HUNTING: The Cruel Sport of Depravity

[No-name]

The easiest way to find the source of a quote online is to use a search engine like google. There are several other sources- but google turned up a 1998 article which showed that quote at a PETA site where the attributions had been switched. The article gave the exact source including page number.

The fact that Da Vinci had a famous series of paintings and sketches based around hunting that I remember from Art History and had owned a hunting lodge led to another google based search which made me doubt the quote you use in your signature.

 

[No-name]

There is no proof that the universe and all that is in it is NOT made for mankind. This is another logical fallacy- and the burden of proof therefore falls to the one that asserts it. Most religions- even ancient anamistic ones place mankind in a special place- either as benefactor (exploiter) or as caretaker. Either way universal belief in human supremacy can be traced back to ancient beliefs and religions.

 

[Clawn]

Just saying my piece.

Hunting is a natural part of life. Almost every carnivore or omnivore on the planet does it. However, capturing an animal, forcing it to reporduce, and raising those animals simply to kill them is not. I'd rather have hunting, where the animal at least has a chance for life, instead of farming, where the animals are born only to die.

However, one could argue that farming is also a form of hunting, and, therefore, is justified. I tend to not dwell on either side of the arguement. We humans need to eat to live, how we attain the food is besides the point, as long as we are assured that there is enough for tomorrow, I'm okay with whatever happened.

The deliberate torturing of an animal before killing and then consuming it is, in my opinion, sickening and should be frowned upon. As well, the killing of an animal without the intention of consuming or using part/s of the body-that couldn't be attained without the death of the animal-for a substantial cause (such as medicines or research) is wrong.

I will also say this, human rights are/should be valued by all humans above those of another, and in our point of view lesser, species(most of the time). This does not make any one animal species any less important to their ecosystem than the rest, it just means that we value our life above the life of others. I also think that most animal species think this way(again, most of the time). Most of the time, cats like to be around other cats, not dogs, or whales, or ostriches. Other than during reproductive, feeding, and child rearing cases, most species tend to want one of their own species, possibly a relative, or member of the pack/herd/etc., or maybe even no other living beings at all, present.

 

[No-name]

Thank you Clawn- you seem wise for a 5 year old. Your post was unusual and a breath of fresh air. I even tire of my own voice here.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Gandhi didn't go around assaulting people with paint, nor did he wantonly destroy other people's property. And the actions he took- he didn't take annonymously.

Sabro, did I say he went around "assaulting" people? Clearly I did not. I said that the shadow of militant action that was beginning to agitate was indeed aiding his movmement. It legitimized his movment and made it one more chosen to deal with and relent to, rather than the alternative. The militants always drives the status quo to deal with the more moderate group which is around. But if the more militant group didn`t exist, that moderate group would be considered the extreme group.

Let`s say Senator X has been getting calls to meet with one AR group that has been calling his office to set up an appointment to discuss the hunting issue and explore some avenues that could be taken to work together to come to an agreement some way. Two groups are calling. Let`s say one is Peta, and the other is a well known hardline shadowy group which has committed numerous direct actions resulting in millions of dollars of damage. Now, who do you think this Senator X is going to more open to setting up a discussion with? A federally recognized tax exempt entity or the shadowy group? Now, if that shadowing group didn`t exist agitating for drastic change, i.e. marking itself on the far end of the spectrum, then Peta may be viewed as operating on the far end of the spectrum if there is nothing to compare it to.

 

[No-name]

We don't need fringe groups burning, assualting people (not Gandhi, but the ARist who throw paint and worse at women wearing fur), breaking and entering and generally causing mahem. About Sentator X...Let's change them from ALF and PETA to say Black September and the PLO. My my my- we've just justified terrorism. The reason why it's so popular is that people -some who even love animals- believe that it works. You've given me a great reason to hate PETA that I didn't have before. It's federally recognized tax exempt status should be recinded. It's too bad that humans can't learn to listen to the angels of our better nature.

