Raven

This is rich I am a Space-invader. I will happily recruit the help of friends to aid me in getting what I want. I have no tolerance for people getting in my way, and I am completely relentless until any threats or opposition are removed. I try to be down-to-earth, but something always seems to get in the way.

LMAO You're something else Wolferz.

Not in the least, I'm just not as familiar with the world of paranoids as you are.

LMAO! Aluminum Foil beanies to protect against psycotronic mind control, that's rich!

quote: Everybody realizes what you represent....and what that is differs distinctly from them....even if indirectly and unknowingly you ultimately serve the same people. I serve myself darling, and if others benefit from that, well, I'm hardly going to object. quote: So when you make extremely derogatory sweeping generalities that should be considered appropriate? Now I'm not up on the lingo but isn't that trolling.when you run around trying to pick a fight with statements that are inflammatory and inaccurate? Ok, so I'm a little bitter at the kinds of injustices done by the majority of poor people on to those of us with money, that's no more trolling then making wildly inaccurate and derogatory comments about wealthy people and corporations. quote: Beannies, tin foil beanies for sale. Get your tin foil beannies here folks. Ok darling, you absolutely have to explain this to me.

People who suck up to the ruling class eh? Sorry darling, but I haven't a clue what who you're talking about. That doesn't seam to describe Jaguar, Dredd, or $ilk, and it sure as bloody hell doesn't describe me. I don't need to suck up to the ruling class, and quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be bothered with ruling anything, at least not the way it's done in this country. Furthermore, I wasn't put here for any reason, but since I am here I might as well look out for myself and let others lookout for themselves. It seams fair enough. I look out for myself, others are free to look out for themselves to the best of there ability. As for flaming your post, get real darling, when exactly was the last time you noticed anyone getting flamed on this forum? Now, I don't know, you may consider being logically disagreed with the same as being flamed, but for the rest of us that's called participating in a debate. Now, on the other hand, your comment about apes is more then a little derogatory. And if you consider yourself the only person who's opinion is being swayed here then you are dead wrong as I know for a fact my opinion has changed in a number of ways since I first started posting on this forum. On the other hand, my opinion swung further right, not left, so that may not count.

quote: Currently only in one dollar one vote politics. Nonsense, tyranny of the majority occurs any time you have a majority that are willing to infringe upon the rights of a minority. It's happened to all sorts of different groups over the decades, and right now it's happening to the wealthy. The average bovine Joe doesn't know about the economy, but he do knows how to vote money into his pockets, and that, darling, is exactly what he's doing. quote: So then how do you fail to see that large business organizations pose the same threat? If they do indeed pose such a threat, and I'm not ready to concede that point, it can't be equal to the threat posed by our federal bureaucracy and all of its unconstitutional programs. quote: Right so banning election contributions of millions of dollars destroying the election process would be a good start. Destroying the election process, what a delightful idea. How about throwing out all of the unneeded bureaucracy instead. quote: Forcing media agencies to give equal access to candidates is another good idea....the cost of doing business in a representative democracy.... That's preposterous; part of the system requires that an individual have support both from the masses and from the wealthy to become president, doing something ridiculous like this would increase the democracy of our elections. Not a good idea. quote: Uhhh if they're poor what do they have to spend? And if their working poor how can they invest in success? And if they keep getting laid off, downsized, and outsourced how can they save money? Well darling, they spend what little money they make. And as for how can they get ahead, well, I'm not exactly sure, but some manage it so it must be possible. quote: Believing opportunity is equal across the board is crap. If your born into poverty in this country your guilty of nothing but being unlucky. You can then look forward to a life of incarceration and distain by a society that would rather call you a thief then demand effective change. Of course opportunity isn't equal across the board, and why should it be? Parents who are successful have every right to use there money to benefit there children, and to say otherwise is lunacy. As for being born into poverty, well, some people do manage to get out of poverty rather then laying back and taking what the government is willing to give them. But then they don't count do they, as they arenÔÇÖt in poverty any more; all that are left are the loosers and druggies (which are usually one and the same). quote: Sure whatever....if anything forcing corporations to take responsibility for their workers and acts of negligence have made current success possible. First of all, corporations arenÔÇÖt responsible for there workers, at least not more then superficially, rather the workers are responsible for themselves. They are responsible for making themselves valuable to the company that employs them, and if they fail to do so then they have the potential to be fired. Furthermore, weighing a company down with loads of unneeded employees would be hideous. If a company wants to downsize then it should be free to do so.

