"DSK" wrote in message
...
Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about
libby-rulls (and other minorites).

Maxprop wrote:
It's obvious you've never listened to him.

This is an excellent example of how wrong you are, and how quick to make
insulting assumptions about those who disagree with you.

I listen (sort of) to Rush Limbaugh for many hours a week. The radio in
the shop where I work (sometimes) is tuned to a station that carries his
show.

I know you've made this claim before, but you're so often wrong about him
that I can't imagine you've actually ever heard him. Then again, if you
actually do listen to him, you're doing so from a decidely left-wing
perspective. Left-wingers think he's hateful; right-wingers think he's
truthful. I think he's an entertainer, first, last, and forever, using
shock value as a selling tool for his program.


If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the
liberal rabble-rousers are all too nice.


Really? Who was left-wing actor (maybe Alec Baldwin) who advocated
assassinating Ken Starr?

And in your mind, this is the same as a high ranking politicial advocating
the assassination of a sitting President?

Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms. But my point
stands: there is easily as much hate-speak coming from the left as from the
right. You just fail to notice, thanks to your bias.

.... I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any of the other
conservative pundits advocating violence.

Well then, you've never listened.

This is an excellent example of how wrong you are, and how
quick to make insulting assumptions about those who disagree
with you. (that was rather easy--I simply copied and pasted your remark
from above. g)




.... If you believe that there's no hate speech emanting from the left,
you're delusional.


I hear the claim made from the right quite often.
There may be some "hate speech" coming from the far-left wing, but it
certainly doesn't have it own syndicated shows & cable channels...

And why would that be?? Could it be . . . let's see . . . that left-wing
talk shows fail miserably?? That Al Franken is a complete waste of time??
Hell, if it weren't for George Soros dumping good money after bad into Air
America, that financial failure would be history.

and what little I've heard is rather mild compared to such things as
"Liberals = Traitors."

You haven't been listening. (Hmmm, that sounds familiar.)


So, wrong again... hate speech from the left is less in scale & in scope.

Once again a matter of interpretation. But the point is simply that both
extremes engage in angry, hateful rhetoric, and two wrongs don't make a
right, no matter the scale or scope.

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, as I believe Jon tried to point
out to you.

Didn't I just say that? I'm not attempting to justify what comes from the
extreme right--they don't represent my beliefs nor do they represent those
of mainstream Americans. Neither, of course, does the extreme left.


.... Jesse Helms came from an entirely different period in our country's
history. I know of almost no one who wouldn't label him a crackpot.


He was a powerful senior Republican. He was also a man who stood by his
principles... while I disgree strongly with many of those principles, I
can respect him for that. Senator Helms was not out to line his own
pockets nor did he bend his ethics for expedience.

Does all that forgive his racism? I don't think so.

...... I used to support (financially) the ACLU for decades. As they've
completely abberated from their original agenda, I think my money was
poorly spent.

Well, there you go again. The ACLU has not changed it's purpose nor
principles for many many decades, if ever. Maybe you just weren't paying
attention.

They most certainly have, and if you are unable to see it, I'll say the same
thing to you: you just weren't paying attention. Years ago the ACLU would
have supported the rights of individuals and groups, no matter what side of
the political aisle they were on. Now they define liberalism and the
left-wing agenda. They are transparently inconsistent in their defense of
"civil liberties."



Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind.

Since you have no idea what I listen to, this is just more Bobsprit-like
blather.

Regardless of what you listen to, your left bias would indicate that your
mind is already made up.



I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends.

well, duh

... I'm opposed to increasing income taxes, which the democrats will
surely do if they capture the White House and both houses of Congress.

Right, what this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar, and more tax cuts
for the rich.

. . . who pay a disproportionate percentage of the income and other taxes
accrued by the government to begin with. Why is it so difficult to accept
that those who pay the most should reap the largest benefit of tax cuts?
Could it be that you favor the concept of "redistribution of wealth?"
Should the rich pay a larger percentage of their income simply because they
have more? Personally I'm in favor of some sort of level taxation. Most
democrats aren't.