Happy New Year.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If you want to juxtipose law breaking actions to promote change- why not embrace the suicide bombers from Islamic Jihad or the Martyrs Brigade

ARists who support Direct Action (not all do) for the most part target the facilities and those responsible for the operations of those places which exploit animals. They do not bomb coffee shops or buses with passengers not related to those facilities and those responsible for those places. ARists do not have a strategy of targeting indiscriminately.

Those groups which you have tried to "juxtipose" with ARists operate under a different philosophy of targeting and purposely seek to cause death as a strategy of their struggle. ARists are not in the same category.

ARists are not fighting for religion, land, or power as those of your example are. ARists are fighting for social change to expand rights. Other groups which have fought for social have been abolitionists and civil rights activists -- who likewise did not fight for religion, land, or power.

As for lawbreaking to fight for social change under institutionalized exploitation and oppression, one need look only at the U.S. and the violence done by the Sons of Liberty and other revolutionaries. Believe me, the Sons of Liberty did more than just dumping tea into Boston Harbor. But, they did dress so that when they did that action they would not be recognized -- a similarity with many fighters in today's world.

What is apalling about the Sons of Liberty, though, is: they weren`t content with just hiding their identities -- they thought it appropriate to frame a group of people. It was only because of the kindness of these people that their forefathers could survive some terrible winters. And then, they are repaid that kindness with no appreciation and respect -- but rather a slap in the face by making them look like they had committed a crime.

So, your statement that these were people who did noble things and therefore not comparable to ARist makes me wonder, if you think framing a group of people is noble?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

We don't need fringe groups burning, assualting people (not Gandhi, but the ARist who throw paint and worse at women wearing fur), breaking and entering and generally causing mahem.

Oh, you also mean like the Sons of Liberty who assaulted loyalists and families of the King which were in the colonies, or the assasinations that Menachim Begin (sp?) did when he was young for the Jewish Israeli causes, or the Contra fringe group which America supported and taught how to wage a guerilla warfare which killed many non-combatants in rural villages? Right? Those are all fringe groups you are also talking about who used direct actions on much larger scale than ARists, huh?

Yes, sure, we don`t need them in a perfect world and certainly wouldn`t need them if causing suffering were not condoned by the state. However, the world is not perfect and all those actions from the playbook of history have been effective in causing change. ARists are merely students of history`s tactics which have been used by those whom historians now judge as "noble," while understanding that when those actions were being taken in their era, were not deemed as "noble" by the majority of those people in those societies.

Funny, though, of all those actions, I see throwing paint on fur to be very minor in comparison with the extreme actions fringe groups have done as a result of support from the U.S. or other orgs.

Tell me, Sabro, how many people have died from ARist action? How about Xtian actions based on their belief of the Bible ( there are your noble causes -- lol)? How about civil rights oppression? How about the violent agitating in the colonies under Britain?

I think many of victims of those conflicts wish that the worst that ever would have happened to them would have been their clothes thrown paint on, a tofu pie in the face, or their work site ransacked.

Why would you prefer incarceration, torture, or death before those actions? It is quite clear to see how controlled and non physically violent, causing the less suffering as possible, the AR movement is when compared to the backdrop of history.

 

[No-name]

What you quote about the Sons of Liberty was written some hundred years afterwards and was not entirely true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party
and noticed that they 1. organized a successful and widely participated in boycott organized by John Hancock whose ship was siezed. 2. After the British passed the tea act which would have undercut colonial merchants and brought the tea by force into port...it's at that juncture that the tea party 3. was organized by Sam Adams. "By 9pm they had smashed 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and made each ship's first mate agree to say that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed only the tea. The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful." They neither did this annonymously nor did they attempt to frame anyone. It was directly related to the previous action, directed precisely at those involved, to bring about specific action. Absolutely nothing in common with ALF or ELF except that they broke laws.

Now how was the torching of this condominium project even remotely related to animal rights? Which specific change in law was it designed to change? What specific change in policy? Did it help the boycott, teach in, or other peaceful non violent protest? http://www.maximonline.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=5675
Maxim magazine called your extremist thugs "our biggest domestic terror threat" in 2004. How were the owners, workers or firefighters involved? "While ELF professes nonviolence, pure dumb luck has played a huge role in its lack of casualties. ELF prefers to call its crimes “economic sabotage,” although federal agents faced with the destruction find this preposterous. Three construction workers were reportedly sleeping at the San Diego project and escaped just as that fire spread. Many say it’s only a matter of time before ELF sets a fire or detonates a bomb that kills a hapless night watchman or a firefighter trying to put out the next row of burning SUVs."

