Does the "fact that life will end imbues life with vitality and meaning"

[Matus1976]

So why aren't we all going insane and doing completely reckless and otherwise illogical things as of now?

Why would you treat a longer life with any more care than a shorter one?

Since the life is SHORTER, it would be LOGICAL to value the time spent in that short period of time, but if it were LONGER, it would be LOGICAL to take time for granted because there is so much of it available.

Supply and demand.

If my conclusion is not valid, then tell me why I'm not going out taking part in 'risky' behavoiur.

I think You miss the distinction being made between valuing a moment in ones life, and valuing life all together. In many cases people value a particular moment *more* than their whole life, such as the reckless youth who jumps on the top of a friends car while riding on the highway saying "You only live once!" You go from talking about care (being careful) in life, and jump to placing a value on a moment of life (because it is short) these are not directly related. I can be very reckless and value individual moments in life, or I can be very careful and desire to live a long time so I would enjoy more moments. You act as though life has a total potential of joy, and whether spread over a short time or a long time, the total amount is the same. This is, of course, ridiculous, I can live a fabulous moment in a long life or a short life, over and over again, the longer life would lead to a more fulfilling life since I could experience more moments that I enjoy, work toward larger and larger long term goals, achieve more things, develop more ideas, strive toward the best possible existence.

You must be alive in the first place in order to value moments, whether you have few moments or many moments. I do not place a value on a moment based on its time relationship to all my moments, but on it's 'intrinsic' value to me, toward living a 'good life' The point being if you value moments at all, you ought to want to have as many of them as possible. If you have the potential of experiencing many more moments, you will be more careful to protect that potential. By your rational, the value of a moment exist only in relationship to the total number of moments, the fewer the total number of moments, the higher the value of each individual moment. If this is the case, you should vow to kill yourself the very next moment, so this moment will be of greatest possible value. Of course this is silly, moments have value because of the experiences surrounding that moment, not *only* because it is one more moment taken away of the remaining ones.

If you do something stupid, which you enjoy, you play a benefit cost analysis game based on how much you value your life now and how much you value the experience you are about to partake in and how risky that behavior is, assuming you are intelligent enough to think about it at all, and you weigh that against your life. People who climb mountains engage in risky behavior because they find some value in it that outweighs the risk, but the cost they measure against is based on a typical human life span of 75 years, losing 75 years is less bad than losing 750 years or 7,500 years. Everyone expect to live around that time and that is the estimated time they use to gauge the value of the life they are currently risking. The is embodiment in many common psychological elements, like the “you only live once” or “carpe diem” (I prefer Carpe Aeternitas) and is most startlingly present in the attitudes we hold toward the deaths of children and young adults verse old people, the children and young adults, most people feel, were robbed of the life they ought to have had a change to enjoy, that ‘typical’ life span of 75 years or so, while the old person was said to have run their course, to lived a good full life. They got their fair turn, their time has come, etc, In reality, the longer someone lives, the richer and fuller their lives and their personality is, and the more tragic it is to die, I think. Though all death is tragic.

If you value life, you ought to prefer to live in almost all cases over not living. If a moment has any value it all, then it is always preferable to live more than less, unless the only value you derive from moments of existence is their relative number with your expected whole. Is that truly what you base all your valuation of moments on? Sure, perhaps in the last moments of your life, you place immense value on moments qua moments, but it is because the intrinsic value of existence at every moment to you is brought to the fore-front of your consciousness. But when you are at home cooking a meal, reading a good book, working on a project, or making love to your spouse, are you thinking only that this particular moment has value because you only have a total of 2,365,200,000 moments (the number of seconds in an average life) remaining? Or is it because of the circumstances surrounding that moment and the events of that moment itself that you find value in it?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I do not place a value on a moment based on its time relationship to all my moments, but on it's 'intrinsic' value to me, toward living a 'good life'

Okay. You've put a lot of thought and effort into explicating your position, so it seems apparent that this matters a great deal to you, living a good life as long as possible. I suppose you know it's epicurean and bourgeois -- not at all heroic or ambitious. Living a good life is not an end in itself, no matter how splendidly you define 'personal excellence.'

Heroism is reaching beyond your limitations, putting your butt on the line, daring to challenge the Unknown. It usually results in failure with irreversible consequences. Miss Rand was a good example, daring beyond her ability and blowing it.

