The Oregon Bakery part lll

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 22:01:34 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 5, 2013 21:42:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this might also be a good time to point out that i have never claimed to be a moderate or a conservative.

No, you never have.
I think FT has the same problem I do when you tell us you are a Republican.
It is a conundrum.

not really.  i don't know a lot of libertarian Democrats.  and i am fairly strongly libertarian.

the fact that is so hard to understand is one of the main reasons that i will be a registered Independent before the 2014 elections.  there is no place left for me in a party that treats Paul and Johnson as the enemy.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 5, 2013 21:50:48 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

since the "upgrade" to V5, I have yet to have a search from the base engine NOT time out. I don't think a basic keyword search is over and above the ordinary, and I won't give PB a mulligan on it. V4 wasn't great, but the search function still worked once in a while.

You can only look at the poster's past 1020 posts (30 posts per page, 34 pages) when reviewing most recent posts.    The search engine often times pulls up the posts with pre-upgrade dates but nothing recent when you know something wss recently posted.

[chiver78]

Sept 5, 2013 22:12:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 5, 2013 21:50:48 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

since the "upgrade" to V5, I have yet to have a search from the base engine NOT time out. I don't think a basic keyword search is over and above the ordinary, and I won't give PB a mulligan on it. V4 wasn't great, but the search function still worked once in a while.

You can only look at the poster's past 1020 posts (30 posts per page, 34 pages) when reviewing most recent posts.    The search engine often times pulls up the posts with pre-upgrade dates but nothing recent when you know something wss recently posted.

that's not ideal either, especially if you haven't given any qualifiers to exclude any content.

[Peace Of Mind]

Sept 5, 2013 21:58:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i found three threads where i stated i was a liberal.  two involved Virgil, the other Paul.


.

Everybody's a liberal compared to those two. 


I'm not on P&M often but even I knew that you were both an Independent and a liberal.    

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 22:30:15 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Sept 5, 2013 21:58:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i found three threads where i stated i was a liberal.  two involved Virgil, the other Paul.


.

Everybody's a liberal compared to those two. 

i consider Virgil a moderate (except on religious issues).  i have told him so.  but only by US standards.

I'm not on P&M often but even I knew that you were both an Independent and a liberal.    

i am not an independent yet, but i vote that way.  i am still registered as a Republican, and will remain one for another year.

[Peace Of Mind]

Sept 5, 2013 22:44:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 5, 2013 22:30:15 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Everybody's a liberal compared to those two. 

i consider Virgil a moderate.  i have told him so.  but only by US standards.

I'm not on P&M often but even I knew that you were both an Independent and a liberal.    

i am not an independent yet, but i vote that way.  i am still registered as a Republican, and will remain one for another year.

What you are and what you are registered as, IMO, are two different things and my point was that you've mentioned you are Independent (thinking/leaning/vote as) during the last elections and I remembered that even though I rarely post on P&M.   

I was a Republican for years but then started voting Democrat and agreeing with them more and more (Republicans today are nothing like they were (again IMO) back then) and changed.  I'm a liberal Democrat.  Socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I believe in God.  But I'm not a super religious person.  They really don't have a party that fits me but that was the closest I could relate to.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 21:38:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i love you just as much as you love me, without feeling any need to change you to please my God or myself.

What can I say? If a man tells me "I'm cheating on my taxes. Look at all the money I'm saving.", I consider "That's wrong. You're taking a great risk and harming society in the process. I want no part of it." to be a more genuinely loving response than "It's all good. Who am I to say otherwise?".

If a willingness to assert one's values is condescension regardless of the motives of the one asserting them--which strikes me as preposterous, given we all make and express moral judgments every day of every week on this forum--then call me "condescending", "holier-than-thou", "bigoted", "high and mighty" if you wish, but respect the fact that I won't respect your criticism under all circumstances.

