1 Uh, couple of points. First, it wasn't anthrax. It may have been bacteria spores, but they haven't confirmed that as far as I know. Second, the letter was written in Indonesian. Odd, that. Third, the Aussie street is mildly irked. It takes even more to make an Aussie mad than it does for a Yank. (To us, all Americans are Yankees...) I expect Bali's tourist industry to go completely into the toilet, even worse than after the nightclub bombing. But that's as far as it will go. Fourth, it was possession of marijuana - albeit 4 kilos of marijuana - that got Schapelle Corby 20 years. A lot of people here don't think it was a fair trial, even without the ludicrous disparity in sentencing.

2 I think this girl was selected for her beauty, and will serve her sentence as a harem girl. Acts like this show that Muslims are uncivilized savages and should be exterminated. Australia should threaten to invade Indonesia if she isn't returned, and the US should help.

3 PM: Uh, couple of points. Uh, four is more than a "a couple." To deal with two: the story actually calls them "anthrax-relate" spores, which makes little difference to the conjecture; and the language of the note makes sense because it was addressed to Indonesians. How silly are those "points." Moreover, what's your main point? That the Islamic World should just ignore the implications of the Fourth Conjecture, and proceed as though the consequences don't exist? Like the assumptions of the peaceniks that preserves your fantasy at the expense of millions of lives. Hardly "progressive." Your "points" sound like the arguments a train passenger might make as his train careens toward a chasm: 1. Well, it's not really a whole train, just a couple of cars; 2. The owner of the corporation is responsible; 3. The lawsuit will set things right; and 4. The fall is only 1,000 feet, not 3,000. The number of objections you raise (the most substancial being that the Aussie street is only mildly upset, which is debatable) bears little relation to their salience. If conducting total war proves to be some sort of advantage that seriously threatens us (whether "us" means just the US, all English settler societies, or all first-world nations) we'll be compelled to react in kind, no matter how "uncivilized" it seems to us. And what's more, there are those in our society who can become just as angry and just as dangerous as Muslims, if sufficiently motivated. Compassion says that people ought to become aware of the consequences of their actions, that's all. Only then is a solution really possible. So far the "peace movement" seems selectively concerned only at the potential "response" of the Arab street to what they perceive as our aggression (ignoring that their aggression wasn't a response but a strategy), but are not especially concerned (for some very strange reasons given their assumptions about the ethics of our leaders) about our retaliatory response to provocation. This seems nuts, because it is.

4 A Swiss person visiting Australia goes up to two Australian lads and asks "Quelle manière à la station de train?" The Australians indicate that they don't understand. The Swiss then asks "welche Weise zur Zugstation?" and the Austarlians indicate they don't understand. The Swiss then asks "Quale senso alla stazione di treno?" and the Australians again indicate that they don't understand. The Swiss then finally asks "¿qué manera a la estación de tren?" and the Australians again indicate that they don't understand. With that the Swiss man walks away in disgust. Then one Australian say to the other "Maybe we should learn a foreign language." The other replies "What for? That man knew four and it didn't do him any good."

5 "And what's more, there are those in our society who can become just as angry and just as dangerous as Muslims, if sufficiently motivated." - Demosophist That is absolutely true. And the Fourth Conjecture makes perfect sense. Now all we have to do is have faith that there are enough of them that will stop embracing their own demise in the service of Allah as a form of purification and martyrdom long enough to "reason back". We are dangerously close to a hugely disproportionate retaliation should they finally step over a line. A line that some don't realize exists, but it's there.

6 I am an American. As such I will explain American policy. It is very simple, and just over 100 years old. Walk softly, and carry a big stick. Saddam, and bin laden got the big stick. Just not our biggest. Only very special assholes get the really big stick.They tend to pretend not to hear what we are saying, at a critical moment. Ask Japan what that was like. Russia was wise enough to back off back in the day. North Korea will too, or perhaps they won't. Besides, who knows what the really big stick is anymore? Doesn't have to be a bomb right?

7 My only problem here is...the Koran sanctions what they're doing. It is Islam's holy men--the Imams and the clerics who are actually quoting verses from the Koran and Sunah to incite more violence against the infidel. I don't know of any other religion whose holy book instructs the body of believers to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." It's strange that they're known as the "religion of peace"...I haven't seen any evidence of it.