The gift of life is nice. Good to make the most of it. Far better to honor life by gambling it, price no object. See Help Wanted

W.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Matus1976]

I do not place a value on a moment based on its time relationship to all my moments, but on it's 'intrinsic' value to me, toward living a 'good life'

Okay. You've put a lot of thought and effort into explicating your position, so it seems apparent that this matters a great deal to you, living a good life as long as possible. I suppose you know it's epicurean and bourgeois -- not at all heroic or ambitious.

Actually its Eudaimonic, not hedonistic (epicurean), its not pleasure for it's own sake.

Rand's advocated life of rational self interest is not founded around "Heroism" (did I miss the essay where "Heroism" is the highest value?)

Living a good life is not an end in itself, no matter how splendidly you define 'personal excellence.'

One could rightfully say that Life is an end of its own, it does not exist for the sake of something else. But I would clarify of course that life as in a good life, and not a mere mechanical existence, is an end of its own, if not, then life does in fact exist as a means to something else, a good life for yourself.

What exactly are you doing on a Rand Forum anyway? With comments like:

I suppose you know it's epicurean and bourgeois

On the question of living longer and healthier thanks to medical technology, surely this pertains only to the rich.

I wouldnt expect a socialist / communist to understand desiring to live a full productive good life of rational self interest.

Heroism is reaching beyond your limitations, putting your butt on the line, daring to challenge the Unknown.

None of which is incompatable with desiring to live a long full life. What exactly is your objection here? That Long lives are not compatable with Heroic challenges? That heroic challenges are the only purpose in life?

It usually results in failure with irreversible consequences. Miss Rand was a good example, daring beyond her ability and blowing it.

Well you could always do the opposite, never try to do anything so you don't realize how much of a failure your are, is that your story? Or to quote Homer Simpson "The first step of failure is trying!"

The gift of life is nice. Good to make the most of it. Far better to honor life by gambling it, price no object.

The purpose of life is to Risk it? Don't think so.

[Wolf DeVoon]

That heroic challenges are the only purpose in life?

It's an option. See The 51% Solution

[Matus1976]

That heroic challenges are the only purpose in life?

It's an option. See The 51% Solution

So you are using Rand's popularity to gain an audience to your yapping so you can attack her ideas and the things which brought her popularity. Is that "Heroic"?

Additionally, your definition of "Heroic" is rather shallow

Heroism is reaching beyond your limitations, putting your butt on the line, daring to challenge the Unknown. It usually results in failure with irreversible consequences

Or is that just how one convinces one's self that a life of failure had a purpose and was ultimately just?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Let's see if I understand this correctly. You want to live a thousand years or more. I said what matters is not how long one lives, but what challenges and purpose define 'a creature of self-made soul.'

Of course it's nice that Miss Rand lived almost 80 years, but her heroic endeavors ended in a mix of great achievements and fumbling tragedy. Had she died in 1970, you'd still have the unearned benefit of Rand's literary and philosophical legacy, which we share with several million other people.

This is the meaing of life. You start out a naive kid, born in a world that tries to squelch inquiry, more or less across the board, every industry. It takes a Wozniak to beat IBM, as goofy as that may seem. In the specific context of Objectivism, we inherited solid metaphysics, an outline of epistemology, and a brilliant moral principle (evil requires the sanction of the victim).

We did not get a philosophy of law. It was not Rand's ambition. I made it mine.

You're welcome to carp. But until you've written a quarter million words (like I have), putting your butt on the line and gambling your life in some meaningful challenge, specifically exploring the Unknown, it won't matter a hoot how many hundreds of years you exist.

As a younger man, I recited Rand chapter and verse, because I loved my life and rightly saw in Rand's work a life-giving framework. Then it became more important to attempt something of my own. Whether anyone thinks I succeeded or failed is unimportant.

Wolf DeVoon

Edited May 22, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Wolf's more than a good guy. He's an individualist in the most noble sense of the term. You may agree or disagree with him, but you should be aware that you are in the presence of one fine independent first-hand mind. If you look, you can find much wisdom in his writing.

Also, Wolf didn't just talk. He went out and actually did things he believed in. Like our ancestors. Like people we read about.

