A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

I don't. That is because I don't start with principles that are so extremely absurd, that I have to feel the need to compromise them in order to be effective in the governing of our nation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's the problem with you Liberals. You believe what you support is perfect and the rest of us that don't agree with you are extreme. More proof you're an unprincipled idiot.

I have never suggested that what I believe is "perfect"; only that my position is more rational than yours, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get a single political candidate, or lawmaker to agree with you. And calling me an idiot does not make your case any stronger; it only confirms that you have nothing more rational to add, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

Well, then, you believe me to be of such low intelligence ("idiot"), that I cannot see any value in continuing our discussion, can you?

 

[Conservative65]

That's the problem with you Liberals. You believe what you support is perfect and the rest of us that don't agree with you are extreme. More proof you're an unprincipled idiot.

I have never suggested that what I believe is "perfect"; only that my position is more rational than yours, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get a single political candidate, or lawmaker to agree with you. And calling me an idiot does not make your case any stronger; it only confirms that you have nothing more rational to add, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

You, sir, are a liar. Thank you for playing. Welcome to my ignore pile. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Telling the truth isn't an insult, calling names, and denigrating anyone. Sorry you can't accept the truth.

Run and hide like the rest of the pussy Liberals.

 

[Boss]

Finally, I will add that I am "Pro-Choice" ...I favor a woman's right to choose when to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy. I am in favor of her being able to choose from a variety of birth control options or choose abstinence. If her choices are taken away against her will through commission of a crime such as rape or incest, I believe she should have the choice as to whether or not to terminate any resulting pregnancy. What I do not favor is "Unlimited Choice" for women or anyone. We don't get that in life. We make choices, they have consequences.

And what if the woman uses birth control and it fails? 50% of women seeking abortions use birth control.

http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/contra_choices.pdf

Again, I don't have a problem with society collectively deciding when it is appropriate to terminate a human life. Preferably, this should be done at the state level. I don't know that I would personally favor an all-out ban on all abortions in America. I believe there are instances where it is appropriate and for the best. I also believe that there will always be a few who will find a way to have an abortion whether it's legal or not. I would rather have it made extremely rare and highly regulated.

I would much rather that women give birth to children they can afford, and want, rather than to deal with the "consequences" of an unintended pregnancy.

Well I would rather that happen too but I think that starts with the choice to have sex. You're not going to get pregnant if you don't have sex. That's pretty simple, right? We should be teaching young people that you don't lay down and have sex with someone unless it's someone you'd have a child with... because that's a possibility. Instead, we try to construct a society that disregards consequences of our actions.

You go on about the fetus being baby, but you then call it a "consequence", a punishment for making a decision to have unprotected sex. Which shows that you just want to punish women for having sex. This display a gross ignorance as to who are getting these abortions.

I didn't say a fetus was a baby and I never said a fetus was a consequence or punishment. Those are YOUR words and interpretations, not mine. I stated what biology says is a fact. A fetus is a living human organism in state of being, aka: a human being. Pregnancy results as a consequence of your actions... you don't simply wake up pregnant one day through no fault of your own. IF that were the case, I would have NO problem with abortion on demand. But we all know that isn't the case.

A child should not be a punishment. It should be a precious gift. It shouldn't be a choice between the children you have and the child you are carrying, but in the US, for poor women, all too often it is.

Save this self-righteous bullshit for someone who cares. A human being is a precious thing. Over a million human beings per year are sucked into a jar for the sake of vanity and convenience. They never had a choice, they never had a voice. This abhorrent practice continues while self-righteous liberals construct their own moral justifications.

 

[Czernobog]

I have never suggested that what I believe is "perfect"; only that my position is more rational than yours, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get a single political candidate, or lawmaker to agree with you. And calling me an idiot does not make your case any stronger; it only confirms that you have nothing more rational to add, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

You, sir, are a liar. Thank you for playing. Welcome to my ignore pile. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Telling the truth isn't an insult, calling names, and denigrating anyone. Sorry you can't accept the truth.

Run and hide like the rest of the pussy Liberals.

You may want to go reread my post. I edited it.

 

[Anathema]

there is nothing in my life that I believe strongly enough in that I would be willing to throw that life away in futility, knowing that it would change nothing other than me being dead. That's not "principle"; that fanaticism. Sorry, I have never, and will never respect fanaticism.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe in snything. Sounds like a hollow existence to me.

Personally, I fully expect to die for a lost cause - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Why? you ask. Because my reward is not of this world but the next. My hope is to stand before The Divine and be told I have done well then offered my choice of Higher Realms. I will answer..... If it pleases The Divine, I should like to be carried off by the Valkyries to Valhalla.... to fight and feast and f*ck until the day of Ragnarok arrives, and then to join the forces of The Divine in the Final Battle.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

I guess neither you or the OP understand what the premise of a hypothetical is. So feel free to carry on in your ignorance.

