Search the Community

Showing results for 'QAnon'.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Try searching for:

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Selective Index and Updates
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Roger Bissell Corner
    • Stephen Boydstun Corner
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Robert Campbell Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits


  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day


  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Full Name



Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

Found 223 results

  1. Peter, People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping ). One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition. So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts. Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree. Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists." Lance deHaven-Smith Here... I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true: Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk. Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith: I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going. But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) Asymmetrical Warfare Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term. QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show. Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few. One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up. Michael
  3. I'd like to open a field of discussion for the QAnon phenomena. Here is where I will post in already existing material presented at OL by members. I'll take direction from comments and from poll answers. What is Q / QAnon? Why should anyone on OL pay attention? Is skepticism justified? What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion? No special rules or guidelines for this thread; the OL guidelines are good enough and will apply here. . Please keep personal abuse to a minimum. Creative insults are kosher, but if they aren't on topic, why post them? hr Our forum leader opened discussion on the phenomena back in January of this year. My key-word search-term was "QAnon," not "Q," so the search results will not necessarily return all incidence of discussion touching on the phenomena. More coming...
  4. The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters". Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural? Many phenomena attend the Q phenomenon. To my mind, Q is the ultimate boondoggle for rational inquiry. I've been directed a few times to separate "Q" from "QAnon," and I will probably make the same kind of differentiation errors. Are you taking questions about "Q" and/or "QAnon"?
  5. Peter, Q is what the Tea Party tried to be--a spontaneous huge group of people traveling in the same direction--a good direction of freedom and individualism and family values--without a named leader. This phenomenon scared the holy hell out of the ruling class establishment and the left with the Tea Party, and it scares the holy hell out of them with Q. The Wikipedia Article If you want to see an explanation and history of Q from the side of those who fear it, look at the Wikipedia article: QAnon Just look at how the Wikipedia article opens: Notice that this article does not say "Q". It just calls everything QAnon. I think this is on purpose to somehow try to diminish the impact of using Q only (which has a cool factor among other subconscious loads). Also, Q is not a theory. It is an individual or group of individuals (nobody knows who) who publish cryptic short messages and predictions on the Internet. They are often called "Q drops." The idiots who fear Q and wrote (and monitored) that Wikipedia article couldn't even get that part right. They called QAnon itself a conspiracy theory. If you read this article, notice a few things. The first is how condescending it is, basically positioning smart people who know better and look down on Q followers as "us" and people who talk about Q and discuss the cryptic messages as conspiracy theorists. From the tone, it means kooky conspiracy theorists and wackos. Definitely not smart or serious people. Definitely not "us." The second is the nature of the sources. The good guys in the article, (the smart folks) are The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN and so on. The kooky folks (the conspiracy theory guys) who seemingly aren't worth considering or commenting on include famous people like Lionel, Bill Mitchell, Jack Posobiec and so on. The third is that, for an article based on a posture of superiority and looking down on nonsense to dismiss it, the article sure is long. The fourth is that the article tries to pin Q down to specific structures and beliefs it can then debunk. The fifth is kind of funny. In trying to debunk and pooh pooh everything related to Q, the article actually details items that cause a huge amount of cognitive dissonance in our culture. For one example, the murder of Seth Rich. The article makes it seem like only retards would believe Rich was murdered by the Deep State and those who are entangled with it because Rich turned over damaging info from the DNC computer to Wikileaks after the DNC openly cheated Bernie out of his true standing in the primaries in order to guarantee Hillary Clinton the nomination. However, the result of such intense "pooh pooh" focus on the Seth Rich murder is to keep light on it and keep this speculation alive. Just look at how many people still believe it (as do I). So if you want a list of items where Q has scared the shit