A Further Muse about Life in the Universe...The Fallacy in Subjective Morality

[amicus]

The concept or 'theory' of, 'emergence', caught my ear on a recent science channel program.

Although limited by my attempt at brevity and my, 'layman's' understanding of the subject, it is briefly a study of the 'absolute' nature of the Universe, including life itself.

It seems that 'stars' form from the accretion of the light gases abounding in space and that as stars are born and live, the nuclear innards of a star create the other, heavier elements, that all other matter is composed of.

That means you and me, kid.

And it all happens within the absolute concepts of the laws of nature, from the formation of galaxies and solar systems and all things within.

As an addendum to that program, another suggested that fossil remnants of single celled life on earth dating 3.8 billion years ago, have been identified. Thas not long, in geological terms, after the earth was formed.

Now the tricky part, as far as the 'usual suspects' are concerned...it seems that all of nature and evolution, follows a logical and rational procedure, dictated by those immutable laws of physics, including the human mind.

Ain't that a gas!

To clarify: all forms of life have one primary goal, to reproduce and pass on the genetic information of a successful mutation.

Those that do not, go extinct. Thus life, is clearly and axiomatically the primary value and procreation follows as an imperative.

Neither nature or evolution give a rat's ass about those species that eat their young or choose not to reproduce, but the rest of mankind has a vested interest in adhering to the laws of nature.

A sufficient number of enlightened individuals show enough concern over their genetic heritage to actually trace a family tree back hundreds of years.

Thus, I mean to imply, without a bald faced statement, that abortion, gay marriage and fatherless children are innately in opposition to the intent of our basic nature and thus a 'dis-value', to the community of mankind.

From thence, 'emergence' on a social level applies as well to homo sapiens as it does to star systems.

Ain't that neat?

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

Now you're just being silly.

 

[keeblercrumb]

The concept or 'theory' of, 'emergence', caught my ear on a recent science channel program.

.......
To clarify: all forms of life have one primary goal, to reproduce and pass on the genetic information of a successful mutation.

Those that do not, go extinct. Thus life, is clearly and axiomatically the primary value and procreation follows as an imperative.

Neither nature or evolution give a rat's ass about those species that eat their young or choose not to reproduce, but the rest of mankind has a vested interest in adhering to the laws of nature.

.........

Thus, I mean to imply, without a bald faced statement, that abortion, gay marriage and fatherless children are innately in opposition to the intent of our basic nature and thus a 'dis-value', to the community of mankind.

From thence, 'emergence' on a social level applies as well to homo sapiens as it does to star systems.

Amicus...

Don't be concerned, those gurgling screams you hear coming from the corner are just poor logic being tortured by Ami again, water boarding, no doubt.

Ami.... just when I think one of your threads was the silliest, most inane tripe yet posted, why here comes another, even sillier....

Skipping through one non sequitur to the next, one eventually comes to the crux of the matter. Your absurd conclusions that “abortion, gay marriage, fatherless children” are blah, blah, blah “a dis-value” to the community of mankind”.

By “the community of mankind”, I gather you mean our species, the “dis-value” being that these practices do not directly assist in procreation…. And therefore should be…. What? Illegal on that basis?

Hmmmm. Profound shit Amicus. And, of course, Priests, nuns, single people, old people, the 82nd Airborne Division and one or two other examples of human enterprise which do not directly assist in procreation and the genetic continuance of the species…. They should be illegal too?

I am gravely concerned about the “old people” thing, as you should as well, my vacuous friend.

Well… if it is of any consolation to you, I am here to tell you that there are NO fatherless children, at least for the last 2,000 years or so (as I have been told).

//Threadjack// And from the musical “Rock, Jesus, Rock”…
In the middle of the night
I heard Joseph say,
“You feed the baby Mary,
He’s not mine anyway”
//End Threadjack//

Sorry… I was distracted there for a minute… (This is such GOOD shit!)

And those Gays… who we shall not allow to marry.. do you suppose that not allowing them to marry will result in a new baby boom? And this would be helpful… how? I mean, really, your being a confirmed evolutionist as I am, surely you realize that that is how we got all those homosexuals to begin with!! And now you want more?

That’s okay with me, but I am not sure how that helps this procreation scheme of yours.

