thebook.co.za wtf.

[klepto]

Yeah, um on "thebook.co.za" they say that atheism=communism.
what the fuck?
Im an atheist but i cerainly dont believe in communism.
post thoughts eh?
<a>Fourth Paragraph Here</a>

sorry i found it absurd.

[Whitney]

there are a lot of people who wrongly think atheism and communism are the same thing.  Communists were mainly atheists but that doesn't mean all atheists are communists...just like Americans are associated with being Christian but not all Americans are Christian and not all Christians are American.

Some dictionaries even define atheist as meaning evil.

[SteveS]

Yeah, I'm not a communist either.  In fact, I'd say the left end of the political spectrum bothers me just as much as the right.  In short, I don't have much trust in politicians and political parties.  I think they're all full of crap.  Also, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal, so I'm stuck right between Republicans and Democrats.

Some dictionaries even define atheist as meaning evil.

Man, I haven't run into one of those yet.  If I did I think I'd be seriously disgusted.  If that was in a library (esp. a public one) I would definitely complain to the management.  If they left it on the shelf, well, I'm sure I could think of something :pirate:

[Kestrel]

Man, I haven't run into one of those yet.  If I did I think I'd be seriously disgusted.  If that was in a library (esp. a public one) I would definitely complain to the management.  If they left it on the shelf, well, I'm sure I could think of something :pirate:

Sounds somewhat sinister.  

Would you perhaps deface the book? Steal and dispose of it? Have a good ol' fashioned book BBQ?
Naw. Those are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal things to do.

Perhaps go the route that this wack-a-doo chose?

Hmm. Of course some folks might consider you 'evil' for such a thing. Which  would be deliciously ironic considering what irked you about it in the first place.  

 

[SteveS]

Hello Kestrel.  Are you baiting me out?  Is this because of the pirate smiley?  Lol - I thought it was a perfect opportunity to use it.

I'm not that sinister, but really, atheism = evil?  That would hork me off.  Guilty as charged.  And what's a little civil disobedience to a free thinker?  Let's see, here's what I came up with:

Would you perhaps deface the book? Steal and dispose of it? Have a good ol' fashioned book BBQ?

Deface: yes.  If taping over a paper with a proper definition, or at least circling the definition and writing "WTF?" in the margin, counts as defacing, then again I'd be guilty as charged (lol - when I was in college I guess the bookstore should have sold "defaced" books instead of "used" ones, right?)

Steal and dispose: Okay, confession, I used to get nervous walking by the security guard at the old local electronics store when I hadn't bought anything.  Not a hardened criminal - so I'd probably not steal it.  Although,  any dictionary with this sort of definition is either seriously outdated or not very objective, so wouldn't "steal and replace with a proper dictionary" be a more complete victory?  Argh  :pirate:  a vicious pirate I be!

Book BBQ:  Effective image - and this one would be a big no.  There's something really disturbing about burning books that brings to mind Adolf Hitler or Jack Chick.

Naw. Those are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal things to do.

Didn't get the political connection.  My point with this comment is I don't like either taxes or blue laws.  Politicians annoy me, whether they are from the left or the right.

Perhaps go the route that this wack-a-doo chose?

Ummm, no.  Harry Potter is fiction.  Dictionary is not, or at least, isn't suppossed to be.  I believe there is a serious distinction here, no?  It's not like I'm saying the writings of St. Augustine shouldn't be in a library, or the holy bible, or that we should ban works of philosophy that speculate that atheism causes evil.  But, surely, a dictionary has some responsibility in regard to intellectual integrity?  Wouldn't a dictionary that defines the word "atheist" as "evil" tell you a lot more about the person who wrote the dictionary then it would about what an atheist is?

Of course some folks might consider you 'evil' for such a thing.

Wouldn't bother me.  Apparently, some people already consider me evil because inside my brain I don't believe god is real.  Oh well, sucks to be a pirate, I guess.

[Whitney]

Some dictionaries even define atheist as meaning evil.

Man, I haven't run into one of those yet.  If I did I think I'd be seriously disgusted.  If that was in a library (esp. a public one) I would definitely complain to the management.  If they left it on the shelf, well, I'm sure I could think of something :pirate:

I swear I've seen it before...yet can't find one with that definition.  When I did see evil it was 2nd or 3rd on the list...not the first definition.  Maybe the dictionaries decided to update because it was quite a while ago when I saw it.    Well, that or I'm just remembering things I didn't actually see...which is possible since I have a tendency to confuse things.

