1. Did I demonstrate, or did I not, that Earthmother compared the worst 4th standard deviation of capitalism (drug dealers) with the best 4th standard deviation of socialism to claim a win for socialism?

2. Was Earthmother's comparison, or was it not, intellectually dishonest as I claimed?

3. Was my challenge to Earthmother, or was it not, substantive? Did I, or did I not, try to demonstrate that her comparison was dishonest?

4. Did Earthmother, or did she not, respond to my challenge with a feminist irrelevancy? Was this, or was it not, because she was unable to back her original comparison with fact?

5. Did the other socialist respondants, or did they not, accept Earthmother's comparison without any basis in fact, and show general indignance that I dared to question her gospel declarations?

6. Did you, or did you not, close the thread and allow their statements to stand without challenge?

7. Are you, or are you not, worried that a comparison of the generosity and civility of the AVERAGE socialist to the AVERAGE capitalist will result in a win for capitalism?

8. For future reference, do you, or do you not, close threads which corner your friends into defending their statements?

9. Are you and/or Earthmother, or are you not, prepared to accept the fact that a) HolyHandGrenade is a character from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and b) I have never engaged in the activity Earthmother insinuated?

Please respond at your discretion.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: HolyHandGrenade ]

Is it just me, or does every right-wing-nut that comes to babble think they're partaking in some sort of cosmic battle between good and evil? Yeesh, and I thought I had delusions of gradeur...

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]

quote:

---

She closed your thread because threads that include other babblers names (anyone's) are disrespectful, and thus, are closed. Get over it.

---

But my post had substantive challenges which no one responded to seriously, including Earthmother. Do left-wingers, in general, accept lies at face value?

quote:

---

Is it just me, or does every right-wing-nut that comes to babble think they're partaking in some sort of cosmic battle between good and evil? Yeesh, and I thought I had delusions of gradeur...

---

Is it just me, or did you and the other left-wingers accept Earthmother's drug dealer as a representative sample of capitalism?

DrConway mentioned my laundry list. I was showing an example of a TYPICAL capitalist. Do you honestly think Earthmother's drug dealer is more representative of Canadian/U.S. capitalism than a small business owner?

This is a battle of truth vs. fantasy, not good vs. evil. Show me how drug dealers are representative of capitalism and I will accept Earthmother's statement.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: HolyHandGrenade ]

quote:

---

I find tax-funded lesbian pornography offensive, especially when lesbian pornography is funded at the expense of health care.

---

quote:

---

But my post had substantive challenges which no one responded to seriously,

---

quote:

---

. Did Earthmother, or did she not, respond to my challenge with a feminist irrelevancy? Was this, or was it not, because she was unable to back her original comparison with fact?

---

Actually Earthmothers response had nothing to do with feminism or irrelevancy, it was HUMOUR. Hello you have heard of the concept in your free time perhaps when you arent looking for feminists who may be lurking about ready to pounce and force you to mastrubate.

I didnt' respond to your rather interesting essay because I happen to be extremely ill and so are my husband and four children.

Terribly sorry to burst your bubble that you are SO important that I would nay absolutely should put you above my health needs and those of my family.

Even were I not dealing with this however, I would not respond because I refuse to entertain stupidity. I have reached a point in my life where I feel I have tried to educate, explain and cajole enough people. If you dont' get what I'm saying go educate yourself about it. If you don't agree, get over it. No one said we had to be friends.

So dealers settle disputes with guns, not words or lawsuits, and users die because nobody regulates the purity of what gets sold.

In short, it has all the characteristics and none of the benefits of 18th-century capitalism since even the latter had SOME government regulation other than just "it's illegal".

So the point being made is that it is rather amusing to watch conservatives such as yourself wax self-righteous about the use of drugs when in reality you're looking in the mirror and you're seeing the ultimate extreme to which capitalism can go.

We already looked (in reality) at the USSR and saw the ultimate extreme to which socialism can go, so unlike you we leftists at least know what to avoid instead of sticking our heads in the sand. Yet YOU FOLK keep hammering US over the head with the bogeyman of the USSR, short-circuiting substantive debate with the Sovietized form of Godwin's Law, and then have the gall to act offended when it's pointed out to you that the whole "drug empire" has capitalist features, right down to the big guys elbowing out little guys (Hell's Angels, anyone?).

quote:

---

Did you, or did you not, close the thread and allow their statements to stand without challenge?