And your other boogey man… “abortion”. Now listen carefully, Amicus, this is the key here:

NOBODY is in favor of abortions; “pro-choice” folks, such as I, just do not want to return to the old slaughter which characterized ILLEGAL abortions.

As the former (and heroic) Surgeon General J. Everett Koop said “This whole debate (“abortion”) misses the point, it is un-wanted pregnancies that are the problem. Solve that and there will not be abortions, legal or otherwise”.

I think he is exactly right. Women do not have abortions because they feel good.

But that would mean more people using condoms and other birth control devices but.. .damn!! You would have those illegal too as they quite obviously do not support the continuance of the species except in the over crowding/mass starvation sense.

And now “emergence”….. Structure and systems arising out of chaotic interaction of their constituent parts (if I have that right…. This is HEAVY shit we are talking here).

Well perhaps there is hope for you yet, Ami…. Lord knows you have the chaotic interaction of thoughts going for you.

Have a nice day…



-KC

 

[DeeZire]

Neither nature or evolution give a rat's ass about those species that eat their young or choose not to reproduce, but the rest of mankind has a vested interest in adhering to the laws of nature.

By your own definition, when we break the laws of nature, we are imperiling the future of our species. Therefore, free market capitalism should be outlawed, since it ignores the laws of nature in favor of profit.

Thank you for clarifying your position on this subject. Your conversion to environmentalism is heartening to those of us who are concerned about the very real possibility of rampant capitalism wiping out mankind.

 

[Liar]

To clarify: all forms of life have one primary goal, to reproduce and pass on the genetic information of a successful mutation.

Those that do not, go extinct. Thus life, is clearly and axiomatically the primary value and procreation follows as an imperative.

Correction: The only axiomatic (and I'm not sure if were using that word right, but that's nitpicking) conclusion of "all forms of life have one primary goal, to reproduce and pass on the genetic information of a successful mutation" would be that procreation is a primary value. All life, is not. Only life that can and will procreate. The rest can, if we follow this axiom, just as well throw itself to the lions.

Logic 101.

The problem with this axiom is, that it's narrow minded and doesn't consider the complexity of life. Evolution has developed systems to sustain and protect different spieces' genes against competing spieces and the whim of the world - droughts, predators. It's called a herd. And it means that those who don't procreate have other roles to fill and become valued members of the spieces anyway.
'
Human herds are called societies. And in societites, everyone who contributes to the wealth and security of the society, helps protect and advance the spieces, even if they don't procreate. More than enough of us breed to fill the needed ranks anyway.

That's why there's room for the elder, the childless and yes, the gays. There's even a hypothesis (not yet supported by empirics since the thought was strictly taboo for so long) that homosexuality is well within nature's scheme - a herd-spieces' way to ensure that not everyone is genetically obsessed with competing to pass their genes on. Because the herd needs other things too.

Neither nature or evolution give a rat's ass about those species that eat their young or choose not to reproduce, but the rest of mankind has a vested interest in adhering to the laws of nature.

A sufficient number of enlightened individuals show enough concern over their genetic heritage to actually trace a family tree back hundreds of years.

Thus, I mean to imply, without a bald faced statement, that abortion, gay marriage and fatherless children are innately in opposition to the intent of our basic nature and thus a 'dis-value', to the community of mankind.

Don't you mean childless fathers? Nature is full of fatherless children. Fathers have gotten eaten by tigers and been killed in wars since Neanderthal times and beyond. And fatherless children can, as far as I know, grow up and procreate just like the rest.

What is your view on vasectomised men? They not only can't procreate - they could, and actively chose not to. Should they be allowed to marry? And if so, why?

 

[Liar]

Oh by the way, what did this have to do with subjective morality?

Oh, I see, because of emergernce, morality is a natural state, and pre-determined.

Fine. I can accept that, for the sake of the argument. Too bad (for you) nature doesn't quite support the morality you subscribe to.

Oh, that doesn't mean that morality iisn't absolute. Just that you're wrong.

 

[Somme]

Now you're just being silly.

A cogent, well-thought-out reply.

 

[keeblercrumb]

A cogent, well-thought-out reply.

Oh.... and spot on.



-KC

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

Don't be concerned, those gurgling screams you hear coming from the corner are just poor logic being tortured by Ami again, water boarding, no doubt.