[Kestrel]

SteveS; Hello Kestrel. Are you baiting me out?

Not at all. Simply highlighting an irony.

I'm not that sinister, but really, atheism = evil? That would hork me off.

I don’t blame you. A most ridiculous definition, were it used that way. Certainly an opinion over a definition and has no place in a dictionary. ( I find the possibility not so unbelievable considering folks who endeavor in this sort of thing.)

(lol - when I was in college I guess the bookstore should have sold "defaced" books instead of "used" ones, right?)

The obvious difference being, a book for consumption in a public library and a book acquired for private use in a book sale.

Although, any dictionary with this sort of definition is either seriously outdated or not very objective, so wouldn't "steal and replace with a proper dictionary" be a more complete victory? ....

....There's something really disturbing about burning books that brings to mind Adolf Hitler or Jack Chick.

Two courses of action. Each with the same outcome. The difference being only one course requires a match.
Which brings me to the point of my original reply ( albeit a subtle one), is your declared then confirmed, course of action which would impose your views upon something with which you do not agree. You see, it has nothing to do with the words definition. I’m beside you all the way as far as that goes. I only became interested when you invoked the venue of a public library. Your first stated course of action is reasonable. The second however, is actually counter to an individual who believes themself to be a free thinker. If you like, I’ll happily elaborate on that point, although I am confident you take my meaning.

If one resides in a city/town where the Origin of the species can be found in the public library, chances are high that at one time or another some copy of the book was defaced by a professed christian. If not stolen outright. (It’s been quite a few years since I happened upon that factoid. For the life of me I cannot find it on the web. So one must take it for whatever it is worth.)
The ‘wack-a-doo’ I referenced is only what I consider a wack-a-doo because of her position. Personally I feel she is wrong on so many levels, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Nevertheless at least she went about it in the right and decent way, instead of attacking the books with a jar of Jesus-white-out.

My point being, that there is no difference between any number of ideologies, if they are willing to commit the same act, because they feel they are “right”. A public library is a public domain. Civil disobedience? More like cowardly thuggish graffiti.

 In my mind, a free thinker must rise above that sort of thing. To do otherwise is neither free nor thoughtful.

(Please understand I am not accusing you of being a thug. I’m only responding to a posted position. I consider the whole thing as “theoretical”.)

Wouldn't bother me.

Apparently on some level it does bother you. Or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[Whitney]

I agree with Kestrel that it would be contrary to promoting free thought to purposely remove objectionable material from a public space (with the exception of things which violate law, of course).

What words mean is based off of common usage.  When a whole bunch of people start using atheist interchangeably for evil; as we know many theists (especially christians) are prone to do...defining atheist as evil wouldn't necessarly be placed improperly in the dictionary.  Yet, as the following site points out, to use that definition in the dictionary would also make it appropriate to list "sanctimonious and close-minded" under Christian.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9094.htm

Anyway, at least finding that site lets me know my mind is still working (I wonder sometimes since I can be a little ditzy) and I did at one point or another see atheist defined as evil.  I would imagine it's hard to find it defined that way now since availability of the internet and people like Dawkins being openly athiest has allowed people to realize that atheist are not inherently evil.

[SteveS]

I agree with Kestrel that it would be contrary to promoting free thought to purposely remove objectionable material from a public space (with the exception of things which violate law, of course).

Of course - and I agree.  I'm working on a considered, but unfortunately long winded, response to Kestrel in which I'm trying to lay down my reasoning more clearly and propose a reasonable action.  I should have it up shortly.

Many current dictionary definitions of atheism are at least somewhat objectionable to me.  However, I don't find them deliberately pejorative, as I do the definition of "atheism = evil".  To be sure, I find them somewhat biased, but on a much more subtle level.

