A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[Mac1958]

Amazing. The thread is nearly 600 posts old, and very few of them (outside of mine) are about the actual topic of the thread. What a shock!

So, let's try to make this as clear and direct and unambiguous as possible.

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

I certainly do.

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?

I certainly do.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

He's really not sitting on the fence. He's a Ted Cruz guy. #1 he's anti-Trump. Everything else unfolds from that. He doesn't like Trump, but he can't stomach what the left is doing to Trump and to this country.

I'm a "Ted Cruz" guy? Dafuq?

No. In fact, the only way I was going to vote for Hillary was if either Cruz or Trump got the nomination. Otherwise I would have voted third party.

I look at Ted Cruz as the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP: Phony as hell and uncomfortable in his own skin.
.

I remember who you supported running up to the election. You may have come to a realization since then.

 

[Mac1958]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

He's really not sitting on the fence. He's a Ted Cruz guy. #1 he's anti-Trump. Everything else unfolds from that. He doesn't like Trump, but he can't stomach what the left is doing to Trump and to this country.

I'm a "Ted Cruz" guy? Dafuq?

No. In fact, the only way I was going to vote for Hillary was if either Cruz or Trump got the nomination. Otherwise I would have voted third party.

I look at Ted Cruz as the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP: Phony as hell and uncomfortable in his own skin.
.

I remember who you supported running up to the election. You may have come to a realization since then.

Then you definitely remember incorrectly. You're certainly free to provide a link to a post of mine.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

He's really not sitting on the fence. He's a Ted Cruz guy. #1 he's anti-Trump. Everything else unfolds from that. He doesn't like Trump, but he can't stomach what the left is doing to Trump and to this country.

I'm a "Ted Cruz" guy? Dafuq?

No. In fact, the only way I was going to vote for Hillary was if either Cruz or Trump got the nomination. Otherwise I would have voted third party.

I look at Ted Cruz as the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP: Phony as hell and uncomfortable in his own skin.
.

I remember who you supported running up to the election. You may have come to a realization since then.

Then you definitely remember incorrectly. You're certainly free to provide a link to a post of mine.
.

Nope. The impression you gave me may have been wrong, but this is the first time you actually have admitted that you would entertain voting for Hillary.....and that says quite alot. The only two GOP candidates that had a chance of beating Hillary, and they were reason enough for you to vote for Hillary. That makes no damned sense.
Anyone who feels that Hillary should ever come close to the White House ever again has to be totally off their rocker. Hillary and Bill have murdered Americans on American soil. WTF is wrong with you????

 

[Mac1958]

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

He's really not sitting on the fence. He's a Ted Cruz guy. #1 he's anti-Trump. Everything else unfolds from that. He doesn't like Trump, but he can't stomach what the left is doing to Trump and to this country.

I'm a "Ted Cruz" guy? Dafuq?

No. In fact, the only way I was going to vote for Hillary was if either Cruz or Trump got the nomination. Otherwise I would have voted third party.

I look at Ted Cruz as the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP: Phony as hell and uncomfortable in his own skin.
.

I remember who you supported running up to the election. You may have come to a realization since then.

Then you definitely remember incorrectly. You're certainly free to provide a link to a post of mine.
.

Nope. The impression you gave me may have been wrong, but this is the first time you actually have admitted that you would entertain voting for Hillary.....and that says quite alot. The only two GOP candidates that had a chance of beating Hillary, and they were reason enough for you to vote for Hillary. That makes no damned sense.
Anyone who feels that Hillary should ever come close to the White House ever again has to be totally off their rocker.

Bizarre. Believe whatever you want.

Now, please see post 581.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

He's really not sitting on the fence. He's a Ted Cruz guy. #1 he's anti-Trump. Everything else unfolds from that. He doesn't like Trump, but he can't stomach what the left is doing to Trump and to this country.

I'm a "Ted Cruz" guy? Dafuq?

No. In fact, the only way I was going to vote for Hillary was if either Cruz or Trump got the nomination. Otherwise I would have voted third party.

I look at Ted Cruz as the Nancy Pelosi of the GOP: Phony as hell and uncomfortable in his own skin.
.

I remember who you supported running up to the election. You may have come to a realization since then.

Then you definitely remember incorrectly. You're certainly free to provide a link to a post of mine.
.

Nope. The impression you gave me may have been wrong, but this is the first time you actually have admitted that you would entertain voting for Hillary.....and that says quite alot. The only two GOP candidates that had a chance of beating Hillary, and they were reason enough for you to vote for Hillary. That makes no damned sense.
Anyone who feels that Hillary should ever come close to the White House ever again has to be totally off their rocker.

Bizarre. Believe whatever you want.

Now, please see post 581.
.

Sorry, not biting.

 

[Mac1958]

I hope that, at some point, someone will explain why wingers on both ends are so afraid to deal with this thread honestly.

My current guess is that fundamentalists on both ends are paranoid about having to think outside the box a bit.

Absolutely fascinating. You don't see this kind of behavior from both ends on the same thread very often.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I hope that, at some point, someone will explain why wingers on both ends are so afraid to deal with this thread honestly.

My current guess is that fundamentalists on both ends are paranoid about having to think outside the box a bit.

Absolutely fascinating. You don't see this kind of behavior from both ends on the same thread very often.
.

You have enough lotion and tissues?

I've stated without hesitation that I am in favor of any and all attempts to reform islamic extremists. My wish is for every Muslim the world over
to live in peace and express tolerance for others.