Their is nothing hypothetical about calling an unborn a fetus....it is fact. There is nothing hypothetical about fertilized eggs being sold for consumption. And by what statement do you deduct that I don't know that a single cell organism is alive by scientific standards? Where did I say that wasn't the case? Where was "single cell organism" even mentioned in my post?

And you strayed from the OP's original hypothetical statement...so don't use that as an excuse when your ignorance is pointed out.

So you agree that any abortion kills a living developing child?

Don't be ignorant. It is not a child at 20 weeks.....geez.....I bet you scramble chickens for breakfast every morning.

BTW, whens the last time you heard of a pregnant woman being referred to as being "with fetus"?

It doesn't matter what someone wants to refer to it....the scientific name for it is fetus. You ignorant conservatives want to call a fertilized egg a person.....even before it drops down to the uterus, still doesn't make it a person.

People always refer to a woman as being "with child". But hey, you're the regressive sodomite enabler, so just keep on being you, and I'll do the same.

Ignoramus.....pregnant women who want to give birth, refer to the fetus as their baby and being with child......that doesn't make a fertilized egg a baby or a child. But keep on using semantics to try and prove your point.....science may be too difficult for you.

And, no, conservatives are the regressives.....remember, you all want to go back to the 50's.

I actually know all the stages of human development, from fertilized egg to birth, it's you regressives that want to dehumanize everything.

Well, you sure don't seem to know that "fetus" is a correct term for the unborn. And chickens are not human, even if you think you're having them scrambled for your breakfast.

Oh and it's you regressives that want to take us back a few thousand years to Sodom and Gomorrah, you can't get more regressive than that.

Bwahahaha.....quote a Democrat/liberal/progressive that has ever suggested we do away with contraceptives. I dare you to list all the Democrats that want to do away with contraceptives......yeah, because not using contraceptives is so futuristic.....you're pathetic.

11 Politicians Standing Between You and Your Birth Control

I think you have me confused with some one else, I haven't said a damn word about contraceptives. Or are you just trying to deflect from reality?

 

[Czernobog]

there is nothing in my life that I believe strongly enough in that I would be willing to throw that life away in futility, knowing that it would change nothing other than me being dead. That's not "principle"; that fanaticism. Sorry, I have never, and will never respect fanaticism.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe in snything.

I never said that. You might want to go back and reread what I actually said, then you might be capable of posting a rational response.

 

[OKTexas]

Therefore, as it stands, those of us told to butt out of her choice are forced to support HER choice when she can't. How about those of you that think the kids she can't afford but chose to have prove to me you actually care by funding them yourself. I don't owe her or her kids a damn thing because you think she has a choice and then can't afford it.

You seem to be a tad confused. It is because you and the rest of the conservative group that don't want to help women in need that you should butt out if she wants to have an abortion. You want the woman to be forced to give birth, but if she can't afford the child, then you don't want to be involved in helping with that.

That's right, you don't owe her a damn thing, so butt out of her lawful choices. So how about those of you who want the woman to have the child when she doesn't want to, adopt the child and raise it yourself? It works both ways, bubba.

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Feel free to point out were I claimed it was only conservatives adopting. Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

You're the idiot.....you tried to imply that when I suggested that those opposing abortion adopt the unwanted child. Maybe you don't understand the English language, which wouldn't surprise me.

And, I'm sure conservatives will also adopt the extremely deformed babies to raise, the ones that are going to be a vegetable for life and require medical attention for life (the kind of medical care that you Republicans also don't want to provide) because you Republican/conservatives are so compassionate. If anyone is an idiot, it has to be conservatives....they want to do away with the very thing that precludes abortion and at the same time do away with abortion. Logic is not your forte, is it?

I tried to imply, really? Child I'm only responsible for what I write, not what your feeble mind thinks I wrote.

 

[Anathema]

I never said that. You might want to go back and reread what I actually said, then you might be capable of posting a rational response.

Yes you did. You just cloaked it I. A bunch of bologna about things you can't change and how you don't respect people who are dedicated enough to something to become fanatical about it.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the problem with you Liberals. You believe what you support is perfect and the rest of us that don't agree with you are extreme. More proof you're an unprincipled idiot.

I have never suggested that what I believe is "perfect"; only that my position is more rational than yours, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get a single political candidate, or lawmaker to agree with you. And calling me an idiot does not make your case any stronger; it only confirms that you have nothing more rational to add, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

Well, then, you believe me to be of such low intelligence ("idiot"), that I cannot see any value in continuing our discussion, can you?

I'm trying to educate you but some idiots are too stupid to learn. You're apparently one of them.

 

[Czernobog]

I never said that. You might want to go back and reread what I actually said, then you might be capable of posting a rational response.

Yes you did. You just cloaked it I. A bunch of bologna about things you can't change and how you don't respect people who are dedicated enough to something to become fanatical about it.

I'm sorry to hear that your reading comprehension is so poor. Perhaps we'll converse again when you learn to understand English. That, or when you learn to quit sanctimoniously imposing your opinion on what you read.

