imurray

I was referring to using extreme examples in your arguments rather than using the more nuanced examples that are more likely happen in our world now which are much harder to deal with in black and white terms than something like Nazis or slaves. Critics of health care are fine, it was the sarcastic form the criticism took and the fact that I didn't consider this particular article helpful that I took issue with. I respect you and your ideas - in the most basic sense of the word. Clarifying is good, nothing against clarification. Some things just will never be fully "settled" though as I don't believe that there is an absolute truth to find. I see everything as a bit of a compromise, that is, when we do agree on things it's usually not a "perfect fit" but a "best fit". It may not be precisely "middle ground", but in reality it's not as simple as distilling things to pure forms that reside only in the realm of truth. Admitting things are murky is the first step in my opinion, it's part of realizing that there is not one preconceived ideology that's going to solve every problem. Once you admit that, you can search for the best route through it - I'm not advocating that we wallow in it and be happy doing so. I like your thoughts here and would prefer this to my conception of Rand's theory. However, I have a hard time believing this is what her theory advocates. I was trying to use her life and choices as examples. I wasn't trying to advocate that one should be alone or insinuating that's what Rand said - I was trying to show that she put herself and her happiness first and foremost (in a way she would probably self-describe as selfish according to her definition of the word). In 'Atlas Shrugged', don't the hard workers up and leave as a way to break free from those who were treading on their 'happiness'(I can't think of a better word right now) and at least threaten to start a new society instead of sticking around and sacrificing another second of their happiness for others? I may have been unclear because I used the example of a single person, but I wasn't trying to set it up as social atomism. I guess stoking the system is a way of dealing with it, as long as you've taken care of yourself before attempting to take care of others - wouldn't it be altruistic otherwise?

David, That's understandable and I agree with. I personally think everyone should learn how to survive on their own (at least as much as one reasonably can). For me it's a matter of peace of mind and not feeling as if I rely solely on the skills of others - especially when I'm more than capable of taking the time to learn for myself. It's also my general attitude: there's no reason I can't learn to sweat a pipe or wire an outlet if I have the time and desire to do so, so why not do it? I also don't like to rely on other people for my happiness or well being - so I eat well and exercise and find things to do that make me happy. I don't think I'm wrong to say that many Americans share a similar mindset - albeit it probably not to the exact same level that I happen to take things (some do more and some do less). That's why I feel that we're resilient enough to take on big problems, like this could potentially be, and come out of it okay. I'm glad that you care about the happiness of others. I do too. The final paragraph of my post was referring to Objectivism and what a response from that perspective might look like.

I wasn't making an appeal to Wittgenstein as an authority figure in any of my comments, Dan. I was stating that George was indeed trying to appeal to the authority of the men he mentioned to prove that he couldn't have been "duped" or "fooled". I agree with you, I don't care what the majority of the field says as I really don't care that George can name three or four people who agree with him - that was my point. I used Wittgenstein as one example of a "good" philosopher of language who may say something contrary to what George stated in his comment: "as any good philosopher of language will tell you, to employ metaphors in definitions is rarely a good idea." I didn't realize that George was the arbiter of who is and isn't considered a "good" philosopher (I had no idea at the time that aphorisms = not good). So I was pointing out that if George can deny Wittgenstein, why shouldn't I or anybody else deny the men he's used to back up his claim? Another question: Why do you feel the need to come to George's defense, especially when you're not familiar with the whole context of the argument? I truly didn't think George was appealing to authority when he wrote "any good philosopher of language..." I thought he was appealing to a standard of what should be good philosophy of language. That is, that definition by metaphor is a bad way of defining things -- at least, if clarity and precision is the goal of definition. I thought George gave a good reason for this -- one that should not be controversial -- too. That is, that metaphors always have to be reduced to non-metaphor anyway and, so, [not his exact words] any metaphor is even further removed and introduces further problems with being unclear or other mistakes. I also didn't think him mentioning Russell and Blanshard was an appeal to authority. I thought he was merely telling everyone that others have also criticized Wittgenstein. (Russell actually could be considered a mentor of sorts of Wittgenstein. Not that that matters -- just bringing in some biographical detail.) Nor did I think it name-dropping. In other words, it didn't seem to me he was saying, "Oh, Russell and Blandshard thought Wittgenstein was a dufus, so let's dump on W." (I must confess to liking "Dump on W," but he's no longer in office, so it seems kind of old hat now, no? ) Rather, I thought he was trying to show that others have brought up reasons for doubting Wittgenstein's views. Of course, he didn't go over the particulars... That would be the next step here, but, my guess is, no one's going to take that. I wanted to give my opinion on Wittgenstein in the context of this discussion more than defend George's view. It just so happens that, in this case, his and my views on the subject are much the same. Minor quibble with this whole discussion: I think we should start another topic on the board -- just to separate this out of the ethics or altruism discussion. Dan! I didn't say George was appealing to authority when he wrote that I said he was appealing to authority when he name dropped the three or four philosophers and their titles that happen to agree with him. It wasn't his mentioning of Russel or Blandshard that I was talking about either. It also has nothing to do with Wittgenstein's philosophy. You're confused and I'd advise you to go back and read our discussion before you reply. This all started earlier on than the examples you're citing. I think even George would agree with this assessment of your comments.