.... I'm in favor of fiscal responsibility on the part of our leaders,
which is why I detest the current administration.

Then why did you campaign for them so frantically?

I didn't campaign for them at all. I simply did not like Kerry. And to the
point--speaking for or against politicians in this NG would hardly define
"campaigning." If you feel that way, this NG means waaaay too much to you.

.... I believe in the US Constitution and feel strongly that it should be
preserved rather than altered or interpreted to the whims of the party in
power.

Agreed

... I'd like to see government shrunk dramatically, with some bureaus
done away with entirely, or at least reduced dramatically.

Agreed again, but I suspect we'd disagree on specifics

Not necessarily. I'd like to see accross-the-board reductions in all aspect
of government, with perhaps the sole exception of armed forces.

.... I don't care if gays want to get married--

My feelings on the subject can be pretty much summed up by the mock
protest sign "STOP Gay Marriage.... haven't they suffered enough already?"



.... I support a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah but you're not a cool "closet" gun owner like me

LOL. Right. I shoot the neighbor's cats periodically just to let them know
I'm armed to the teeth. g


... I'm strongly in favor of cleaner air, water;

Who isn't?

Many don't seem to believe we have a problem. And some industrialists just
don't give a ****.

The question is, are you in favor of environmental regulations that are
functional

Indeed, if they are truly *functional.* When such regulations are
gratuitous, failing to achieve any substantive tangible benefit and costing
businesses disproportionately to the tiny benefit reaped, they should be
discarded and lawmakers should head back to the drawing board. Sadly the
EPA seems unable to do away with poorly-functional regulations, believing
that they couldn't possibly have conceived of something ineffective, or even
harmful in the net analysis.

and actively enforced.

One of the chief problems of environmental regulations is that some are
enforced and some aren't. Occasionally the big polluter gets away with
murder, while the tiny businessman or farmer, who plowed up a "wetland" in
order to build a new building or plant some beans, gets raked over the hot
coals.

.... I'm clearly a libertarian with moderate social beliefs.


You're clearly self-deluded.

Okay, Bobsprit.

Not really a problem though, except that you're so aggressively vocal
about what you think others believe.

As are you. I don't deny that I am. You, OTOH, seem to think yourself
befitting of a halo and wings. That is either arrogance to the Nth degree,
or self-delusion that is hazardous to your ability as a debater.


I don't have a problem with any citizen voting as he thinks best. That's
what democracy is about. I *do* have a problem with people who insist that
a 51% majority is an entitlement to install a dictatorial plutocracy with
fascist tendencies (this is not an insult, just going by the dictionary
definition of those words... look it up).

The only folks I'm aware of who insist on that were the framers of the
Constitution. Whomever wins, wins. That's the law. And the winner can
pretty much do whatever he pleases, whether it pleases the populace or not.
Our system isn't perfect by a long shot. But as long as you brought the
point up--would you believe it okay to install a dictatorial plutocracy with
fascist tendencies if the candidate had won 60% or even 80% of the popular
vote? I don't.

I *do* have a problem with crooked voting machines, and gerrymandering,
and lots of other electoral tricks... and so should every other citizen!

Agreed, but obviously not everyone does.


I don't have a problem with free speech. But it's a big problem when a lot
of people... especially people who are backed by big money... make a habit
of shouting "FIRE" in crowded theaters.

Money is the lube that makes Washington work for individuals or groups.
Always has been, always will be. I don't like it--you don't like it--most
sensible citizens don't like it. But we'd all better get used to it *OR*
endeavor to find another system, because this is the one we've got.


Rush Limbaugh once said "Freedom of speech means I can demand that anybody
who disagrees with me to shut the hell up." Kinda funny as a semi-clever
play on words, but as a political principal, it stinks.

He thought so, too. That's why he said it. When taken out of context, it
sounds ugly. He was using it as a negative example, just as you did here.
I was listening to that program. If you had, you'd have realized that he
was playing devil's advocate. Another example: Rush once said, while
making a point, that only the poor should be taxed. His reasoning was that
they take from the government, but contribute little or nothing in terms of
revenue. Of course he wasn't advocating taxing only the poor, or taxing
them at all (he said so in so many words), but every left-wing pundit in the
country was saying the next day that "Rush Limbaugh is for taxing only the
poor." I still hear that from liberals to this day.


Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to a
Senator on the floor of the Senate?

Yes it was, especially in terms of coverage and the number of viewers
reached. Baldwin was on national TV during a relatively heavy viewing hour.
Unless you were watching CSPAN when Cheney made his ugly remark, you didn't
see it. I learned about it here, from you, incidentally.

Within the last year Leno asked people in the streets if they knew whom the
Vice President was. Many didn't. He asked them if they knew who Brad Pitt
was, and they all did.

Max

Funny, that I never heard it. And, I'm a left winger.

Who is Brad Pitt?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to
a Senator on the floor of the Senate?

Yes it was, especially in terms of coverage and the number of viewers
reached. Baldwin was on national TV during a relatively heavy viewing
hour. Unless you were watching CSPAN when Cheney made his ugly remark, you
didn't see it. I learned about it here, from you, incidentally.

Within the last year Leno asked people in the streets if they knew whom
the Vice President was. Many didn't. He asked them if they knew who Brad
Pitt was, and they all did.

Max

I listen (sort of) to Rush Limbaugh for many hours a week. The radio in
the shop where I work (sometimes) is tuned to a station that carries his
show.


Maxprop wrote:
I know you've made this claim before, but you're so often wrong about him
that I can't imagine you've actually ever heard him.

Well, there you go again. That's the problem innit?
Maxprop's imagination over here, and way way way over there
in the distance is reality.


... Then again, if you
actually do listen to him, you're doing so from a decidely left-wing
perspective.


???

Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


.... right-wingers think he's
truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons
and that he makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty
stupid thing to think.



Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.

When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate
committees?


... But my point
stands: there is easily as much hate-speak coming from the left as from the
right. You just fail to notice, thanks to your bias.


Wrong again. Due to your bias, you accept the statements
from the right-wing that their hate speech is only "fair and
balanced" by all the hate speech from the left. I bet you
even use the phrase "liberal biased media."





There may be some "hate speech" coming from the far-left wing, but it
certainly doesn't have it own syndicated shows & cable channels...


And why would that be?? Could it be . . . let's see . . . that left-wing
talk shows fail miserably??


In other words, now you're admitting that your statement
above is false...

1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from
the right, so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the
left's is terrible (even though two wrongs don't make a right).

2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because
it's not as profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).

Which is it?

This is one of the things I love about you right-wing nut
cases. You can't put together three sentences without
blatantly contradicting yourselves. It just goes to show
that P.T. Barnum was not only correct, he should have gone
into politics.




Maxprop wrote:
...... I used to support (financially) the ACLU for decades. As they've
completely abberated from their original agenda, I think my money was
poorly spent.

Well, there you go again. The ACLU has not changed it's purpose nor
principles for many many decades, if ever. Maybe you just weren't paying
attention.


They most certainly have, and if you are unable to see it, I'll say the same
thing to you: you just weren't paying attention. Years ago the ACLU would
have supported the rights of individuals and groups, no matter what side of
the political aisle they were on.

And they still do.

Years ago, J.Edgar Hoover and Nixon & their ilk were all
loudly declaring the ACLU to be a bunch of libby-rull
traitor fags.

In other words, the ACLU hasn't changed. Maybe you have.




.... Now they define liberalism and the
left-wing agenda. They are transparently inconsistent in their defense of
"civil liberties."


Is that a quote from Joe McCarthy?




Right, what this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar, and more tax cuts
for the rich.


. . . who pay a disproportionate percentage of the income and other taxes
accrued by the government to begin with.

??

I guess the rich don't get more benefits from society?


.... Why is it so difficult to accept
that those who pay the most should reap the largest benefit of tax cuts?

Why is it so difficult to accept that those who get the most
benefit should pay the largest share?


Could it be that you favor the concept of "redistribution of wealth?"

Could it be that you don't grasp that *all* gov't is
redistributing wealth? It seems inherent in the ideas that
you've said you believe in, that gov't cannot create wealth
and should be minimized etc etc.