Ami.... just when I think one of your threads was the silliest, most inane tripe yet posted, why here comes another, even sillier....

Skipping through one non sequitur to the next, one eventually comes to the crux of the matter. Your absurd conclusions that “abortion, gay marriage, fatherless children” are blah, blah, blah “a dis-value” to the community of mankind”.

By “the community of mankind”, I gather you mean our species, the “dis-value” being that these practices do not directly assist in procreation…. And therefore should be…. What? Illegal on that basis?

Hmmmm. Profound shit Amicus. And, of course, Priests, nuns, single people, old people, the 82nd Airborne Division and one or two other examples of human enterprise which do not directly assist in procreation and the genetic continuance of the species…. They should be illegal too?

I am gravely concerned about the “old people” thing, as you should as well, my vacuous friend.

Well… if it is of any consolation to you, I am here to tell you that there are NO fatherless children, at least for the last 2,000 years or so (as I have been told).

//Threadjack// And from the musical “Rock, Jesus, Rock”…
In the middle of the night
I heard Joseph say,
“You feed the baby Mary,
He’s not mine anyway”
//End Threadjack//

Sorry… I was distracted there for a minute… (This is such GOOD shit!)

And those Gays… who we shall not allow to marry.. do you suppose that not allowing them to marry will result in a new baby boom? And this would be helpful… how? I mean, really, your being a confirmed evolutionist as I am, surely you realize that that is how we got all those homosexuals to begin with!! And now you want more?

That’s okay with me, but I am not sure how that helps this procreation scheme of yours.

And your other boogey man… “abortion”. Now listen carefully, Amicus, this is the key here:

NOBODY is in favor of abortions; “pro-choice” folks, such as I, just do not want to return to the old slaughter which characterized ILLEGAL abortions.

As the former (and heroic) Surgeon General J. Everett Koop said “This whole debate (“abortion”) misses the point, it is un-wanted pregnancies that are the problem. Solve that and there will not be abortions, legal or otherwise”.

I think he is exactly right. Women do not have abortions because they feel good.

But that would mean more people using condoms and other birth control devices but.. .damn!! You would have those illegal too as they quite obviously do not support the continuance of the species except in the over crowding/mass starvation sense.

And now “emergence”….. Structure and systems arising out of chaotic interaction of their constituent parts (if I have that right…. This is HEAVY shit we are talking here).

Well perhaps there is hope for you yet, Ami…. Lord knows you have the chaotic interaction of thoughts going for you.

Have a nice day…



-KC

Oh yeah!!!

Ami sounds like an old school Catholic where birth control is a forbidden. Grow up and smell what you are shoveling.

 

[amicus]

Hmmmm...ah, well, it was a fun program to watch and ponder, that of 'emergence', and since I did not expect any pats of the back for my interpretations, thas quite all right, folks.

Another aspect of that program and theory, was the 'inevitability' of life, given the parameters of the physics of the universe. It seems like the raw materials of life, instead of being scarce, proliferate the Universe and are continually renewed by the birth and death of stars.

Although that does not imply life similar to that which developed on good ole earth, it does mean that all of life emerges under identical circumstances in terms of the material physical nature of the ingredients.

Some one through in the 'herd' concept, the safety in numbers aspect, but forgot to include, 'sentient' in my chosen definition of life in terms of values, morals and ethics.

One quite comprehends the scattergun effect of zillions of fish eggs and sperm, as nature sacrifices 99.9 percent as food to other species to insure the survival of a few. 'Rational' animal, my friend, rational, not predator and prey.

You twits are always complaining of the 'faith based' morality issue as it applies to abortion and homosexuality, but when offered an alternative, you shy away as well. Methinks thou doth protest anyone who holds an opposing opinion as unworthy of holding a premise other than yours.

I suggest, further, that an examination of the feminine influence might shed some light as to the innate nature of the creature, as it applies to ethics and morals. Although you folks do your best to equalize the genders, nature does not see it nor create it that way and in that observation, I think there is much to be learned, at least in academic or theoretical terms.

Ah, well, back to other things....I think I will begin a revolution today.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

Hmmmm...ah, well, it was a fun program to watch and ponder, that of 'emergence', and since I did not expect any pats of the back for my interpretations, thas quite all right, folks.

