Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

PPR Rules/Etiquette

Page 6 of 11 [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The "Rules" of PPR
Don't talk about PPR (to the mods)! 11%  11%  [ 5 ]
Don't take things personally 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
NO subject is off limits to discuss/ no sacred cows 13%  13%  [ 6 ]
Attack the idea not the poster 7%  7%  [ 3 ]
Qualify your opinions as such 7%  7%  [ 3 ]
Keep it civil 18%  18%  [ 8 ]
Don't spam the forum, consolidate similar posts 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No idea/belief gets a free pass 9%  9%  [ 4 ]
You don't "own" threads you start 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Don't provoke the Strident Atheists! 9%  9%  [ 4 ]
Other rule not listed (explain in post) 9%  9%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 45

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Sep 2010, 10:35 am

Orwell wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
however, actual disparaging statements (such as referring to all members of a race as 'tree-dwelling', is not discussing race or racism... it is a racist remark in and of itself, which is distinct from the discussion of race.

I agree, and I was the first to point it out as blatant racism.

Quote:
why do you suppose that the racist comments have decreased?

Racist posters likely realized that they had an unreceptive audience and gave up.

Quote:
anyway, if you think that the decrease in comments is a good thing, then it should not be a problem to have moderators step in

Incorrect. I do not subscribe to a "by any means necessary" mentality in accomplishing certain things. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing things. Censorship is always the wrong way.
okay, i think i get most of what you are saying.... but do you think that moderation is necessary in the other forums? then why not in PPR, where the majority of racism etc. actually happens?

to use the wording of one of the choices listed in the poll, i don't get the idea as to why PPR should be the 'sacred cow' of the subforums, where no hold are barred. i think that this cow is not sacred, but clearly has an unsavoury aspect (not the whole of PPR, just certain threads and posters) that has no place being acceptable on WP.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

24 Sep 2010, 10:41 am

AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

24 Sep 2010, 11:01 am

Orwell wrote:
Censorship is always the wrong way.


Always?

Quote:
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".


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


Isn't it a sliding scale?

Is it OK by you to give a speech urging your audience to commit murder. Suppose your audience consists of only four or five potential terrorists or gang members? Is a person absolved of all responsibility because they were 'only talking'?

Edit:
Would you feel safer with guys like this walking the street?
Though he is not so bad that we would extradite him to those murderous Americans ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Arrests_and_convictions_for_UK_offences

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm

I know, we're a wicked police state ;)


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Sep 2010, 12:03 pm

BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


BigK, you make a good point. But you also have to understand is that the groups who are committing criminal acts which we refer to as terrorism label such people as "hypocrites." They believe if a peaceful Muslim just happens to stand in the way of an act of jihad, either: a) It's a small price to pay, or b) those are hypocrites among the infidels.

I have nothing against people who are respectful of others, obey the law, and otherwise do no harm. But remaining completely faithful to the teachings of Mohammed requires holy war against Jews, Christians and those Muslims who side with them in tolerance even passively. It is a problem that MUST be reconciled in some way if we are to seek coexistence with adherents of Islam.

Plain and simple--laws are put in place to protect the innocent from criminals. Criminals who are caught are punished. The Koran encourages its readers to commit criminal acts and, as such, really shouldn't be considered fit for protection under the US Constitution unless SOMEONE confronts the fact that such language is in error, that Allah intends for his followers to be peaceful and respectful of others, and the Koran can be edited to include ONLY those things involved in proper worship of Allah. It's not hate-speech to advocate for criminals to be treated as such!



Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

24 Sep 2010, 12:22 pm

I find it absolutely hilarious and hypocritical that so many people on this forum can get their panties in a bunch, and all worked up over 'racism,' but at the same time turn an absolutely blind eye to gross overgeneralizations and virulent insults directed against Christians, conservatives, etc.

Quote:
(all USA Christians so foolish and evil, etc., ............. all white people are whiney, entitled brats with little to no respect for others.


Obviously.......... make the same statements but substitute 'Black,' and 'Muslim' in place of White, conservative, Christian, etc, and see what happens? Even if such statements were intended as sarcasm, it would still be taken as egregious 'racism.'



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

24 Sep 2010, 12:34 pm

Hanotaux wrote:

Quote:
(all USA Christians so foolish and evil, etc., ............. all white people are whiney, entitled brats with little to no respect for others.


Obviously.......... make the same statements but substitute 'Black,' and 'Muslim' in place of White, conservative, Christian, etc, and see what happens? Even if such statements were intended as sarcasm, it would still be taken as egregious 'racism.'