These guys don't sound heroic, they sound pretty common, callous, cowardly and seem to share more with the 9-11 organizers than with the Sons of Liberty, Gandhi, or Polish resistance fighters. Let them run into the shadows and tilt at windmills in their imaginations...or better yet lets put them behind bars where they belong and keep all of us a bit safer.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

About Sentator X...Let's change them from ALF and PETA to say Black September and the PLO. My my my- we've just justified terrorism. The reason why it's so popular is that people -some who even love animals- believe that it works.

Be careful, Sabro, you are starting to understand the concept of logic -- values in a construct do not matter, only the logic of the construct does. But, I find it strange you want to utilize that concept of logic now when you think it forwards your argument but deny logic when it is presented to you to address or admit.

Yes, let`s do look at your little switch of terms above. I never recall any U.S. invitation to Black September to come and discuss their grievances about Israel, do you? But, we both know that the PLO has been invited to the negotiation table. Likewise, Hamas and Hezbelol (sp?) are not invited to sit at the negotiation table. Whether the PLO is viewed as bad or not is irrelevant, what is relevant to the logic of the construct is that the one not on the far end of the spectrum is not invited and the closer one to the other end of the spectrum is invited. Being "bad" is merely a judgement call dependent on the view or perspective from which judgement is being done from. However, not being on the fringe, is dependent on a relative position of other actors being present on the scene and falling at different points on the spectrum.

Deciding to speak with one which falls further away from the fringe, which lies on the far end of the spectrum, in no way justifies the actions of the group one decides to speak with. It just merely says, "I would rather speak with you than him." In speaking with the PLO, Israel never said that justified the PLO's past actions (remember though, while Jews were agitating for a state, they also did assasinations and bombings of their opponents). What meeting with them does say however is: "Your past actions have been effective."

Being "effective" and "justified" are not one and the same. The U.S.'s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely effective and few would deny that. However, many will argue against whether it was "justified."

Please note: History is what tells one what is effective or not.

A present of logical explanation to you for New Years.

Happy New Year!

 

[No-name]

Oh, you also mean like the Sons of Liberty who assaulted loyalists and families of the King which were in the colonies, or the assasinations that Menachim Begin (sp?) did when he was young for the Jewish Israeli causes, or the Contra fringe group which America supported and taught how to wage a guerilla warfare which killed many non-combatants in rural villages? Right? Those are all fringe groups you are also talking about who used direct actions on much larger scale than ARists, huh?

The short answer: too many. Rational people should not accept or condone such tactics.

Unlike you, I never justified such action. I prefer entirely non violent protest. Animal rights groups that participate in assaults and destruction of property are the definition of fringe groups. They deserve to be regarded in the same light as street gangs and Islamic terrorist groups.

My complaint is that you continually juxtopose all these noble freedom fighters with animal rightists. It doesn't justify this kind of action or make it more noble. In all of your posts, the local Jihaddist could substitute his cause in your posts for AR and be equally valid.

Happy safe and violence free new year.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What you quote about the Sons of Liberty was written some hundred years afterwards and was not entirely true. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

Ha! Isn`t Wikipedia the source that makes it available for anyone to submit information? I think they also had a scandal a few weeks ago about someone playing a joke on someone and submitting information that said an acquaintance was a suspect in the Kennedy assasination. And that went throughout the world over the internet.

Makes me wonder about the validiity of their information. Oh well... I geuss some are quite forgiving and see them as an authority on information even when they have egg on their face. Makes me wonder how much more egg on their face they have with all those other entries the average joe can submit.

"By 9pm they had smashed 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and made each ship's first mate agree to say that the Sons of Liberty had destroyed only the tea. The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful."