out of the ruling class, this article does a decent job of listing those items. The tone is "of course this is all nonsense." But the list is long. Legitimate Q Jon keeps up with Q a lot more than I do. He generally points people to here and here for Q texts. Those links are pretty much authoritative. They are the ones mostly used by the more serious people into Q. The problem with ascertaining accuracy is that Q is anonymous. Hell, the identity of the more accepted Q, so to speak, could have changed over time for all anyone knows. And Q's messages are intentionally vague. In the beginning, he (or she or they) started dropping message on a huge Wild West-like Internet forum called 4chan, where anyone can post at any time on anything. (4chan is where many memes come from.) This is not what one could call peer-reviewed. But 4chan is where Q initially spread like wildfire. Also, since people like Lionel and Jack Posobiec and other famous Q supporting folks have visited the White House, since President Trump often says cryptic statements that echo Q, and since Q's predictions--that could only be based on high-level inside information--often come true, the first order of the day for the terrified ruling class elitists was to get a bunch of Internet trolls to call themselves Q. This kind of infiltration is what they did with the Tea Party (in a different manner). The idea is for impostors to claim a central role and pose as legitimate, then start preaching pro-ruling class crap or exaggerating actual beliefs to the extent of ridiculousness. If the impostors do their job well, the movement gets discredited and fades away. This worked with the Tea Party. It hasn't worked so far with Q. And, of course, when things are cryptic, actual true-believer fringe people always appear who are way over the top. These are the ones William likes to post on OL as Q to try fool people into thinking these guys represent what Q is all about. Now that Jesse Waters is on it, I don't see how this approach can continue, but I have little doubt those wedded to this approach will keep it up. After all, the "muh Russians" hoax was a three year mainstream culture thing and the Deep State insiders in Congress are still trying to resurrect it (including Hillary Clinton herself). Why wouldn't their followers follow suit? So the best thing to look at if you want to see real Q stuff is to check the links Jon posts. Why Q Spreads Do you like to do crossword puzzles? Or do you like puzzles where you have to discover words among a lot of random letters? Did you ever have fun with Where's Wally? This is the essence of Q's appeal. He (or she or they) says just enough to get you interested, but not enough to make a clear statement. And, of course, there are statements that nobody has been able to figure out (which, to me, are there to trip people up and make it all even more intriguing, like red herrings in a mystery novel). In a culture where the fake news media lies constantly and gets busted for it over and over, there is no way it can combat this approach by Q. Even without the media's constant lying, how can it debunk a hint and wage a propaganda campaign against something that could mean anything? It can't pin Q's messages down. Anything big the fake news media does against Q, by asserting this or that is what Q really means, is seen by the public as overkill--except for folks with the elitist ruling class mentality--the Kool-Aid drinkers so to speak, who often think this time the media finally "destroyed" Q's message and so on. Yet Q won't go away and it grows. Just look at people like Amazing Polly. Watch any of her videos and you start to go, "Woah... I may not fully agree with all this, but WTF?" Like her, there are many, many people on the Internet who constantly speculate about what Q is saying--and they go about digging up stuff to prove it. On a deeper cultural level, one of the main tropes used in movies these days is a superhero with a fantasy name saving the world, but with a hidden real identity as a person in normal life. Americans can't get enough of this and Q comes off as such a superhero. So by default, people in general like Q and think he (or she or they) is cool. There's real persuasion genius going on in the Q approach. The reason the ruling class has gotten away with all the crap it has over the decades is because the ruling class owns the media and (more recently) the giant social media corporations. It can make things like ruling class pedophilia, corruption, coup attempts, etc., go away through propaganda campaigns. But Q's messages are so damn interesting to the public at large as a research game and string of mysteries, especially online research and mysteries, people who have felt powerless up to now join in the fun with gusto. They are a gigantic herd of ferrets. They snoop into everything and speculate about all of it. And they uncover one inconvenient thing after another. For ruling class people with something ugly to hide, it's like a school of piranhas attacking a cow in the river. There's a lot of crap Q followers point to and claim as fact, of course, but there's also a lot of true stuff that emerges that would have otherwise stayed buried. This last tends to float to the top in our culture (as verification starts becoming impossible to ignore) and ruling class criminals get real paranoid. I am convinced President Trump has encouraged the use of Q-based material by proper law enforcement agencies and the military--not as fully proven facts, but as situations and places for them to investigate. The Q phenomenon is a form of crowd-sourcing the start of investigations. This used to be the role of investigative journalists, but their media companies got bought out and the reporters, for the most part, have sold out. Most reporters these days are ruling class hacks and toadies. That's the gist of the Q phenomenon. It's the bombing campaign against globalism before the ground forces come in. Precision is not its nature. Unearthing and exposing hidden stuff is. (Including destroying deadly ordinance when possible) That's why ruling class elitists, including those idiots who wrote and monitored the Wikipedia article, try to paint Q as a cult with specific weird-sounding jargon and beliefs. Q scares the shit out of them--like bombs are supposed to. Michael