I sin. The Bible clearly states that any man who claims to be without sin is a liar. I fall far short of the measure of Christ. But in spite of this, Christians are expected to exercise moral judgment. Calling good "evil" and evil "good" is no part of loving one's neighbour, and to the best of my knowledge and ability I will not do it. This is a significant part of how 'love' (per the term 'agape') is defined in scripture, and I strive to define my morality per the letter of scripture.

P&M is a unique venue in the sense that it fundamentally exists to debate and discuss political, philosophical, and moral issues. Hence contentious topics that I might only broach once or twice per decade in day-to-day conversation appear here almost daily, accompanied by a bombardment of commentary. Sometimes I take exception and join the fray. My presence here is inevitably going to be blunt and adversarial. It might surprise you to know, however, that I don't roam the streets looking for sinners to condemn, or that if a man whom I know cheats on his spouse asks me for help in changing his car tire, I will assist him in changing his tire without grilling him about his infidelity.

If he asks me what I think, I'll tell him. If he asks me to serve as an alibi if his wife asks, I will refuse him. Will he get angry and accuse me of being condescending? Quite possibly. Will I amend my future behaviour as a result of his accusation? I'd like to think not.

In any case, will I have rebuked him "to please my God or myself"? Try doing it sometime, see how "pleasurable" it is, and you'll have your answer. Try taking a principled stand at an Oregon bakery, being bullied and run off into your home like a criminal, and tell me how "pleasurable" that is.

again: i would suggest the FT takes this up with Virgil. he can vouch for me. i have probably made the claim at least a dozen times- a couple of them in considerable detail. if anyone really cares.

DJ has claimed on many occasions that he is a liberal.

He uses the classical definition of liberal, which he considers to be the only definition of liberal. The "liberal" that Paul or Mr. Limbaugh or Brietbart would use (call it "liberol" to distinguish it from the classical definition) in no way resembles DJ's definition. Ergo DJ has been in a few confusing exchanges due to the fact that he considers himself a liberal, but not a liberol.

[billisonboard]

Standing Your Ground - 6679
Liberal Titicaca Frosting - 811 + 316 + 193 = 1320
Gun Control - 1319
Global Warming - 1021
Race - 866
Texas GOP - 714
Boston Bombing - 637

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 22:55:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 5, 2013 21:38:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i love you just as much as you love me, without feeling any need to change you to please my God or myself.

What can I say? If a man tells me "I'm cheating on my taxes. Look at all the money I'm saving.", I consider "That's wrong. You're taking a great risk and harming society in the process. I want no part of it." to be a more genuinely loving response than "It's all good. Who am I to say otherwise?".

is the world really that black and white for you?  in the time i read that paragraph i thought of at least two OTHER responses.

If a willingness to assert one's values is condescension regardless of the motives of the one asserting them--which strikes me as preposterous,

well, it is.  there are plenty of ways of expressing your POV that are not condescending.  but when you say that liberalism is a natural home for pedophiles, and that discrimination is not really discrimination if you are just following Jesus- it is really hard to reconcile those perspectives with standards of respect and consideration for other points of view.

given we all make and express moral judgments every day of every week on this forum--then call me "condescending", "holier-than-thou", "bigoted", "high and mighty" if you wish, but respect the fact that I won't respect your criticism under all circumstances.

you don't respect anyone's criticism under all circumstances, other than your own.  but that is not really a criticism.  i think most people do that.  i don't need your respect.  i am not even sure i seek it.  i would sincerely appreciate your CONSIDERATION, and being given the benefit of the doubt that MAYBE i have a rational AND MORAL basis for my positions before you immediately start lampooning me.  but over time, i have come to realize that this is a totally unrealistic expectation.

I sin. The Bible clearly states that any man who claims to be without sin is a liar. I fall far short of the measure of Christ. But in spite of this, Christians are expected to exercise moral judgment. Calling good "evil" and evil "good" is no part of loving one's neighbour,

i have never called good evil or evil good, so i don't know what that has to do with anything.

and to the best of my knowledge and ability I will not do it. This is a significant part of how 'love' (per the term 'agape') is defined in scripture, and I strive to define my morality per the letter of scripture.

