have deliberately encouraged and inflamed a climate of fear in order to
strenghten their own political power. It is ironic, that this tactic of deception
has succeeded in creating a heightened level of fear among people who live
in areas of the country that most probably will never face a terrorist attack.
Ironic that in the frontline, high probability areas of NYC and Washington DC,
the populations are overwhelmingly in favor of the election of Bush's opponent.

The debates revealed to anyone who wanted to look that Bush does not
appear to have the maturity, self control, commuinication skills, or the
ability to think on his feet to be qualified to be POTUS. I beleive that anyone
who would publically declare that terrorists "hate us because of our freedoms", is making an empty and stupid statement. I am outraged and
quietly hostile toward people who support Bush for reasons unrelated to
their religious beliefs, because I am informed about Bush's record, his failings,
and his potential to do much greater harm to our country and to the world.
Bush has failed the test of honesty and forhtrightness that I require of a
POTUS. I respect the rights of others to hold informed opinions that differ
from my own, but I did observe the low standards of tolerance that
Republican leaders displayed towards Clinton in their impeachment of him on
charges that Bush's actions render moot, in comparison.

When I read that you enthusiastically support a candidate who I believe,
without a doubt, has committed multiple acts that have violated his oath to
"preserve and protect the Constitution", a candidate who should be
enduring the process of impeachment, and then criminal prosecution if the
impeachment proceedings deliver evidence that would warrant that, I have
no choice but to wonder how you could support a man under such a cloud
of valid accusations.

The next time you decide that it is necessary to "moderate" in these threads,
please ask yourself how you would react if you held a point of view similar to
mine, before you determine who is being too shrill or too obnoxious here.
I read the Chicago Trib's endorsement of Bush's candidacy with as open a
mind as I could muster. Please review the articles at these links to get a
better idea of why the outrage only grows among some of those that you
have the authority to moderate:
<a href="http://nytimes.com/2004/10/19/international/19war.html">The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War</a>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41903-2004Oct18.html</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=">Without a Doubt nytimes.com 10/18/04</a>

cthulu23

Wasn't this thread locked?

ARTelevision

Yes it was. I re-opened it in the hope that it would proceed well.

host: questions that you have regarding how this site and this Forum are moderated are to be PMed to staff and not to be posted publically.

I understand your issues.

My moderation in these threads has nothing whatsoever to do with my particular point of view.

Your response may be understandable but it is out of line.

__________________
create evolution

SirSeymour

I think it would be very difficult to measure ones right to vote in terms of intelligence. I too struggle with this idea as I no longer believe in universal sufferage just because you are born in this country and don't commit felony crime.

Part of the reason I believe this now is that I think making it a "right" for everyone who can register, is over 18 and not a convicted criminal has cheapened it to the point where it is no longer valued. This has led to our current low voter turn out. It is something of an excepted reality that things that are "free" to us are valued and cared for less than those we earn. I think it is time to make all citizens who wish to vote earn it in some form.

Another part of the reason I dislike universal sufferage is that it seems a lot like the fox guarding the hen house to me in financial terms. All of those citizens who receive all or part of their income from government entitlements are, in effect, in a position to vote for those who will continue those programs the longest. It is the same as me having control over the executives who decide payraises at work. It is not good business in my view.

There are reasons the founding fathers put in the property requirements for voting rights in the first Constitution. While I do not agree with them disqualifying some because of color or sex, the property requirement makes more sense to me. I have long thought that some limited form of this would be good too add back to voting. I am not completely sure how to go about it, of course. There are some issues with it that would need to be addressed. For example, my aunt who worked for the government, was never on any type of government entitlement program, never married, never owned a home of her own (she prefered living in an apartment) but yet paid taxes and understood politics/history very well. She was not a property owner but it was by choice and was definitely qualified to vote in terms of intelligence.

Like I said, needs some work but I think this should be looked at.

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

hannukah harry

i've heard the statistics for voter turn out in other democratic countries, and the put us to shame. but one of the factors in that may be that we hold our elections on a tuesday, while most other places do it on the weekend. if we changed that, we might have more people turning out and it won't seem so devalued.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Lebell

My problem with the opinion in Tilted Politics and in general is when I am told that my opinion is "uninformed", as if the writer knows who I am and what my life experience is, while theirs is obviously superior.

My opinion may be different, it may be unpopular with you, but I can promise that it is neither "uninformed" nor inferior.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

SecretMethod70

host, I asked art to re-open this thread because I thought a worthwhile discussion was happening outside of the couple jabs taking place. It appears to me that I may have overestimated its worth though.

As art said, if you have questions regarding moderation, PM them to someone, don't hijack threads for your own means. Considering that you admit you are "hostile" to those who support Bush, it seems to me as though you may not exactly have the most objective perspective of what you perceive. If you cannot respect the fact people differ in opinion from you, and you see nothing wrong in this lack of respect, that easily explains why one may not see certain things as "fair."

Both comments art pointed out are comments which had the potential to threaten the evolution of this thread. Both were comments that would have had validity if they were stated in a more respectful manner. One of them I was able to edit in such a way as to get the point across I think just as well without being disrespectful of the fact some people have different opinions and interpretations of facts.

"Outrage" is no excuse for showing disrespect and contempt for other people's opinions. The strength of your point of view makes absolutely no difference in your responsibility to be a respectful poster, however much the other person's view may differ from yours. The rest of your post I'll simply attribute to grandstanding - you know full well it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. When you're free enough of a "hostile" mind to make those points in the appropriate places, you may feel free to do so in a way in which is respectful of the fact some people, who are equally and even more intelligent than you (and, yes, less as well), hold a very different opinion.

I reasoned to have this thread kept open because I thought it was a valid discussion and because it's one I also take a personal interest in. At this point though, I am willing close it at the drop of a hat. Get this thread back on topic and civilized again.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling