The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

Since when is the central goal of this discussion to "refute" you or anyone else? Is this called a debate forum, or a discussion forum? And with that question in mind, do you know the difference between the two?

fair enough. obviously certain beliefs/allegiances are incompatible though, which i thought might apply here.



i think it lacks substance because as far as i can gather it's ideas contain no critique of contemporary society that might lead to any sort of real change. i mentioned this before and thought it would be obvious. it contains elements that appear close to marxism in some ways, but removes the actual means by which to move forward.



unfortunately this is very wrong. class does, in fact exist. i will assume from your statement that you have never experienced living on the street, struggling to pay bills, being unable to eat for days on end, etc. i work everyday with people who know all too well from lived experience that class is actual and real. it is simply absurd to claim otherwise.





but this is a very myopic point of view. people who understand the dynamics of a class based society via everyday lived experience as outlined above don't often give a s**t about prada. you obviously don't understand this because you have never experienced or been around it. that's fair enough, but your comments are short sighted, demeaning and condescending to those who have.




do you actually think that i endorse consumer capitalism?? consumer capitalism exists, and no amount of fluffy idealism will magically take it away.



it might be irrelevant to you, but it would seem likely that this is because you have never been in a situation where anything more than "looking beyond" is required. if you can't afford to feed yourself, heat your home in the winter, live in any way beyond meaningless substistence existence where you might be working 90 hours a week to achieve the former. in such circumstances, "looking beyond" doesn't really achieve much of anything at all.


Remember Morgan Freeman's take on how to solve racism?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s[/youtube]

Its the same thing here. We release ourselves from the dividers that we have erected between each other. Because whether you are black, white, rich, poor, man, woman, transgender, it doesn't matter. We are both human beings. We are both equal. And there is no body of law that applies to us as human beings other than common law. Otherwise known as "Natural Law" or "The Law of the Land".[/quote]

oh please, don't start with the "FREEMAN ON THE LAND" nonsense. if you want to take the discussion in this direction, you should start a new thread.



me neither. but i don't personally apply the hierarchy of which you speak. unfortunately, it is applied to us by those who wield power. is this really hard to understand?



it is still stupid, because whether you like it or not, whether you'd rather "look beyond" factors such as class, or think them away with positive energy, they do actually physically exist in reality, and they're not going to just disappear because you want them to. it's simply stupid and naive to think otherwise. they are the product of a power imbalance, and those who this imbalance favours like things the way they are.






in fact i have read some of it. there is clearly criticism there, but there is, as far as i've been able to ascertain, very little actual critique. if you look at marx, whether or not you agree with his ideas, he did provide a very rigourous and robust critique of the social milieu as he saw it. he took it apart, analysed it's structure, and proposed a theoretical and practical alternative, complete with a realistic means by which this could be achieved. your argument thus far is simply that we should "look beyond" something and it will subsequently disappear.





strange reply. your grammar fascism seems to take precedence over the fact that i suggest your argument is nonsensical.




again, you seem to overlook the fact of reality. whether the bastardised version of 1984 is a true work of orwell or not, we understand what it is because we have READ orwell. do you see what i'm getting at? because this seems to be what is completely lacking in your own world view.



i'm not asking you to do my thinking for me. i think enough for myself. and in fact, i THINK the reason that you are refusing to give me an explanation is simply that you CAN'T.




i don't care for your bite sized podcasts. a post in this forum requires debate (regardless of your semantic hang-ups). if you can't robustly argue your point, you might as well give up and move on. i'm not going to spend hours of my life listening to your podcasts, because i don't care what you are saying in them. we are here, on an internet forum, taking part in a 2 way human interaction. but rather than reply to my point, you direct me to an endless list of bitesized podcasts??



but you're not paraphrasing me.




since you will undoubtedly refuse to explain this in your own terms, can you provide me a link of some sort to an article in which you exhaustively explain this?




did i mention anything about capital assets? have you ever in fact actually read marx?



anarcho capitalism involves ownership of resources and a MONETARY SYSTEM.



please stop with the grammar fascism. if you didn't get the point i was making, fair enough. but i think this is simply obfuscation.



are you saying that this is in reality a fact, or simply an idealistic notion?



but you just implied that an rbe would lack a monetary system. regardless of what you think, this is clearly a similarity between it and pure communism. simple fact.



sorry, but no.



communication is fluid. what started as a discussion will, where the participants disagree on fundamental points, become a debate, your obsession with semantics aside.




edited to fix quoting errors...

Last edited by peebo on 22 Dec 2011, 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I just watched your zietgiest film. It was a bit long but ok. I already knew about the jesus bit and the sun etc.
But do you really think they want to put chips in us?

apparently the zeitgeist movement has "looked beyond" the conspiracy documentaries.

Nope.



Then please by all means, feel free to stumble upon our abundant social commentary or "critiques" as you call them.



How so? And please, by all means, cite sources.



Well, you are right about one thing, you HAVE made an assumption. Your assumptions however do not stand up to intellectual rigour because you are running away with this fiction in your head about me which I have noticed later on in your post turns into an assertion. It would do you good not to make assumptions about anyone or anything. You will find yourself very wrong.

So considering that we have the technological and resource capability to feed, clothe, educate and provide for every human being on this planet at a high standard of living, does that mean that class exists as an empirical rule of existance, or is it merely temporally created within class systems?



It may be mypoic to you, but how does that go towards disproving the facts of the matter?



So now you have gone from assuming I have never known such hardship to flat out telling me that I haven't experienced such hardship. My, my, what an arrogant train of thought you are riding here.

Once again, you concentrate on your ad hom attacks constructed around your original ASSUMPTIONS, all the while evading the task of even attempting to actually address the point at hand. Very shaky ground for you mate. Very shaky.



Then why would you state about it in the way that you originally did?



Fluffy idealism? Magically? Ok mate, you need to put a halt to that logical fallacy right there. Using coloured language in order to forge an appeal-to-mockery fallacy purely because you have nothing to dispute it is severely damaging your case.

If this WERE a debate, you'd be losing.

You are clearly coming from a standpoint of a severe lack of knowledge or at least a staunch opposition to mankind actually growing up out of the infinite growth paradigm and finally becoming civilised. But that doesn't excuse such childish and laughable attempts to litter the discussion with your ad homs.

When you actually put all the bias to one side you can see things clearer. I would recommend you try it. You might be suprised what you will see.



So you've gone from ASSUMING my lack of experience with poverty, to an assertion of certainty about my lack of experience, now to "seem likely".

You see what I said earlier about you jumping from one assertion to another due to your lack of confidence in it? This example in particular is interesting since you are trying to speak of something in my past that you have zero knowledge of.



Of course not. I'm well aware of that. Telling someone about these things does nothing for their immediate suffering, I'm well aware of that. However it is a start. Ansd giving people hope for what their children's life can be is certainly a positive all round. It may not be able to actually DO anything for the here and now on the surface level, however it is a damn sight more than anything else can manage. Any idea starts with a seed. And a seed cannot feed you with its fruit because it hasn't grown to produce them. However you need to plant it, and nurture it in order for it to grow at all.




Wow, that really is amazing. You pounced upon the freeman stuff and jumped down my throat with a baseless rejection without even commenting on what I was actually saying. Amazing.



Its not hard to understand. Because we are ruled by CONSENT. And it is disappointing to see you give up so easily especially since the odds are stacked in the favour of the "99%" to put it in a phrase.



Wow, your arguments just get more and more childish. Are you gonna end up calling me a "poo-poo head" soon?

How does saying "it is still stupid" disprove anything? Grow up, will you?



Because of WHAT exactly?



Are you aware that if a terminal cancer patient doesn't receive treatment, they die, right? Its the same thing here. Our system is a cancerous, anti-economic, mathematically unsustainable model of infinite growth, on a FINITE planet. As such it creates and reinforces values that sustains it and vice versa. This isn't about anything that anyone "wants". How arrogant are we to think this is about wants anymore?

This is a simple case of preserve, or perish. Grow up or die.



Out you come again with the childish language. I understand it is far easier to call someone or something stupid without stepping up to the task of explaining why, but that is why you are failing as an intellectual. Coz you can't even keep your cool and stay away from logical fallacies.