DVDs that self-destruct I'm not sure what to think myself, I'm somewhere between disgust and trying to come up with something remotely marketable. Maybe another renting DVDs over the internet affair: pay a few dollars and get a self destructing DVD. On the other hand, it seams like self destructing DVDs would be more expensive then regular DVDs, so I'm not sure how marketable that kind of thing is. On the other hand, Spectra Systems and Flexplay could be owned by those deranged CEOs that Lotharr is always going on about, or even worse, mission impossible freaks.

Nonsense, goldeneye is one of my favorite bond films, and I have seen all of them save the first.

LOL

That's just disgusting. I mean really, of all the silliness, what's the point of playing a game if it isn't competitive? But this is beside the point, because musical chairs isn't an aggressive game, and it isn't all that competitive. I mean, gee, what's next, are they going to discourage any type of game where winning or loosing is even possible? What's the bloody point?

quote: You don't get it. No darling, you're the one who doesn't get it. That was the money the got when the company went under, not what they regularly paid workers and managers. If you can find some real statistics on that kind of thing from a reputable source, then we can have this debate, otherwise don't bother.

Interesting, but this article never really comes to grips with how much pollution exactly is generated. Rather, they take a very specific look at a small town in china and say, "gee, isn't this bad, look how these poor people are suffering, and this one river (of undisclosed size) is polluted... so sad..." This article does suggest, however, that there are only a few such towns around the world and they take care of millions of computers every year. This isn't a problem, but rather a low cost solution. A few polluted rivers, some villagers being paid pennies rather then not have a job at all (and remember that this is china, a little money can buy a lot more there then it can here, after all wasn't one of the villagers actually saving money) is hardly a great problem, but let's put it under a microscope and blow it up out of proportion. Consider, if you will, the shear quantity of pollution that other industries put out, both in the US and in other countries, and compare that to a few polluted rivers. Besides, building computers so that they can be easily recycled would substantially increase the cost of computers in general, and how many of you would prefer to have hardware prices jump up drastically? Oh, I imagine there would be a market for recyclable computer components to people who feel better buying that kind of stuff (especially if you provided "free" recycling, thus insuring a steady supply of revenue from selling them overseas, no doubt for more money as they would be easier to recycle), but making this kind of thing obligatory would be a needless blow the computer industry, and to our economy in general as computers are used so very widely.