What words mean is based off of common usage. When a whole bunch of people start using atheist interchangeably for evil; as we know many theists (especially christians) are prone to do...defining atheist as evil wouldn't necessarly be placed improperly in the dictionary. Yet, as the following site points out, to use that definition in the dictionary would also make it appropriate to list "sanctimonious and close-minded" under Christian.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9094.htm

I certainly understand this argument.  It's just that I really don't see that this definition counts as "common use".  In fiction, which knight set off to slay the "atheist" monster?  Police inspectors don't come on the news and report the last murder was a particularly "atheistic" crime.  Lol, we've heard of the "wicked witch of the west", not an "atheist witch of the west".  What I'm saying is I'm given to doubt if the person who put that definition in the dictionary did so for a truly academic purpose, or not.  I also don't think people using the term this way from the church pulpit should qualify as "common use".

Here's why.  I live in Illinois, where we had (or still have, I'm sure they're around) the Illinois Nazi party.  What if, in a PR campaign, they present themselves as being education supporters by paying for brand new dictionaries in all the state's public libraries.  Only, here's the nasty surprise, when you open it up you find "Jew (noun), an evil person".  When you complain, they respond that words are defined by common use, and that most Nazis use this word, in this manner, commonly.  Also, they argue, historically several nations of Europe (circa WW2) did so as well.  I'm just not buying this on the grounds that however it's rationalized I don't think that's why they put the definition in that way.  You will surely point out that Nazis don't comprise a majority of people (whereas theists do), and it's a valid counterpoint.  It's just, well ... look, a Nazi can have whatever dictionary he wants in his home.  I just don't find this defense of definitions is productive or appropriate in a public venue in a (hopefully) humanist nation.  It's very likely I'm being overly sensitive on this dictionary thing.

[McQ]

I agree with Kestrel that it would be contrary to promoting free thought to purposely remove objectionable material from a public space (with the exception of things which violate law, of course).

Of course - and I agree.  I'm working on a considered, but unfortunately long winded, response to Kestrel in which I'm trying to lay down my reasoning more clearly and propose a reasonable action.  I should have it up shortly.

Many current dictionary definitions of atheism are at least somewhat objectionable to me.  However, I don't find them deliberately pejorative, as I do the definition of "atheism = evil".  To be sure, I find them somewhat biased, but on a much more subtle level.

What words mean is based off of common usage. When a whole bunch of people start using atheist interchangeably for evil; as we know many theists (especially christians) are prone to do...defining atheist as evil wouldn't necessarly be placed improperly in the dictionary. Yet, as the following site points out, to use that definition in the dictionary would also make it appropriate to list "sanctimonious and close-minded" under Christian.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9094.htm

I certainly understand this argument.  It's just that I really don't see that this definition counts as "common use".  In fiction, which knight set off to slay the "atheist" monster?  Police inspectors don't come on the news and report the last murder was a particularly "atheistic" crime.  Lol, we've heard of the "wicked witch of the west", not an "atheist witch of the west".  What I'm saying is I'm given to doubt if the person who put that definition in the dictionary did so for a truly academic purpose, or not.  I also don't think people using the term this way from the church pulpit should qualify as "common use".

Here's why.  I live in Illinois, where we had (or still have, I'm sure they're around) the Illinois Nazi party.  What if, in a PR campaign, they present themselves as being education supporters by paying for brand new dictionaries in all the state's public libraries.  Only, here's the nasty surprise, when you open it up you find "Jew (noun), an evil person".  When you complain, they respond that words are defined by common use, and that most Nazis use this word, in this manner, commonly.  Also, they argue, historically several nations of Europe (circa WW2) did so as well.  I'm just not buying this on the grounds that however it's rationalized I don't think that's why they put the definition in that way.  You will surely point out that Nazis don't comprise a majority of people (whereas theists do), and it's a valid counterpoint.  It's just, well ... look, a Nazi can have whatever dictionary he wants in his home.  I just don't find this defense of definitions is productive or appropriate in a public venue in a (hopefully) humanist nation.  It's very likely I'm being overly sensitive on this dictionary thing.

Nazis............


I hate Illinois Nazis.

 :wink:

[SteveS]

Hi folks, let's see, I was being flip and I think it's gotten my meanings confused.  I certainly take your points, but I feel my motivation for some action is justified and that my position differs very clearly from a simple "us and them" mentality that would be me simply substituting my own views in place of someone else's.  I think I have a higher minded objective.  Perhaps you disagree, okay, fine, but allow me to clarify my motivation and see if maybe you understand where I'm coming from.