P&M is a unique venue in the sense that it fundamentally exists to debate and discuss political, philosophical, and moral issues. Hence contentious topics that I might only broach once or twice per decade in day-to-day conversation appear here almost daily, accompanied by a bombardment of commentary. Sometimes I take exception and join the fray. My presence here is inevitably going to be blunt and adversarial. It might surprise you to know, however, that I don't roam the streets looking for sinners to condemn, or that if a man whom I know cheats on his spouse asks me for help in changing his car tire, I will assist him in changing his tire without grilling him about his infidelity.

If he asks me what I think, I'll tell him. If he asks me to serve as an alibi if his wife asks, I will refuse him. Will he get angry and accuse me of being condescending?

only a fool would do that.  do i strike you as a fool?  be honest.

Quite possibly. Will I amend my future behaviour as a result of his accusation? I'd like to think not.

In any case, will I have rebuked him "to please my God or myself"? Try doing it sometime, see how "pleasurable" it is, and you'll have your answer. Try taking a principled stand at an Oregon bakery, being bullied and run off into your home like a criminal, and tell me how "pleasurable" that is.

you reached the wrong conclusion from my statement.  i said that i don't need to change you to please my God.  that doesn't mean that i don't try anyway out of human kindness.  i do.  but mostly i do what i think is right, whether anyone else thinks so or not.  i don't ask permission, and i don't ask forgiveness for it.

i don't think we are terribly different in a lot of ways.  but i do think you are much harder on me than i will ever be on you.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 22:55:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 5, 2013 21:38:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

DJ has claimed on many occasions that he is a liberal.

He uses the classical definition of liberal, which he considers to be the only definition of liberal.

if definition means "per dictionary" or "proper use", yes.  my use conforms perfectly to the dictionary.

The "liberal" that Paul or Mr. Limbaugh or Brietbart would use (call it "liberol" to distinguish it from the classical definition) in no way resembles DJ's definition.

it is not "DJ's" definition.  it is really the accepted definition.  look it up.

Ergo DJ has been in a few confusing exchanges due to the fact that he considers himself a liberal, but not a liberol.

the way Rush uses it is basically a synonym for "evil".  why would ANYONE want to identify with that?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 22:50:09 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Sept 5, 2013 22:44:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am not an independent yet, but i vote that way.  i am still registered as a Republican, and will remain one for another year.

What you are and what you are registered as, IMO, are two different things and my point was that you've mentioned you are Independent (thinking/leaning/vote as) during the last elections and I remembered that even though I rarely post on P&M.  

i tend to vote Republican in primaries, but i vote independent in the GE, as my candidates are almost always defeated.

I was a Republican for years but then started voting Democrat and agreeing with them more and more (Republicans today are nothing like they were (again IMO) back then) and changed.  I'm a liberal Democrat.  Socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I believe in God.  But I'm not a super religious person.  They really don't have a party that fits me but that was the closest I could relate to.

i don't find the Democratic party all that good for liberals, but i would be interested in hearing why you think they are.

[Peace Of Mind]

i consider Virgil a moderate. i have told him so. but only by US standards.

Actually, I agree. I love Virgil regardless of his political, religous, conservative self. He's an all around, funny, smart, great guy.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 23:26:38 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

i consider Virgil a moderate. i have told him so. but only by US standards.

Actually, I agree. I love Virgil regardless of his political, religous, conservative self. He's an all around, funny, smart, great guy.

i think he is genuinely GOOD, in the Christian sense of the term.  and i really hate it when other people run him down for being so strident, and lump him out with the mindless fools that populate the center/right.  he is a thinking, caring conservative, much like my father, God rest him.

he has the heart of a liberal. 