8 Compassion is a western way of thinking, not an eastern, you can search through Chinas vast liberies they have and are hard pressed to find any sense of compassion for suffering. As far as Corby goes, perhaps the perps are in Bali not in one of the airports in Australia. If such is the case it is no wonder they destroyed the finger print evidence to cover up what they did and the laughing the customs officer and police where doing was the fact they knew the punch line to the joke. All things considered, no smuggler would simply throw 4.1kg of dope or any drugs in a clear bag for all to see in such a brazen way, so it makes me wonder. Why do we keep going to these shit holes we are clearly not welcomed in. People say, don't hurt them by boycotting them, but they certainly have no problem hurting us. Wether it is a Corby or the Bali blast, they certainly really don't want us around anymore, so we should reciprocate the goodwill.

9 Hey! We have some killer beaches in the US! Not to mention plenty of ethnic flavor. Forget bali, and all of those folks who cannot appreciate an open society. we love Aussies here in the States. Tasmanians are Welcome too! (Just leave out the bloody Dutch!)We can put you 90 miles off of the coast of Cuba! To help you appreciate the fact you are a big Island, come to the Southern Border and watch Mexico invade! You can spend time visiting Canadian commonwealth companions and ask them why it is such a bad Idea to keep shady charicters away. Perhaps it is because Austrailia actually has had to defend itself, whereas Canada just rides the coat Tails of America. But, I digress. Keep up the good fight, and when you are ready to invade Indonesia, America will likely be there.

10 Demosophist, you don't know me, but here's a little hint as to my position: I run the server that hosts this blog. My points are intended to clarify some facts. The white power was not anthrax spores. That matters. The letter sent to the embassy was written in Indonesian, which is not a common language in Australia, and not something a random Schapelle Corby supporter is likely to know. I'm wondering if there may be deeper motives to this mess. I don't know. And the Australian street is not "madder than a cut snake". It is somewhat ticked off. We don't blame Indonesia for the nightclub bombing, but we do blame them for their crappy legal system. And that's why Bali's economy is going to go right down the drain. I don't disagree with Wretchard's fundamental point. If the Islamists choose to throw away the laws of war, sooner or later, we will too. The current War on Terror is Islam's last, best hope. We still have the forbearance to treat it as a crime rather than a war. The result is, in Iraq, the "insurgents" have made enemies of the Iraqi people. That's what we want. (Well, we want the "insurgents" dead, but short of that.) I know what the Western World is capable of when it comes to war. If we found it necessary to really engage in total war, it would be over in two hours. We have many levels of escalation short of total war, though. So far, it has been the most carefully controlled, the nicest war ever fought. That could change.

11 P.S. I host Anticipatory Retaliation too.

12 Improbulus Maximus: Why do you want to exterminate Muslims? Would this make YOU a terrorist? The very thing you despise seems to be the very thing your advocating. Sure, I don't like nutcases in any religion...and believe me all the nutcases fuck things up in the name of God. Hate the religion, not the people. On another subject...just to protect anyone in here: scammers keep getting slicker...I got an email the other day that was from "paypal" asking me to update something (which they have done legitimately before, but I don't fall for scams) and was given this link: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run which actually brings you to this: http://www.stb.tsukuba.ac.jp/~piano/index1.html which someone ripped the graphics and hacked the secure server's source code from the real paypal site. It is a ploy to get people to submit personal info so they can hijack your $ and identity. If you compare the last link to paypal's real site, the only visual difference is the URL and the fact that the last link isn't secure. Most people wouldn't notice these things. Anyway, just looking out for people in here because scammers are always finding a new way to scam.