quote: Dragon Lady I love how you can side step the real issues of a discussion and settle for rather trite renditions of the "wolf in do-gooder clothing"... Yea, I admit, it's pretty bad, I mean if I was really interested in having a real discussion with you I would accept the view of companies as being evil and tyrannical organizations ruled by delusional managers who are totally bereft of there senses and lacking any vestige of responsibility or morality. quote: Ahhh yes those savages who fought back during the gilded age and formed the new deal and other social programs to protect the people from rampant exploitation and human rights abuse.....the fools. First of all, from what I recall there wasn't anything terribly wrong with the gilded age. Furthermore, from what I recall of the new deal (new deals really, there were a few of them) they didn't do a lot of good, either for the economy or for preventing explotation. Rather, they were blatant socialist reforms that were both a vote buying system and a major increase in power for the federal government. As for human rights abuses, I'm advocating minimal regulation, not a complete absence of regulation. quote: A lot of poor people just want a decent place to live, food, and job security...imagine that. Yea, no ambition, imagine that. The average human bovine, just think, if food, housing, and job security are so great, wouldn't food and housing without having to work be better. A grand idea, let's vote for any crazy who suggests that kind of program. quote: Ultimately that is the big fear isn't it? That by limiting the power of corporations to operate unfettered of social responsibly and accountability, we some how lose the business edge and everything falls apart....what a load of crap... Well darling, excessive regulations do hinder business (after all, what would be the point of a regulation that didn't, after all if companies didn't want to do something there would be no point in preventing them from doing it) and there for does cut down on our edge. Now, I admit that some types of regulations are beneficial (such as antitrust laws), but most of them are just so much nonsense. quote: If the only way to insure success is by having disposable personal and destroying people's right to health care and stable jobs then we desperately need to find a new way of doing business. What rights to health care and stable jobs? No such rights exist, and to say otherwise is nonsense. Furthermore, those type of practices are not what insures success, rather having a valid business plan and saleable product are what allows a company to succeed or fail, expendable personnel (insofar as they are useful) may be able to increase profit margins, but that's it. quote: Our economy has been expanding since the founding of this nation. Even after the new deal. Yea, our economy has managed to survive all the attempts at sabotage so far, so it should be able to survive anything. A nice though, but if you keep making it harder and harder to turn a profit then eventually things will go downhill. quote: Short term answers to problems like dumbsizing and using disposable personnel in the form of an ever growing legion of temp workers does not ultimately serve the economy. What it really does is destroy the lively hood of millions of workers and make more transparent the evaporating veil of the American dream.... I don't know, that kind of thing has worked just fine for a very long time, what exactly has changed? Oh, and what exactly is the American dream anyway? quote: Heh hehtell that to the thousands of workers who lost everything when Enron and company went under.oh wait the got a check for approx 13,000...while the 140 execs at Enron got 5,300,000...average.... Was that good for the economy? Didn't think so, so it's not relevant to what I was saying. quote: I am not subject to the fear mongers who insist that regulation and social responsibility will destroy the economy....that is a line of trash put out by suits disconnected from reality. And how, exactly, does one become a manager (oh, I'm sorry, I don't think I'm going to use your question begging euphemism and call them suits) if they are completely disconnected from reality? I mean, it simply doesn't make sense, to be successful at business you have to be connected to reality in a very big way, and assuming that managers (err... suits) are so bereft of sense is simply ludicrous.

quote: Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have no desire to make money. I just want to live modestly and fight injustice as America's true ideals demand. Ladies and gentlemen, behold: the modest (poor) avenger (pillager). He will fight injustice (except injustice done by the masses onto the rich), he will seek the truth (though research by left wing intellectuals), and he will defend the economic rights of the little man (especially as he needs economic support as much as anyone else). Evil corporate tyrannies (and legitimate corporate interests) beware; your end is at hand... ...honest... ...any time now, you're all doomed... ...well ok, maybe later... quote: I am part of we the people and when enough of us get together we have the absolute right to determine anything we want. Yep, when enough bovine idiots (and I'm referring to the masses in general, not specifically you Lotharr, you have your own problems, but bovine stupidity isn't one of them) get behind an idea they can do a lot, especially in an unfortunately democratic country, but that doesn't make them right, and it certainly doesn't make that what's best. After all, don't poor people want more money? It should be a simple matter to give them more money, and there are enough of them to get what they want... at the expense of our future as an economic power. And it's possible to assuage the bleeding hearts as well, but the price is the same. quote: But that is not the core issue of my post. I do believe that meritocracy and free enterprise can be effective.just not in current forms. Yep, you prefer free enterprise to be a euphemism for heavily regulated and restricted enterprise. After all, we can hardly trust these irresponsible and draconian corporate tyrants to do anything except trod on the masses and destroy the environment. quote: Calling me a socialist because I want to reform a busted system is your right. However to sit back and say the magic bullet is to downsize government is not dealing with reality. It's hardly fair to call it a magic bullet darling; rather it is an important measure that must be taken. I'm no economist to explain this or that strategy, but I do know enough to know that deregulation will go a long way towards bolstering out economy. Scrapping useless government programs would allow us to reduce taxes (for everyone, not just for the poor, which is easy as they don't pay much in the way of taxes anyway), which would be good for the economy, and thus good for everyone. Making public schooling past grade school optional would vastly improve the environment of the classrooms while reducing the cost of public schooling in general (especially if a voucher program was used to allow students to go to private schools, which would involve competition and all of that). quote: I think it demonstrates that youre not aware of the systemic assaults on sovereignty and liberty or youre just buying into the business media propaganda that corporate governance is preferable to governance by the people. Well darling, someone here is buying into propaganda, but I'm not sure you got it right on whom.