---

quote:

---

9. Are you and/or Earthmother, or are you not, prepared to accept the fact that a) HolyHandGrenade is a character from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and b) I have never engaged in the activity Earthmother insinuated?

---

The HHG was NOT a character. It was a prop, perhaps a comedic device.

I support the rest of our moderator's post, 'specialy the dunno.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: sherpafish ]

FIGHT THE POWER! FIGHT THE POWER!

"Nope" is to be read as more emphatic -- yet at once more dismissive -- than a simple "no".

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

1. Canadians are dying

2. in Canadian hospitals,

3. in part because Chretien's government has cut 33% from federal health transfers

4. to increase funding to the arts, HRDC, "haut couture", and, in particular, Lesbian pornography, one of hundreds of special interests our government funds, which appeals to less than 3% of the population (probably less than 1%).

5. A mexican artist recently received $5K, compliments of the Canadian federal taxpayer, to exhibit vials of semen at the Banff Arts Centre. Porno. Funded by you and me. At the expense of health care.

6. The past two auditor generals have articulated gaping Liberal mismanagement of public funds to the tune of billions.

7. Those billions could have been appropriated to health care.

8. Lives would have been saved with proper management of tax dollars.

9. I find it offensive that 3rd tier special interest programs (arts, porno) receive funding at the expense of first tier programs like health care and national defense.

10. Which part of my post did you not understand?

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: HolyHandGrenade ]

quote:

---

3. in part because Chretien's government has cut 33% from federal health transfers

---

This part is provable, and such proof is here.

quote:

---

4. to increase funding to the arts, HRDC, "haut couture", and, in particular, Lesbian pornography, one of hundreds of special interests our government funds, which appeals to less than 3% of the population (probably less than 1%).

---

However, this I find to be fairly specious. I want numbers and I want proof.

HRDC alone is not a valid basis for proof of endemic mismanagement of public funds.

quote:

---

4. to increase funding to the arts, HRDC, "haut couture", and, in particular, Lesbian
pornography, one of hundreds of special interests our government funds, which
appeals to less than 3% of the population (probably less than 1%).

---

Oh puh-LEASE! Like you straight guys haven't ever picked up a copy of a lesbian porno-mag every now and then?! yeah, right... Those who haven't yet probably just got an idea...

Anyway, it's not like lesbian groups were campaigning for more government funding for porno at the expense of health care- And the argument that it was "at the expense" of healthcare is still rather shaky- the Department of Heritage received extra funds early in the Chrétien period because Québec was about to separate- would you have preffered they leave? Never mind- don't answer that. The division of the funds was the responsibility of the Minister of Heritage, either way.

It's assinine to assert that our health care woes are the result of government sponsored what you consider to be "pornography".

We can argue, and probably even agree that the government has some very questionable priorities when it comes to spending-- and I consider the areas it chooses to not collect as spending too-- To point at something that is frivolous in nature and expense, while there are other, more egregious examples of government cynically abusing the trust of taxpayers to allocate money for the greatest good, is fuzzy thinking.

What you try to foist upon us is something called "the argument of the excluded middle:" "We can either have properly funded health care, or we can fund lesbian pornography."

Cutting funding to lesbian pornography might buy us what, ten minutes on an MRI? One emergency room bed for a year? Maybe that's positive, I don't know.

But, when Revenue Canada waives the rules for the Bronfman's and one or two hospital worth's of tax dollars leaves the country, I have to find your example humorous, so that I don't find it offensive. Don't abuse my charity.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

The problem comes from a flawed democratic system where special interest groups can use government force to control the market. Government control of the market has never been and never will be Capitalism, it will always remain, just another of seemingly endless forms of,

quote:

---

3rd tier special interest programs (arts, porno)

---

Huh? What is a third tier? What is a tier?

All this counting has me so confused. I'm not so good on the numbers. One set of numbers I do know about, though, is the huge numbers of Canadians who work in the arts -- most efficiently, too, unlike your average CEO.

