Substance/System/Structure

[past_perfect]

"Philosphical Investigations" was Wittgenstein's last work, I believe. No, I wasn't at Oxford, but I guess that was the school of philosophy that resonated with me. I'd have liked to have been a spy like many of them, but I rather muffed my debonair exams.

Darn, that happens if you look at the print date rather than the chronological order.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[past_perfect]

I looked up (googled) Rombach, but everything is in German (save two I found that require membership, etc., which I generally don't do). I did find this: Community and Media: a Weakness of Phenomenology? It talks about phenomenology, but not really Rombach.

Which lead me to ask: What, of substance, can you tell me, if you will, about Rombach that really has you espousing him? Genuinely interested, but would take too much time to learn German to understand. Can you give details about what specifically it is that truly excites you? And thank you for your reply.

Well, I spent the last 24 hours with a friend to write a proper introduction to his work - the lack of reference material in English was what got me to start this thread and my intention is to give an overview which hopefully will answer those questions. I have to do some errands now and will start translating the first bits and pieces we came up with later this evening - he doesn't speak English, so we did the entire thing in German. I will meet him again tomorrow afternoon, and hopefully we can finish off the project then. I should be able to start posting the continuation of the introduction tomorrow evening.

 

[Pure]

Not so fast, roxanne

Cant:// A proper free market system does not permit it [fraud and coercion]?

How does it prevent it?

how does it militate against it?

Every time any such limits occur historically, they are imposed, and not by "Capitalism in a proper free markket system" but by legislation and prosecution, outrage and riot, organizing of labor[...] So it has been for the last century. Capitalism in a proper free market system had better damn well get on the stick, because people are dying.

I've been to the third world, and I am NOT joking or theorizing. People are dying and the boardrooms celebrate. //

R [That is far too cynical. A "proper free market system" only thrives where the rule of law holds. Under the rule of law fraud and coercion are illegal, and the laws against them are enforced. This is the norm in liberal democracies.

I'm with Cant here. Roxanne, you must be incredibly blinkered if you think 'rule of law,' solves the problems discussed. Who makes the laws? Three examples.

A: At one time, joining a union or striking was illegal; that was the law. Strike organizers could be jailed for a conspiracy in restraint of trade. That was 'rule of law.' ( Likewise laws permitted 'lock outs.')
Are you OK with these laws? As Cant says, there were fights about thes issues, and organized labor won. The right wingers such as yourself screaming 'socialism,' and 'violation of property rights.'

IF a strike is illegal, then the police can break up the picket lines and arrest the leaders; that's force. It was legal. Should it be?

B. The pure food and drug laws were passed early in this century.
Should an owner of a slaughter house be allowed to markte diseased or decaying meat? The 'house' is his property. This is not exactly fraud, since no claims are made, the meat simply goes out on the butcher's counter. Same for a drug. If I buy a bottle of aspirin, improperly made, there might be dangerous chemicals. Let's for the sake of arguement, in fine print, the manufacturer writes, "May contain impurities; some individuals may have adverse reactions." So no fraud. The law allowed this, now it doesn't.

The law came, in the face of opposition from enterprisers like yourself, Roxanne, who said, barring force and fraud, the market should be let alone.

C)More recently laws permitted, say, restaurants to hire or fire, using race critieria--or any reason the owner wanted? Now the law is different. Where do you stand? Does the restaurant own have unlimited rights, as a property/business owner to hire or fire at will.
This bring up the point that many of capitalism problems in the develped world do not concern 'force' or coercion, but more subtle justice issues.

==
I've shown three cases where unfettered capitalism (where the laws are drawn in its favor, allowing 'free market') give some bad results, and the persons doing these things are not truly evil, merely greedy, 'bottom liners' as cant would say. OF course you can say, "Things would have worked out; they were small problems, and the proper remedy was not federal legislation." That is not very convincing, but it's as unassailable as pure catholicism that, for instance, says, 'the crusade may have been excessive in some ways, but reflected the times, not the essence of Xtianity.'

 

[amicus]

"unions, food and drugs, restaurants..." the three examples Pure used to illustrate the necessity of law enforcement.

Yes, I know, the post was directed at Roxanne and she may or may not respond, however, I feel it incumbent upon myself to clarify the issue, if I can.