quote: It seems to me that since the rise of capitalism commercial interests have always tried to influence policy making.... And this is a surprise because why? Commercial interests have a very legitimate reason to be attempting to influence policy making. quote: Well I suppose it is okay as long as we keep oppression overseas and we believe that American and Christian values end at the boarder..... Well darling, we're certainly not responsible for dealing with foreign problems unless it's in our best interest to do so. quote: It would seem that since the founding of the country it has never been about "the people", i.e. all white men were created equal etc. In fact it would seem that the incessant "whining" of the people only get in the way of "progress" (tips beer dispensing hat to DL). Quite frankly darling, the people are rather stupid, complacent, and all in all bovine in the extreme, how can you honestly expect them to be able to have more then a minimal hand in government. quote: Do you find it at all strange that during the turn of the century in order to outlaw child slavery activists had to quote animal cruelty laws....against...*gasp* corporate profiteering?!?! Well, what can I say; children arent really people anyway so it's rather fitting. quote: So really the answer is by export the jobs to create misery (or opportunity depending on who's talking) and leave Americans without work and looking for a handout? I would suggest removing some regulations and killing the minimum wage, then we wouldn't export half so many jobs, but until this is done exporting jobs is the logical course of action. quote: One: There are vast oil deposits that equal profit by selling to other countries (or not selling thus insuring control over any would be dissenters of future US actions). Which is very good, both for our economy and for our influence abroad, what exactly is the problem here? quote: Two: Reinforcing the idea to the world that America (when not making deals with) will stomp any dictator that threatens us militarily or economically. So if you screw with GE you deal with the Marines. This is perfectly fine. If a dictator decides to threaten us militarily or economically, and if there is no reason not to, then stomping them is perfectly acceptable. As for the marines, well, they are a perfectly acceptable way to protect our economic interests and should be used as such. quote: Ultimately we have to realize that people are not disposable and liberty is not for sale. Ultimately, darling, people are completely disposable and liberty is always for sale. quote: Deny the problem all you want.but our democracy (republic) is declining. I would rather ask the tough questions to get the real answers. In a way were declining, such as with these socialist programs that eat at our economy, but in other ways were are still very strong.

LMAO That's rich darling

quote: Pre ordered awhile ago after reading about it in XBox mag. If mine isnt there you might not hear from me in the forums for awhile. Something about assault and battery..... And let me guess, if it is there we might not hear from you for a while either

quote: Range is exactly the point. And the fact that you don't need a lot of training or strenght to hurt or kill people. That's why I think that guns have to be considered in a different category. The comparison with knives is a wrong analogy (especially if we speak about kitchen knives who's prime function is not to kill/hurt people). Yes, but criminals can manage just fine without guns, or if they can't black market guns will always be available, but I would probably mess up my hands terribly trying to defend myself with a length of rebar (assuming one was at hand, I certainly don't carry one around). quote: Let's use some backward induction. Having guns registered helps to find the perpetrator of a crime. Knowing that the propability to get caught is higher, a potential criminal will at least think twice before killing somebody. Result: it helps the poor bloke by decreasing the probaility to get killed at all. Yea, but most criminals think that they can't get caught, that it won't happen to them, otherwise they wouldn't commit crimes, so it's not much of a deterrent. Not nearly so much as the possibility that the victim might pull a gun on them. quote: What about self defense courses? Of course people cannot be bothered to get training even if they live in dangerous areas. Wouldn't you agree that it can help against a ciminal with a knive or a similar weapon? Self defense courses take a lot of time and require a lot of work; it's no great surprise that most people don't take them. quote: As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat. Well, I was more referring to the threat that a person might have a gun; once they do pull it it's another matter entirely. quote: I'm quite sure the number of criminals who kill even if the person is unarmed is smaller than the number of criminals who kill once they know that the victim is armed but I don't have stat. to prove this. We could compare the numbers for people killed with that of people who are "just" robbed. That could give a hint. Sure thing darling, but I guess people who are going to get guns should know about that eh? If someone gets a gun and gets killed because of its then its there own faulty. No amount of training courses will save a bloody fool from himself. quote: Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned. And so how do they spot the weapon? If they notice it under cloth or some such that's getting very close to illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, how long does it take to check on something like this? I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be detained by some police officer and have to sit around for an hour or so while they search some hideously long database to see if such and such weapon is on it. quote: To legally drive a car you have to pass tests. To adopt a child the gov't checks you out. You even wanted to indroduce tests for people to vote. But guns who are designed and intended to kill others you want to let the owners care about training without control? That's a somewhat inconsistent stance IMO. There are innumerable numbers of accidents driving cars, and voting is a major issue that affects us all in a big way (I don't really care about the adoption point so I shan't address it). Guns, on the other hand, very rarely result in accidental deaths and thus arenÔÇÖt in need of any special exam. quote: It seems that you use the word "darling" for strangers you don't agree with quite often. Do you try to belittle me or are you just a very kind and openhearted person? A kind and openhearted person? Heavens no, but I'm not being insulting either, it's just an expression that I use. And I don't exclusively call people I disagree with darling, it just seams that way as the amount of text I address to people I disagree with is some 50 times greater then the amount I direct towards people I do agree with. quote: You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control. What about that catastrophe going on in England? But that aside, just about every instance of gun control leads to an increase in violent crimes, it's a disturbing trend even if gun control hasn't been done right (what that means exactly I'll leave up to you). quote: The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. Yea, but we already have gun control and congress hasn't amended it, which is seriously disturbing. Rather, they argue that the second amendment is somehow invalid because of the exact wording, its complete nonsense, but they get away with it anyhow.