A person who earnestly expects to cajole socialists into defending their shallow, indefensible ideology, or

socialists who refuse to engage in a debate with anyone who questions their dogma?

quote:

---

Who do you think is a greater idiot?
A person who earnestly expects to cajole socialists into defending their shallow, indefensible ideology, or

socialists who refuse to engage in a debate with anyone who questions their dogma?

---

quote:

---

Dr Conway your Drug Dealing “almost the perfect example of unregulated capitalism” statement contradicts itself. Drug Dealing and organized crime in general are the result of government restriction on Individual Rights and far to much regulation in the market (in the form of prohibition in the case of The War on Some Drugs).

---

quote:

---

Actually Earthmothers response had nothing to do with feminism or irrelevancy, it was HUMOUR. Hello you have heard of the concept in your free time perhaps when you arent looking for feminists who may be lurking about ready to pounce and force you to mastrubate.

---

Was your original statement about capitalism also in jest? No, of course not. You were ill-equipped to refute my challenge to your serious slur against capitalism, so you dismissed my arguments with a one-liner about masturbation, then questioned my humor when I refused to accept your one-liner in leiu of a serious response. This debate tactic is known as artful dodging, and is employed by cowards.

quote:

---

I didnt' respond to your rather interesting essay because I happen to be extremely ill and so are my husband and four children

---

Puzzling. Despite your illness, you found enough time to joke about masturbation and question my sense of humor, but not enough time to defend your statement. Convenient.

quote:

---

Terribly sorry to burst your bubble that you are SO important that I would nay absolutely should put you above my health needs and those of my family.

---

You, not I, opted to appropriate time from your illness, and your family, to a joke about masturbation. How, in any way whatsoever, does that reflect on me?

quote:

---

Even were I not dealing with this however, I would not respond because I refuse to entertain stupidity. I have reached a point in my life where I feel I have tried to educate, explain and cajole enough people. If you dont' get what I'm saying go educate yourself about it. If you don't agree, get over it. No one said we had to be friends.

---

I'm stupid for questioning why you chose drug dealers (the 4th standard deviation per-capita), instead of small business owners (the 1st standard deviation per-capita), to represent capitalism?

quote:

---

Oh and HHG maybe a little time with the palm pilot would make you less antagonistic

---

quote:

---

You seem to have an obsession with lewd tangents. I believe it is a tactic for
dismissing evidence you can't refute.

---

quote:

---

Uh, Dopey here: point of information: Could we have a careful explanation of these numbered "standards of deviation," please? I didn't go to this church.

---

Statistics. When you say "x standard deviations away from the mean" you refer to how far out from the bell-part of the average you are. One standard deviation away from the mean covers 67% of the population; two standards, 95% and so on up. So he's roundabout saying that the outliers are what are being referred to.

Apologies if this is anything you already know.

Edit to add:

I assume when he says "best 4th standard" vs "worst 4th standard" that the phrasing is an attempt to compare an outlier of capitalism with the mainstream of socialism.

Poor phrasing, tho.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

The point is, that drug dealing and production and what-have-you is almost entirely outside the purview of government regulation other than criminalization. That's a good deal LESS government intervention in that market than there is in, oh say, forestry, where the government has occupational safety codes, stumpage fees, taxes, securities regulations, and heaven only knows what else.

---

Correct me if I am wrong, you seem to say that prohibition is some sort of small time regulation compared to other legitimate industries.

The only things prohibition doesn't regulate are quality of product, and sale to minors, no other industry has a more bloated, state run, human rights violating, encroaching police state to support it. Except for maybe the Federal Reserve or the IMF not much could be more anti-capitalist.

If lesbian porn took one penny out of every canadian pocket, there'd be so much I'd be kicking it aside in the streets (which is practically the case with straight porn). It sure as hell has nothing to do with the billions cut in federal transfers.

I think you just bumped into yourself one day and spilled your homophobia all over your taxpayer rage.

Apple: There will always be laws and people who break them. Capitalism has nothing to do with this or with how intrusive those laws are. It is only ideologically opposed to economic regulation. That is, the flow of money, conditions of operation, taxes,etc..