Of course, however they aren't aliens that don't need the resources of this planet to survive, are they? They are living, breathing human beings, JUST like us. And they realise that if we screw this planet up, they won't survive much longer than we will. And even if they do, it would have to be in a bunker sunken a mile inside of a mountain for thousands of years. Wow, what a luxurious lifestyle. I think its better all round if we chose to collectively let go of a system that is killing us and instead chose to enjoy life while we still can. We have the technology to do it. Screw the money. "How much will it cost" is a non-sequitor. Coz we can technically do it.



What is with your obsession with Marx? Sometimes I get the feeling that YOU are the Marxist instead of me. Why when I ask you something probing, you start to answer, but then meander right back to him again, like his doomed rhetoric will give you any support whatsoever?

Yet again, you are assuming that my position is that we merely "look beyond" and everything will follow. Yet again, your assumptions make an ass of u and me. (joke)

If you think "looking beyond" as you so LOVE to repeatedly quote me on for some strange reason, will change anything by itself, then you are sorely mistaken. You need to wrap your head around the value system shift that is required to see every other human as you, and you as every other human. In fact you are one with the planet itself. Nothing esoteric about it. You are integrally dependant upon the planet, and the elements of the environment to allow your body to keep respiration, sight, bodily functions and the brain working. And nature also needs you. To protect it and preserve it, as it protects and preserves you. If you think you are too high and mighty about nature, try living outside of the cozy albeit EXTREMELY narrow band of environmental conditions that exist in this universe that facilitate human life.



Yes, its called irony in the face of ad hom. I hope you liked it.



And what about those who HAVEN'T read Orwell? NOW who's being "myopic"?



Sorry, but I find it hard to comprehend logical fallacies when they are paraded as logical discourse.



Yes, you ARE asking me to do your thinking for you. Either that, or you refuse to look at the information because it is not being placed before you in the format that we are speaking right now, because you don't really want to understand anything. You merely wish to attempt to pick it apart, and attempt to claim some sort of victory. Well believe me, doing your own research will take FAR, FAR less effort than it would for you to waste your time debating about it on here with me, so you might as well do us both a favour and actually get to KNOW what the hell you're talking about.

And if you care to look around on this forum, I have had threads going into 15 pages about this where I have exhaustively exchanged with some of the most belligerent trolls on this forum, and you are shaping up to be their replacement because I haven't heard from them in a while.

So your accusation that I "CAN'T" explain this, is based upon your refusal to even look and find them. Sorry, but your logic has fallen directly in upon itself.

Shall I link the threads in here? Do I REALLY have to spoon feed you?



Actually, the 15 minute videos are tailored mainly for individuals such as yourself who don't have the time for much. However, as I alluded to a moment ago, here is the ironic thing about your position on this matter. You can't be bothered to sit and listen to a 15 minute video, however you can spend HOURS on a forum arguing about it.

Something tells me that you're not really in this to learn, but to argue.



If you read the previous threads i have started, I only walked away once, and that was to take a break from the entire forum altogether for the period of about a year or so. I don't back down, you see. people give up on their arguments with me because their realise how futile it is trying to dominate me with their opinions, attacks and assertions.



However you WILL spend hours of your life arguing about something you hardly have any knoweldge of. How comedically tragic.



There we have it ladies and gentlemen, proof that this individual is not actually interested in an open-ended exchange and sharing of ideas and/or learning. This individual merely wantsd to publically throw faeces in the form or sentences.

If you "don't care" what I have said in my podcasts, what would cause me to think that you care about anything I am typing here? Its the same stuff. So your admission that you "don't care" seals the deal in terms of the fact that you're not interested in actually learning anything. You just want a fight.

Well I'm sorry, but I'm calling you out on that. And I don't debate. I prefer to learn from who I'm communicating with, as they learn from me. You know, like progressive and intellectually stimulating activity?



Hardly endless. Would you prefer I placed the transcripts for them all in my replies? Or don't you care either way?



Uhhh, yes I am. Please don't tell me I have to do your re-reading for you as well as your thinking.



Would you actually bother to read/listen to it if I provided one? Or are you asking for something that you will simply turn around and state that you "don't care" about?





I believe that is where you referred to capital assets. Sorry, but I notice things like that, even if the person who typed them doesn't. I have read much of Marx. Was very insightful when I was younger.



Does it really? Are you sure? I'm not even sure you are aware what a monetary system actually is.