Go on.....ignore that again. Fascinating!

BTW...I'm sure you watched Real Time and saw Irshad Manji. What do you think of what she has to say?

 

[Mac1958]

I hope that, at some point, someone will explain why wingers on both ends are so afraid to deal with this thread honestly.

My current guess is that fundamentalists on both ends are paranoid about having to think outside the box a bit.

Absolutely fascinating. You don't see this kind of behavior from both ends on the same thread very often.
.

You have enough lotion and tissues?

I've stated without hesitation that I am in favor of any and all attempts to reform islamic extremists. My wish is for every Muslim the world over
to live in peace and express tolerance for others.

Go on.....ignore that again. Fascinating!

BTW...I'm sure you watched Real Time and saw Irshad Manji. What do you think of what she has to say?

Fantastic! Thanks so much! Much appreciated.

No, I have not seen that interview. My apologies there.

Thanks so much!
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Hey Dogmaphobe, are you trying to "silence the debate", as Tehon is claiming?

Or maybe he's trying to put us on the defensive.

Well, it's one of the two.
.

He can provide living proof that your assertion is correct just as much as he would like.

The only people capable of silencing debate are those who have removed posts in this thread and that sure wasn't performed at the behest of you or I.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Dear Dogmaphobe,

I want to express my sincere apology to you for showing you such blatant disrespect in the past. I have come to realize that by charging you with being a bigot, I have only driven you further away from a constructive discussion about the issues that divide us.

I want nothing more than to be understanding and empathetic toward your world view. I will be more cognizant of my inherent biases when addressing you moving forward.

Sincerely.

LL

 

[JoeB131]

Amazing. The thread is nearly 600 posts old, and very few of them (outside of mine) are about the actual topic of the thread. What a shock!

So, let's try to make this as clear and direct and unambiguous as possible.

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

If he is trying to reform and liberalize it, then he doesn't love it. He would rather it be something else.

 

[Olde Europe]

Amazing. The thread is nearly 600 posts old, and very few of them (outside of mine) are about the actual topic of the thread. What a shock!

So, let's try to make this as clear and direct and unambiguous as possible.

Maajid Nawaz is trying to bring reform and liberalization to his beloved religion.

Do you agree with his efforts, or do you disagree with them?

If he is trying to reform and liberalize it, then he doesn't love it. He would rather it be something else.

I find, that doesn't follow. It's entirely possible to love one's religion while disagreeing with it in part. Most, if not all, adherents to any religion - provided they were capable of independent thought - found themselves in this exact position, I would guess.

But then, there is the other puzzle, already mentioned several times, to no avail: Who, on the occasion of seeing 50 of their fellow believers slaughtered, would venture to call their fellow believers names over a tiny portion of violent fundamentalists? Much as I tried, there's no reasonable explanation for that.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dear Dogmaphobe,

I want to express my sincere apology to you for showing you such blatant disrespect in the past. I have come to realize that by charging you with being a bigot, I have only driven you further away from a constructive discussion about the issues that divide us.

I want nothing more than to be understanding and empathetic toward your world view. I will be more cognizant of my inherent biases when addressing you moving forward.

Sincerely.

LL

Why thank you, LoneLaughter.

I've always thought you were a very special boy and I was waiting for the right time to reward you for your considerable body of work here.

 

[JoeB131]

I certainly do.

He believes there are people who claim to be liberal who are making it much tougher for him by, in effect, aligning themselves with Islamic fundamentalists against this effort.

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you disagree with it?

Naw, that's retarded. Nobody is making his job harder. No one is aligning themselves with the Fundamentalists.

While I can't speak for most liberals, I can say that my motivations are simple.

1) Our blind support of Zionism antagonizes most of the Middle East against us. This is more of a nationalist issue than a religious one.

2) Our policies of invading, bombing, supporting coups, arming any bunch of idiots who come along, have enabled radicalism either by giving people grievances or sponsoring the very people who work against us.

3) What you consider "liberal western thought" they see as product brought in by the Imperialists who want to enslave them.

4) Your whole premise is based on "Islam" being a collective Hive Mind like the Borg from Star Trek, and somehow we are going to introduce a few of these liberally minded sellouts like Nawaz who are going to somehow "reform" it and make they totally cool with what we are doing.

5) Nobody like to be patronized, and frankly, our position is kind of patronizing. They would be awesome if they were more like us. Fine. They aren't going to be more like us. Deal with it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Every time you trot this out I ask you for a link and every time you fail and move on to deflection.
So here we go again......do you have a link to these accusations ?

It's almost - almost - as if there were no evidence whatsoever for that slander, and as if that mendacious slanderer had no integrity whatsoever.

He trots it out every chance he gets. All you need to do is point out that a few terrorists do not define the beliefs of 2bn people and their brains overload.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

 

[Tehon]

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

And that his opinions are so much better than all of us who have opinions that aren't his..

 

[Mac1958]

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Thats a great question. I would also add that I would like to see some examples of this alignment.

Don't hold your breath.

This thread isn't a discussion. We're all here to prove how smart the OP is and nothing is going to hamper that.

Aw, poor guys. Such victims.

Problem is, I already provided them in post 544.

Now, we all know you'll claim to not know what I'm talking about.

"Huh? Who? When? What in the world are you talking about!" -- Something like that.

So please respond to post 581 and quit whining. Or don't. I don't care. Your need for attention is boring me.
.