The question, how should wealth be distributed in the first
place? Obviously to those with the political power to sieze
& hold it.



Then why did you campaign for them so frantically?


I didn't campaign for them at all. I simply did not like Kerry.

In other words, you weren't in favor of Bush/Cheney, you
were against Kerry.

Seems to me that a common accusation was that many Kerry
voters were not really "for" Kerry but against Bush. Hmmm.




The question is, are you in favor of environmental regulations that are
functional


Indeed, if they are truly *functional.*

In other words, you're infavor of laws that keep the other
guy from polluting.




I don't have a problem with any citizen voting as he thinks best. That's
what democracy is about. I *do* have a problem with people who insist that
a 51% majority is an entitlement to install a dictatorial plutocracy with
fascist tendencies (this is not an insult, just going by the dictionary
definition of those words... look it up).


The only folks I'm aware of who insist on that were the framers of the
Constitution. Whomever wins, wins. That's the law. And the winner can
pretty much do whatever he pleases

??

If you believe this, then you need to go back and re-take
6th grade civics.



Rush Limbaugh once said "Freedom of speech means I can demand that anybody
who disagrees with me to shut the hell up." Kinda funny as a semi-clever
play on words, but as a political principal, it stinks.


He thought so, too. That's why he said it.

???

Then why does he do it daily, and stick to it as an
operating principle of his "entertainment?"

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Who is Brad Pitt?

Just some guy women thought looked good in Greek armor.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Maxprop wrote:

... Then again, if you actually do listen to him, you're doing so from a
decidely left-wing perspective.


???

Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?

Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear? Here's
a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything to do with what
he believes has been said.

.... right-wingers think he's truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons and that he
makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty stupid thing to think.

You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually said
that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.

When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate committees?

When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything in
politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was prior
to all the media attention?

... But my point stands: there is easily as much hate-speak coming from
the left as from the right. You just fail to notice, thanks to your
bias.


Wrong again. Due to your bias, you accept the statements from the
right-wing that their hate speech is only "fair and balanced" by all the
hate speech from the left.

Heh, heh, not too fond of Fox News, are ya?

I bet you even use the phrase "liberal biased media."

Almost, but you're close.

And why would that be?? Could it be . . . let's see . . . that left-wing
talk shows fail miserably??


In other words, now you're admitting that your statement above is false...

Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its talk
shows and channels?

1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from the right, so
therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's is terrible (even
though two wrongs don't make a right).

I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles. That would imply,
to any rational person, that I don't care for hate-speech no matter who is
talking. Why are you having so much trouble with that? It seems you simply
aren't happy unless I'm rabidly right-wing. Sorry to disappoint you.

2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because it's not as
profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).

The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents. And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow
before he got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing
varieties. And a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood
glitterazzi. In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.

This is one of the things I love about you right-wing nut cases. You can't
put together three sentences without blatantly contradicting yourselves.
It just goes to show that P.T. Barnum was not only correct, he should have
gone into politics.

That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater, which is tantamount to an admission
of failure. No surprises there.

This is boring and you're a jerk.

Ciao.

Max

Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear?

Not at all.

.... Here's
a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything to do with what
he believes has been said.


I guess if you are so incredibly biased that you cannot hear
any communication, no matter how clear & simple, without
perceiving some bias, then you're probably right. But for
most people, that's not the case.

When you hear the words "The sky is blue" or "water runs
downhill" do you percieve those words to be liberal or
conservative?

How about "the insurgency is on it's last legs" or "censured
for conflict of interest" or "arrested for possession of
illegal narcotics" ... ???

Seems pretty clear to me, no slant one way or the other.
They are simple declaratives.



.... right-wingers think he's truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons and that he
makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty stupid thing to think.


You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually said
that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Well, he said it in the same interview in which he said
"Freedom of speech gives me the right to demand anybody that
disagrees with me must shut the hell up." If you heard that,
then you heard the other. Perhaps your right-bias listening
device filtered it out.