In my opinion, you would do well to learn from this one and not try to teach him. We all would.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Michael,

Wolf's more than a good guy. He's an individualist in the most noble sense of the term. You may agree or disagree with him, but you should be aware that you are in the presence of one fine independent first-hand mind. If you look, you can find much wisdom in his writing.

Also, Wolf didn't just talk. He went out and actually did things he believed in. Like our ancestors. Like people we read about.

In my opinion, you would do well to learn from this one and not try to teach him. We all would.

Michael

I am more than willing to seek information out from sources I suspect have more knowledge than I, my ultimate goal being to form an as accurate assessment of the world as possible. My first interactions with Wolf, however, were rather nihilistic, containing socialist polemics and wanton attempts at hijacking this thread to get people to read his unrelated musings, and worse belittling Rand while simaltaneously utilizating the popularity her ideas gained in order to achieve an audience for his ideas, which he could not earn on his own. Not a good first impression in my opinion.

Wolf is also, ultimately, arguing for a vestige of Original Sin (in that we must change the world, or ungergo a 'heroic struggle' which includes the potential for massive loss) in order to 'justify' our existence. Sorry, but I dont buy that feeling guilty for my existence crap, no one ever has to 'prove' their worth for existence, they do not need to change the world in order to justify their lives, every man has a right to his own life and to live it as he sees fit, without assaulting another man's person or property. If Wolf wants to risk life and limb for his cause celebre, more power to him, but to belittle others for choosing to live their lives thier own way, which no one owns but themselvies, by regurgitating a vestige of original sin, arguing that they must do something to prove their worth for existence, is disgusting. His professed standards of value, so far, have been heroic struggles with potential of life ruining failures, and 'gambling ones life' and how many words he wrote. Sorry, not my standards, nor the standards of any rational life loving entity.

He writes

putting your butt on the line and gambling your life in some meaningful challenge, specifically exploring the Unknown, it won't matter a hoot how many hundreds of years you exist.

It "wont matter" to whom? to HIM? To EVERYONE ELSE? Why must I prove my worth for existence to him, or to anyone? *that* is a disgusting attitude.

If Wolf wants to provide an 'executive summary' of why his ideas are worth reading and considering, and I find them intruiguing, I'll be all over the essays. But so far in this thread he seems like an angry bitter nihilistic person who feels guilty for existing, as such I have no interest in reading anything he has to say.

And furthermore, I don't need some pretentious jerk accusing me of not undergoing any struggles, heroic or otherwise, which might or might not result in personal bankruptecy or whatever other nonsense he defines as part of 'heroism', he knows nothing about me, nor do I need to prove the worth of my life or my existence to his nonsensical altruistic standards. .

The thread is not to talk about Wolf's essays, but whether the fact that life will end is what actually gives life purpose and meaning.

There are many things to learn from many people on all these forums I participate in, but examinations on the standards of life with regard to indefinate life spans is clearly not one of them, as most objectivists present sophomoric objections and instant disengenous appeals to Rand's "indestructable robot" (without understanding or even remembering the nature of her argument) Though I admit Wolf's claim that indefinate life spans are fantasies of the burgeoise and hedonistic is a new one on me, and takes the trophy for childish 'objectivist' objections to indefinate life spans.

[Matus1976]

Let's see if I understand this correctly. You want to live a thousand years or more. I said what matters is not how long one lives, but what challenges and purpose define 'a creature of self-made soul.'

You have undertaken a great and difficult struggle, and whether you succedded or failed in your heroic quest, you have apparently lived a difficult life of financial troubles because ofi t. So now that you have struggled, gambled with your life, what matters if you live a thousand more years or 1 more year? Why don't you just kill yourself now, if the only value of a life is the struggle (and failure) of a heroic ideal, well, you've achieved it, your life has all the value it could possibly have, does it not? So why are you still hanging around?

Clearly you still find value in the moments of your existence, in the contexts which surround those moments, you still struggle with your heroic challenge, perhaps you may be able to struggle for it for another thousand years, if necessary. Perhaps building the world you would like to see will take longer than a typical life span. Is that now Hedonistic? To succumb to an arbitrary 'natural' limition foisted upon us by the random events of our evolution, is that 'just' and 'heroic' ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

You misjudge Wolf. But that's your choice.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Michael,

You misjudge Wolf. But that's your choice.