Sabro, look what you quoted above from Wikipedia (snicker snicker)! What sticks out as coercion to you? "made to agree"???!!! Wow. I don`t know about you, but I don`t take kindly to being "made to agree" -- what is that? some kind of misnomer or verbal masturbation? Perhaps they had verbal zen back then, too, huh?

You know, I think I would agree the whole thing was peaceful, too, if people were running around with knives and hatchets laying waste to the cargo I was supposed to be watching over but obviously outnumbered. I am guessing some may have been armed with small firearms, too, though.

Of course they destroyed only the tea. But, what would have been destroyed had the ship's sailors objected? The Sons of Liberty were not the peaceful boyscouts you are trying to make them out to be. The fact that they "made someone agree to say something" tells you that coercion was very important to them. Coercion without the threat of violence is useless.

Obviously, they didn`t ask him politely to describe what had happened -- they "made him agree" to describe it what they told him it was. Why didn`t they just leave without making him say anything and trust that he would describe it as the peaceful encounter it was or that only the tea had been destroyed? At any rate, they used coercion and people with knives and hatchets standing around are not ones to disagree with when they are "making" you say something.

Sabro, you are unwittingly making my points for me.

They neither did this annonymously nor did they attempt to frame anyone.

Here, look at an eyewitness of the action by George Hewes (a participant):

"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination."

Taken from (Not Wikipedia -- lol.): http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/teaparty.htm

Absolutely nothing in common with ALF or ELF except that they broke laws.

EXCEPT THAT THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!? Well, that is a pretty big EXCEPT, now, isn`t it? How about that they did hide their identities? How about during the Boston Tea Party many did not wish to know the names of their cohorts? How about the fact that destruction of property was their modus of operati?

Sorry, Sabro. You are wrong, and Wikipedia with their anyone can submit anything format for reference does not make you right.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Rational people should not accept or condone such tactics.

Rational people do, and I keep giving your "noble" actions in history as examples to show you that. I think it is quite rational to commit direct action to stop violence.

You and all status quo of past Establishments have always said the same thing. It is merely a desire to not lose the status quo because you stand to lose the benefits you get from the establishment. Exploitation is ugly, but what is uglier is those in the status quo who smugly assert that people should not use tactics that could cost them (i.e. the status quo) money.

You need not bow down to god Profit. Let the poor deer live her life without a company profiting selling bows and arrows that end up in her as a gut wound after she has fled and is left to die a horrendously painful death.

Unlike you, I never justified such action. I prefer entirely non violent protest.

Have I justified it? Or have I said the backdrop of society proves direct action is effective?

However, I do believe direct action is justified when it is meant to alleviate suffering. If I came home and saw my neighbor's dog being kicked to death by a stranger, I would definitely intervene even if that intervention meant me having to do more than just placing myself between him and the dog. Most capable of intervening would.

You prefer non violent protest, which is fine, but can you give me any example in history where a non-violent protest was in a vaccuum with no fringe groups agitating stronger action on the periphery, and then that protest resulted in the granting of rights from the status quo?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Animal rights groups that participate in assaults and destruction of property are the definition of fringe groups.

You have no argument with me on that statement. Never said they weren`t on the fringe. They admit it as well. The fringe however, like I told you before, aids the groups that are not on the fringe whose goals are the same but whose tactics are not. The fringe gives the opposition the impetus and motivation to deal with the group that is not on the fringe as an alternative option to deal and negotiate with. The fringe pushes the others toward the negotiation table. This is all classical reasoning and understanding of basic concepts of strategy in real` politik`.

However, being on the fringe does not mean one's goals or tactics are wrong.

They [AR groups which target property for damage] deserve to be regarded in the same light as street gangs and Islamic terrorist groups.

Sabro, which would you rather have operating in your neighborhood as a group? An AR group throwing paint on women' fur coats, or an Islamic Jihad group actively recruiting and carrying out suicide bombings in cafes and on buses? I think I can easily guess your answer or anyone`s answer on that question.

I would also prefer an AR group freeing mink operating in my area rather than gangs having turf wars for crack cocaine dealing rights.