quote: What if that someone was your child? Impossible, it's about as likely to find a yeti dancing in Hawaii as for me to have children. More likely really, after all yetis theoretically could exist. quote: Death, well-deserved or otherwise, is not something to be callous about. Everyone that dies is a father or brother or mother or sister or child to someone. Just because you don't know them and it doesn't affect your life doesn't mean it doesn't affect anyone. I disagree; death is always something to be callous about, especially when no one you know or like is involved. quote: Ummm, after wanting people to take an exam to vote? I could advocate a required safety course. Nonsense, voting affects everyone, but gun ownership should be a private issue. Besides, there are very few gun related accidents; it would be just as logical to require exams to be able to use household appliances.

quote: Replace the word "gun" with the word "car", and think again. I'm not familiar with the requirements for getting a weapon permit in the US, but I think one of the requirements should be - at the very least - a basic understanding of firearm safety. Hogwash, there are so very few accidents with guns it makes your comparison worthless. I mean, what's next? Licensing people to have electricity in there homes because there brat of a two year old might stick paperclips in the power socket and win himself a Darwin award? Unless someone is a complete idiot they treat a gun with at least some respect and keep it away from there kids, and no amount of licensing will keep idiots safe. Oh, I agree that people who own guns do need to know about how to use them and, perhaps more importantly, how not to use them, but if someone wants to remove themselves from the gene pool then who am I to prevent them.

