Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[Kshartle]

The problem with political action is it legitimizes the wrong stuff by only dissagreeing on details. Supporting the guy who advocates less theft is an acceptance of theft. Supporting the guy who favors less intereference in the market is acceptance of interference. Supporting the guy in favor of regulating pot is acceptance of other people deciding what you can smoke.

The libertarians and small government activists lose and lose and lose. They always think if they can just do a better job with their comprimised message maybe by some miracle they will gain traction. Instead they get devastated.

This sounds satisfying but I don't think it's right. Think about gun rights in this country. They were on the brink of death in the 70s. What brought us to where we are today? Was it unyielding, uncompromising fidelity to the principle of totally unrestricted civilian access to any type of weaponry from day 1? Or was it a series of unpleasant compromises, small steps that added up over time, and strategic legal challenges working within and even acknowledging the legitimacy of the system?

I think you know the answer.

Where are we today on the issue of guns PS?

I look at the election of obama the first time and the second and see the huge run up in firearms prices and especially bullets. The marketplace is saying by it's actions that firearm ownership and usage is as vulnerable as it's ever been.

This only makes sense when you think about the concept of compromises made by the supporters of freedom.

There are many sides to many issues but I think they can mostly be put into two broad camps, freedom vs. tyranny. The tyrants want people defensless, just like any crimminal wants his victims. They use useful idiots to help accomplish this of course. When freedom compromises with tyranny we can look and say "Whew, we sure dodged a bullet  , we were about to lose it all, good thing we pacified tyranny".

The problem is tyranny can afford to be patient.

The compramises made by our grandparents turned into what our parents consider freedom. Then tyranny rolls around making demands again. And rather than fight our parents compromise a little and say, "Whew, we sure dodged a bullet  , we were about to lose it all, good thing we pacified tyranny".

The problem is tyranny ain't done yet. It will never stop.

As the concept of freedom gets watered down over the generations due to all the compramises, tyranny keeps moving the ball down the field. Good people congratulate themselves on securing some freedom in their time by sacrificing the next generation to fight a harder battle. Eventually the battle has to be fought or given up completely.

It's easier to fight it today than after more compromise though. 

An unyielding, uncompromising fidelity to the principle of totally unrestricted civilian access to any type of weaponry from day 1, would probably mean the battle is simple. It's the compromises that've made it tougher.

[Pointedstick]

Where are we today on the issue of guns PS?

Let's see. Constitutional carry in 5 states. Shall-issue concealed carry in 41 states. Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground laws in effect in a majority of states and proliferating. More guns than people are in private hands. Permissiveness in both laws and culture is on the rise rather than the wane. The gun control movement is an embarrassing mess.

[Kshartle]

Where are we today on the issue of guns PS?

Let's see. Constitutional carry in 5 states. Shall-issue concealed carry in 41 states. Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground laws in effect in a majority of states and proliferating. More guns than people are in private hands. Permissiveness in both laws and culture is on the rise rather than the wane. The gun control movement is an embarrassing mess.

I hear you and I agree that win-win compromises mean more than just holding firm in most cases. I don't agree in this case though.

When you say proliferating and more guns in private hands this is not a result of compromise, it's the opposite.

We're not dissagreeing that the gun control movement has had difficulty gaining traction. I'm saying that compromising with them helps them, not the cause of freedom and being uncompromising in support of freedom is the best path. It means fighting the battle now, not pawning it off on the next generation for the sake of peace now.

[Pointedstick]

Who is saying compromise with the gun control movement? You only compromise when you're weak. We're not. We're strong. The only times we need to compromise is in contexts where we are weak, such as before the Supreme Court. There, we have to make arguments like, "yes, the state can regulate firearms, but for reasons X, Y, and Z, this particular regulation is no good." It's a risk, but one that has worked out very well for us, because when we win even in those cases, we dramatically move the Overton Window. Before 2008, people were still quibbling over whether the second amendment was even an individual right. Now, people who deny it seem like fringe lunatics.

So now, after 30 years of legislatively saying, "oh, the state can totally regulate firearms, all we want is a license!" we're finally in a position where we can actually say "we shouldn't need a permission slip to exercise a right enumerated in the constitution!" But we couldn't have gotten to this point if we hadn't gritted our teeth and played ball for a while, acknowledging the legitimacy of laws we didn't actually think were legitimate to pass laws that would accustom people to our way of looking at things such that now we can be much more honest. In the past, honesty and boldness would have killed us.