Michael

Perhaps you misjudge Wolf, but that's your choice.

Perhaps my judgement is based on the only evidence Wolf has provided so far, are you saying his yapping about burgeoise fantasies is not a mere socialist polemic? That his comment that medicine is only something that the rich get is hardly anything more than communist Rhetoric?

What have I misjudged, what evidence do you present that I have misjudged? Were these statements sarcasm?

As usually, you dive in, say little, back up your statement with no evidence, yet make grandoise declarations with not so subtle insults. Please give me even a remote reason to discount Wolfs disgusting anti-individual comments or don't bother contributing, such posts, like Bob Mac's "sloppy thinking" is basically indistinguishable from not being posted at all. They say nothing, make no claims, dont present any information, dont argue a point, only present an overacrhing generalizations as a pretentious insult so the author can give himself a big ol pat on the back. If you think Wolf's ideas are valid, then make a modicum of an effort to demonstrate that to a fellow life loving rational independant being, don't give me this "If I have to explain it to you you wouldnt understand" crap of the psuedointellectual.

You can make worthwhile contributions to discussions, or you can blather nonsense. Hey it's your forum, and it's your choice.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Matus1976

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I haven't really examined this thread so far, except from a couple of posts by Wolf, but I think I might now. If it is on the same level as your last post, I may take some kind of measure. Please read the posting guidelines. You are infringing them. I don't want this on OL.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just skimmed over this thread. It isn't too bad, although I find the initial topic more wishful thinking than identification of reality (A is not A. A is what I say it is.). The logic gets a little twisted at times and there is a bit of what I call the pooh-pooh head argument:

A: You're a pooh-pooh head!

B: No. You're a pooh-pooh head!

A: No. You're a pooh-pooh head!

B: No. You.

A: You.

(etc.)

Charming, but tiresome after a while. The level of acrimony is increasing. I am advising that I will delete any further acrimony without notice.

Michael

[BAMF]

The topic would be great if Matus had not twisted Victor's words, which he quoted in here in order to debate. But...how can you debate Vic's point when what you're debating wasn't his point?

[Wolf DeVoon]

you have apparently lived a difficult life of financial troubles

Well, no. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I've traveled the world, had plenty of luxury and good fortune. I wish there was some way to pour oil on troubled waters and continue discussion of this topic. I think it's an important one.

Miss Rand's indestructible robot killed deity, whose existence is said to be unconditional, eternal. Nothing can be for it or against it, hence 'God' could not have created man, is deaf to prayer, takes no notice of human heartache. Or so it seems to me.

It was a mistake on my part to suggest that you or anyone else had to write or undertake a heroic journey, although I think individualism requires courage. A long life well lived is a widely shared hope. This is more easily obtained in North America (the New World) and Western Europe (the Old World) than elsewhere (the Third World). Noting an obvious fact doesn't make someone a socialist.

I suppose I was attracted to this thread because an elder libertarian activist bounced onto my poolside patio one afternoon and gaily asked a group of my houseguests how long they wanted to live, assuming medical technology made it possible. Some said 100 years, a few plumped for 250+

I said I was already pretty much exhausted and didn't want any extra work, thanks. That was 8 years ago. Over the course of those 8 years, I've done less. I'd like to live a while longer because I have a charming five-year-old to look after. But I doubt very much that I'll see her graduate high school. Nor is it vital that I should. Roark and Galt were orphans. Sometimes the only thing man can do is pass on the gift of life.

W.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[william.scherk]

Victor Wrote in the “Worthless Individual” Thread:

For others, (as it is for me) it is this very fact, the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning (“This is not a dress rehearsal!”). After all, what would be the purpose to set objectives and goals if life were something infinite? NEVER-ending! Wow, I believe “life eternal” would zap life of any meaning!

Victor I think that is a sad and ridiculous sentiment.

I am joining this thread late, a little distressed by the digressions and nastiness. The original thread in which Victor commented I also found distressing, although I read it closely and pondered the varied attitudes to Mark Weiss's situation.

I disagree with the notion that this fact alone imbues life with meaning or vitality or value . . . but in my opinion the fact that life ends can give at least a certain urgency, a piquancy . . . a certain contrasting value with the lurking void that awaits us all.

My reflections on this issue come after 8 weeks nursing my mother as cancer ate her lungs.