Pure reflects a small minority percentage of utopian socialists who want a 'safe secure and protected life for all'. Some would say that is an admirable goal to strive for.

Pure could have picked anyone of a hundred examples wherein the free martket entreprenurial system has faults, sometimes glaring faults.

Unions represent the ancient 'guild' system, which I have adressed before. It is a system imposed to create scarcity and shortage of labor and product so as to manipulate supply and demand and thus prices.

A'Guild' or a Union, will limit the number of workers in a certain field, be in masonry or carpentry, permit only certain people to join, (choose your special interest, catholic, protestant, german, jewish, et cetera) and then you use force and fraud to keep all others from the endeavor.

Quite the same as the AMA today, that restricts the number of students in medical schools, thus controlling the number of medical doctors, thus creating an artificial scarcity of trained medical personnel, thus maintaining the exorbitantly high price of medical care.

But...the doctors enjoy huge benefits as they keep you waiting in the ante-room.

What Pure and other utopian socialists really want, is total control over the individual and his endeavors. They claim, of course they claim, it is all for the 'greater good', yeah, sure it is.

There are zillions of laws on the books to control, prohibit, regulate the criminals in every society. Punitive laws against murder, rape, assault, burglary, fraud and a host of of blue and white collar crimes that still, yes, even with all those laws, still happen daily all around the world.

Pure and et al, seem to think that by passing laws, the use of force can provide he and his ilk with a safe and secure environment, it never has and never will.

What it does do, as regards the food and drug industry and the restaurant business, is to penalize to decent entreprenuer with rules and regulations and consequently higher prices for the products and services produced but does not guarantee the quality one whit more than an 'unfettered' free system would do.

What Pure and others really rail against is the freedom of the individual and the market place to function without government oversight. Pure's goal is not decent living wages for workers, nor safe drugs and food for the people. Pure is after one thing and one thing only, control. He and his ilk are only happy when a strong central government controls all aspects of an individuals life.

He has the mind set reflected by many, he needs a 'big brother' government to guide his life. The open competition between free individuals is too much for him to handle, he fears that he could not compete and prefers to rest in the benevolent shadow of a protector. Pure needs a God somewhere to talk to late at night.

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Free market laizzez-faire capitalism is the only economic system than can claim and support to engender ethics and morality. No other system would even dare to make that claim, not the socialists, not the fascists, not a dictatorship nor a theocracy, and certainly not an African warlord or tribal chieftan.

Spelling aside, this is wrong. Socialism certainly did and does make that claim. And Plato made that claim in very clear terms, on behalf of the tribal chieftains and African warlords, among others. He said the enlightened despot was the best possible governance, without cavil. Hence the institution, in ancient times, of the dictator or imperator, who was appointed for the sake of unity of purpose when the city was under threat. Many times, despots were responsible for a golden age. Periclean Athens is usually given the palm as the high point of the Greek civilization, Solomon was arguably presiding over the Biblical Hebrews' golden age, and the apex of Rome is usually said to be under the Imperator Caesar Augustus. The fascists made claim to a built in morality, as well, one of racial purity, athletic youth, strength through joy, abnegation to the Fatherland-- all of which had a moral component. Why should we give more weight to the claims you make for a mere system of investment?

 

[rgraham666]

So, in the 19th Century, when capitalism was a great deal more lassier-faire and free market than it is now, made heavy use of child labour, slavery and near-slavery, and cared not a jot for the damage it did to the air, water and earth was a better time than now?

This must be one of those 'subjective' things you hate, friend, as I don't think of it that way at all.

 

[amicus]

My, oh my, how Cantdog both operates in a blindered vacuum, but cherrypicks as well.

You forgot the human dignity part of my post, Cant, as it did not suit your purposes, I guess.

The Nazi's had jet engines, in 1939, years before GB or the US, forced labor, total confiscation of wealth accomplished that, you failed to mention.

The Soviet Union stole and produced an atomic bomb, under forced labor and total confiscation of wealth.

I promote Capitalism not just as an efficient economic system, the most efficient in the world, but also as a moral factor in society, one that respects and engenders human dignity.

Your examples portray societies that did in fact exist and prosper...for a while, until they rotted from within.