[Peace Of Mind]

Sept 5, 2013 23:24:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 5, 2013 22:50:09 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

What you are and what you are registered as, IMO, are two different things and my point was that you've mentioned you are Independent (thinking/leaning/vote as) during the last elections and I remembered that even though I rarely post on P&M.  

i tend to vote Republican in primaries, but i vote independent in the GE, as my candidates are almost always defeated.

I was a Republican for years but then started voting Democrat and agreeing with them more and more (Republicans today are nothing like they were (again IMO) back then) and changed.  I'm a liberal Democrat.  Socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I believe in God.  But I'm not a super religious person.  They really don't have a party that fits me but that was the closest I could relate to.

i don't find the Democratic party all that good for liberals, but i would be interested in hearing why you think they are.

I'd like to hear why you don't think they are good for liberals - compared to the alternative - Republicans.    But I never said the Democratic party was all that good for liberals. I said that I was socially liberal.

But to answer your question:  I feel they are pro women's rights especially the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.  That is first and foremost.  Unless it was absolutely medically necessary I personally would not get an abortion but I still want the right to choose to if it would save my life or if there was incest, rape...  I don't know if I would personally choose to abort if I had any of that happen to me but I believe in the option for a female to choose it.  I also feel Democrats don't care what we do in our bedrooms.  I don't want politics in people's bedrooms and what goes on between 2 consenting adults.     

[djAdvocate]

here was my whole point about "not disclosing".

if you make the world worse- if you hurt your family, your friends, your society- by expressing the truth IN A CERTAIN WAY, you should find another way to express it.  if you can't reconcile that against your values and your faith, i think it might be a good time to question your faith.

before anyone jumps all over me about that, consider the Westboro Baptists.  they feel perfectly justified in what they do, from their reading of the Bible.  if you would unfailingly NOT present your argument in that way, that will tell you everything you need to know about what i am trying to say.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 23:34:00 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Sept 5, 2013 23:24:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't find the Democratic party all that good for liberals, but i would be interested in hearing why you think they are.

I'd like to hear why you don't think they are good for liberals - compared to the alternative - Republicans.   

i can't really answer that- but i will say this: there have been three stridently anti-war candidates in the last two elections in the two parties.  one was Ron Paul.  another was Johnson.  and the third was Gravel.  all three have run Libertarian, and two of them have run Republican.  Gravel has retired from politics.  i am STRIDENTLY anti-War, and no Democratic candidate has SUFFICIENTLY impressed me in that respect in a good long while, other than Gravel.

But I never said the Democratic party was all that good for liberals. I said that I was socially liberal.

true.  but i DID ask you. 

But to answer your question:  I feel they are pro women's rights especially the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.  That is first and foremost.  Unless it was absolutely medically necessary I personally would not get an abortion but I still want the right to choose to if it would save my life or if there was incest, rape...  I don't know if I would personally choose to abort if I had any of that happen to me but I believe in the option for a female to choose it.  I also feel Democrats don't care what we do in our bedrooms.  I don't want politics in people's bedrooms and what goes on between 2 consenting adults.     

those are good solid libertarian positions, imo.  it is a shame that libertarianism in the US is so corporatist and anti-governmental.  we would have a good home if it weren't.

[Virgil Showlion]

but when you say that liberalism is a natural home for pedophiles, and that discrimination is not really discrimination if you are just following Jesus- it is really hard to reconcile those perspectives with standards of respect and consideration for other points of view

I've stated that NAMBLA specifically meets every formal definition of a "liberal" organization, and justified my position by quoting the definition verbatim and matching it point for point.

I've never stated that "discrimination is not really discrimination" under any circumstances. I've stated that discrimination is certainly not wrong under all circumstances. To discriminate between things is to exercise judgment. My entire argument here concerns the nature of judgment.

i would sincerely appreciate your CONSIDERATION, and being given the benefit of the doubt that MAYBE i have a rational AND MORAL basis for my positions before you immediately start lampooning me.

Of course I acknowledge you have a rational and moral basis for your views. Furthermore, many of your views are perfectly consistent with mine. You'll forgive me if I butt heads with you on the issues where we disagree, and rarely acknowledge the ones where we do agree.

only a fool would do that. do i strike you as a fool? be honest.