It is just the unregulated nature of these very elements that makes the drug trade such a fine example of pure capitalism. True it's illegal, but it operates nonetheless and operates well, creating huge profits. Within it's framework of illegality, it is complete competition, free from public meddling. In fact, its illegality makes its pure capitalist nature possible by creating a natural limit to its expansion. Left to it's own devices with no regulation, any purely capitalist economy would collapse in no time, chewing itself into one huge, inefficient monpoly.

quote:

---

I think you just bumped into yourself one day and spilled your homophobia all over your taxpayer rage.

---

First, those that engage in such activities have decided, right up front, to break the rules. As such, they are a very small group of self-selected misfits unrepresentative of any segment of society (except themselves) let alone law-abiding society at large. While of course there are corrupt “businessmen” (eg Enron) they are by no means representative of the vast majority of legitimate business people just trying to make a buck while playing by the rules.

Secondly, as a corollary to the point above: Drug traffickers preferred method of “winning” is to kill their competition...as in dead. Again, hardly representative of the over-whelming majority of sincere and honest business people.

Thirdly, drug traffickers are often selling into a market that more closely resembles a monopoly because the customer (ie addict) has to have it.

It’s perhaps fair to say that the kid selling pot at the local high-school does represent some free-market dynamic, albeit surreptitious. But, IMO, the Drug Industry overall hardly seems to represent anything other than criminal enterprise, run by extreme deviants, consumed with murder and violence, completely outside the purview of a civilized society. This certainly doesn’t describe the business people I know.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: SHH ]

quote:

---

Thirdly, drug traffickers are often selling into a market that more closely resembles a monopoly because the customer (ie addict) has to have it.

---

And how do they get people hooked - free samples - just like you see in most supermarkets. Tell me that you would refuse a free slice of pizza or that sample of chocolate - in fact you would probably go for seconds or thirds if you like the taste of it.

quote:

---

wanna get in and out as quickly as possible.

---

quote:

---

I think most smart addicts are smart enough to know more than one dealer - especially considering that "supply" can be delayed for numerous reasons.

---

Yes, but they still have to have it, unlike, say, pizza.

quote:

---

Capitalism does not want rules to limit it's activities (though it is not above pushing for rules to limit the actities of it's competition) since it is easier to be above the law where there is not law in place.

---

quote:

---

Monopolies exist in regulated markets as well. Cable teevee, electricity, water, and phone service might be other examples.

---

Unfortunately, there's great pressure from industry to deregulate these markets too. No big deal for the teevee, annoying in phone, alarming in electricity, unconscionable in water.

So I agree ‘lance. There’s certainly a good deal of hypocrisy and self-serving double-speak on the issue. Capital enterprise is all for regulation; when such regulation advantages itself. It's mostly those that are locked out that are crying dereg, and of course, once they too are a player, I suspect they'll become just like those they decry. Guess I'm a little cynical too!

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: SHH ]

quote:

---

Apple: There will always be laws and people who break them. Capitalism has nothing to do with this or with how intrusive those laws are. It is only ideologically opposed to economic regulation. That is, the flow of money, conditions of operation, taxes,etc..

---

Capitalism is a social system based on Individual Rights, not economics. Free markets are the result of individuals not having a 3rd party ( Govt. ) pass laws that take those rights away.

also”

quote:

---

Within it's framework of illegality, it is complete competition, free from public meddling. “

---

The “public meddling” the drug trade is free from under prohibition , includes, millions in jail, an ever growing police state, asset forfeiture, and simply an ever growing loss of liberty and individual freedoms capitalism holds as an ideal.

Then “

quote:

---

You're confusing government regulation of people with government regulation of the economy when you say that pure capitalism (if such a thing were possible) would have no drug war. The two are not necessarily conected.

---

They are completely connected, in a capitalist system no government would be able to dictate what
chemicals a free person can intoxicate himself with. Capitalism holds the only legitimate function of government as the protection of Rights, not the limitation.

vaudree said “

quote:

---

Capitalism does not want rules to limit it's activities (though it is not above pushing for rules to limit the actities of it's competition) since it is easier to be above the law where there is not law in place

---

People that push for limitations set by 3rd party forces that give them an unfair govt. mandated advantage are going against the principles Capitalism was founded upon. Capitalism allows for protection against fraud, maybe if the pigs were doing there job instead of hunting Johnny deadhead we would have less Enrons.