13 Right, osama, no one hear had ever heard of phishing until you posted that.

14 Cao: I don't know of any other religion whose holy book instructs the body of believers to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." It's strange that they're known as the "religion of peace"...I haven't seen any evidence of it. It'll be hard to find a mainline religion that doesn't have passages that can be interpreted as instructions to kill unbelievers, either passively or actively. The "evidence" is that beliefs change when the "social mission" of the religion changes. I probably don't need to point out the many instances in which Christians have justified killing "heathens" based on some misguided interpretation of theeir scripture do I? The point isn't that religion is evil, but that belief follows function. See some of the research done by Eli Berman. It's pretty convincing. Kevin: We can put you 90 miles off of the coast of Cuba! The beaches in the Keys kind of suck. Certainly nothing live Avalon near Sydney. But there's lots of other stuff to do there, and it's the second largest reef on the planet next to the GBR. PM: The white pow[d]er was not anthrax spores. That matters. Nice to know who you are, but actually I don't think it does. Think about it. Anthrax isn't that deadly anyway. The corrections were insubstancial to the point of the piece, is all I'm saying. The compulsion that people feel to make these kinds of corrections is one reason why Den Beste quit blogging. (I think you probably hosted his site too, right?) But here's what Wretchard says about the issue. See if the issues you raise make a difference: Any environment capable of producing terrorism on a scale which could destroy America would be sufficiently powerful to destroy Islam -- and destroy it first many times over. Any weapon that AQ Khan can make can be bought by believers and infidels alike. The theorists of asymmetrical terrorist warfare forgot that its military effectiveness depends on the very restraints that it, itself, dissolves. It's essential that Islam understand this point if there's to be any hope that it will deal effectively with the Salafist fanatics. As for the use of the language, it really isn't that difficult to find someone to translate a message. Honest. Any tourist to Bali could have had it done. In fact, I had an Indonesian roommate a few years back who could have written such a message, and I live nowhere near Indonesia. As for the comment about the "Aussie street," I admit that was dramatic license. By and large Australians aren't going to be sufficiently threatened by a relatively small scale terrorist incident in Bali, and they'd talk it over in pubs before hitting the street anyway. But the whole of the society doesn't really have to be up in arms to produce a few people willing to organize such an attack. The current War on Terror is Islam's last, best hope. We still have the forbearance to treat it as a crime rather than a war. But the point is that, by and large, they don't know this is their "last best hope." Nor do most Americans understand the dynamics. If they did, a lot of the opposition on both sides would likely disappear. The clock is ticking. By the way, I'm not convinced that Bush is investing enough in the project to make it work. I'm sitting in the heart of the infrastructure, and what I see is that the train really has yet to leave the station. Soon, many of the folks who could contribute critical expertise to the project will leave to find work elsewhere, and the window of opportunity will have passed. I like to think Bush knows what he's doing, because I like what he's saying... but I see little evidence that there's enough behind the words. If this train is ever to leave the station it may require a different engine. We have many levels of escalation short of total war, though. So far, it has been the most carefully controlled, the nicest war ever fought. That could change. I am not convinced that there is a continuum, or "many levels of escalation." The point of Wretchard's original article is that if there's a slow escalation a lot more people ultimately lose their lives than if there's an almost immediate total retaliation across the entire Middle East, and possibly against all of Islam. It's a fairly straightforward calculation, and one that our planners probably know well. It may not be that a single devastating WMD strike would cross the threshold that triggers such retaliation, but more than one certainly would. And the more widely dispersed the possession of WMD in the Ummah the more certain the retaliation. I'm convinced that's one reason Qadaffi got rid of them. They're not an advantage. They're a message that says "Destroy Me."

15 SPQR: Pblththth...I wasn't saying' nobody has heard of phishing. But you would be damn surprised how many people don't even know what that is. Don't diss someone who's just trying to look out for people just to make your ego feel good...

16 Demosophist - The compulsion that people feel to make these kinds of corrections is one reason why Den Beste quit blogging. Well, I think saying it was anthrax when it wasn't is a bit more than a nit. But it doesn't change the underlying argument, true enough. (By the way, I didn't host Steven Den Beste's site, though I was a regular reader and had a few email conversations with him.) I don't recall if it was SDB or Wretchard who had the post on responses to nuclear attack, but in either case they agreed with your point; that the only sensible response to such an attack is immediate and full escalation. And agreed on Qadaffi. He's not as stupid as Assad or as crazy as the Mullahs, and when he saw that America was serious (not yet mad, but serious) he realised the truth. All he could do with all his weapons is scratch America, but America could destroy him in an instant. There are levels of escalation. We chose to free Iraq; we declared war on the Ba'athist government, not on the nation. We could have bombed every military and industrial installation in the country into smoking craters rather than sending in ground troops. We chose a harder way which may have better long-term returns. I hope it works.