No. But to the best of my knowledge I've never accused you of any wrongdoing except hypocrisy, which you denied. Hence my example doesn't even apply to you.

but i do think you are much harder on me than i will ever be on you.

Possibly. I don't see it that way.

At the same time, my aim is to present my arguments as bluntly and directly as I can, with little concern over how "hard" I'm being on other posters. Blame the engineer in me. If I feel that a poster can't take hard criticism, I don't address them.

[Peace Of Mind]

Sept 5, 2013 23:28:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 5, 2013 23:26:38 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Actually, I agree. I love Virgil regardless of his political, religous, conservative self. He's an all around, funny, smart, great guy.

i think he is genuinely GOOD, in the Christian sense of the term.  and i really hate it when other people run him down for being so strident, and lump him out with the mindless fools that populate the center/right.  he is a thinking, caring conservative, much like my father, God rest him.

he has the heart of a liberal. 

I concur!  I know without a shadow of a doubt that his heart is pure and he is sincere and honest in everything he does.  I would trust him with my life.

Regarding the "heart of a liberal".  Give him time!    But he is very open minded about many things (based on conversations I've personally had with him) and is willing to learn and/or see the "other side" to an opinion.  You really can't find anybody better in this world today.  I wonder if he also goes by Jesus in his personal life. 

Disclaimer:  Blasphemy NOT intended here.  Just a joke at how good Virgil really is. 

[Virgil Showlion]

I shouldn't have even involved myself in this thread. Or... threads.

I saw Miss Tequila taking a beating in a 15-on-1 bloodbath and my heart went out to her.

Like a noble doe amidst a pack of slavering snow leopards.

Run! Run, Bambi! Don't stop! Don't look back!

[Virgil Showlion]

I love you guys too.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 23:42:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

but when you say that liberalism is a natural home for pedophiles, and that discrimination is not really discrimination if you are just following Jesus- it is really hard to reconcile those perspectives with standards of respect and consideration for other points of view

I've stated that NAMBLA specifically meets every formal definition of a "liberal" organization, and justified my position by quoting the definition verbatim and matching it point for point.

you said far more than that.  i have no idea why, to this day.

edit: i don't think the "fit" was as flawless as you do, but if the point was that the word means more to me than the definition, i concede that.  but that changes nothing, in terms of it's MISUSE.

I've never stated that "discrimination is not really discrimination" under any circumstances. I've stated that discrimination is certainly not wrong under all circumstances. To discriminate between things is to exercise judgment. My entire argument here concerns the nature of judgment.

i would sincerely appreciate your CONSIDERATION, and being given the benefit of the doubt that MAYBE i have a rational AND MORAL basis for my positions before you immediately start lampooning me.

Of course I acknowledge you have a rational and moral basis for your views. Furthermore, many of your views are perfectly consistent with mine. You'll forgive me if I butt heads with you on the issues where we disagree, and rarely acknowledge the ones where we do agree.

only a fool would do that. do i strike you as a fool? be honest.

No. But to the best of my knowledge I've never accused you of any wrongdoing except hypocrisy, which you denied. Hence my example doesn't even apply to you.

but i do think you are much harder on me than i will ever be on you.

Possibly. I don't see it that way.

At the same time, my aim is to present my arguments as bluntly and directly as I can, with little concern over how "hard" I'm being on other posters. Blame the engineer in me. If I feel that a poster can't take hard criticism, I don't address them.

i am an engineer as well.  i am sure you know that.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 23:51:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am an engineer as well.  i am sure you know that.

You're logical, blunt, and utterly unremitting in your defense of your positions, so yeah, I guessed.

Also, little things (like your awareness that the 4% GDP adjustment would have a multiplicative effect rather than an additive effect on the 3% shift in deficit-to-GDP ratio) give it away. I'm not sure too many people here could even calculate 4% of 3%, let alone make these kinds of distinctions. Chances are you're an accountant or in one of the STEM fields. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 23:47:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I shouldn't have even involved myself in this thread. Or... threads.