  6. I don't know what to make of that. Why would you be asking me questions "about 'Q' and/or 'QAnon'"? Ellen
  7. has less editorial whoopee added than
  8. The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters". Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural? Ellen
  9. I don't know if he did any doctoring of what you said, like he did with writing "Trump" as "Drumpf" in posts he quoted from Michael in the jottings which appeared at New Year's. His jottings were titled "The #QAnon phenomena [sic], as explained by various outlets and commenters." He included some quotes from you from posts you made in April 2018. Ellen
  10. Uncle Q has laid out some heavy-duty homework for the 'researchers' in the community! Pick a Network – Any Network.Search ‘Qanon’ (search: Qanon);query=qanon "Ma, I'm famous!" "Well, technically, no -- you are not famous. Few folks know who you really are."
  11. Dec 30 Ice T unknowingly tweeting a QAnon related meme and then telling a blue check mark journalist to eat a dick is exactly how I wanted my 2019 to end.
  12. This speaks for itself. Trump just retweeted a 'QAnon' conspiracy-theory hashtag to his 68 million followers It's hard to play the denial-by-featuring-goofy-fringe-folks game when the president himself does the Q stuff this blatantly. Michael
  13. #QAnon #WWG1WGA #TheGreatAwakening More from the gang at the bottom, but first -- young Jordan Sather got some mileage from his time at the rally. See if you can pick out the scabs, infiltrators, imposters, 'fake news' media reps, patriots and stunned also-rans. The QAnon Anonymous podcast, interviews, interactions, observations, along with Jake Rockatansky's fits of screaming laughter. A bit of Q-reportage and queries on the main stage: At, you can view and search all of the 'drops' made at 8chan (eg, search 'snow white'). It has a clean and useful display that I used in my Q 'snapshot+link' postings above. It is essentially a strictly-curated use of a database of Q drops. It features another layer of interpretation via hyperlinked 'mouseover'' pop-up guides and explanations of acronyms or other obscure language. One more layer of explanandum -- equally as anonymous -- comprises compiled answers to query-heavy drops from the past. It's not as easy to cut and paste from Ajax-enhanced websites if you want to preserve the page's formatting/layout.
  14. A second slashing episode on Left-Wing Grifters -- from QAnon Anonymous (sampler):
  15. For some real snark that Wikipedia just can't beat ...
  16. The compilers of files at site dispense with the extra editorial finnicks found at The site is probably more fun to faux 'researchers' -- as an anonymous crew piles on entailments. Eg, these are all the Soros-boogeyman 'themes' the crew has applied: -- for those who use RSS feeds to sample the Q drops, offers translations in nine languages: Why is George Soros in Ukraine?
  17. To look at the other side, here is a discussion between Steven Hassan (a cult expert) and a guy named Travis View, who has an anti-Q podcast called "QAnon Anonymous." I have followed Hassan for years due to my interest in cults. He's done his deepest dive on Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses, and, of course, the Moonies, of which he was a part. More recently, he's gone off the deep end. He thinks half of America is in a cult, the Trump cult. He wrote an entire book about it: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control. I was sad to see that since his credibility got shot with half the country, but I'll have some deeper comments later. Also, I want to read his book before digging in on him. At least, Hassan is not a troll or an idiot. Ditto for View. But, man, are they misguided. They live in an elite-type bubble and expound progressive views as if they were the only true universal reality. At least CNN likes them. Michael
  18. Another thread opens on the matter of Q. What is Q / QAnon? Why should anyone on OL pay attention? Is skepticism justified? What are the main questions readers have in mind to guide discussion?
  19. Intriguing article: Psychology and the Allure of Conspiracy Theories -- I just bought the newish book edited by Joseph Uscinski, whose research is noted in the article cite above. I'll try to take a fair-use excerpt from the Uscinski appearance on Watter's show, and maybe put it together with some other material celebrating/castigating the segment by the 'Qmmunity' (and its skeptical attendants) ... in the QAnon thread, once Chod finishes with his spasms.
  20. "Fuck off, pedophile." The QAnon movement is chockful of anti-semitic garbage -- based on the wildest bullshit peddled by the Q-collective itself. If the correspondent wasn't so opposed to reason, he'd figure that one out on his own.