If calling you out on certain words that make your sentences what they are, then I stand guilty as a grammar fascist. Or are you throwing out "grammar fascist" because you realise I'm calling you out for these things and sdon't like it so you feel the need to throw yet another ad hom at me?

Even if I were a "grammar fascist", what does that change? I still pointed out a flaw in your argument and you chose to avoid acknowledging that and instead play the hurt feelings card that religious people do when they say "why are you trying to upset me?"

How about you address the point at hand like an intellectual instead of screaming ridiculous accusations at me because I'm calling you out?



You sure like to equivocate, don't you? Address the point at hand and stop whinging about how hard I play. Man up.



Come on, put your knowledge of TZM's material to use and answer this one for yourself. Come on, don't be shy.



"OH MY GOD! RUN FOR THE HILLS! THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY JUST LIKE MARX IMPLIED!!"

Grow up will you?



Keep telling yourself that. Just so you know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat a baseless assertion. It doesn't make it any less false.



Of course it will. That is, if one or both participants are of the gaming mentality that debate requires. The gaming mentality that requires no elements of the exchange or sharing of knowledge, but rather a battle that requires an eventual winner and loser. How tragically primative.

What I'd like t to know is if Adam himself actually agrees with those videos.

While I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to watch Zeitgeist: The Movie, it is not the right film and hense not relevant at all to the topic of The Zeitgeist Movement. This is, as you will notice because Zeitgeist The Movie says nothing about a resource-based economy or TZM. Because it was made a year before TZM existed.

There are 2 later films that actually ARE relevant to this thread. Being Zeitgeist: Addendum, released in 2008, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, released in 2011. THOSE are the ones to watch in respect to what we're talking about here.

Zeitgeist: The Movie was made in late 2007 as a performance piece in manhattan (it wasn't even originally intended to be a film) by Peter Joseph, then thrown up online and became one of the most viewed documentaries of internet history, through being emailed with questions such as "what do we DO about all these problems?" Peter was introduced to the book "The Best that Money Can't Buy" by Jacque Fresco. Peter then interviewed Jacque and his associate Roxanne, and decided to make Zeitgeist: Addendum which is the first film of Peter's to actually look at the solutions posed for humanity with The Venus Project, and thus THAT will be the first film relevant to this thread.

TZM was an experimental gesture out of the end of Zeitgeist: Addendum, and that is what I advocate. While I do appreciate what Zeitgeist: The Movie offers, it does not offer any solutions. It was never intended to.

As for your question of whether I think they will put chips in us, I don't think enough people would stand for it.

Like I have already said, the content of Zeitgeist: The Movie isn't even relevant to this thread. But to answer the question, you will have to be specific. There are some things I agree with about what is proported in "conspiracy documentaries" and some I don't.

Do you believe the videos were misleading regardless of what you agreed with in them? Do you believe there was an extreme lack of evidence for a lot of the claims made in the video?

I will take a look at the other films then.

as i said, fair enough.



then you might oblige by providing a link to the zeitgeist document that spells out how you plan to achieve the goal. i've looked and cannot find it.



there is no need to cite sources. besides, you've gone out of your way to avoid doing so. but besides, it's fairly obvious.

an economy based upon need. the abolition of the state, money, and the class system. the abolition of waged labour.



the assumption that i made is based upon rational reasoning. if you have, indeed, experienced first hand the effects of the class system on those who exist within the lower echelons of it, but you still claim that it doesn't really exist and can be "looked beyond", then i really wouldn't know what more to say to you. it might appear that you are in fact delusional.



this seems to be the root of your misunderstanding. class does indeed exist. while it is not an empirical rule of existence by any means, as things stand, there is such a thing, that does exist, known as the state, which oversees a system of laws and apparatus (e.g. police, armed forces etc.) by which it enforces and imposes upon us the class system.

by your logic, i might say "hmm while i am starving at the moment, i don't need to be. i can look beyond the class system. let's go into the supermarket and help myself to a basket of food."

unfortunately the result of this will likely be getting arrested and locked in a police cell. if you need further proof in this regard, why don't you try it yourself?



this particular comment was simply that, a comment. it is not intended to constitute proof of anything.



see above. i now accept that you might in fact have experienced the hardships of poverty. you may have been homeless, starving, worked long hours for minimum wage or less to scrape out a meagre subsistence existence, yet you still believe that the class system can be "looked beyond".