[Kshartle]

after 30 years of legislatively saying, "oh, the state can totally regulate firearms, all we want is a license!" we're finally in a position where we can actually say "we shouldn't need a permission slip to exercise a right enumerated in the constitution!" But we couldn't have gotten to this point if we hadn't gritted our teeth and played ball for a while, acknowledging the legitimacy of laws we didn't actually think were legitimate to pass laws that would accustom people to our way of looking at things such that now we can be much more honest. In the past, honesty and boldness would have killed us.

That's what I'm dissagreeing with. I'm dissagreeing that conceding to regulation paved the way for future de-regulation.

We can never know how things would have played out without the compromises. It makes more sense to me that not backing down in the face of people trying to restrict liberty is the only logical course of action.

It's ok that we dissagree though!

[Xan]

It's ok that we dissagree though!

Who are you and what have you done with Kshartle!!

[Pointedstick]

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying closely enough: I'm not saying we agreed to new regulations, I'm saying we acknowledged the legitimacy of regulation as a concept while simultaneously objecting to individual examples of it, with the goal of eventually dismantling all of them. We did this avoid alienating the vast, overwhelming majority of people and politicians who themselves agree with regulation as a concept. But here's the sneaky thing: now that we're getting rid of the regulations, they're discovering they're fine with it. It's not that these people took a principled stand in favor of regulation; they're just ordinary, conservative-minded people who are afraid of too much change at once.

What you have to get through your head is that anarchist radicalism scares people. Even if they might agree with many or most of your ideas, if your end goal seems crazy to them, they'll run away.

[Stewardship]

Was it unyielding, uncompromising fidelity to the principle of totally unrestricted civilian access to any type of weaponry from day 1?

^ This.

[Stewardship]

It's not that these people took a principled stand in favor of regulation; they're just ordinary, conservative-minded people who are afraid of too much change at once.

What you have to get through your head is that anarchist radicalism scares people. Even if they might agree with many or most of your ideas, if your end goal seems crazy to them, they'll run away.

Exactly.  Ordinary people are afraid of too much change at once, such as what would occur when trying to take firearms from those who steadfastly don't recognize the legitimacy of regulation.  This is the only reason we still have the gun rights we have today.

[Kshartle]

It's not that these people took a principled stand in favor of regulation; they're just ordinary, conservative-minded people who are afraid of too much change at once.

What you have to get through your head is that anarchist radicalism scares people. Even if they might agree with many or most of your ideas, if your end goal seems crazy to them, they'll run away.

Exactly.  Ordinary people are afraid of too much change at once, such as what would occur when trying to take firearms from those who steadfastly don't recognize the legitimacy of regulation.  This is the only reason we still have the gun rights we have today.

This is a forum for discussing ideas. If I came on here and said stuff I didn't believe for conversation's sake.....that's like trolling to me.

I've said about a billion times I don't have any political crusader inclinations like almost everyone on here discussing this stuff. I talk about non-violence when people discuss stuff at the water cooler and that maybe there's a better solution than government to solve this or that issue. It actually stimulates real thought rather than the nonsense of "ooohhhhh maybe another law, or some politician will save us".

All that crap doesn't help. Have you noticed the country lately? The socialists have complete control. The Republicans are now ardent defenders of SS and Medicare and all that crap. There is no political solution to get freedom for humans. Good luck. Here's my life coaching tip since I get so many: You are wasting your time supporting politicians and political parties. You will never be able to influence them and they will never fix your problems. You're better off living in reality and avoiding all that stuff.

[moda0306]

It's not that these people took a principled stand in favor of regulation; they're just ordinary, conservative-minded people who are afraid of too much change at once.

What you have to get through your head is that anarchist radicalism scares people. Even if they might agree with many or most of your ideas, if your end goal seems crazy to them, they'll run away.

Exactly.  Ordinary people are afraid of too much change at once, such as what would occur when trying to take firearms from those who steadfastly don't recognize the legitimacy of regulation.  This is the only reason we still have the gun rights we have today.

I talk about non-violence when people discuss stuff at the water cooler and that maybethere's a better solution than government to solve this or that issue. It actually stimulates real thought rather than the nonsense of "ooohhhhh maybe another law, or some politician will save us".

K,

A couple things...

1) You don't claim that "maybe" there's a better way. You claim to have certainty of the better way, and the rest of us are just silly statists of one degree or another.