Child labor...slavery?...Egads, those old saws again, the meat and potato's of the left. Slavery was the belle de jour of the entire world for millenia. The important thing you might have said about the United States is that we fought a civil war to abolish slavery. And child labor? sighs, much like child brides in medieval europe, it was a custom then that children worked from a very young age, if not on the farm to help a family sustain itself, then in a factory, especially British factories,again, to support a family.

With the advent of the free market system and the production of surplus wealth and goods, the necessity for both slavery and child labor declined, as did the necessity for a woman to bear a dozen children to support a family.

My how you folks muddy the waters of true knowledge with your socialist dialectic, egads...


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

My, oh my, how Cantdog both operates in a blindered vacuum, but cherrypicks as well.

You forgot the human dignity part of my post, Cant, as it did not suit your purposes, I guess.

The Nazi's had jet engines, in 1939, years before GB or the US, forced labor, total confiscation of wealth accomplished that, you failed to mention.

The Soviet Union stole and produced an atomic bomb, under forced labor and total confiscation of wealth.

I promote Capitalism not just as an efficient economic system, the most efficient in the world, but also as a moral factor in society, one that respects and engenders human dignity.

Your examples portray societies that did in fact exist and prosper...for a while, until they rotted from within.

Child labor...slavery?...Egads, those old saws again, the meat and potato's of the left. Slavery was the belle de jour of the entire world for millenia. The important thing you might have said about the United States is that we fought a civil war to abolish slavery. And child labor? sighs, much like child brides in medieval europe, it was a custom then that children worked from a very young age, if not on the farm to help a family sustain itself, then in a factory, especially British factories,again, to support a family.

With the advent of the free market system and the production of surplus wealth and goods, the necessity for both slavery and child labor declined, as did the necessity for a woman to bear a dozen children to support a family.

My how you folks muddy the waters of true knowledge with your socialist dialectic, egads...


amicus...

I can name two times in history when MAYBE capatalism and democracy were efficient. How are they now? Capatilism is something that rarely respects human dignity, Ami? Are you suddenly speaking from your ass?

Don't you think the U.S is rotting from the inside out now? If not? Why? What holds you to this failing ideology?

 

[rgraham666]

Uhm, yes the Nazis did have forced labour, and they confiscated wealth. If you were Jewish.

They left everybody else alone. Capitalists generally loved the Nazis.

Also, I spent my entire working life in the private sector, friend. Dignity is not on their list of priorities.

 

[CharleyH]

Uhm, yes the Nazis did have forced labour, and they confiscated wealth. If you were Jewish.

They left everybody else alone. Capitalists generally loved the Nazis.

Also, I spent my entire working life in the private sector, friend. Dignity is not on their list of priorities.

The Nazis? LOL Get your history straight - left no one alone.

 

[Oblimo]

B. The pure food and drug laws were passed early in this century.
Should an owner of a slaughter house be allowed to markte diseased or decaying meat? The 'house' is his property. This is not exactly fraud, since no claims are made, the meat simply goes out on the butcher's counter. Same for a drug. If I buy a bottle of aspirin, improperly made, there might be dangerous chemicals. Let's for the sake of arguement, in fine print, the manufacturer writes, "May contain impurities; some individuals may have adverse reactions." So no fraud. The law allowed this, now it doesn't.

The law came, in the face of opposition from enterprisers like yourself, Roxanne, who said, barring force and fraud, the market should be let alone.

I would argue that that the nature of the market changed so that the law of caveat emptor no longer applied (and the principles of laissez faire, no matter how one chooses spells it, are enforced by law as much as the principles of a more socialist economy). The issue is which party to an exchange should assume the risk of a faulty good. The answer (in capitalism) is always based on the encouragement of entry into a market. Caveat emptor encourages producers and sellers to enter the market. Implied warranties and quality control encourage purchasers. Both situations are enforced by the law. The "free market," in that sense, is a myth, unless we're talking about anachro-capitalism, in which case it's a fetish fantasy.

Thanks to industrialization, the number of parties involved in the economic activity of consuming a single cheeseburger are dizzying. The closer the cheeseburger gets to the consumer, the more protections are placed in favor of the purchaser. In today's world, the consumer must be able to assume that the cheeseburger is safe to eat. If he couldn't, he wouldn't risk eating it, and our cheeseburger-based economy would collapse.

 

[rgraham666]

The Nazis? LOL Get your history straight - left no one alone.

Krupp, Thiessen and numerous other corporations would argue otherwise, Charley.