I saw Miss Tequila taking a beating in a 15-on-1 bloodbath and my heart went out to her.

you are nuts.  MT and i got along perfectly in all three threads.  i was unerringly kind to her, and very few were rough on her.  besides, SHE IS TOUGH. 

Like a noble doe amidst a pack of slavering snow leopards.

Run! Run, Bambi! Don't stop! Don't look back!

whatever.  she is only a damsel when she is looking for buttercreme.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 6, 2013 0:00:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 5, 2013 23:51:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am an engineer as well.  i am sure you know that.

You're logical, blunt, and utterly unremitting in your defense of your positions, so yeah, I guessed.

no, i concede points.  for example, i conceded that i was misusing the word "bias", as you will recall.  i have been flatly wrong probably half a dozen times, here, and i absolutely copped to it.  i try to NOT be strident- but i am pretty relentless if i sense that i am not being understood, particularly.

Also, little things (like your awareness that the 4% GDP adjustment would have a multiplicative effect rather than an additive effect on the 3% shift in deficit-to-GDP ratio) give it away. I'm not sure too many people here could even calculate 4% of 3%, let alone make these kinds of distinctions. Chances are you're an accountant or in one of the STEM fields. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

no, i am not an accountant, but i LOVE finance.  i have been reading financial reports since i was 14.

[Virgil Showlion]

i have been flatly wrong probably half a dozen times, here, and i absolutely copped to it. i try to NOT be strident- but i am pretty relentless if i sense that i am not being understood, particularly.

I've admitted to being wrong on about as many occasions (and realized I was wrong on several others, but managed to squeak away before being called on it). But most would consider me unremitting.

Let's face it. We went back and forth for 12 pages in the NAMBLA thread, and at least that many in the various "liberal" discussions. We've probably racked up 100 pages of head-to-head discussion on hard drugs, gun control, freedom of speech collectively over the years. Neither of us has moved much. That qualifies as 'unremitting' in my book.

Perhaps it's a vice, but I can hardly blame you if I'm prone to doing the same thing. We like our positions to be clear, and neither of us reacts particularly well to the tactics people use to shut down debates.

You're also one of very few posters who shares my habit of dissecting longer posts and addressing them point for point.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

whatever. she is only a damsel when she is looking for buttercreme.

Well, at least that last comment got the thread back on-topic - which I believe was cake.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 6, 2013 0:33:07 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

whatever. she is only a damsel when she is looking for buttercreme.

Well, at least that last comment got the thread back on-topic - which I believe was cake.

we try.  even if it IS half hearted. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 6, 2013 0:25:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i have been flatly wrong probably half a dozen times, here, and i absolutely copped to it. i try to NOT be strident- but i am pretty relentless if i sense that i am not being understood, particularly.

I've admitted to being wrong on about as many occasions (and realized I was wrong on several others, but managed to squeak away before being called on it). But most would consider me unremitting.

Let's face it. We went back and forth for 12 pages in the NAMBLA thread, and at least that many in the various "liberal" discussions. We've probably racked up 100 pages of head-to-head discussion on hard drugs, gun control, freedom of speech collectively over the years. Neither of us has moved much. That qualifies as 'unremitting' in my book.

Perhaps it's a vice, but I can hardly blame you if I'm prone to doing the same thing. We like our positions to be clear, and neither of us reacts particularly well to the tactics people use to shut down debates.

You're also one of very few posters who shares my habit of dissecting longer posts and addressing them point for point.

yeah, i really like doing that.  it makes it more "conversational", imo- and i really do like the feeling of conversation here.  it is strained, it is delayed through intervals that are filled with dinner, and drives home, and telephone calls- but i still like it to feel like a conversation whenever possible.

that drives some other posters here absolutely batty.  have you run into that?

[djAdvocate]

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]