The current "social" rule in America is that as long as a person is denigrating their own group with their sarcasm, it's a joke, and they get to it. But when someone attempts to denigrate someone else's group, it is no longer appropriate content for humor.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

24 Sep 2010, 12:37 pm

AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


BigK, you make a good point. But you also have to understand is that the groups who are committing criminal acts which we refer to as terrorism label such people as "hypocrites." They believe if a peaceful Muslim just happens to stand in the way of an act of jihad, either: a) It's a small price to pay, or b) those are hypocrites among the infidels.

I have nothing against people who are respectful of others, obey the law, and otherwise do no harm. But remaining completely faithful to the teachings of Mohammed requires holy war against Jews, Christians and those Muslims who side with them in tolerance even passively. It is a problem that MUST be reconciled in some way if we are to seek coexistence with adherents of Islam.

Plain and simple--laws are put in place to protect the innocent from criminals. Criminals who are caught are punished. The Koran encourages its readers to commit criminal acts and, as such, really shouldn't be considered fit for protection under the US Constitution unless SOMEONE confronts the fact that such language is in error, that Allah intends for his followers to be peaceful and respectful of others, and the Koran can be edited to include ONLY those things involved in proper worship of Allah. It's not hate-speech to advocate for criminals to be treated as such!


But you are still talking about millions of people who have not done anything to break your laws yet you call them criminals? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You sound as though you didn't even follow the link.

You want to edit the Koran? What happened to free speech? ;)
Did you realise that not everyone who reads the Bible believes the universe was created in seven days?
Did you know that many Catholics use condoms?

If every Muslim was really out to kill every non Muslim don't you think that there would be a lot more fighting than we have today?

If enough of you really support the 'kill them all' approach then you are proving the extremists correct.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

24 Sep 2010, 12:42 pm

I'm tempted to find the post where Dox split the hairs to say a certain comment should stay, when I felt it needed to go. Except .. I really don't have time.

For the record, Dox defended that post STRICKLY based on his interpretation of the TOS.

I wanted to disallow it less on a strick interpretation, than on the "offensive" concept. I was offended, and worried that readers would be offended.

The terms of service themselves are non-negotiable. What changes from one forum to the next is what is considered OFFENSIVE.

Pretty much every concept in the TOS is subject to some sort of judgement call. What IS racist? Is it racist to acknowledge that some groups have a different skin tone than other groups? No, it isn't, but there actually was a period of time people tried to act like even SEEING it was racism. It isn't; it just "is." But where the lines get drawn is touchy, because facts alone are never the full story, and it is possible to state a fact in a way that misrepresents the story underlying the creation of the fact.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Sep 2010, 1:27 pm

BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


BigK, you make a good point. But you also have to understand is that the groups who are committing criminal acts which we refer to as terrorism label such people as "hypocrites." They believe if a peaceful Muslim just happens to stand in the way of an act of jihad, either: a) It's a small price to pay, or b) those are hypocrites among the infidels.

I have nothing against people who are respectful of others, obey the law, and otherwise do no harm. But remaining completely faithful to the teachings of Mohammed requires holy war against Jews, Christians and those Muslims who side with them in tolerance even passively. It is a problem that MUST be reconciled in some way if we are to seek coexistence with adherents of Islam.

Plain and simple--laws are put in place to protect the innocent from criminals. Criminals who are caught are punished. The Koran encourages its readers to commit criminal acts and, as such, really shouldn't be considered fit for protection under the US Constitution unless SOMEONE confronts the fact that such language is in error, that Allah intends for his followers to be peaceful and respectful of others, and the Koran can be edited to include ONLY those things involved in proper worship of Allah. It's not hate-speech to advocate for criminals to be treated as such!


But you are still talking about millions of people who have not done anything to break your laws yet you call them criminals? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You sound as though you didn't even follow the link.

You want to edit the Koran? What happened to free speech? ;)
Did you realise that not everyone who reads the Bible believes the universe was created in seven days?
Did you know that many Catholics use condoms?

If every Muslim was really out to kill every non Muslim don't you think that there would be a lot more fighting than we have today?

If enough of you really support the 'kill them all' approach then you are proving the extremists correct.


Show me how 9/11 terrorist attacks are NOT criminal.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Sep 2010, 1:46 pm

AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


BigK, you make a good point. But you also have to understand is that the groups who are committing criminal acts which we refer to as terrorism label such people as "hypocrites." They believe if a peaceful Muslim just happens to stand in the way of an act of jihad, either: a) It's a small price to pay, or b) those are hypocrites among the infidels.