But, shrug, you have your history, our friend has his and I have mine. I'll stick to mine unless you can offer facts that disprove it.

 

[CharleyH]

I would argue that that the nature of the market changed so that the law of caveat emptor no longer applied (and the principles of laissez faire, no matter how one chooses spells it, are enforced by law as much as the principles of a more socialist economy). The issue is which party to an exchange should assume the risk of a faulty good. The answer (in capitalism) is always based on the encouragement of entry into a market. Caveat emptor encourages producers and sellers to enter the market. Implied warranties and quality control encourage purchasers. Both situations are enforced by the law. The "free market," in that sense, is a myth, unless we're talking about anachro-capitalism, in which case it's a fetish fantasy.

Thanks to industrialization, the number of parties involved in the economic activity of consuming a single cheeseburger are dizzying. The closer the cheeseburger gets to the consumer, the more protections are placed in favor of the purchaser. In today's world, the consumer must be able to assume that the cheeseburger is safe to eat. If he couldn't, he wouldn't risk eating it, and our cheeseburger-based economy would collapse.

Yes yes - we all know the words past. How to you apply your take? Other than to a MacDonalds menu?

 

[amicus]

CharleyH]I can name two times in history when MAYBE capatalism and democracy were efficient. How are they now? Capatilism is something that rarely respects human dignity, Ami? Are you suddenly speaking from your ass?

Don't you think the U.S is rotting from the inside out now? If not? Why? What holds you to this failing ideology?