2) You use pejorative like "crap" and "nonsense" and "silly" once your logic has run out of whatever steam it had. This isn't stimulating.

There are certainly some intellectually stimulating aspects to things you bring up, but once most of us here have seen anarcho-capitalism for what it is, it gets old fast. Most of us find things more interesting in the real world where government isn't going away and morality can't be proven.

It's no longer intellectually stimulating when you see how intellectually void it really is. It would be one thing of proponents of NAP realized its failings. But they don't.  So the "stimulation" turns into one stubborn argument after another, with an anarcho-capitalist rambling from un-proven premises to an unnecessarily true conclusion, to consequentialism when they see fit, to a few ad nominees and straw men when they've run out of steam like any other failed argument.

So we are mostly past the point of the NAP stimulating healthy conversation. Perhaps that will change once you prove self-ownership and all of our minds are blown. 


Regarding suggesting things you don't believe in, IMO that isn't trolling unless these are statements of fact. If you say that the sky is red and grass is pink, you're just being dumb as these obviously aren't true and you're just stoking unnecessary debate.

But quite often, for the sake of debate, we assume the validity if an unproven premise even though we may not believe it exists. THIS is intellectually stimulating. I don't think it is likely that the Christian God exists, but assuming his existence for the time being can stimulate fabulous discussion. I don't believe that there is a clear moral case for the existence of government, but assuming certain things can help stimulate discussion of what might work in the current state of affairs to solve part of a problem.

It's much more "trolling" to constantly espouse a given moral/social framework that almost nobody believes in and you can't prove, talk about it like it's am empirical/logical fact (but resist attempts to prove it for us), and then batter us all with lessons on logic, which you seem to just now be grasping how to use... Though we still hear "nonsense" and "silly" far too often.

I don't think you're a troll. I'm glad you're here. I just think for you to call others trolls is bordering on laughable, because it's our board's ability to accept fringe ideas (out of the blue and repeatedly) that has either of us not having been labelled trolls LONG ago for turning everything into a statement on monetary realism or anarcho-capitalism.

[Pointedstick]

All that crap doesn't help. Have you noticed the country lately? The socialists have complete control. The Republicans are now ardent defenders of SS and Medicare and all that crap. There is no political solution to get freedom for humans. Good luck. Here's my life coaching tip since I get so many: You are wasting your time supporting politicians and political parties. You will never be able to influence them and they will never fix your problems. You're better off living in reality and avoiding all that stuff.

Government is a machine for distributing benefits, and in case you hadn't noticed, it exists. If you don't play the game, someone else will, and they'll use the government to take your shit and destroy your lifestyle.

It's fine to talk about big ideas like non-violence, voluntary societies, and that kind of thing. That's fine. It's fun conversation. It stimulates the imagination. As long as you're not a jerk and insist you have all the answers but fail to prove them, it remains fun (this goes for any intellectual conversation, BTW).

But what I really want you to try to understand is that this is a different AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED conversation to the one about how to preserve as much liberty as possible within the context that we all actually live in: the context of there being a huge socialistic government that we are all subject to. If I drew a venn diagram of these two conversations, they wouldn't intersect.

If we had focused on the first type of conversation in our efforts to save gun rights in the 70s onwards, we wouldn't have succeeded. The culture of gun ownership would have been destroyed. Gun owners would be in the same situation of those in Australia and the UK. And we'd still have a government. A big, socialistic government. Our success was due to people dealing with the cards they were dealt rather than throwing them all away and saying, "I'd rather play a different game!" Well guess what? Government only plays one game. And if you don't play, you lose by default.

[moda0306]

Our success was due to people dealing with the cards they were dealt rather than throwing them all away and saying, "I'd rather play a different game!" Well guess what? Government only plays one game. And if you don't play, you lose by default.

Boom!

You could transfer this to so many topics. Taxes. Regulation. Police interactions.

Do you want to win what pots you can, or do you want to be "right" in its purest form?  Often, you can't have both.

[Pointedstick]

It's worth mentioning that sometimes you can pick up your cards and play a different game. If you don't like any of the products available to you in the market, opting out of the market and either making your own or going without can be construed as playing a different game.

When it comes to government, though, the only ways to pick up your cards and play another game are to leave, or take up arms and try to destroy it. Running for office, voting, or protesting are all definitely in the realm of "playing the game." That's not to say they can't be effective. But they have to be seen for what they are: working within the system. If your goal is to destroy the system, they probably won't work very well.