17 PM: There are levels of escalation. We chose to free Iraq; we declared war on the Ba'athist government, not on the nation. We could have bombed every military and industrial installation in the country into smoking craters rather than sending in ground troops. We chose a harder way which may have better long-term returns. I hope it works. The "levels of escalation" have a one-to-one correspondence with our degrees of freedom. And with each escalation the degrees of freedom become fewer. There are certainly levels of escalation if there's an authority with which one can negotiate a surrender, but the "third conjecture" is based on the observation that this isn't the case for a decentralized terrorist organization. That's not just because it lacks an organized structure, but more importantly because there's no way for the organization to bind itself to terms. It can agree to terms, but it has no way of assuring that the terms will be kept. Thus, we're stuck with no degrees of freedom. We have to assume that terms won't be kept, they have to know that we're compelled to make that assumption, so they're course of action is set as well. We arrive at the "dominant solution" in one step. Now, having said that, I met a fellow recently who said that he has a more formal analysis of this dilemma, but he wouldn't discuss it at the time and I haven't yet read his paper. So I can't really comment on whether he has a solution. The fellow's name is Francesco Parisi. He has some papers listed on the Social Science Research Network, but I don't have a cite for the one he was talking about. May be in my notes somewhere. I guess I was underwhelmed when he chose to pedal a paper, rather than just discuss the issue.

18 The level of tolerance for Muslim fanaticism in Indonesia culminating in the Bali bombing shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. Least of all them. They have provided a wonderful medium for these whackos to thrive in with the misconception that in doing so there is a sense of allegiance and they are immune. It's akin to teaching a pit bull aggression because aggression is a way of life for you and then being surprised when you hand him a biscuit and he takes half your hand off with the first bite. Then the Indonesian government looks to all the nations who practice tolerance and restraint for pity. It's going to take a few more of these attacks for them to wake up and smell the coffee. The Aussies share our values in many ways and if necessary would come to the aid of Indonesia when that dog bites them as we came to the aid of Muslims in Serbia. But, Indonesia has turned around and bitten their hand by arresting a model for crying out loud, while right under their noses the many terrorists in their country use illegal drugs to fund their operations. Another catastrophe in Indonesia could very well get them the finger from the Aussies - then where do they turn for their pity? So maybe the "reasoning back" in the Fourth Conjecture can also be a horrible realization that help is definately NOT on the way.

19 I'd give them pity, how about some steraliants in humanitarian AID. Of course, this would beg a question on how many indonesians does it take to make the world a better place? The answer would be ZERO. Same goes for the Al quedaites. We need Zero of them as well to make this world a better place. Now didn't indonesia kill 5 Australian reporters in the 70s for no reason? Then killed a 6th for reporting on the deaths of the 5 other reporters? Why give these people so much as a smoldering plate full of shit for humanitarian aid after that bullshit. But no, we forgive, we go back we get killed somemore by terrorists looking for "white meat" targets, as the smiling bomber of the nightclubs in bali boldly told. Matter of fact, there is a photo of this smiling bomber with police openly laughing in the picture after the incident. Goes to tell you what kind of "soul" indonesia has. A rotten one.

20 Andre: They call that "taking advantage of one's good nature". I have an Indonesian friend who grabbed her first chance to marry an American just to get the hell out of there. Fortunately, he is a good man and she's been very happy with him for 15 years. Unfortunately, many of these women aren't as lucky and know they're taking a chance, but that only shows how desperate they are to get out from under the thumb of Islam.

21 "...I got an email the other day that was from "paypal" asking me to update something (which they have done legitimately before, but I don't fall for scams) and was given this link:" Steven, thanks for the heads up. I've been getting stuff from them and it seemed legit, but I hadn't responded yet.

22 There was an Asian female who I believe got the death sentence for distribution, I believe she was the Asian female being taken in to court the day Corby collapsed. The other female collapsed before corby did. It was the spetical where Corbys older sister swung her purse at the camera crews and the guards. I'm wondering how many of these drug cases they have are outright setups by the police. It is sickening to think that out of 501 cases that judge convicted people of, that more than likely a good percentage never did the crime to begin with. Btw, those judges that presided over corby the chief is a christain and the other two hindus.