 

[Czernobog]

I have never suggested that what I believe is "perfect"; only that my position is more rational than yours, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get a single political candidate, or lawmaker to agree with you. And calling me an idiot does not make your case any stronger; it only confirms that you have nothing more rational to add, so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

Well, then, you believe me to be of such low intelligence ("idiot"), that I cannot see any value in continuing our discussion, can you?

I'm trying to educate you but some idiots are too stupid to learn. You're apparently one of them.

So, again, why do you continue to engage me?

 

[Rambunctious]

Anti choice? what a stupid phrase. It's pro abortion and anti abortion; stop watering it down with inappropriate words. You either are okay with killing a baby in the womb or you are not okay with it. Simple choice if you ask me.

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You Liberals believe paying taxes is the same as voluntarily helping those for whom you claim to care just because you say you don't have a problem paying them.

No, we don't. You are either lying, or woefully misinformed. What we believe is that the responsibility of each citizen of a nation to share in the funding of the government of that nation. We further believe that we have elected officials who we entrusted to spend that money, on our behalf, in the best interest of that government, nation, and the society existing in that nation. As such, those representatives are going to, inevitably, spend some of that money on things that not every citizen is going to agree with. That doesn't matter. We entrusted those representatives to do just what they are doing, so we pay our taxes without complaint. That is what we "believe".

Fair share? You mean like the half in this country that don't pay income taxes yet benefit from things those income taxes fund? How many people on food stamps, just as one example, pay the income taxes that fund them? The answer is none. A family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime in income tax until the gross family income is almost $50,000. Are you telling me that's a fair share? Half the country pays ZERO income taxes and the other half has to pay more than their fair share to make up for those freeloaders.

And you wonder why you have been accused of hating the poor...

You say you believe it's the responsibility of each citizen to share in the funding of the government of the nation. Currently, only about half do and the other half benefit as a result of the half that do. That means you are lying.

I don't have a problem with the poor until people like you and the poor demand it's my place to support them in ways they should be doing for themselves. You say each citizen should share in the funding of the government then go about trying to justify how it's OK many don't share in it. Which one is it?

 

[Anathema]

...... That, or when you learn to quit sanctimoniously imposing your opinion on what you read.

My Opinion is the only one that matters to me, so why wouldn't it be imposed on everything I read?

 

[OKTexas]

There are huge waiting lists to adopt new born of all races, you fail.

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

 

[Conservative65]

Actually did. When you say that your beliefs start at a point where you don't have to compromise them, that suggest perfection. Something perfect needn't be changed and you believe you don't need to change yours.

What's wrong with calling an idiot like you an idiot? Can't handle the truth.? It would only be an attack if it wasn't true.

Your position is that what you believe is more rational than what I believe. If you believe you have the ability to make that determination, I believe I have the ability to think you're an idiot. No different than you.

Well, then. We're obviously done. I have not insulted you, called you names or felt the need to denigrate you. I have, in fact, congratulated you, and complimented you on the courage of your convictions, however fruitless they may be.

Since, either you believe me to be of such low intelligence, or you are incapable of discussion without insult, I see no reason to continue this engagement, do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't insulted you, called you names, or denigrated you.

Well, then, you believe me to be of such low intelligence ("idiot"), that I cannot see any value in continuing our discussion, can you?

I'm trying to educate you but some idiots are too stupid to learn. You're apparently one of them.

So, again, why do you continue to engage me?

I believe you're the one that said you were doing to ignore me. You've replied back 2, 3, 4 times. That was either a lie on your part or you really are stupid enough to not know what ignore means.
The better question is why do you continue to respond to someone you say you're going to ignore? A lie or stupidity on your part?

 

[Conservative65]

Where's your proof it's conservatives doing the adopting? You fail.

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

Czernobog states that he believe EACH citizen has the responsibility of funding the government of the nation yet justified how it's OK that some don't. Which one is it? He won't answer.

 

[Czernobog]

Anti choice? what a stupid phrase. It's pro abortion and anti abortion; stop watering it down with inappropriate words. You either are okay with killing a baby in the womb or you are not okay with it. Simple choice if you ask me.

Absolutely not. I rarely express my personal feelings about a woman choosing to have an abortion, as my personal feelings toward the practice of abortion are irrelevant. I have no more right to impose my personal moral views about abortion on someone else, than anyone else does. Pro-choice is precisely the right word, because, regardless of my personal opinion of abortion, I wholeheartedly believe that the decision to have an abortion, or not, should rest squarely, and only with the person whose life that will affect - the pregnant woman.

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

 

[Czernobog]

...... That, or when you learn to quit sanctimoniously imposing your opinion on what you read.

My Opinion is the only one that matters to me, so why wouldn't it be imposed on everything I read?

And with that statement, I see no reason to ever converse with you, as you have made it abundantly clear that you are not interested in honest exchange, but only in convincing everyone how brilliant, and right you are. Thank you for playing. Welcome to Ignoria. Please feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.