[moda0306]

It's worth mentioning that sometimes you can pick up your cards and play a different game. If you don't like any of the products available to you in the market, opting out of the market and either making your own or going without can be construed as playing a different game.

Yes, but that would be uncomfortable.  We don't like to do what is uncomfortable, and complaining that society isn't exactly the way we want it is way too comfortable for some people.

And I mean people in all sorts of different socio-economic/political spheres.

EDIT: For a second there I thought you included MOVING to a different market.  I would include that as well.  But you have to go to some pretty crazy places to escape the force of man.  However, now you're exposing yourself to a bunch of different "forces" that may be even more unpleasant when measured logically instead of morally against the aggression of man in all our population centers.

[Pointedstick]

It's worth mentioning that sometimes you can pick up your cards and play a different game. If you don't like any of the products available to you in the market, opting out of the market and either making your own or going without can be construed as playing a different game.

Yes, but that would be uncomfortable.  We don't like to do what is uncomfortable, and complaining that society isn't exactly the way we want it is way too comfortable for some people.

IMO, this is the role that elites play in society. They have the wisdom/foresight/wealth/pig-headedness to do what's uncomfortable in the moment to achieve a better future and light a torch to show everyone else that it's possible, too.

Lest you object to my use of the term "elite," let me explain the kind of person I mean: Mr. Money Mustache. He's a real-life example of a man who worked hard at difficult jobs he didn't feel a lot of passion for, all the while denying himself the kinds of amusements and diversions that most people in similar situations indulge in to get themselves through another week. BUT! He did this for a mere 8 years and became free forever. And now he helps other people achieve the same thing by laying out how he did it in meticulous detail--the kind of detail he didn't have available when he did it. He's practically dedicated his life to helping the rest of us less-capable people follow him down the path of financial freedom!

So yes, doing things that's uncomfortable is, well, uncomfortable! But doing it in the pursuit of a better future is a sign of maturity and wisdom. I don't believe it's fair to just make a blanket statement that people don't like doing what's uncomfortable. IMHO, that's a very historically-specific American attitude that we have the privilege and luxury of holding because of the fantastic wealth and opportunities in this country and era we had the great fortune to be born in (and social and racial groups too, but I don't want to open those cans of worms). The dark side to the practically effortless background level of prosperity experienced by most Americans is that we can become fat, lazy, and complacent, afraid of stepping outside our comfort zones and doing anything really challenging. But that doesn't mean it's not possible, and IMHO it certainly doesn't make that a praiseworthy attitude worth encouraging.

[Stewardship]

Government is a machine for distributing benefits, and in case you hadn't noticed, it exists. If you don't play the game, someone else will, and they'll use the government to take your shit and destroy your lifestyle.

If you don't play the game, you preserve your dignity and could generate sympathy and inspiration and advance your cause more than you ever imagined.  If you do play the game, such as by holding your breath and voting for the lesser of two evils, the government will certainly take your shit and destroy your lifestyle.

It's fine to talk about big ideas like non-violence, voluntary societies, and that kind of thing. That's fine. It's fun conversation. It stimulates the imagination. As long as you're not a jerk and insist you have all the answers but fail to prove them, it remains fun (this goes for any intellectual conversation, BTW).

After reading hundreds of posts (skimmed at least,) I've found KShartle was responding in kind to the same from others.  He at least started to attempt to prove his point, only to get buried by his opponents in legmindwork.

But what I really want you to try to understand is that this is a different AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED conversation to the one about how to preserve as much liberty as possible within the context that we all actually live in: the context of there being a huge socialistic government that we are all subject to. If I drew a venn diagram of these two conversations, they wouldn't intersect.

Interesting.  MLK and Ghandi thought "big ideas like non-violence" were central to the conversation about how to preserve as much liberty as possible within the context that we all actually live in, and we hold them to be heroes who changed the world.

If we had focused on the first type of conversation in our efforts to save gun rights in the 70s onwards, we wouldn't have succeeded. The culture of gun ownership would have been destroyed. Gun owners would be in the same situation of those in Australia and the UK. And we'd still have a government. A big, socialistic government.

Please cite your reference.

Our success was due to people dealing with the cards they were dealt rather than throwing them all away and saying, "I'd rather play a different game!" Well guess what? Government only plays one game. And if you don't play, you lose by default.