The pirate smiley was suggesting "outlaw" behavior.  As I said, I was being flip.  Think of the pirate in the spirit of pirate radio, or pirate television; as in, an underground message refuting the position of dogma and/or authority.  Definitely something I consider in line with free thought.  The wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_thought, references some German free thinkers who founded the town of Comfort, Texas and were persecuted and sometimes killed for their opposition to slavery.  I presume they did more than just not buy slaves to arrive at their fate.

Not a hardened criminal - so I'd probably not steal it.

This was me saying that I wouldn't steal it.  The "probably" was understated.  I also probably won't convert to Christianity, as in "very, very probably".

Although, any dictionary with this sort of definition is either seriously outdated or not very objective, so wouldn't "steal and replace with a proper dictionary" be a more complete victory?

Speculation on a little point, if the library felt their dictionary was outdated and replaced it, or if I felt their dictionary was outdated and replaced it, in each case with the latest revision, what gives the library management higher qualification for their opinion?  Nothing, it is the fact that I'm replacing public property without public consent that's objectionable.  

In the spirit of intellectual exchange, allow me to offer that whatever my above speculations, further consideration inspired by the last two posts from Kestrel and laetusatheos allows me to unequivocally restate that theft, even theft and replacement, is wrong (as would be blacking out the objectionable definition).  I get your drift and take your point, and freely confess that the obvious implication of my pirate face was theft.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

On to defacement, I was trying to argue that scribbling a wry note on the margin is not really defacement, nor is taping in another piece of paper.  I've honestly come across sarcastic margin notes, wry observations, etc. in old books that have given me considerable enjoyment.  An irreverent soul's "graffiti" making me look more closely at something, or see it in a different way.  Note, they didn't actually black out or erase anything in the book, and I don't propose to do so either.  In a public speech analogy, more like showing up and holding a sign with a protest message as opposed to  gagging the speaker.

Presumably, it is the actual alteration, or addition, to the physical medium of the book that could be found objectionable (that literally constitutes defacement).  Okay --- maybe we could agree that simply folding a paper and inserting it into the book loosely, no tape or staples, would be an acceptable form of my little (hypothetical) social rebellion?

Apparently on some level it does bother you. Or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The fact that someone thinks I'm evil because I don't get my morals from god doesn't bother me.  What bothers me is that this definition is a pejorative opinion being presented as objective fact (by virtue of its appearance in a dictionary, and not an editorial).  Presumably the definition was arrived at from the following argument:

Given: people get their morals from god.  This given is taught by most major religions, and is a proposition that most people in our nation seem to agree with (as most of them are members of major religions, and this is the most frequent objection to atheism that I seem to observe).
Deductive argument: Atheists deny that god exists, therefore they deny that morals exist, therefore they are without morals and are amoral, hence the definition of evil.

Believing this without questioning the remarkable premise that we get our morals from god is dogmatic.  I draw a distinction between this view appearing in a book in a public library in a nation where people have the right to free speech, versus appearing in the reference dictionary in a public library in a nation that is not supposed to allow religious intolerance.

Which is why I feel some social rebellion is in order.  I feel motivated to somehow "call shenanigans" that this definition is not objective.  Allow me to explain.  I cannot agree with the following statement,

My point being, that there is no difference between any number of ideologies, if they are willing to commit the same act, because they feel they are “right”.

Allow me to switch to a racial example for a moment.  Rosa Parks was an African American who was asked by a bus driver to vacate her seat to a white man due to a racist policy that was a part of racial segregation in the American south.  She refused, thereby breaking a local law, an act for which she was arrested on criminal charges.  Why did Rosa break the law?  Although there could be many reasons, here are two that illustrate my argument:

Rosa flavor A) refuses to obey racist policy because she feels that a racist policy is unjust, no racial group should have to give up their seat to any other racial group simply on the grounds of race.

Rosa flavor B) refuses to obey the policy because she feels that whites should have to give up their seats to blacks, instead of the other way around (Please note - I certainly am not claiming this was Rosa Parks' motivation, just illustrating an argument)

While both of these "ideologies" are "willing to commit the same act", in refusing to give up their seats, because they "feel they are right", I see a significant difference between them, instead of no difference.  The way I separate the two is through the humanist principle, basically that individuals can follow their own ideals so long as they don't trample on another person's right to follow theirs.  I have no special priviledge over you, and you don't have one over me.  What could be more fair, or reasonable, for governing how people interact with each other?