Therefore, there is no "same light" as you wish there were.

Again, you are caught in hyperbole.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

My complaint is that you continually juxtopose all these noble freedom fighters with animal rightists. It doesn't justify this kind of action or make it more noble.

Yes, their goals at ending oppression, tyranny, and exploitation were all noble. ARists are people who feel those are all inherantly bad characteristics that should not mark our civilizations in any form. You want to cling to them for your benefit just like other elite status quos which were defeated in their application of them.

No status quo wants their opponents who are demanding change to be "juxtaposed" with others in the past whom they view as noble. Why would they? It would not be to their benefit to admit that they were noble.

In all of your posts, the local Jihaddist could substitute his cause in your posts for AR and be equally valid.

And in many "noble" causes throughout history, the local jihadist could substitute his cause in things such as the U.S. revolution. I quite admit that "One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist." However, the "local Jihadist" value could not be put into the construct of the AR`s chosen tactics. ARists do not target cafes and buses. They target those related to the fields of animal exploitation. Jihadists do not target only the tools/institutions that oppress them.

There is the concept of what is considered a legitimate target to consider. I would say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, large population centers, were not legitimate targets.

As for ARists, and your persistant wish to consider them terrorists --- hmmm.... it is a strange terrorist org that has never killed anyone in 40 years of its existence.

Perhaps the terrorists are those going into the forests causing terror amongst the animals in their homes. A bear with a slug in its shoulder sure is running in terror. I imagine that her cubs are experiencing some terror, too, as they see her frothing in her death throes or the brave hunter coming to perform the coup de` grace. Sounds terrifying to me. Glad I am not at the other end of those terror causing animals.

btw, what do we call those who fight terrorists? --- oh yeah, that`s right: Counter terrorists, those who try to defeat those that are causing terror. Go into an animal lab and you will see a lot of researchers causing a lot of terror on beings.

Happy safe and violence free new year.

Thanks. You too.

I`m sure mine will be happy and probably safe. The animals however, need a wish for non-violence more than I do. As you know, a lot of people are causing them to be "terrified."

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Now how was the torching of this condominium project even remotely related to animal rights?

I don`t know. How is it? I don`t think it was. That was an ELF action. Why are you attributing it to having something to do with AR or asking me how it does?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You`ve given me a great reason to hate PETA that I didn't have before.

Your newly found reason to hate Peta is merely due to you realizing you can`t think with reason and logic on the issues.

It's federally recognized tax exempt status should be recinded.

It won`t be. The animal exploiting industries have been salivating for that for a long time and have been lobbying for that, but, Peta has time and time shown they are clearly within all the regs to retain that status. And, Peta has time and time again gone to court getting judgements against animal exploiters.

The have 850,000 members. The U.S. government is not stupid. They know it best to keep all those AR in a place where they can be observed. Rescinding that tax exempt status would probably cause many to go underground and the last thing the U.S. would want would be to drive a few hundred thousand people into underground direct action orgs. If a few thousand people have caused hundreds of millions of damage through direct action, just imagine what a few hundreds of thousands of people would do.

It is to your benefit that PETA continues as it has been. Just think of all the federal funds it would require to keep surveilance on 850,000 people suspected of going underground. Could be very taxing.

It's too bad that humans can't learn to listen to the angels of our better nature.

Agreed. "The angels of my better nature" tell me to not go into the forests and stick an arrow into a bear which may climb a tree and require me to fill it up with arrows as if it were a pin cushion before it finally releases its frightened paws to come tumbling down, hitting branches on the way to the ground.

Do your angels tell you different? If so, I imagine that is a strange kind of angel -- surely one that isn`t on the side of "better" nature. Moreso on the side of "cold hearted" nature.

 

[Reiku]

What person can say hunting is a sport? It is a viscious game of murder where animals do not have much of a chance.

There is no need for hunting for food anymore (except in some very remote regions of the world) and therefore it should cease to exist as an activity sanctioned by the government or even be permitted on private game reserves.

Culling to control populations also is a ridiculous argument. But, I am more than happy to entertain that discussion with debate for those who think hunting is needed for that, or any other reason.

Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou--I really needed something like this right now, so thanks for the laugh.

As someone who still remembers why humans have canine teeth--namely, to aid in tearing the muscle tissue of fuzzy little critters from their bones--let me answer your question:

Hunting is needed because if I can't hunt animals--I'll hunt animal rights activists.

I'm sorry, but some odd thousand years of instinct say "go out, kill something, and eat it" and repressing one's instincts causes insaity and violence--why do you think so many priests end up raping choirboys?

If they were just allowed to marry it wouldn't happen--but no, lets repress the most powerful instinct humans posess: the sex drive, and then act surprised when that need finds an outlet.

The same thing is true of hunting.

Some people are more in touch with their instincts, and genuinely posess a need to do things like hunting--refusing them that right would only cause them to act out their predatory uges in a less socially accptable fashion.

Besides, humans are animals--something most animal rights activists seem to forget.

Are you appalled when you pet cat brings home a mouse?

Do you feed your dogs tofu?

Frankly, I think it's more cruel to deny an animal the chance to live according to it's instincts--forcing cows, pigs, and other animals to live on farms waiting to be slaughtered is not unlike sentancing them to nazi death camps.

At least when you hunt in the wild, the animal has a chance of surviving--and even if it is killed, it is sure to have had a better life than sitting in a pen waiting for death like a condemed criminal.

I honestly can't understand how an animal rights activist thinks, considering the many (to me) obvious contradictions between the things they oppose and their stated cause of preventing cruelty to animals...

...and ultimately, the biggest contradiction:

One would think that an "animal lover" would also be a "nature lover"--interested in preserving the natural way of things...

...but animals dominating other animals in violent, even cruel ways is an everyday part of nature--including animal right's activist's fascist attempts to dominate other humans.

I need to hunt...

...if you lack the stomch for it, look away--you already turn a blind eye to your own cruelty.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

There is no proof that the universe and all that is in it is NOT made for mankind. This is another logical fallacy- and the burden of proof therefore falls to the one that asserts it.

The burden of proof falls to one who asserts a positive. If someone asserts that animals were made for mankind to exploit and do with as he wishes by some supreme being, then that person must prove that. A negative is never under obligation to be proven.

Abolitionists did not have to show that "blacks had a right to not be in bondage." Rather, their argument is, "blacks have a right to freedom and the persuit of happiness under the constitution as all men do."

Southerners lost the moral argument because their argument was one based on a negative that, "blacks did not have the right to freedom" which they tried to back up and support with reasons on how it would be too detrimental to their way of life if blacks were granted freedom. They therefore added arguments that were in the positive like, "Slavery should exist because it lets the South retain its economic success based on the industries of agriculture, and that it was their cultural heritage to be in this state of blacks serving whites."

Most religions- even ancient anamistic ones place mankind in a special place- either as benefactor (exploiter) or as caretaker. Either way universal belief in human supremacy can be traced back to ancient beliefs and religions.

Religion is moot on the matter. So what!? Angry Bible God is responsible in the Xtian paradigm for bringing about slavery and then regulating it. So, don`t give me the argument that religious beliefs, whether ancient or not, are some indicator of truth about human supremacy over animals -- because some have also said some humans have supremacy over other humans.

Religion has been one of the greatest forces in the world to cause suffering based on superstitions, outright lies, and a mere desire to control power and large recourses. They confer no rights. They mererly wrestle them away from the more vulnerable who are eager to give them up for some reason or who have been duped into giving them up.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou--I really needed something like this right now, so thanks for the laugh.

Sorry to hear you are in such need of humor at the moment, Reiku. Hope you are not in some kind of deep depressive funk.

A lot of the things you wrote about have in fact been addressed by me in the thread already. I am guessing you have not taken the time to catch up.

I don't mind backtracking over some material, although I would prefer not to and have you do the catching up with some reading, but, before I did, it would be nice to know you are going to hang around and keep coming back before I started doing that.

Believe me, I understand someone not wanting to read almost 200 posts in order to get informed of and up to speed of the arguments, which is for the most part being carried by myself and Sabro.