The only winning move is not to play.

[moda0306]

Government is a machine for distributing benefits, and in case you hadn't noticed, it exists. If you don't play the game, someone else will, and they'll use the government to take your shit and destroy your lifestyle.

If you don't play the game, you preserve your dignity and could generate sympathy and inspiration and advance your cause more than you ever imagined.  If you do play the game, such as by holding your breath and voting for the lesser of two evils, the government will certainly take your shit and destroy your lifestyle.

Should anyone engage in political activism?  If they do, should they focus on what will work to maximize their cause, or what will be the most philosophically correct?

After reading hundreds of posts (skimmed at least,) I've found KShartle was responding in kind to the same from others.  He at least started to attempt to prove his point, only to get buried by his opponents in legmindwork.

Stewardship,

We asked Kshartle to sharpen his logic for MONTHS before the "proving morality" thread and were met with nothing but jibberish.  He finally started in on the project, and we made it clear at the beginning that definitions of words are extremely important.  If you've taken a philosophy class, you'd hopefully remember this.

The thread you probably read was when we FINALLY made progress and was leagues ahead of any discussion we've had about anarcho-capitalism so far.  Even though there was still some snark and arguments, K was FINALLY clarifying (and will hopefully continue to clarify) his case for PROVEN self-ownership.

Sorry... but "mind-work" is part of reasoning, logic, and philosophy.  HE is the one that claims morality can be deductively proven with logic.  The burden of proof is on HIM.  We told him early on, his job is going to be a LOT harder than ours, cuz all it takes is one unproven premise, or conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow, and it's busted until he fixes it.  The "mind-work" it would take to prove an "ought" without a subjective value-statement as its premise is going to be potentially exhausting.

Interesting.  MLK and Ghandi thought "big ideas like non-violence" were central to the conversation about how to preserve as much liberty as possible within the context that we all actually live in, and we hold them to be heroes who changed the world.

The preached doable non-violence to activists and protesters BECAUSE of the realities of the societies they lived in, not in spite of them.  MLK KNEW that blacks trying to revolt in the South was never going to lead to better lives for them. 

K preaches non-violence (as he defines it) in manners that are completely incongruent with the world we live in.  There is not ONE "free society" in the world, as Kshartle sees it to exist.  Like PS says... this CAN be an interesting conversation... until arrogance and certainty start to appear all-to present.  It's not fun "opening your mind" with someone who has a VERY closed mind in debate.

The only winning move is not to play.

If that's true, perhaps, on a purely individual level, the only winning move is to give up on things you can't control, and view the government as just another boulder in the road of life that must be managed, strategically, not reasoned with.


In the end, if there's a boulder in the road it's going to cost resources to get by.  You can devise a way to get around it or over it, or decide to circle back to find another route.  Now, if you're stubborn and angry, and willing to give up some of your time for others, ONE thing you could do would be to figure out where exactly to place the two sticks of dynamite you have to break the boulder up into more manageable pieces that can be driven over.  It's a bit more difficult, and probably benefits more people to come behind you more-so than you, but you might get a sense of accomplishment from it.

But the real fool is the one who repeatedly keeps crashing his car into the boulder, because it "simply didn't have a right to exist in the first place," he says.  He is neither accomplishing his personal goal of moving on happy down the road of life, nor is he accomplishing any sort of imperfect-but-admirable change in the nature of the rock.  He's the worst of both worlds.

And just so people don't think I'm beating up on anarcho-capitalists (as fun as that is), the boulder is any problem you believe to be unfairly thrown in front of you (and others), and the drivers of the car are people who may resent such a problem, but have a life to live and a family to raise.

[Kshartle]

It's fine to talk about big ideas like non-violence, voluntary societies, and that kind of thing. That's fine. It's fun conversation. It stimulates the imagination. As long as you're not a jerk and insist you have all the answers but fail to prove them, it remains fun (this goes for any intellectual conversation, BTW).

After reading hundreds of posts (skimmed at least,) I've found KShartle was responding in kind to the same from others.  He at least started to attempt to prove his point, only to get buried by his opponents in legmindwork.

Thanks for noticing Stew. I try not to lead with jerkitude but when people insist on fallacious arguments and name-calling I try to call that out immediately. My feelings aren't hurt but it diminishes possibility of productive learning so I'd rather they stop.

What really buried me was the religious diversion in a discussion about objective reality. I could tolerate the minutia and disection of every single word as long as I thought it was in good faith.