23 Carlos: Yeah, I only posted it because I'm a total tech, and even I was impressed at how slick they were. I could totally see someone falling for it, thus why I alerted anyone I know. That, and file a FTC complaint...turns out they are already under investigation.

24 Quothe osamabeenthere the terrorist lover: "Improbulus Maximus: Why do you want to exterminate Muslims?" Because they want to exterminate us. What cave have you been living in? I don't hate them for being muslim, I hate them because they are the enemy, nothing more, nothing less. I don't hate Buddhists, or even Mormons, because they don't kill people for fun. Muslims do, so I hate them. "Would this make YOU a terrorist?" Whatever it takes to get the job done. I think a few headless muslim corpses found in the streets of America, or Australia, would send a clear message. I'm a nice guy, until you cross me. I would love to start a trophy collection, and if the morons want to start trouble in the streets of America, I will. "The very thing you despise seems to be the very thing your advocating." No, I despise my enemies. I hate them, and want them to die. I only advocate killing my enemies. If they don't want to be hated, they should't kill innocent people and kidnap pretty white girls. "Sure, I don't like nutcases in any religion...and believe me all the nutcases fuck things up in the name of God. Hate the religion, not the people." That's like saying "Hate Nazis, but not Nazi ideology. Islam is just fascism in another guise. The people are the religion, as religion can't exist without fanatics to carry it on. Besides, the best way to kill a virus is to kill its host. When all the muslims are dead, then islam will be dead. Stop apologizing and making excuses for terrorists, they will kill you too if they get the chance.

25 IM: You're completely false for calling me a "terrorist lover" since I've never supported them and never will. I'm not sure where you're getting that impression from. I'm not apologizing for terrorists or making excuses for them. I'm also not doing that for you...which is why I'm saying it's genocide that you are promoting, not a solution. Headless Muslim corpses in America would help terrorists justify what they do, not scare them off. I suppose your solution to AIDS is killing everyone in Africa? Come on man, I know you're smarter than this. There are other ways to solve problems...

26 Quothe osamabeenmisled: "IM: You're completely false for calling me a "terrorist lover" since I've never supported them and never will." Your posts are never supportive of the US effort and are always sympathetic to the terrorists. You better get with the program, because muslims don't believe in any rights, except the right to die by their hands. "I'm not sure where you're getting that impression from. I'm not apologizing for terrorists or making excuses for them." I've been reading your posts, you're not on our side. There is no third side in war, so that pretty much narrows it down. "I'm also not doing that for you...which is why I'm saying it's genocide that you are promoting, not a solution." Not genocide, just total war. Kill them until they get sick of losing, and bury the dead wrapped in pigskins. "Headless Muslim corpses in America would help terrorists justify what they do, not scare them off." We can't know until we try then, can we? Just a few, for sport then. "I suppose your solution to AIDS is killing everyone in Africa?" Nice redirect attempt, but sorry, we weren't talking about AIDS or Africa. "Come on man, I know you're smarter than this." I'm smart enough to know that you have to know your enemy, so I have learned more about muslims than you will ever know. Some of them are nice people, but their cultural mission is to make the world muslim, which means they have to kill everyone who resists. I say give them the black flag, and kill them until they realize it's a losing game. "There are other ways to solve problems..." Like what, talking to them? Negotiating? Maybe we should just pay them tribute and let them overrun us? That's all well and good, for cowards. Killing one's enemies is much more efficient. Chappelle Corby is probably being gang-raped right now. Several times a day. These subhuman animals are violating her and the most poweful countries in the world are paralyzed, helpless to do anything. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is an idiot and should commit suicide.

