On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip
The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.

The Gonad says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals . . .
They want everyone to be "vegan", which would mean
no animals raised for food and other products. That's an
influence . . . ¹

"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions. ²

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals. ³ If they never live in the first place, there is no
moral loss to humans, animals or the universe.

Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising
any farm animals.

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence. You cobbled that sentence
togteher from two sentences I did write.

I am going to see to it that Earthlink terminates your
account.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant. You need to tell her that she
should be a vegan, and you believe she has arrived
at a natural and logical conclusion, because you do
feel that way.

You cobbled that sentence
togteher from two sentences I did write.

Since you "ARAs" work together, we can be fairly
certain that you aren't all ****y just because Rat knows
you think "AR" is a logical conclusion...she has
probably been well aware of that for years. But since
you obviously are all a **** about other people learning
how you feel, who is it that you're so worried about
finding out?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.

You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.

Stop posting using my name and posting address, ****WIT.

wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant. You need to tell her that she
should be a vegan,

She already is, Jethro ****wit.


and you believe she has arrived
at a natural and logical conclusion, because you do
feel that way.

You cobbled that sentence
togteher from two sentences I did write.

Since you "ARAs" work together, we can be fairly
certain

YOU aren't capable of any degree of certainty on anything. You
don't even understand the sentences you falsely attribute to someone
else, much less the true quotes.


that you aren't all ****y just because Rat knows
you think "AR" is a logical conclusion

You ignorant, illiterate ****. Why do you quote material you can't
even comprehend? He never said ar is a "logical conclusion", he said
aras follow their belief to ITS logical conclusion. Are you really so
stupid you can't understand the vast difference in those two
statements? Here's a hint: Jonathan has never said anything you
foolishly think he has said (for that matter, neither has anyone
else). Your stupidity sinks to new depths with every post. You are the
dumbest **** on this side of the Atlantic.




....she has
probably been well aware of that for years. But since
you obviously are all a **** about other people learning
how you feel, who is it that you're so worried about
finding out?


Quit raping the English language.

Kevin

ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

Pot, kettle...

Snipping without notation is dishonest even when the victim is
Jethro Harrison. YOU have no ethical grounds for accusing someone else
of dishonesty, you ****ing lying troll.

Kevin

On 17 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

Pot, kettle...

Snipping without notation is dishonest even when
the victim is Jethro Harrison.

No, it isn't, but if you're sincere about that claim
why don't you say the same to Jon who always
snips without notation, you little coward?

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:31:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Burger King Uncowed
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"They follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.

I don't know it, and don't believe it.

Stop posting using my name and posting address, ****WIT.

On 17 Jan 2004 13:33:41 -0800, (K D B) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant. You need to tell her that she
should be a vegan,

She already is, Jethro ****wit.

The Gonad should tell her he believes she should be one, not
pretend he believes she should be something else, Brandumbass.
He doesn't even suggest that she do anything else. That's because
he wants to support "AR", and pretending (very badly) to be an
"AR" opponent with no suggestion(s) about doing anything better
makes him look like a moron, which is the impression he wants to
create of "AR" opponents.

and you believe she has arrived
at a natural and logical conclusion, because you do
feel that way.

You cobbled that sentence
togteher from two sentences I did write.

Since you "ARAs" work together, we can be fairly
certain

YOU aren't capable of any degree of certainty on anything.

We can be certain that he thinks Rat *should be* a vegan.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You
don't even understand the sentences you falsely attribute to someone
else,
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: Article about animal interests
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800
Message-ID:

"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
much less the true quotes.


that you aren't all ****y just because Rat knows
you think "AR" is a logical conclusion

You ignorant, illiterate ****. Why do you quote material you can't
even comprehend? He never said ar is a "logical conclusion", he said
aras follow their belief to ITS logical conclusion. Are you really so
stupid you can't understand the vast difference in those two
statements?

He feels that they have arrived at a natural and logical conclusion,
and you both very obviously believe it's a more natural and logical conclusion
than it would be if they decided to contribute to decent lives for farm animals
instead. And you/they/Gonad all feel that way because contributing to decent
lives for farm animals goes against what you "ARAs" want to accomplish.

Here's a hint: Jonathan has never said anything you
foolishly think he has said (for that matter, neither has anyone
else). Your stupidity sinks to new depths with every post. You are the
dumbest **** on this side of the Atlantic.