So, Rosa A) is "throwing a challenge flag" that her reasonable humanist rights have been infringed. Rosa B) is simply substituting one brand of racism for another, both of which violate the humanist principle.

... your declared then confirmed, course of action which would impose your views upon something with which you do not agree.

Well, one could argue that Rosa A) is imposing her views (that racism is wrong) upon something with which she did not agree (a racist policy).  Rosa B) is likewise imposing her views (this time that her racism is somehow more correct than the existing racism).  It's just that I see the two as very different, and I don't think it's unreasonable of me.  I know this could be considered subtle, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from here.

I guess my objection to this is particularly strong because it has such an unfortunate resemblance to a device so typically used by theists in debating atheists, which is that no matter how licentious the theist's own views are, any disagreement, on any grounds, is portrayed as an attempt to unjustly impose a different opinion on them.  The language used in the latest CNN Paula Zahn fiasco illustrates what I'm saying.  Karen Hunter says, of atheists, "Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools".  Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson said "Atheists are hypocrites.  What they're trying to do is to impose their godless lifestyle upon Americans".  I'm trying to point out that this is ridiculous.  Imposing my godless lifestyle would be arguing that we should knock down the churches, throw priests in jail, and make religious worship an illegal act.  Arguing that mandatory prayers should not exist in schools is far different from arguing that a child should be thrown in jail for saying grace in the lunch room before he eats.  If I have somehow come across as proposing that religion should be illegal, and acts of worship should be forbidden, let me please publicly refute this in the highest degree possible.  For reference to the CNN quotes, please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2DWQYZi10.

Okay, back to my rebellion.  In an environment of religious intolerance, which is creating social injustice, I find a deliberately pejorative opinion masquerading as an objective definition in a reference dictionary in a public library worthy of action.  I am motivated to at least promote a warning that this objective tome is not being very objective at this moment.  That's all.  I'm not suggesting that I replace the definition of Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist with pejorative definitions as a form of retaliation.  My reasoning is at least "commutative" in that if the dictionary did contain a definition of "Christian = sanctimonious close minded person" I would also find this ridiculous, and would feel that a useful factual definition of what a Christian is should appear in place of the pejorative one.

Civil disobedience? More like cowardly thuggish graffiti.

In my mind, a free thinker must rise above that sort of thing. To do otherwise is neither free nor thoughtful.

Okay, a noble position.  I certainly respect you for it.  But I don't believe Rosa Parks was wrong in failing to "rise above it" (acknowledged, she may not have considered herself a free thinker, but I hope you get my drift).  Sure, she could have followed the current law, and then voted for different members of her local government, or petitioned to have the law changed.  After all, the law probably got on the books in a civil, legal manner.  Hopefully, you understand my opinion, and this (again hopefully) doesn't qualify me as a thug.  I don't think Rosa Parks was a thug.  Without some room for reasonable activism, then it seems like we are elevating law, order, process and majority opinion to a higher virtue than humanist justice.  I can't agree with this.  And, it seems that a majority opinion will always promote civil behavior as a virtue because as long as things stay civil they can't loose - they just outvote the opposition.  When the majority opinion is unjust, then there's a problem with simple majority rules.  (Kestrel, I'm not aiming these last two sentences at you, or trying to lump you in with the "majority opinion".  From your writings I certainly don't claim that you are personally promoting any social injustices).

(Please understand I am not accusing you of being a thug. I’m only responding to a posted position. I consider the whole thing as “theoretical”.)

Lol, of course, absolutely no worries whatsoever.  I certainly don't consider anything you wrote to be personally offensive.  I enjoyed reading your response, your imagery is excellent, "Jesus white out" , and your statements like "only one course requires a match" are very well put.  It motivated me to put a lot of care into this response (forgive the delay).  Also, please note, in my strong disagreement with the whole "imposition of opinion" thing I deliberately phrased my response as "unfortunate resemblance", as I don't think you had the same thoughts in mind as Karen Hunter or Rev Peterson.