In any event, when a public figure has been arrested for
drugs multiple times, after nmaking public statements about
the despicableness of drug addicts, one suspects that
nothing could damage his credibility with those who are
biased towards believing him.



Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.


When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate committees?


When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything in
politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was prior
to all the media attention?


AFAIK William Jefferson was on a 70s sitcom and is a
fictional character. I never heard of Alec Baldwin, so he
can't be all that famous.



Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its talk
shows and channels?


Are you willing to admit that you've made several
self-contradictory statements on the matter?


1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from
the right

1a- so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's
is terrible

1b-(even though two wrongs don't make a right).


I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles.

No, you haven't. You have only condemned hate speech from
the left.



2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because it's not as
profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).


The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents.

Really? You mean, there aren't numerous right-wing blogs?

... And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow
before he got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing
varieties. And a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood
glitterazzi. In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.


Except that the Bush/Cheney administration has used federal
departments budgets to produce pro-administration
infomercials and faked news releases. That alone accounts
for a couple hundred million worth of de-facto campaign
advertising.

In the final analysis, "it's a wash" is a highly biased
statement.



That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater

In other words, you have no way of reconciling the *fact*
that you've made some illogical & false statements, and you
cannot seem to produce any actual evidence (other than you
own repeated assertions) that I'm biased.



This is boring and you're a jerk.


If I had in fact been calling you names ... and point out
how illogical and self-contradictory (therefor stupid) your
statement are is not really an attack... then 2 wrongs don't
make a right.

DSK

This is very non-politically correct...

The sky is blue should read the sky is non-white.
Water runs downhill should read water runs in the appropriate direction.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear?

Not at all.

.... Here's a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything
to do with what he believes has been said.


I guess if you are so incredibly biased that you cannot hear any
communication, no matter how clear & simple, without perceiving some bias,
then you're probably right. But for most people, that's not the case.

When you hear the words "The sky is blue" or "water runs downhill" do you
percieve those words to be liberal or conservative?

How about "the insurgency is on it's last legs" or "censured for conflict
of interest" or "arrested for possession of illegal narcotics" ... ???

Seems pretty clear to me, no slant one way or the other. They are simple
declaratives.



.... right-wingers think he's truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons and that he
makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty stupid thing to think.


You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually
said that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Well, he said it in the same interview in which he said "Freedom of speech
gives me the right to demand anybody that disagrees with me must shut the
hell up." If you heard that, then you heard the other. Perhaps your
right-bias listening device filtered it out.

In any event, when a public figure has been arrested for drugs multiple
times, after nmaking public statements about the despicableness of drug
addicts, one suspects that nothing could damage his credibility with those
who are biased towards believing him.



Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.


When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate committees?


When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything
in politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was
prior to all the media attention?


AFAIK William Jefferson was on a 70s sitcom and is a fictional character.
I never heard of Alec Baldwin, so he can't be all that famous.



Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its
talk shows and channels?


Are you willing to admit that you've made several self-contradictory
statements on the matter?


1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from the right

1a- so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's is terrible

1b-(even though two wrongs don't make a right).


I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles.

No, you haven't. You have only condemned hate speech from the left.



2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because it's not as
profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).


The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents.

Really? You mean, there aren't numerous right-wing blogs?

... And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow before he
got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing varieties. And
a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood glitterazzi.
In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.


Except that the Bush/Cheney administration has used federal departments
budgets to produce pro-administration infomercials and faked news
releases. That alone accounts for a couple hundred million worth of
de-facto campaign advertising.

In the final analysis, "it's a wash" is a highly biased statement.



That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater

In other words, you have no way of reconciling the *fact* that you've made
some illogical & false statements, and you cannot seem to produce any
actual evidence (other than you own repeated assertions) that I'm biased.



This is boring and you're a jerk.


If I had in fact been calling you names ... and point out how illogical
and self-contradictory (therefor stupid) your statement are is not really
an attack... then 2 wrongs don't make a right.

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote:

Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I don't know what group Ganz has been reading, but I see Doug insult Dave
and Maxprop in almost every post as of late.

LP