[/I]

~~~~~

Ah, CharleyH, you're just trying to get a rise from me, which may only be possible anymore if I take a pill...grins...ahem...

Rather than even attempt to rationally answer your spiffy questions, let me ask you to rationalize a few observations.

First off, conservative figure, 10 million people are currently trying to become US citizens and find their way here any way they can. Why? If it is a failing ideology?

Secondly, American culture is visible in all corners of the globe, from a Big Mac to a Walmart Superstore; US made defensive weapons are sought after around the globe to combat Islamo Fascism, the latest hot item in the Terrorist world.

The market places of the world, the monetary funds of the world, rise and fall with the opening and closing of the New York Stock Exchange and the Dow Jones Industrial average.

Cutting edge science and technology all takes place on American soil and fully half of our scientists speak with a foreign accent, or have you not noticed?

A full 90 percents of music, art and films seen around the world...are made in Hollywood and the music capitols of the US, listen to a radio, watch tv anywhere in the world and the yankee dollah speaks forth.

I could go on and on...but talk about speaking through a darkened sphincter, seems to fit you and not I.

(grins)

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Oblimo]I would argue that that the nature of the market changed so that the law of caveat emptor no longer applied (and the principles of laissez faire, no matter how one chooses spells it, are enforced by law as much as the principles of a more socialist economy). The issue is which party to an exchange should assume the risk of a faulty good. The answer (in capitalism) is always based on the encouragement of entry into a market. Caveat emptor encourages producers and sellers to enter the market. Implied warranties and quality control encourage purchasers. Both situations are enforced by the law. The "free market," in that sense, is a myth, unless we're talking about anachro-capitalism, in which case it's a fetish fantasy.

Thanks to industrialization, the number of parties involved in the economic activity of consuming a single cheeseburger are dizzying. The closer the cheeseburger gets to the consumer, the more protections are placed in favor of the purchaser. In today's world, the consumer must be able to assume that the cheeseburger is safe to eat. If he couldn't, he wouldn't risk eating it, and our cheeseburger-based economy would collapse.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the first time I have read a really silly post from you, Oblimo, you are truly out of your league here and pretty much don't have a clue.

While you may think the preponderance of laws regulating the food industry are effective in providing safe products, it may amuse, or educate you to know, that of the thousands and thousands of restaurants in the US, they might get an inspection by a health official once every six months, usually annually.

They pay, of course for business licenses and health permits and a host of other confiscatory fees just to stay in business, but the function of providing safe, healthy, nutritious food, remains in the hands of the individual who owns/manages the particular shop in question.

The same with OSHA and whatever other regulatory agency you care to name, they exist to levy fines and collect taxes if something goes wrong and mistakes and accidents do indeed happen...we are...after all...human.

Thanks to industrialization you said? Yes thanks to the free market industry, that little compter you are typing on, through mass production and mass marketing is affordable to you and others on a wider and wider scale.

So is your IPOD and your video screen, something the Nazi's and the Communists could never do.

amicus...

 

[Oblimo]

Dang, I missed this post.

Or is it simply enough to be an individual?

No. One must be a rugged individual!

Also, as I've mentioned before, my name for our species is 'Homo Instrumenta', Tool Using Man. That more than anything can differentiate us from other animals.

After watching way too many Nova specials and PBS programs hosted by David Attenborough, I was convinced that the only qualitative difference between our species and all the others on this planet was our ability to leave this planet on a relatively routine basis (other than the occasional, terrified chimpanzee and dog).

But then NASA started routinely sending lab animals along with their astronauts, and there went that theory.

 

[Oblimo]

This is the first time I have read a really silly post from you, Oblimo, you are truly out of your league here and pretty much don't have a clue.

amicus, I am beginning to suspect that you don't read any of my posts at all. My evidence for this is your continual habit of posting responses to things I haven't said. It's as if you are responding to warped versions of my posts reflected by fun-house mirrors inside your mind.

While you may think the preponderance of laws regulating the food industry are effective in providing safe products, it may amuse, or educate you to know, that of the thousands and thousands of restaurants in the US, they might get an inspection by a health official once every six months, usually annually.

I was talking about the purpose of food quality control laws, why they exist, and what they are supposed to do. I do not see the relevance of your conditional presumption or the periodicity of restuarant inspections in the United States. Oh, and "preponderance" is ill-used as a synonym for "majority." At least, according to my Evidence professor. But then, he also liked to use the phrase "blows hot and cold," and would glare at me to see if I could keep a straight face.

They pay, of course for business licenses and health permits and a host of other confiscatory fees just to stay in business, but the function of providing safe, healthy, nutritious food, remains in the hands of the individual who owns/manages the particular shop in question.

Yes, and I am explaining why the market has been structured, by law, to operate that way. It's called "risk management." (There's a wikipedia article on it, but please don't block quote it. Actually, please stop habitually block quoting wikipedia; if it's a troll tactic, it doesn't work, and has the added disadvantage of making you look like a fool).

Thanks to industrialization you said? Yes thanks to the free market industry, that little compter you are typing on, through mass production and mass marketing is affordable to you and others on a wider and wider scale.

I did not criticize industrialization, so I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

So is your IPOD and your video screen, something the Nazi's and the Communists could never do.

Is this non-sequitur intentional?

 

[Oblimo]

How to you apply your take?

To generating enough free time to a) submit freaky fetish smut to Literotica and b) trying to come off all clever and cute on the AH board hoping it will entice people to read said smut.

It's kinda like hitting on a girl in a bar by sitting on the stool next to her and sighing melancholically.

 

[gauchecritic]

Rather than even attempt to rationally answer your spiffy questions, let me ask you to rationalize a few observations.

Like the politicians do when they have no answers.

First off, conservative figure, 10 million people are currently trying to become US citizens and find their way here any way they can. Why? If it is a failing ideology?

Your point being? Equal numbers are also attempting to enter Britain, France, Germany, (Bulgaria and Romania is where the clever money is flowing and likely people too, come the new year.) Australia, Spain et dull statistics cetera.

Secondly, American culture is visible in all corners of the globe, from a Big Mac to a Walmart Superstore; US made defensive weapons are sought after around the globe to combat Islamo Fascism, the latest hot item in the Terrorist world.

You mean like the Roman, British, Ottoman Empires were?

The market places of the world, the monetary funds of the world, rise and fall with the opening and closing of the New York Stock Exchange and the Dow Jones Industrial average.

Do you mean between London closing and Tokyo opening?

Cutting edge science and technology all takes place on American soil

Six months after they've been on general sale in Japan.

A full 90 percents of music, art and films seen around the world...are made in Hollywood and the music capitols of the US, listen to a radio, watch tv anywhere in the world and the yankee dollah speaks forth.

Would you like to qualify 'around the world'? There aren't a great many "Bollywood" movies made in Hollywood. There are less than half of the chart hits in even Britain that are American and I didn't notice a great many American artists in the Musee De Orsee nor the Reichsmuseum.

I could go on and on...but talk about speaking through a darkened sphincter, seems to fit you and not I.

(grins)

amicus...

Yes I'm sure you could go on like 90% of all Americans (which is where we get the idea) that the word parochial was invented to describe the US.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm with Cant here. Roxanne, you must be incredibly blinkered if you think 'rule of law,' solves the problems discussed. Who makes the laws? Three examples . . .