Hopefully I've expressed myself in a more reasonable manner.  Do you get where I'm coming from?  Lol, certainly don't have to agree.  I readily acknowledge that my take on social activism/civil disobedience/whatever leaves room for reasonable disagreement.  I'm not a pacifist, but I believe that a pacifist and I can happily disagree without either of us being unreasonable.  It would seem that a disagreement, arrived at through rational discourse, at least constitutes an understanding (just not an agreement).

Hand cramps, ouch, if anyone made to the end thanks for listening.  I apologize for the length of this thing.

[Kestrel]

SteveS.; Okay --- maybe we could agree that simply folding a paper and inserting it into the book loosely, no tape or staples, would be an acceptable form of my little (hypothetical) social rebellion?

I wholeheartedly agree that, I could not consider that course defacement. In fact, I can state unequivocally that were I to see your note, I’d leave it there.

Which is why I feel some social rebellion is in order. I feel motivated to somehow "call shenanigans" that this definition is not objective.

No fault there.

Allow me to switch to a racial example for a moment. Rosa Parks was an African American who was asked by a bus driver to vacate her seat to a white man due to a racist policy that was a part of racial segregation in the American south. She refused, thereby breaking a local law, an act for which she was arrested on criminal charges.

I do take your meaning, however, the difference between Mrs. Parks’ actions and the actions that our topic concerns, is that Mrs. Parks action was a passive act. (Which you acknowledge toward the end of your post.)

I guess my objection to this is particularly strong because it has such an unfortunate resemblance to a device so typically used by theists in debating atheists, which is that no matter how licentious the theist's own views are, any disagreement, on any grounds, is portrayed as an attempt to unjustly impose a different opinion on them.

Ahh. Here we enter, for my part, a different place altogether.
Being that it is my stance that a believer in the God of the bible, and one who regards the bible as the only source of information regarding the “christian” faith, has no place or call whatsoever in politics or social policy. To explain further would send this topic careening madly off topic.
Suffice it to say, I couldn’t agree with you more.

(Kestrel, I'm not aiming these last two sentences at you, or trying to lump you in with the "majority opinion". From your writings I certainly don't claim that you are personally promoting any social injustices).

No worries, mate. I’m right behind ya.

Do you get where I'm coming from?

Absolutely.

A very excellent post.
I specifically enjoyed chapters 3, 7, 8, 16 through 23, 39 and 46. (With an honorable mention of chapters 62 and 88.)
Of particular help were Appendices XII and XXIV.

Just havin’ some fun.

 

Thank you for taking the time.
Thoughtful, informative and very well done. IMO.


 

[SteveS]

Thanks,

I wholeheartedly agree that, I could not consider that course defacement. In fact, I can state unequivocally that were I to see your note, I’d leave it there.

Sweet, I'm happy I cound find a course that would be considered reasonable (I do hate coming across as otherwise).  Heh, this makes me happier than I expected.

Ahh. Here we enter, for my part, a different place altogether.

Yup, I did.

I specifically enjoyed chapters 3, 7, 8, 16 through 23, 39 and 46. (With an honorable mention of chapters 62 and 88.)
Of particular help were Appendices XII and XXIV.

LOL, yeah, right?  Same ideas, less words, same ideas, less words, .

[Kestrel]

Heh, this makes me happier than I expected.

I know exactly what you mean.

LOL, yeah, right?  Same ideas, less words, same ideas, less words, .

Nah. I was just giving you the business in response to your apology regarding the length of the post.

To me, if a person wishes to convey an idea they should use as many words as necessary. What's more the reader's patience is indicative of their level of sincerity when it comes to their willingness to learn and understand differing views. Regardless if those views are found to be agreeable or not. IMNSHO.

[McQ]

Heh, this makes me happier than I expected.

I know exactly what you mean.

LOL, yeah, right?  Same ideas, less words, same ideas, less words, .

Nah. I was just giving you the business in response to your apology regarding the length of the post.

To me, if a person wishes to convey an idea they should use as many words as necessary. What's more the reader's patience is indicative of their level of sincerity when it comes to their willingness to learn and understand differing views. Regardless if those views are found to be agreeable or not. IMNSHO.

Thanks for that last bit about the reader's patience, Kestrel. You caught me skimming this thread, didn't you? LOL!

(I hate when that happens!)