I have nothing against people who are respectful of others, obey the law, and otherwise do no harm. But remaining completely faithful to the teachings of Mohammed requires holy war against Jews, Christians and those Muslims who side with them in tolerance even passively. It is a problem that MUST be reconciled in some way if we are to seek coexistence with adherents of Islam.

Plain and simple--laws are put in place to protect the innocent from criminals. Criminals who are caught are punished. The Koran encourages its readers to commit criminal acts and, as such, really shouldn't be considered fit for protection under the US Constitution unless SOMEONE confronts the fact that such language is in error, that Allah intends for his followers to be peaceful and respectful of others, and the Koran can be edited to include ONLY those things involved in proper worship of Allah. It's not hate-speech to advocate for criminals to be treated as such!


But you are still talking about millions of people who have not done anything to break your laws yet you call them criminals? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You sound as though you didn't even follow the link.

You want to edit the Koran? What happened to free speech? ;)
Did you realise that not everyone who reads the Bible believes the universe was created in seven days?
Did you know that many Catholics use condoms?

If every Muslim was really out to kill every non Muslim don't you think that there would be a lot more fighting than we have today?

If enough of you really support the 'kill them all' approach then you are proving the extremists correct.


Show me how 9/11 terrorist attacks are NOT criminal.

millions of muslims are not responsible for the crimes of a few.

the opposite viewpoint is: show me how the united states (and/or canada) has not been responsible for killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people all around the world in the name of war or other military actions. perhaps we ALL deserve to die for that, as much as ALL muslims are guilty because of 9/11? obviously, i don't think so, and i doubt you do either.

none of this explains why it is ever appropriate to express hate speech on WP.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

24 Sep 2010, 1:54 pm

AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


...

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Kill them all right.


BigK, you make a good point. But you also have to understand is that the groups who are committing criminal acts which we refer to as terrorism label such people as "hypocrites." They believe if a peaceful Muslim just happens to stand in the way of an act of jihad, either: a) It's a small price to pay, or b) those are hypocrites among the infidels.

I have nothing against people who are respectful of others, obey the law, and otherwise do no harm. But remaining completely faithful to the teachings of Mohammed requires holy war against Jews, Christians and those Muslims who side with them in tolerance even passively. It is a problem that MUST be reconciled in some way if we are to seek coexistence with adherents of Islam.

Plain and simple--laws are put in place to protect the innocent from criminals. Criminals who are caught are punished. The Koran encourages its readers to commit criminal acts and, as such, really shouldn't be considered fit for protection under the US Constitution unless SOMEONE confronts the fact that such language is in error, that Allah intends for his followers to be peaceful and respectful of others, and the Koran can be edited to include ONLY those things involved in proper worship of Allah. It's not hate-speech to advocate for criminals to be treated as such!


But you are still talking about millions of people who have not done anything to break your laws yet you call them criminals? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You sound as though you didn't even follow the link.

You want to edit the Koran? What happened to free speech? ;)
Did you realise that not everyone who reads the Bible believes the universe was created in seven days?
Did you know that many Catholics use condoms?

If every Muslim was really out to kill every non Muslim don't you think that there would be a lot more fighting than we have today?

If enough of you really support the 'kill them all' approach then you are proving the extremists correct.


Show me how 9/11 terrorist attacks are NOT criminal.



Quote:
are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?


How many people were involved in the attack?


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Sep 2010, 2:16 pm

BigK wrote:
Always?


Censorship may be sometimes convenient, but it is always wrong.

BigK wrote:
Quote:
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".


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


Isn't it a sliding scale?


That it is in practice doesn't in any way mean that it should be. The differences between "free" speech in the UK and the PRC are not so much material but of degree; are you comfortable with that?

BigK wrote:
Is it OK by you to give a speech urging your audience to commit murder. Suppose your audience consists of only four or five potential terrorists or gang members? Is a person absolved of all responsibility because they were 'only talking'?


That depends, criminal conspiracy has a certain set of circumstances in order to be invoked, the "incitement" laws that keep appearing in the common wealth countries require a much lower standard to apply.

BigK wrote:
Edit:
Would you feel safer with guys like this walking the street?
Though he is not so bad that we would extradite him to those murderous Americans ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Arrests_and_convictions_for_UK_offences

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm


I'd feel safer with those guys on the street than I would with a government that locks people up for what they say.

BigK wrote:
I know, we're a wicked police state ;)


If you aren't there yet, you're well on your way.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Sep 2010, 2:33 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
I'm tempted to find the post where Dox split the hairs to say a certain comment should stay, when I felt it needed to go. Except .. I really don't have time.