27 IM: You never cease to amaze me... "Your posts are never supportive of the US effort and are always sympathetic to the terrorists. You better get with the program, because muslims don't believe in any rights, except the right to die by their hands." Oh really? I forgot how their armies are marching all over America. I would also be more supportive of the US effort if we had better leaders. Name one post I've had that is sympathetic to terrorists. Don't forget I was there in NYC and saw those towers fall...it changed me forever and I would never endorse the actions of terrorists or sympathize with them. "I've been reading your posts, you're not on our side. There is no third side in war, so that pretty much narrows it down." Seeing black and white are we? You're right I'm not on your side because your side is genocide. There are plenty of other posters in here too who don't support your ideas. Are they traitors in your eyes as well? I have a feeling you're of the "If you're not with us you're against us." school of thought...a quick look at history shows how that never results in a positive outcome. Your problem is that you think there are two sides to this war when it's really not that simple. "Not genocide, just total war. Kill them until they get sick of losing, and bury the dead wrapped in pigskins." Last time I checked, wiping out all Muslims IS genocide. "We can't know until we try then, can we? Just a few, for sport then." So you advocate killing innocent people too? Maybe fellow Americans who are Muslims? Doesn't this make you just like your enemies? "Nice redirect attempt, but sorry, we weren't talking about AIDS or Africa." It's not a redirect: You said the best way to kill a virus is to kill the host. "I'm smart enough to know that you have to know your enemy, so I have learned more about muslims than you will ever know. Some of them are nice people, but their cultural mission is to make the world muslim, which means they have to kill everyone who resists. I say give them the black flag, and kill them until they realize it's a losing game. Hmmmm. IM, would you call yourself intolerant? Racist? I never claimed to know more about Muslims than you. I'm sure you obsess over them much more than I do. "Like what, talking to them? Negotiating? Maybe we should just pay them tribute and let them overrun us? That's all well and good, for cowards. Killing one's enemies is much more efficient." I didn't offer a solution, but I do know that genocide is not a solution. Religious prosecution only makes people more resistant and gives them a cause to retaliate. If killing one's enemies is more efficient, then why the fuck are Iraqi civilians dead and Osama Bin Hiding alive? "Chappelle Corby is probably being gang-raped right now. Several times a day. These subhuman animals are violating her and the most poweful countries in the world are paralyzed, helpless to do anything. Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is an idiot and should commit suicide." Well, if they are doing that I'll track them down myself and punish them by making them read your posts while pooping on the Koran. Or should I just have them chimped?

28 Improbulus Maximus: Just because your panties are in a bind, I'll drop you this link to make you feel better: http://www.big-boys.com/articles/badterror.html

29 "I would also be more supportive of the US effort if we had better leaders." Leaving the rest of the 'discussion' you 2 are having aside, doesn't this stance make you extremely selfish?

30 DG: How is it selfish to support our troops, but feel our country could have a much better administration? Or am I missing your point?

31 I think Osama has a valid point and every right to criticize the administration. I criticize them myself. Perhaps we disagree on what to be critical of, but that's besides the point. However, I don't believe for one moment that he wishes us to lose this war just to prove some obscure point like many hard-lefties do. He may or may not feel this war is illegitimate but at least he's begun to recognize the merits of it since it has come to be. On the other hand, I think IM is too hardlined in his responses. There are many "pretend" Muslims out there. I understand that they are guilty to some degree by their mere silence, but I do not think they are worthy of death or beheading or dismemberment or any one of a plethora of punishments out there. We cannot discard all that makes us human - charity & compassion - or we have lowered ourselves to the level of those who do not embrace these traits. To those, yes, they deserve what they give. But not everyone simply because they "call" themselves Muslim. We cannot win the hearts and minds of others by indiscriminately doling out harsh treatments to all. To IM I would quote Nietzsche: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." To Osama I would quote Miller: "The closer men came to perfecting themselves a paradise, the more impatient they seemed to become with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier for them to see that something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn."

32 Osama I think I misread your intentions. I took it as meaning you would support the war effort if we had different leaders. If you are supporting the troops in their endeavor, and not just to 'bring them home now', then you will get no quarrel from me.

33 DG: Yeah, I support the troops. I also understand any large group of people will have a few who do stupid shit...which is why I don't form my opinions of our troops based on a few scandals either. I don't like the way this war started, and I'm less than thrilled with Bush, inc. I also realize that just dropping that place would be the worse thing we could do right now. I guess we don't have a quarrel then! I do have some progressive ideas about how I would like our country to be run, but some are quick to label me a 'lib' for this. I don't know what you'd call me (hopefully something good) but I actually have the best intentions. Oyster: Nice quotes...I've read them before and the Nietzsche one is one of my favorites.