...she has
probably been well aware of that for years. But since
you obviously are all a **** about other people learning
how you feel, who is it that you're so worried about
finding out?


Quit raping the English language.

Kevin

wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:31:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


wrote:


On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:



wrote:


On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:




Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.


[snip stuff that doesn't address ****WIT'S forgery]

Why did you post that crap, ****WIT? It doesn't change
the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
under my name and posting address, ****WIT.


You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.


I don't know it

That's a lie, ****WIT. You do know it, and you do
believe it. Stop lying, ****WIT.



Stop posting using my name and posting address, ****WIT.

ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On 17 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

Pot, kettle...

Snipping without notation is dishonest even when
the victim is Jethro Harrison.

No, it isn't, but if you're sincere about that claim
why don't you say the same to Jon who always
snips without notation, you little coward?

Pot, kettle...

Do you mean as a retaliatory measure against trolls who make
use of the same practice? Your use of the word "always" makes your
claim a demonstrable lie. You simply can't help yourself, can you?
Lying is as natural for you as breathing is for the rest of the human
population. YOU are the troll who ALMOST ALWAYS snips without notation
as you did in this reply, and nearly every reply you've made in the
past year or more. You're a worthless chicken-shit.

Kevin

On 17 Jan 2004 21:51:05 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On 17 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

Pot, kettle...

Snipping without notation is dishonest even when
the victim is Jethro Harrison.

No, it isn't, but if you're sincere about that claim
why don't you say the same to Jon who always
snips without notation, you little coward?

Pot, kettle...

Do you mean as a retaliatory measure against trolls who make
use of the same practice?

No. I mean that he snips without notation, something
you claim is dishonest and leaves the snipper with "no
ethical grounds for accusing someone else of dishonesty."

Why don't you say the same to Jonathan if you're
sincere about that claim?

Your use of the word "always" makes your
claim a demonstrable lie.

I've never noted a single instance where he has
made a note of his snips, so my use of the word
"always" is correct. He always snips without
notation, especially over the last few months or
years, and if you weren't such a coward you
would point this out to him. You won't though,
because you're worried he'll rip your head off in
his reply to you. Your safest bet is to continue
trying to beat up on the slow-witted types like
Harrison as usual instead.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:31:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


wrote:


On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:



wrote:


On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:




Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.


[snip stuff that doesn't address ****WIT'S forgery]

Why did you post that crap, ****WIT?

To show what you wrote. Why did you snip it Gonad?

It doesn't change
the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
under my name and posting address, ****WIT.


You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.


I don't know it

That's a lie, ****WIT. You do know it, and you do
believe it.

I don't know it or believe it.

Stop lying, ****WIT.

Gonad, I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
"ARAs" in the ngs. One reason being that you can't present even
one example of your opposition to it. And if you ever do, it's not
likely that it will have anything to do with animals or their rights.
It will just be a lame attempt to make you look like an opponent
without presenting anything that would work against "AR". But
as yet you haven't even been able to do that much. I have several
reasons to believe you're an "ARA", and no reasons to believe
you're an opponent.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:41:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

****WIT David Harrison wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:



The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.

[snip stuff that doesn't address ****WIT'S forgery]

Why did you post that crap, ****WIT?


To show what you wrote.

I didn't write it, ****WIT.

LOL! You did so Gonad, you liar, and obviously
you're ashamed of it too. Otherwise you wouldn't
keep denying it. LOL...you are still hilarious Gonad.

You did. I am going to
see to it that Earthlink makes you stop, or closes your
account.



It doesn't change
the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
under my name and posting address, ****WIT.



You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.


I don't know it

That's a lie, ****WIT. You do know it, and you do
believe it.


I don't know it or believe it.

You know it, and you believe it.



Stop lying, ****WIT.


I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
"ARAs" in the ngs.

That's another lie. You know I am not an "ara".

I believe that you are an "ARA" Gonad, as I have for
years. Remember I've got several reasons to believe that
you are one, and not one damned reason to believe that
you're not.

You
have always known it. You hate my guts ONLY because I
have shown your particular ****WITTED anti-"ar"
thinking to be nonsense.

You've never done that now that you mention it Gonad,
but if you think you can then do it. And while you're trying
to do that, why not share some of your "opposition" if you
have any...which we know you don't.