Another aspect of that program and theory, was the 'inevitability' of life, given the parameters of the physics of the universe. It seems like the raw materials of life, instead of being scarce, proliferate the Universe and are continually renewed by the birth and death of stars.

Although that does not imply life similar to that which developed on good ole earth, it does mean that all of life emerges under identical circumstances in terms of the material physical nature of the ingredients.

Some one through in the 'herd' concept, the safety in numbers aspect, but forgot to include, 'sentient' in my chosen definition of life in terms of values, morals and ethics.

One quite comprehends the scattergun effect of zillions of fish eggs and sperm, as nature sacrifices 99.9 percent as food to other species to insure the survival of a few. 'Rational' animal, my friend, rational, not predator and prey.

You twits are always complaining of the 'faith based' morality issue as it applies to abortion and homosexuality, but when offered an alternative, you shy away as well. Methinks thou doth protest anyone who holds an opposing opinion as unworthy of holding a premise other than yours.

I suggest, further, that an examination of the feminine influence might shed some light as to the innate nature of the creature, as it applies to ethics and morals. Although you folks do your best to equalize the genders, nature does not see it nor create it that way and in that observation, I think there is much to be learned, at least in academic or theoretical terms.

Ah, well, back to other things....I think I will begin a revolution today.

Amicus...

Are you sure you're an atheist? You remind me of Warren Jeffs in so many ways.

 

[shereads]

A cogent, well-thought-out reply.

Thank you.

Where have you been, Somme? Stick around awhile. We're debating whether Amicus is really Warren Jeffs.

 

[amicus]

Ah, jes luvs these airhead liberals so filled with invective it spills out almost without cause.

A personal attack and a total disregard for opposing opinions is a well thought out response?

What am I missing here?

Girl food?

Never did like the shit.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

Ah, jes luvs these airhead liberals so filled with invective it spills out almost without cause.

A personal attack and a total disregard for opposing opinions is a well thought out response?

Oh, ami. You've been offered several well thought out responses - by people far more qualified than I am to offer one - and as usual, you reply with circular logic. "I'm correct no matter how logical you sound. I'm sure of it." How can someone who consistently indulges in circular logic expect to be engaged in a serious debate? You're your own worst enemy in this, dear.

I didn't compare you to Warren Jeffs to be mean, not really. I admit it was a cheap shot, but I said it because every time I read anything of your philosophy and the moral code you embrace, I'm reminded of religious zealots. Jeffs in particular appears to share your views on gender, race, "liberalism," "intellectual elitists," and the fallacy of facts. Unlike you, Jeffs factors God into the equation. Whether he believes in a higher power or only uses one to justify himself is something only he knows.

This is a rude threadjack. Sorry about that.

I'll let you go back to pretending to engage an actual scientist in a scientific debate.

 

[amicus]

Hello SheReads, happy June 18th, wherever you are.

Intellectuals in general, (another generalization), have been going through a crisis since Darwin and the death of God.

I understand that, I even sympathize with it to a small degree.

I also understand the fear most intellectuals sense when anything approaching a dictatorial code of ethics, aka Nazism, Communism, or actually any, 'Ism', rises above the common chatter.

I also understand the fear that racism may be re-instituted somewhere along the line and that women's rights, so hard fought for, for so long, may be losing ground in the fight for equality.

Into the abyss of chaos and confusion, anyone who dares advocate a more rational, logical means of determining the efficacy of human behavior, is pilloried out of general principles.

The contemporary intellectual atmosphere is much less than content concerning current moral and ethical prerogatives and even liberals are at each other's throats over issues.

Add to that a historical disdain of the pursuit of wealth prized by entrepreneurs upon whom the intellectuals depend for income , and you have a disconnect, between reality and vision.

Although you and most others will not acknowledge the vast chasm between male and female demeanor, I continue to maintain that the mostly passive female and the aggressive male are an integral part of all human gatherings and should be worshiped instead of leavened out.

Oh, by the way, I have offered dozens of disclaimers as to my scientific prowess and training, however that does not imply I am not familiar with the latest thought in all disciplines, because I am and I enjoy it.

As I have stated in dozens of threads, I see this as a marvelous time in human history, where the accumulation of knowledge has given us understanding of primal forces unknownst before our time. If you could but view the progress and advances made in all fields in just the past half century, I think you could not be but overwhelmed with the innovative nature of the beast.