quote: A gun not only supports in killing people, it is also an enabler. Unless of course you're one of the guys who can kill with bare hands. Or knives, or lengths of rebar, or a few hundred other things. You don't need a gun to kill someone, and you certainly don't need a gun to commit an armed robbery, but if some crazy wants to rape and murder me I'd rather have a weapon with a bit of range. quote: Now if you have all guns registered you increase the chances that you can track back a gun used in a crime. A nice thought, but it doesn't help the poor bloke who's getting murdered with it. quote: If you make requirements stricter to legally own a gun and crack down on illegal gun possession you certainly reduce the influx of new guns into the crime scene. That means if you outlaw guns, criminals will have fewer guns too. Well, first of all criminals don't need guns to commit crimes; they just need to pick on people who are unarmed and obviously weaker then themselves and have a knife or some similar instrument. Similarly, those criminals who do have guns can act much more freely, knowing that they will face unarmed victims who will be relatively helpless. Besides, there will always be illegal sources for guns, and if nothing else it's possible to make a crude gun with any halfway decent metal shop. quote: Btw not only criminals have guns, the police has them too. If criminals have fewer guns, then the police has an edge over them. Which is all fine and dandy for the police, but most criminals don't commit crimes with police officers nearby. It's all great for the cops to have an even greater advantage over criminals, but it doesn't help there victims any. quote: There are several ways to get killed by a gun. Children find their parents gun and play with it and get killed, or they kill others. People hurt themselfs with their guns or get killed by a frightened criminal once he realizes that his victim is armed etc. Well, as for the first point, that kind of thing is extremely rare, and while it looks nice on the headlines, it doesn't much compare to the number of deaths that are prevented by the simply threat that someone might have a gun. Besides, that kind of thing isn't exclusive to guns, my father came close to getting killed when playing with an old sword of his uncles when he was a little kid, are you suggesting we outlaw that kind of thing as well? As for people hurting themselves, this too is extremely rare (I'm sure Jag could quite some statistics so I'll leave that to him), and frightened criminals, well, sure, that kind of thing happens, but how many more times do criminals kill, or rob, or rape there victims because they don't have a gun to defend themselves with. quote: That's because I think that taking guns out of circulation should not only affect law abiding citizens but criminals too. If the gov't can afford to put pot smokers into jail and call that "war on drugs" then why not chase illegal gun owners too? They do darling, but one of the nifty things about criminals is that they spend quite a bit of effort not getting caught, and it's not like there is any way to spot someone with an illegal weapon unless they are being inanely obvious about it. quote: Anyway, to really decrease crime, I think that the citizens who own guns should be well trained in using them to preven accidents. And also know who to act if the need arises. I concur, but this should be the responsibility of the gun owner, not the government. quote: Until a few of these questions are adressed I don't think that facts or logic support the "more guns, less crime hypothesis". Darling, your argument, like all others I have ever heard for gun control, sounds nice, and makes some sense, but the problem is that it doesn't work. Jaguar has given us a number of sources at various points that point out the increase in crime that corresponds with gun control, as well as evidence suggesting that most criminals are at least cautious of potential gun owners. On the other hand, I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that shows that gun control works; rather I hear again and again how gun control should would. It doesn't matter if it should work, it quite plainly doesn't work, and that's what matters. Besides, at least in the US, it's unconstitutional, something which a lot of people like to forget about.

That was pleasantly short. I'm not sure what to say though, I know perfectly well that WMDs are more of an excuse to attack then anything else, but it's a good enough excuse. And besides, the actual reasons (being prevention of terrorism, oil, and such not) are perfectly adequate.

Well, if we are going to be flinging around old sayings: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people" That aside, I liked the article, and for a change I actually read the entire bloody thing (and Jag's right, it's dreadful long) and it's more then a little scary. I knew that England had fairly comprehensive gun control, but I had no clue that they restricted self defense so completely. I can tell you one country I'm never going to move to. And I agree in entirety with Jaguar's comment about emotionalism and logic. Emotion is fun, and at times it's just great, but not for deciding important policy. That's not called emotion, its called lunacy. I think the danger with gun control is not that it makes no logical sense, but rather that if examined superficially it appears to make perfect sense while still appealing to emotionalism. As for EP5, well, I can't really blame you, some individuals seam to flame everyone who disagrees with them in these debates. I hope it's not on my account that you don't want to post, I may tease you a little about being Canadian, but I don't mean that in a serious sense. Also, I know that I, for one, have had my opinion swayed more then a little by all of our arguments.

[rant] Yea, TV... Trashvision... I never watch that filth anyway. I have no objection to large corporations owning TV stations, or even newspapers and the likes, for them to do otherwise would be illogical, but complaining about TV is the worst. I could go on and on about how dreadful trashvision is, but the truth is that I haven't even had one in quite a while (I watch DVDs on my computer, it has a big enough monitor after all). And I'm not just talking about news that is tailored for viewers with increasingly short attention spans and rather limited intellect, that's bad enough, but the so called entertainment programming is even worse. Well, ok, maybe worse isn't the term to use; maybe I should describe it as the most degenerate form of entertainment widely available. It seam to consist either of stupid people acting stupidly, repeatedly, or of a bunch of losers getting up in front of the camera and going on about there problems, or even worse, action shows that are amusing only because they are so terribly clich├® it's hilarious. Don't take me wrong, I love good film, especially old film, but this is different, this is just a repeated broadcasting of progressively more degenerate programming. As for cable and satellite, well, you most certainly can have too much of a bad thing. [/rant] [ 11-20-2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]