‘lance said “

quote:

---

Unfortunately, there's great pressure from industry to deregulate these markets too. No big deal for the teevee, annoying in phone, alarming in electricity, unconscionable in water.
My slightly cynical view is that big capital is happy with a certain level of market regulation, as long it applies to other markets only

---

Corruption will always exist, I just wish to limit the Govt. from helping the corrupt.
I’ll agree with you about water deregulation, I am not an absolute extremist about deregulation.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: apple of Eris ]

quote:

---

I think you just bumped into yourself one day and spilled your homophobia all over your taxpayer rage.

---

quote:

---

4. to increase funding to the arts, HRDC, "haut couture", and, in particular, Lesbian pornography, one of hundreds of special interests our government funds, which appeals to less than 3% of the population (probably less than 1%).

---

As meades said, you are just substituting "capitalism" everywhere you should be saying "liberalism", or even "anarchism".

Capitalism is not an ideology though it has ideology within it. It is an economic system. It has no particular respect for individual rights. In fact, many capitalist dictatorships exist and do very well (from a capitalist point of view).

The rights that capitalism is predicated on are: the right to own commodities; the right to commodify anything. These are not social rights in the normal sense -they are rights of force. They mean "everything I take, I own" and "anything is fair game". This is not social contract stuff, this is law of the jungle, as many good business types will tell you.

Capitalism is actually the natural opponent of the liberty you speak of, because it is the opponent of the equality that makes it possible. The essential principle of capitalism is that capital accumulates. If it didn't, there would be no point to it all. It will continue to accumulate if not checked by some "3rd party" (as you say), but even checked, it still promotes inequality in capital distribution, having a social impact relative to capital's importance. (note for idiots: I am not advocating perfect equality or even saying such a thing is possible. I'm just pointing out that capitalism is a force against equality, just as democracy is a force towards it).

In actual fact, capitalism loves to tell people what to do. It's called "market forces", which means "don't create your own society, let the market do it for you". There are none of your precious individual rights in its ethos.

quote:

---

but isn't Capitalism - at least the version that is our supposed State Religion and therefore must be Capitalized - a creature of European colonial expansion?

---

quote:

---

Oh, I see, Africans invented the trade in human beings.

---

RONB -- I think it would be pretty hard to say who, exactly, invented slavery. But most certainly, slavery in parts of Africa and Asia predated slavery in Europe and North America, for a variety of reasons.

There can be NO FreeMarket without the Rights of man being intact.

Strangely this democracy concept you speak of .... you know to equal everyone out.... is pretty much responsible for what we have right now. (Drug War and such)

The masses, easily manipulated, just as they have been all through history, now believe, no matter what they think is right, because there are more of us we cant be wrong we won the vote.

Think Democracy and Think Bush Approval Rating 80+%

I think I'm going to rile my unsuspecting and unaware co-workers by suggesting accessable education for the poor. Muahaha. See you in the funny papers.

As you so correctly noted, who can say where slavery began, Asia, Africa, Europe or (oh my!) North America? What does it matter, it ended up infecting every continent.

And as for post colonial larceny... ever heard of a certain Prime Minister whose Irish Eyes Are Smiling on the boards of dozens of grateful Multi-national corporations?

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ronb ]

quote:

---

Geeze you guys talk about slavery as if it was a thing of a bygone era.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but since it's not the United States that's involved in the slave trade, people are here couldn't care less.

---

Well I care. And so do others.

quote:

---

The United Nations estimates that up to 15,000 southern Sudanese -- mostly women and children -- have been abducted in raids on southern villages by Arab militiamen in the last decade and taken to the north to be sold as slaves.

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, sheep. The Emir of Kuwait, the Bush clan's old buddy, was purported to be a slave owner right up until Iraq invaded.

---

It is "alleged" that the emir of Kuwait kept slaves. The emir of Kuwait is a "buddy" of George Bush, therefore, the United States is guilty of supporting the trafficking of slaves?

2) Except I prefer to call them sammiches.

3)Especially when I make them in my electric sammich maker that my brother gave me for Xmas five years ago and which I thought was stupid at the time but have used regularly ever since.

4)The best kind of sammiches to make in the electric sammich maker are cheese sammiches because the cheese melts and we all know how tasty melted cheese is.