Mankind is on the verge of providing and excellent standard of living for every human being on earth if only the right choices are made.

I guarantee you it will not be a communal effort wherein the best are sacrificed to provide for the worst.

Gee...I sure got all preachy there, didn't I?

Ah, well, no kin to your Warren Jeffs, hell, I found it more than trying to live in close proximity to even one female at a time, let along a multitude of them noisy critters.

ahem...

Ami...

 

[Liar]

Some one through in the 'herd' concept, the safety in numbers aspect, but forgot to include, 'sentient' in my chosen definition of life in terms of values, morals and ethics.

I wasn't talking about the safety of numbers, although that might apply too (but not in a "throw some weak ones to the lions so the rest of us can get away" kind of way, but rahter in the "together we can beat the snot out of the lions" sense).

No, what I was talking about was the quality of a complex role based community.

If all we did was fuck and breed, we wouldnt be where we are today. Instead, we, as well as some other spieces (but we far more than any other) have developed some pretty genius technical and social constructs to make it easier and less time consuming to do the nessecary stuff. Like hunt food. Or fuck and breed. Societal roles, task specialization within the herd, is what makes the herd the superior unit, and one of the things that have made homo sapiens the superior spieces.


Oh, and if there's typos here, it's because i'm on my fifth black russian. Cheers.

 

[amicus]

Too early in my day, but cheers, indeed...

No, what I was talking about was the quality of a complex role based community.

My difference with most on this forum and elsewhere, I might add, is my insistence that that 'complex role based community', not include any facet of coercion.

From Christianity forwards through the greedy robber baron capitalists, the general opinion is that wealth and the accumulation of it, is an evil thing.

I would surmise that a full half of all men, being under average intelligence, leads to the thought, "they have it, I want it!" Thus do these grand theories of logical confiscation blossom.

Just today on the news, I heard a Democrat state it was 'inevitable' that the government Nationalize the Oil Refinery business...shades of Atlas Shrugged all over again, reminiscent of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Will they never learn?

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

You're up on the latest thought in ALL disciplines?

And you wonder why you can't be taken seriously? I give up. I've been trying to be nice to you - really I have been. It's been trying in every sense of the word.

Two points: You are typically the first person in any contentious thread to make it personal. When you are outmatched by someone who has a comprehensive background in the sciences (or history or theology or philosophy or economic theory) and you react by referring to such people as "twits"; or when you maintain that people smart enough to know that there are things they don't yet know suffer from a "psychological aberration, you come across as deeply insecure. A little boy who hurls sticks, then cries when one gets tossed in his direction.

Little boys are so not sexy, at any age. Which brings us to the second point:

If you equate passivity with femininity it's no wonder you don't enjoy women. Even in games of D/s with a dominant male partner who knows what he's about, there's nothing passive about a woman's sexuality. For that, insecure men turn to naive young girls who will hero-worship them out of ignorance.

BTW, we aren't the only sentient life form on earth. Read last month's National Geographic study of animal intelligence, and you'll discover that elephants demonstrate evidence of self-awareness.

 

[Liar]

My difference with most on this forum and elsewhere, I might add, is my insistence that that 'complex role based community', not include any facet of coercion.

I get that. But that's kind of another topic. Most clear example of a complex role community is of course that people have different jobs. I'm a journalist. My job is to inform people of what's happening. So they don't have to look everything up themselves. Some other guy is a diary farmer, so that I don't have to milk cows. I suck at milking cows (yes, I've tried), but i'm pretty good at writing stuff. So I chose to do that. And buy my milk.

But then of course, the more complexity in a society, the more can go wrong. And we get power houses, theocracies, despotism, oligopolies and other fun ways to insert coercion into the mix.

it happens. But it doesn't change the main idea, that a complex, role based society kicks more ass than any other form.

And to get back to the original discussion: In a complex, role based society, procreation is no longer imperative for every individual. For some it is. Maybe even for most. But not for all.