  21. Michael wrote: That's why ruling class elitists, including those idiots who wrote and monitored the Wikipedia article, try to paint Q as a cult with specific weird-sounding jargon and beliefs. Q scares the shit out of them--like bombs are supposed to. end quote Thanks Michael. That was very informative and well said. I agree that it is correct to have backlash against the polarized left wing media but my fear is that “unknown sources” who suggest conspiracies can have a worrisome effect on anyone who does not fact check and use reason. Oddly, since I asked the question of “who Q was” I saw something on the net that referenced Qanon and suggested that just as with radical Muslim terrorist web sites, Q radicalizes The Right with propaganda, unverified sources, and dirty tricks. Should tricksters and divulgers worry about the unstable people they may influence, to use violence or promote violence? I suppose planting ideas in the minds of the gullible is not Q’s worry but websites that don’t self-censor are not my cup of tea. I suppose it is the same concern that some have about Fox News right wing analyses and selection of stories and the other three main networks left wing analyses and selection of stories. Of course, everyone has an agenda, but “the news” should be based on facts. As Walter Cronkite used to say, “And that’s the way it is.” I was not totally sure about the extent of his left wing bias until he retired and let loose with both barrels from his bent mind, and another leftie who could fool the gullible was Dan Rather. It might be interesting to see an analysis of the “truthiness” of all news sources. Peter
  22. It usually comes down to The Joo ... Readers can find a spate of Q/QAnon posts beginning here, along with a lengthy commentary here:
  23. Q is saying Adam Schiff is Mossad.
  24. The Gang from QAnon Anonymous podcast hooked up with the jaded, middle-class meddler Jared Holt. Maybe we could assemble a list of OL Member-Approved QAnon-whisperers. My guess is that Praying Medic, InTheMatrixxx, Liz Crokin and Joe M (StormIsUponUs) would be in a Top Ten.
  25. William, There must have been some kind of miscommunication. I thought it was clear--for a long time now--that everyone on OL speaks for himself or herself. And OL-Speak is not a thing. Also, about QAnon, you keep quoting me from the early times and totally forgetting that I said after that, but still a long time ago, I lost interest because it had been infiltrated. Thus I can't tell, or even reasonably presume, that the same person is presenting the information. Since I can't tell anything for sure, I just don't talk about it. Jon likes it. So what? It's reasonable to challenge him on it if you want. But, without going into QAnon's reliability or whatever, the issues QAnon brings up are very interesting precisely because the elitists (and the big government idiot power mongers you tend to support) don't want those issues discussed. So I kinda like that Jon likes it. I like that those issues get discussed. Let's keep the sunlight on them and see what happens. As to motley issues, other people on OL talk about matters of food, Aristotle's wheel paradox, music of all sorts, a fantasy world here and there, politics of course, (I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to favor President Trump ), hell, you yourself promote your manmade climate change religion. Sometimes you are challenged on it, sometimes not. But I don't see a nonstop mocking of manmade climate change rubes (of which there are counteless--much worse and much more numerous than the backwater Christian survivalists you like to mock). I don't see one thread after another with few people posting on them about how stupid and retarded and funny-looking and wacko-talking the people who believe in manmade climate change are. You seem to like doing that about QAnon, so whatever. It's your delight, not mine. I'm just noticing that it's akin to masturbating in public. Nobody's going along with you and nobody even wants to look. I assume you want more, so that's why I'm noting your total inability to propagandize with any kind of effectiveness. You do not do the basics. Even on a relevancy of QAnon level, you don't talk to Jon much about it. You try to address the entire forum as if the forum itself speaks with one voice, and that voice is the one you like to mock. OL is a forum of individuals, not groupthink. So you're not talking to the right person. That's primary for propaganda. Identify your target people correctly and address them, not something in your head and only in your head. Sorry, dude. People who think as individuals are not interested, especially if you are not interested in them enough to even try to see if they are interested. Just look at the numbers. Nobody's showing up to your party except some tiny, tiny slim pickings. So, no. Nobody is studying to avoid talking about QAnon like you said. You are boring them and they don't give a crap. That's what's really happening. If nonstop Mission from God bashing of QAnon followers gives you your jollies so you can feel all superior and stuff about Objectivism, the people around here, or whoever or whatever you need to look down on as a measure of your own identity, knock yourself out. The only one laughing is you. Well... sometimes Carol shows up to give two or three claps at a time. But even Korben ain't showing up for a high-five anymore. Not about this. Apparently, you bored him, too. Anyway, who needs an audience, right, mah mayannn? Popularity and influence are such badges of vulgarity. I mean pandering to the commoners and all that. Who has the time? Harrumph... Having an audience is so passé, mon cher... n'est pas? So when do you think you will be ready for prime time? Getting close? Michael