5) There are a lot of idiots on this board who probably think that melted cheesey sammiches aren't tasty at all, but I bet if I outlined a bombastic, confrontational argument pro melted cheesey sammiches, tossing in a lot of gratuitous personal attacks and basically alienating everyone here, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY if I NUMBERED each one of my sneeringly condescending points. . .then, oh then all you boneheaded anti-melted cheesey sammich sonovabitches would come to your senses!!!

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: clersal ]

Some melted cheese I don't like. Gruyere in a fondue is quite stinky-poo. Gorgonzola in cream sauce is rather sublime. Melted cheddar is tasty, mozzarella is fine. Brie is to die for, parmigiano divine.

One of my least favourite cheeses is "Delice du chamberlain" (sorry, too lazy for accents). It means "the chambermaid's surprise" in English. It's a nutty brownish cheese that sort of oozes out of the wrapper when you open it, and stinks up the room. No melting required. Oh and it is very expensive -- "an acquired taste", as most gross but expensive foods are called. Blecch.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]

And rasmus, I agree with you about the other cheeses, Gorgonzola as a sauce, especially -- but you are hopelessly deviant on the subject of Gruyere in fondue. If you persist in this position, I'll, I'll ... well, I just don't know what I'll do, but you'll be sorry, mark my words.

The ultimate sammidge, of course, is the classic peanut butter. Reasonable people may disagree about methods of preparation -- have disagreed, actually -- I'll see whether I can't find in their archives the extended debate on this topic that raged in the letters column of Geist magazine last year.

Why is it you assume that a critism of certain aspects of American politics or culture means we can't appreciate ANYTHING American?

quote:

---

My point is that you only care about the suppression of human rights when you can point a finger at the United States as the suppressor.

---

I'm always amazed by those who are offended by people who hold democratic educated and affluent western societies up to a higher standard than backward third world countries.

If we lived under a Free Market system I would have a right to sell “Drugs” or “My Body” ( two two easy examples) as honest trade, without a 3rd party using force to prevent me.

I would not have the right to use force or fraud to gain an upper hand.

Here is something a friend once told me....

quote:

---

The ultimate sammidge, of course, is the classic peanut butter.

---

1) No one says sammidge.

2) Even the spelling (i-d-g?) is stupid and gratiutous.

3) It lacks the satisfying 'ch' sound at the end, which we all know is meant to onopmatopoeically evoke the crunchy feeling you get inside your head when you bite into a delicious, melty-cheesey sammich-maker made sammich. . .allghghhllllggghh (Homer Simpson drooling noises.)

quote:

---

I won't even dignify the peanut-butter assertion with a response. Christ, I wonder about you people sometimes.

---

1). Go Relyc!

2). Go Relyc!

2. Schade.

3. Pity.

quote:

---

I'm always amazed by those who are offended by people who hold democratic educated and affluent western societies up to a higher standard than backward third world countries.

---

Careful now, you're treading in a minefield here. Surely you're not suggesting that a standard of human rights is "relative"?

Or perhaps you're of the mind that it's the first world's burden (some called it the white man's burden in previous years)to rescue the "backward third world countries"?

Maybe you see the citizens of developing nations as "noble savages", like the europeans saw the native americans in popular literature?

The citizens of the "first world" (I really dislike these terms) and the "third world" are not as different as you might think. Get out into the world with an open mind and you may learn that.

2. Saurcrout too.

3. I have a sammich press that makes the bread look like little clams.

4. Provolone is the democratic monarch of cheese.

5. Pizza can be sammiched.

6. So can waffles.

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

2. Gruyere works fine in a fondue so long as you cut it with Emmenthal (sp?). Always remember that the most important ingredient of fondue is white wine.

3. Never stab someone in the knee with a fondue fork. They look harmless but they hurt a lot. Trust me on this.

4. Apple of Elvis must like fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches. It only stands to reason.

quote:

---

Never stab someone in the knee with a fondue fork. They look harmless but they hurt a lot. Trust me on this.

---

My dad worked a company that sold agricultural supplies. One day, I was in the showroom waiting for him. They had a cattle prod sitting on a table. I thought to myself, "it can't POSSIBLY hurt THAT much" . . .