For the record, Dox defended that post STRICKLY based on his interpretation of the TOS.

I wanted to disallow it less on a strick interpretation, than on the "offensive" concept. I was offended, and worried that readers would be offended.

The terms of service themselves are non-negotiable. What changes from one forum to the next is what is considered OFFENSIVE.

Pretty much every concept in the TOS is subject to some sort of judgement call. What IS racist? Is it racist to acknowledge that some groups have a different skin tone than other groups? No, it isn't, but there actually was a period of time people tried to act like even SEEING it was racism. It isn't; it just "is." But where the lines get drawn is touchy, because facts alone are never the full story, and it is possible to state a fact in a way that misrepresents the story underlying the creation of the fact.

good points, if i am understanding correctly.

the way i read it is that... the TOS can be used to either defend or disallow a certain thread or post, depending on interpretation?

so.... how are posts deemed offensive or non-offensive? is it based on moderator opinion? or based on a consensus from the forum? it seems that the latter procedure is currently in use in the PPR forum. a sort of majority rules approach... (but maybe i am mistaken?). of course, the problem with using an approach like that is that the majority of posters in the foum are a certain demographic. the people who are the subjects of racist and hate speech comments are a different race and religion from the majority. so their voices could not speak en masse as the majority can.

what i am discerning from the comments on this thread is that some people would like for PPR to be essentially internally-governed. but that would mean that what would be considered acceptable in PPR would be based ion what the majority demographic considers acceptable, which would exclude the opinions of the people who are actually targeted by racist and hate speech comments...

even the poll on the OP is only determining what is considered acceptable by that majority demographic, for the most part. it says absolutely nothing about what would be considered offensive by the minority groups in question.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

24 Sep 2010, 3:11 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

so.... how are posts deemed offensive or non-offensive? is it based on moderator opinion? or based on a consensus from the forum? it seems that the latter procedure is currently in use in the PPR forum. a sort of majority rules approach... (but maybe i am mistaken?). of course, the problem with using an approach like that is that the majority of posters in the foum are a certain demographic. the people who are the subjects of racist and hate speech comments are a different race and religion from the majority. so their voices could not speak en masse as the majority can.


Ultimately, should he choose to weigh in, Alex. But since he isn't likely to, it falls to the moderators. I, personally, liked to test the waters of the membership before making a final call on this forum, but I still reserved the right to make the final call. I did feel like I would have to have a really strong case to go against the will of the posters, though, and when I disagreed with the water temperature part of the decision making process for me would be to think through just how hard I was willing to stand up for my position, because these folks will definitely force you to stand up for it, IF you want to have their respect. Sometimes you care about having that respect, sometimes you don't, and when you don't you just call it the way you see it complaints be dammed, you've invested enough time, and are secure enough in your instincts. That authority has been given by Alex to his moderators.

Which is why I've often suggested building relationships with the moderators. When I have relationships with people, I tend to care more about keeping their respect, and doing the extra level of work it takes to back up my instincts on matters that are, inherently, judgement calls. It also reduces the number of times I have to do so, because in the dialogue everyone stays more informed and on the same page.

But, that was me. I believe in concensus, when possible. Other moderators are different.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

24 Sep 2010, 3:13 pm

Here's an interesting snippet I found on Wikipedia:

From and entry on Freedom of Thought

Quote:
Freedom of expression can also be stifled without institutional interference when majority views become so widely accepted that the entire culture represses dissenting views. For this reason, some condemn political correctness as a form of limiting freedom of thought. Although political correctness aims to give minority views equal representation, the majority view itself can be politically correct; for example, college student Max Karson was arrested following the Virginia Tech shootings for politically incorrect comments that authorities saw as "sympathetic to the killer." Karson's arrest raised important questions regarding freedom of thought and whether or not it applies in times of tragedy.

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which states that thought is inherently embedded in language, would support the claim that an effort to limit the use of words of language is actually a form of restricting freedom of thought[citation needed]. This was explored in George Orwell's novel 1984, with the idea of Newspeak, a stripped-down form of the English language lacking the capacity for metaphor and limiting expression of original ideas.


I think it has some bearing on this discussion.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Sep 2010, 3:27 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
the opposite viewpoint is: show me how the united states (and/or canada) has not been responsible for killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people all around the world in the name of war or other military actions. perhaps we ALL deserve to die for that, as much as ALL muslims are guilty because of 9/11? obviously, i don't think so, and i doubt you do either.

I think that could be an interesting discussion topic.