~~~

I've shown three cases where unfettered capitalism (where the laws are drawn in its favor, allowing 'free market') give some bad results, and the persons doing these things are not truly evil, merely greedy, 'bottom liners' as cant would say. OF course you can say, "Things would have worked out; they were small problems, and the proper remedy was not federal legislation." That is not very convincing, but it's as unassailable as pure catholicism that, for instance, says, 'the crusade may have been excessive in some ways, but reflected the times, not the essence of Xtianity.'

Baloney. Stuff and nonsense.

I can say "A proper free market system does not permit it fraud and coercion" because if it does not do so then it's not a proper free market system. I'm writing the definitions here, and that's the one I've specified.

Your examples are crap. Laws that prohibit strikes and organizing unions are unjust by definition (I'm still controlling the dictionary here), because they prohibit non-violent, voluntary activity between consenting adults. Laws that prohibit lock-outs by an employer are unjust for the same reason. Today we have laws that force workers to contribute part of their pay to a union, and these are unjust for the same reason.

Your food and drug example is also crap. Did you know that much of The Jungle is made up? A 1906 report by the federal Bureau of Animal Husbandry provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair's allegations, labeling some as "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact," "atrocious exaggeration," and "not at all characteristic." There is much evidence to corroborate that.

The notion that only government inspectors looking over the shoulder of every employee in every consumer product industry prevents massive death and destruction is a sick joke. Do you know why Armour, Nabisco, Kelloggs and Kraft make sure their food is safe and contaminant free? Because they know they'll get the pants sued off them if they don't, and even if they can afford the damage awards, their business will take a monstrous hit if the public loses faith in their brands.

Your final point is that restaurant owners should be denied the Constitutional right of free associations because - what? What "compelling government need" requires Hooters to hire an equal number of flabby men as busty women, Pure? Or soul food restaurants to meet a quota of white chefs? Or Chinese restaurants to lay off the oriental waiters and hire, what, some Germans or Turks?

"I've shown three cases where unfettered capitalism give some bad results." Oh, I'm terrified, really I am - not. You've shown nothing of the kind. You've shown three examples of the bottomless desire of statists to push the busybody nanny state into every nook and cranny of people's lives.

The rule of law is is a prerequisite for a just society, it is not the sole condition that is required. Just laws that prohibit fraud and coercion are also required. None of that, however, is a warrant and a brief for nanny statists to substitute poltical society for civil society at every turn.

 

[CharleyH]

To generating enough free time to a) submit freaky fetish smut to Literotica and b) trying to come off all clever and cute on the AH board hoping it will entice people to read said smut.

It's kinda like hitting on a girl in a bar by sitting on the stool next to her and sighing melancholically.

You took that way out of context, and none too politely. I am not certain who will read you, but good luck. As for getting hit up by the likes of you. I would ignore your kind in a bar, and so would my friends, who are much better looking than me. You are the guy we use for the 60 cover charge- not the guy we go with when we get in to the bar.

 

[amicus]

Thanx Roxanne, I am out of patience and needed a break. If you have the energy, go chew on Gauche a little, he might appreciate you more than I.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

Thanx Roxanne, I am out of patience and needed a break. If you have the energy, go chew on Gauche a little, he might appreciate you more than I.

amicus...

Aologises, Ami - I was a bit irritated- back to the questions at hand.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thanx Roxanne, I am out of patience and needed a break. If you have the energy, go chew on Gauche a little, he might appreciate you more than I.

amicus...

Nah, Gauche is clever, funny, mostly civil (maybe always civil, I'm not a Gauche expert), and doesn't take himself too seriously (which does not mean he doesn't take his ideas seriously.) (Misguided as they may be. )
Plus Gauche never sneers at his adversaries or uses illegitimate rhetorical devices, which sadly is not the case with certain others on this and related threads. (Wry humor is not only legit but delightful in my book.)

So I won't be chewing on Gauche.


BTW, thanks for your gracious post above Charlie. With a few minor exceptions this thread and the Devil Bush ones are fine examples of the AH ethos of civility, and that was an exemplary post in this regard.