how exactly did this "looking beyond" get you out of the situation? there are millions of people who would really like to know.





once again, because it actually exists. whether we like or endorse it or not, the majority of us need, for the time-being, to live within it.



it's not a logical fallacy. what you are espousing, and i think most rational people would agree, IS fluffy idealism. you are of the belief that we can overcome such things as consumer capitalism and the class system simply by "looking beyond" them. unfortunately the fact that they are underpinned by a state, a system of laws, and apparatus of control such as the police who will violently enforce these laws, means that "looking beyond" is futile.



very good.



again, you are sounding eerily close to marxism. but you wouldn't know that, since it's clear you have no knowledge of it.



i doubt that if i was starving i'd see a large plate of food.



yes, i did. but we've gone over this above, and i accept the possibility that you are delusional. my apologies.




well you see, we humans have the capacity to learn from experience. this is my opinion, but i would think it might be verified by the majority of rational thinking people. if you have experienced dire poverty and hardship as a result of existing within class society, you would be very much aware that simply "looking beyond" is futile. "looking beyond" class society does not provide food, clothing, shelter, warmth, or any of the other things requisite to survival, never mind a comfortable and fulfilling life.




so you now accept that "looking beyond" does nothing. it does worse than nothing. it is condescending. if i told a homeless person to "look beyond" class society and look forward to the positive future that his/her children might have, i wouldn't be overly surprised to receive a punch in the face.

what about activities that actually assist people living in hardship in real terms? voluntary organisations who distribute food, organisations such as shelter who provide advice and assistance to the homeless? the raft of third sector and grassroots organisations who are out there in the real world doing real things to empower people, challenge authority and promote change? seems a little more effective than condescendingly encouraging people who are ensnared in a life of abject hardship to "look beyond".



i've started a new thread on this. feel free to contribute, but i didn't really want this discussion to digress too much. the posts are lengthy enough as it is.



we are not ruled by consent. we are ruled by authority and implicit violence.



there is nothing childish about claiming something to be stupid when it clearly is.




because they are enforced by a state that wields enormous power over the population.



it is about wants. you WANT society to change, right? you are right to a point. but the next step is to examine HOW it creates and reinforces it's values. it creates them by statute of law and reinforces them by coercive violence. but this is getting perilously close to the FREEMAN ON THE LAND discussion. please let's not digress to much, and take this aspect of the discussion to the other thread.




stating that something is stupid and naive is not childish, nor is it by necessity logically fallacious. i think that the stupidity and naivety of which i speak is outlined in the general gist of the points i am making here.



in idealistic terms, yes, this would be great. but it's not really as simple as nipping round to speak to the ruling classes on their estates and suggesting that we all be human beings.



i used marx there as an example of a thinker who provided a robust critique, since we were discussing the notion of critique and perceived lack thereof in your viewpoint. i do have a great interest in marx, and while i wouldn't describe myself as a marxist, i do think he was fairly erudite in his ideas and is worthy of citing as an example of someone who presented a rigourous and robust critique.



then if there is more to it than "looking beyond", why not spell it out for us?



not sure of the relevance of this. i have not suggested that i am in any way "high and mighty" or "above nature".



c'est drole.



and ironically, your statement implicitly supports my argument. i feel we are going round in circles...



YAWN



but i have done enough research to have concluded that the position of which you are arguing in favour is bunk. i fear that no amount of research will change my mind on this. but maybe, just maybe, you could put it concisely in this thread, and if your position is compelling enough, who knows, perhaps i may even decide to sign up.



you insist on referring to people as trolls for the simple reason that they have attempted to engage you in a debate/refute your argument etc.

if your position is robust enough you should have no problem in fending off such "trolls", no?



no it hasn't. my accusation that you CAN'T explain it is based upon either your inability or outright refusal to do so. i think this is, then, a fair conclusion to draw.



please do.



i don't spend hours on this forum, truth be told. i stop by every few days to see if there is anything of interest i might wish to comment on. i find it an interesting form of human interaction. i cannot interact with a youtube video, and when i wish to expand my knowledge on any particular subject i tend to read a book.



could the same be said of you? i don't think i have much to learn from the zeitgeist movement, truth be told. but i might indeed learn something from engaging in open discourse with a proponent of it. is there irony in there?