Was this her life imbued with meaning because of the fast-approaching void? Not to my eyes. Her life was imbued with great meaning (for me and my three siblings) because this was the person who birthed me, raised me and watched over me with love and concern to the end of her days. Her last weeks were made more meaningful not by the void -- but by the people around her who treasured her, and who now mourn . . .

Several times she asked in effect, "are you okay doing this?" (meaning putting my life on hold to be with her till the end). Was I resentful, was I angry, was I doing a 'duty' that I would rather not do?

No, no, no and no. I determined that she would end her life at home as she wished, surrounded by love and care. I am happy and relieved that I was able to do it (with the help of many many people -- and the assistance of the evil Canadian socialized healthcare system**).

* * *

If I could sum up what makes it unlikely that I will ever be an out and out Objectivist -- it would be the kind of personal nastiness and malevolence delivered up with blithe abandon by professed Objectivists in the two threads noted. I do not want to owe fealty to a movement or a culture or a "club" in which hurting and vulnerable people -- who are essentially strangers -- may be treated as if guilty (of dread altruism and other evils) unless proved innocent.

I salute the intelligent, kind and thoughtful people here, the folks who wear their badges of Objectivism proudly while also exhibiting a full range of attributes I consider gloriously human and good: benevolence, empathy, compassion, curiousity, fellow-feeling . . . for the others, for the billions of humans in their sojourn between void and void -- regardless of their belonging to this or that 'scheduled caste,' without notice of their possible adherence to supposedly evil notions. I salute and dearly value those people here who wear the club colours lightly on their shoulders, who consider themselves part of glorious Humanity first, glorious Objectivism second . . .

* * *

(As an aside, I wonder if anyone is interested in an OL topic devoted to Death? Dare I ask there if there are any Objectivist versions of a 'good death,' or if folks here have made an Objectivism-inflected provision for their own deaths?)

Here a picture of my old ma and me, as she lay in repose and we awaited the undertaker. Although it may seem mawkish or even ill-placed here to say so -- I am happy to have 'sacrificed' weeks of my life to care exclusively for another whom I loved. I am happy to have given of myself in this way. I discovered deeper wells of caring and purpose than I thought I possessed.

** the total personally-borne cost for the drugs, palliative homecare, implements, services and equipment: $0.00. Indeed, our election to bring ma home 'saved' the taxpayers an estimated $7500.00.

[Brant Gaede]

I can understand why such a beautiful woman had such a beautiful son.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

You have my deepest condolences and I speak for Kat, too. I greatly admire people like you who quietly do the best they can to value what life there is to value when they confront rotten circumstances. This is my approach to living.

You asked about death. Off the top of my head, there are three articles on OL that I can recommend:

Mortality and the Rituals of Infinity by Rich Engle

Thoughts on Aging by Barbara Branden

Facing the Final Music by James Kilbourne

A while back I wanted to cover the topic of death on OL. It's funny in a strange way, but when I looked around back then, one of the only people I saw who would do something from the heart without preaching and without glossing over the really uncomfortable part was Rich, who is no longer an atheist. So I asked him to write something. I have perceived that death is a topic Objectivists are not comfortable discussing. Please excuse some of the ensuing discussion on the thread. It got a bit snarky and the topic and Rich's treatment of it deserved better.

Barbara's essay is a beauty, pure and simple. James's essay is a touching companion piece to Barbara's.

There is probably more, but that is what comes to mind right now.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

They say nothing, make no claims, dont present any information, dont argue a point, only present an overacrhing generalizations as a pretentious insult so the author can give himself a big ol pat on the back.

You can make worthwhile contributions to discussions, or you can blather nonsense. Hey it's your forum, and it's your choice.

You have an interesting definition of nonsense. I have asserted in a very clear way that your ideas are completely opposite to the basic fundamentals of economic theory of value. You have done nothing to address this logical and true objection.

You're just angry and emotional because you see this viewpoint as preventing or harming full bore anti-aging efforts. The two aren't really connected and you've failed to separate the arguments. There are a great deal of benefits to extending one's lifespan and most people would find attractive the idea of living a longer healthy life. What you fail to acknowledge however, is the effect that indefinite lifespans would have - a very different situation. You just flatly deny reality in this case either because your thinking is indeed sloppy or you're so emotional about the situation that you're in profound denial.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I want to ask you nicely. Could you please leave out your negative speculations about the psychology and/or moral character of the poster? Here is an example.