 

[amicus]

And to get back to the original discussion: In a complex, role based society, procreation is no longer imperative for every individual. For some it is. Maybe even for most. But not for all.

~~~

Liar, you pose a perplexing inquiry, at least for me....

Something I have no answer to, not a clue...

For most of the history of man, fulfillment, for both men and women has been to create a family and carry on the genetic and social line.

Western Industrial societies have created a new environment, with the wealth and luxury, that has enabled to female to become independent and we are discovering that more and more are choosing not to bear children.

Wealthy women, notably public figures, are publicizing their adoption of third world children as a valuable, altruistic gesture of sharing the wealth.

The reproductive rate of Caucasian women in much of the western world, is less than replacement value, around 1.3-1.4 children per woman. Two each would maintain the population, but that is not the case and hasn't been for some time.

Don't get all racist on me here, folks, I only quote the demographics, I did not create them.

I am finding bits and pieces of medical information, that tends to point in the direction of physical deterioration of women who choose not to bear children, but nothing conclusive in my mind as yet.

In other words, the female body has evolved with one basic function in nature and if not required, seems to be a lot of excess baggage to carry around for a lifetime, plus some uncomfortable burdens to bear.

As I said, just a question to which I have no real answer.

Maybe you do.

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket? No... just glad to see ya..

Liar, you pose a perplexing inquiry, at least for me....

Something I have no answer to, not a clue...


For most of the history of man, fulfillment, for both men and women has been to create a family and carry on the genetic and social line.

Western Industrial societies have created a new environment, with the wealth and luxury, that has enabled to female to become independent and we are discovering that more and more are choosing not to bear children.

Wealthy women, notably public figures, are publicizing their adoption of third world children as a valuable, altruistic gesture of sharing the wealth.

The reproductive rate of Caucasian women in much of the western world, is less than replacement value, around 1.3-1.4 children per woman. Two each would maintain the population, but that is not the case and hasn't been for some time.

Don't get all racist on me here, folks, I only quote the demographics, I did not create them.

I am finding bits and pieces of medical information, that tends to point in the direction of physical deterioration of women who choose not to bear children, but nothing conclusive in my mind as yet.

In other words, the female body has evolved with one basic function in nature and if not required, seems to be a lot of excess baggage to carry around for a lifetime, plus some uncomfortable burdens to bear.

As I said, just a question to which I have no real answer.

Maybe you do.

Amicus...

There are times I swear you are not real; rather some beta version of a random sentence generator.... But let us, for the sake of authorial respect, assume you are, in fact, a real human, albeit an irrational and nonsensical one.

The nice thing about responding to your posts is that it makes no difference where to begin.

The reproductive rate of Caucasian women in much of the western world, is less than replacement value, around 1.3-1.4 children per woman. Two each would maintain the population, but that is not the case and hasn't been for some time.

Don't get all racist on me here, folks, I only quote the demographics, I did not create them.
.....

Oh what the hell, let's start here... just because it is classic Amicus... Pray tell, how else should we respond to this "statistic" except that clearly you are racially ego-centric? Next time, try utilizing statistics without any racial characterization given that you were, presumably, discussing the entire human race.

......
I am finding bits and pieces of medical information, that tends to point in the direction of physical deterioration of women who choose not to bear children, but nothing conclusive in my mind as yet.

...

I swear, your posts give me the giggles as much as that white widow dope I smoke in the Betty Boop coffee house in Amsterdam.

I wholeheartedly agree there is "nothing conclusive in your mind yet" but the implications of "physical deterioration of women who choose not to bear children" for the future of humanity... well hard to puzzle that one out. If they don't have children... just how is this inconclusive defect theory supposed to work?

Oh! I get it! Despite all the disparaging remarks you make about these women, you are really worried about them!! Ahhh Ami... you DO have a heart... very sweet of you.

.........
In other words, the female body has evolved with one basic function in nature and if not required, seems to be a lot of excess baggage to carry around for a lifetime, plus some uncomfortable burdens to bear.

I assume we are talking about the appendix here.....

Ohhhh you mean the female reproductive organs and other sexually evolved primate physical characterisitics!! All "wasted" without procreation!!

Hmmm. Well, no sense wasting ‘em….. just send them my way. Please.

And you are, presumably, infering that men do not have any sexually related "uncomfortable burdens to bear"...

Speak for yourself, Ami.

Something I have no answer to, not a clue....
...

Loathe as I am to ridicule this refreshing and novel humility and candor on your part, I cannot help but to observe that self-awareness, as they say, is the first step to recovery.

But thank you for the entertainment value anyway.

-KC