from a cursory browse through this particular thread, it does appear to me as though people give up because you seem immune to reason.



who said i have hardly any knowledge of it? i do indeed have some knowledge of it, and if we look at our interaction in a wider sense, i have a wealth of knowledge on the areas we are touching on.



ha ha ha ha, i really think you are being deliberately facetious. i have been all about open ended exchange, whereas you are simply trying to direct me to bitesized youtube videos.

i have no interest in throwing faeces.



couldn't be further from the truth. i enjoy participatory discussion, wasting time passively observing youtube videos is pointless, when you are actually here partaking in discourse.

let's say, for instance, that your man jacques fresco was sitting in your living room. would you rather have a discussion with him, or go in the other room and watch a video? come on....



it's quite clear you don't debate. rather, you spiral around irrelevantly on illogical points of semantics. don't you think that having a straightforward discussion/debate/whatever terminology you prefer might actually be more constructive and stimulating than the self-congratulatory and masturbatory tactics you have employed until now?



no, i'd rather you actually engaged in the discussion like a human being.



i will read it. i prefer reading than watching things on bitesized videos, as i believe others have also indicated here.



point taken, poor word choice on my part. let me rephrase: control of the means of production by the whole community. that's better.



yes, it does. you should read up on it. there might even be some bitesized videos on youtube you could watch.



because it is hindering the flow of discussion. rather than answer points i raise, that i am quite sure you clearly understand the meaning of, it appears you would rather meander around picking out irrelevant details.



ha ha ha ha you are hilarious.



no. i asked you. why can't you seem to give me a concise and clear answer?



again, see above. there are a few similarities.



i'll stop using the word debate, since you obviously don't like it.

adam, can i ask, is that a straight jacket you are wearing in your profile picture?

Do you believe you could be specific as to which video you're actually talking about?

If you're referring to Zeitgeist: The Movie, there is an extensive source guide:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf

Yes, Zeitgeist: The Movie, specifically. I found it disturbingly flawed. Do you believe it was a very misleading movie?

Well take a look at the source guide I linked for you and find out for yourself.

Zeitgeist: The Moviue was never written to lead anyone anywhere. It was an artistic expression. It doesn't even pose any solutions and as I have said, it is not relevant to this thread.

If you wish to discuss Zeitgeist: The Movie, by all means make another thread for it because that is a WIDE topic that isn't relevant to this one.

[Mod. edit: Adam, please don't include very lengthy quotes and then do nothing with them - quoting peebo's entire post verbatim was pointless]

Suffice it to say you are parading a double-standard. You are claiming that your knowledge on TZM is "good enough" however NOTHING I do or say will satisfy that MY knowledge is good enough. This is the point I have been making. You do not want to learn. You merely want to argue.

On one hand, you ask for documents and links, then on the other you state that you "don't care". How can one interact with you properly if you are being like this with them? You are being completely irrational and beligerent.

The information is there to look at for yourself. Its all there for free online, that is if you're not too lazy to look for yourself. My refusal to spoon feed you is not a weakness of my argument. Because I refuse to allow you to be DEPENDANT upon me to change your mind. I refuse to carry that responsibility because YOUR mind is YOUR mind and YOU are the only one who can change it.

Once you actually educate yourself on this matter, then I will address you, because we are simply going round and round in circles because you already have an ESTABLISHED disagreement with the RBE idea. And you will do WHATEVER YOU CAN to resist learning about it, and hense admitting that you were wrong.

I have clearly and repeatedly stated the answers to your points, however since you keep throwing hissy fits I have to keep repeating and rephrasing myself in the hope that it will penetrate to you. Well I have a life, and a job that I need to be at within the hour so I'm not about to hold your hand and walk you through this. You have to walk YOURSELF through it.

If you demand that I have a good enough grounding in Marxist doctrine, then I demand you have a good enough grounding on the tenets of TZM. Coz lets be honest, if your understanding WAS good enough...

Why are you asking so many irrelevant questions which you would already know the answers to if you knew the material?

Because your knowledge is nowhere near good enough and you love to argue. Well sorry, but I have but a limited time on this planet and I'd rather spend it speaking to people who are actually open to this and don't wish to go round and round in circles wasting everyone's time.