You wrote: "You just flatly deny reality in this case either because your thinking is indeed sloppy or you're so emotional about the situation that you're in profound denial."

Here are the facts. You can know that he flatly denies reality because this is clear in his words on defining human being. You cannot know whether sloppy thinking or profound denial are the only two possibilities for such an error, or even if they are part of the error. In addition to being insulting, the assertion as you stated it has to be incorrect unless you are omniscient.

It would read much better as: "You just flatly deny reality in this case." The impact would be the same, if not stronger. The impact comes from it being true.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

I want to ask you nicely. Could you please leave out your negative speculations about the psychology and/or moral character of the poster? Here is an example.

You wrote: "You just flatly deny reality in this case either because your thinking is indeed sloppy or you're so emotional about the situation that you're in profound denial."

Here are the facts. You can know that he flatly denies reality because this is clear in his words on defining human being. You cannot know whether sloppy thinking or profound denial are the only two possibilities for such an error, or even if they are part of the error. In addition to being insulting, the assertion as you stated it has to be incorrect unless you are omniscient.

It would read much better as: "You just flatly deny reality in this case." The impact would be the same, if not stronger.

Michael

I have to agree with that in essence. However, honest errors are honest only as long the errors have not been clearly pointed out. Afterwards, if you understand the error, but continue supporting the original viewm, that's denial. If you do not understand, then that's a thinking problem.

"the assertion as you stated it has to be incorrect unless you are omniscient"

I agree, but only in a pre-discussion context.

Bob

Edited May 23, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I skimmed over the whole thread earlier and I do admit that the discussion started out civilly enough. It degenerated over time.

I wonder what the point is in continuing a discussion once it gets to such a low level of information and high level of personal judgments. I tend to stop as I find little or no value in this (well... maybe a little... ).

Michael

[Matus1976]

Michael,

I haven't really examined this thread so far, except from a couple of posts by Wolf, but I think I might now. If it is on the same level as your last post, I may take some kind of measure. Please read the posting guidelines. You are infringing them. I don't want this on OL.

Michael

Michael, can you be more specific as to which posting guidelines I am infringing on? If so, I will make an effort to no longer infringe on them.

[Matus1976]

I just skimmed over this thread. It isn't too bad, although I find the initial topic more wishful thinking than identification of reality (A is not A. A is what I say it is.). The logic gets a little twisted at times and there is a bit of what I call the pooh-pooh head argument:

Michael

Michael,

I find your comments more wishfull thinking than an idenfitication of reality (A is not A. A is what I say it is) The logic gets a little twisted at times.

Of course, this is the kind of comment I am talking about. You arent really saying anything, you just come in with some vague generalizations with no information, no evidence, no examples, which no one can respond to. Are you taking your lessons from the State Science Institute?

My criteria for a worthless post is one in which I can repeat the same exact statement back to the poster with just as much justifcation. these are the types of comments Bob Mac flooded this conversation with early on, e.g. "Not thinking correctly" "Sloppy thinking" After giving some rather sophomoric and utilitarian objections, Bob says "Clearly this indicates you have given no thought any implications of increased life span/immortality including the consequence of how life is valued." Later says "you've demonstrated a remarkable ignorance regarding the basic concept of value itself" this from the person who said *the* source of value is scarcity. Anytime Bob or anyone makes a statement that is ultimately completely pointless except to make the poster feel good about trying to insult the other poster, I repeat the exact same comment right back at them. Usually, they eventually realize how fruitless the "well you are a big poo-poo head" comments ultimately are, and eventually stop posting, or stop making such comments. It took Bob some time, but it seems he has dropped most of that behavior.

[Matus1976]

The topic would be great if Matus had not twisted Victor's words, which he quoted in here in order to debate. But...how can you debate Vic's point when what you're debating wasn't his point?

Kori, I responded to your concerns in post 18, if you choose not to read them, thats one thing. If you disagree, thats another. But now you pretend as if no response was ever made, if you want to raise an objection and refer to it later in a debate, at least make an effort to read the posters response to you, otherwise your purpose here seems to be to bait emotional responses and not a legitimate discussion and development of ideas.