[Kshartle]

We asked Kshartle to sharpen his logic for MONTHS before the "proving morality" thread and were met with nothing but jibberish. 

Really? nothing but jibberish?

You are an unquallified expert on the subject of jibberish clearly but I would ask for some examples.

[Pointedstick]

In the end, if there's a boulder in the road it's going to cost resources to get by.  You can devise a way to get around it or over it, or decide to circle back to find another route.  Now, if you're stubborn and angry, and willing to give up some of your time for others, ONE thing you could do would be to figure out where exactly to place the two sticks of dynamite you have to break the boulder up into more manageable pieces that can be driven over.  It's a bit more difficult, and probably benefits more people to come behind you more-so than you, but you might get a sense of accomplishment from it.

But the real fool is the one who repeatedly keeps crashing his car into the boulder, because it "simply didn't have a right to exist in the first place," he says.  He is neither accomplishing his personal goal of moving on happy down the road of life, nor is he accomplishing any sort of imperfect-but-admirable change in the nature of the rock.  He's the worst of both worlds.

What a wonderful way of expressing this concept. I completely agree.

In the end, I'm not arguing that radicalism is pointless. But to use moda's example, radicalism-with-dynamite is going to be a hell of a lot more effective than radicalism-crashing-your-car-into-the-boulder. People often underestimate the degree to which MLK and Gandhi used radicalism in carefully-calculated ways. These were not zealous crusaders, but rather brilliant strategic thinkers who understood the true nature of their enemies' weakness: their own sense of goodness. By exposing the evil things that had to be done to suppress them, they destroyed their enemies' base of support.

But make no mistake, these were approaches carefully tailored to their situations. If non-violence hadn't worked, Gandhi in particular was all too willing to use violence, and in fact endorsed it for people without the bravery to die without fighting back. I often hear that the Palestinians need to utilize non-violent tactics to resist Israel; in my estimation, this is a grave misreading of the situation. The Israelis would simply crush then, because that's what they actually want: a country with no arabs in it. Same for the arabs. They'd kill all the Jews if they could. Such types of conflict require radicalism as well, but the methods must be as well-tailored to those conflicts as MLK and Gandhi's were to their own

When one adopts radical ideas, it is supremely important that it is not done simply to satisfy personal cravings. That is the road to defeat and frustration. Radicalism in pursuit of a cause must go hand-in-hand with total understanding of that which you wish to destroy or create. That's why I facepalm when Kshartle expresses disbelief at the concept of 90% of people believing that government is the best way to organize certain things. It's like he doesn't understand the nature of his enemy. Those people may be wrong (I certainly believe so), but one needs to understand them and their reasons, beliefs, hopes, fears, and dreams to stand a prayer of a chance of making enough of them want to join your cause rather than fighting against it.

[moda0306]

We asked Kshartle to sharpen his logic for MONTHS before the "proving morality" thread and were met with nothing but jibberish. 

Really? nothing but jibberish?

You are an unquallified expert on the subject of jibberish clearly but I would ask for some examples.

Well if my jibberish got you to finally use logic, I give it some credit.

Let's just agree to disagree that it was jibberish and not just rehash old arguments while we are doing a much better job now of making progress. 

[Kshartle]

We asked Kshartle to sharpen his logic for MONTHS before the "proving morality" thread and were met with nothing but jibberish. 

Really? nothing but jibberish?

You are an unquallified expert on the subject of jibberish clearly but I would ask for some examples.

Well if my jibberish got you to finally use logic, I give it some credit.

Let's just agree to disagree that it was jibberish and not just rehash old arguments while we are doing a much better job now of making progress.

That's easy to say when you're the one accussing the other of "nothing but jibberish", but unwilling to support your accusation.

Let's agree to not label each other's arguments jibberish, although a 3rd party is welcome to proclaim them such. I will nominate PS.

[Pointedstick]

with the boulder analogy its important to mention, the bolder is growing and reaching to block every bypass and head off every turn you take, as it absorbs more and more of the road...  it is more like "the blob" than a boulder.

All the more reason to pull out the dynamite rather than ram your car into it.

[Kshartle]

with the boulder analogy its important to mention, the bolder is growing and reaching to block every bypass and head off every turn you take, as it absorbs more and more of the road...  it is more like "the blob" than a boulder.

All the more reason to pull out the dynamite rather than ram your car into it.

(withdraws nomination)