What I said was that I don't regard Wittgenstein as an "especially good" philosopher of language. I said this because, despite his flashes of insight, Wittgenstein's remarks about language are mainly aphoristic, and I don't regard aphorisms as a good way to do philosophy. I would say a similar thing about Nietzsche -- even though I like him in some respects -- to the extent that some of his more significant points, however suggestive, are expressed in aphorisms that lack detailed arguments and analyses. Various philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Brand Blanshard, have made similar observations about Wittgenstein's' approach to linguistic philosophy. Moreover, I didn't mention various philosophers who take Rand seriously to "prove" anything. Learn to read, for crying out loud. Ghs I can read just fine, perhaps you should work on being clearer "for crying out loud". I didn't realize you were name dropping for the sake of name dropping - I thought you were trying to imply that because you (a learned philosopher) and a few other "serious" philosophers take her philosophy seriously it's improbable that one could say that you are wrong (or have been duped or that you're a fool, as you put it) - especially by someone who you don't hold in the same high regard as these men. Should I have thought you meant something else by this? Seems like a blatant appeal to authority to me. Oh wait, I'm wrong - I said you said "good" instead of "especially good" - that changes everything! I must not know how to read for crying out loud! I made the remark about philosophers who respected Rand in the course of asking a question. I wanted to know what implications, if any, Rand's supposed fakery carried for those philosophers. I cannot understand why you misconstrued this as "an appeal to authority." And it had nothing to do with "name dropping." Where do you come up with this crap? As for my comment about Wittgenstein, you should have asked what I meant before mouthing off. There was a reason why I qualified my remark with "especially." I even considered writing a brief explanation in the original post, but since the point wasn't relevant to anything, I decided against including one. Ghs Let the bullying continue, George. It's what you said, be a big man and own up to it for a change instead of weaseling your way around it with your fancy dance steps and quick insults. You're not g-damn infallible. Are you really telling me you believe it when you say that you didn't mention these distinguished people and the fact that you've spent 45 years studying philosophy to imply that you and these men know better than whoever it was you were arguing with - as an appeal to your collective authority? Were you not being sarcastic when you said "lacking your keen insight"? That's really the serious question you were in the middle of asking? You're telling me that this is what you intended to solicit form that question: "I wanted to know what implications, if any, Rand's supposed fakery carried for those philosophers". Bull! The question was sarcastic and intended as an insult and you know it. And then you try to make it look like I'm the crazy one for thinking that's what you meant by your constant insults? Your stuff wouldn't be published in the undergraduate review here and I know that for a fact because I've been on the committee that selects entries. So you can be as smug as you'd like in the incestuous self-selecting little club you 'publish' in - I'm not scared of you. I can hurl insults too if that's your idea of arguing.

What I said was that I don't regard Wittgenstein as an "especially good" philosopher of language. I said this because, despite his flashes of insight, Wittgenstein's remarks about language are mainly aphoristic, and I don't regard aphorisms as a good way to do philosophy. I would say a similar thing about Nietzsche -- even though I like him in some respects -- to the extent that some of his more significant points, however suggestive, are expressed in aphorisms that lack detailed arguments and analyses. Various philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Brand Blanshard, have made similar observations about Wittgenstein's' approach to linguistic philosophy. Moreover, I didn't mention various philosophers who take Rand seriously to "prove" anything. Learn to read, for crying out loud. Ghs I'm in general agreement with you on Wittgenstein and on his approach to philosophy. (Even his notebooks are much the same. I'd originally thought, when I approached studying him, that he was too busy moving from one idea to the next to write out a long treatise for mere mortals to read and had hoped his notebooks and other writings would contain such a treatise.) In my opinion, Wittgenstein does have some merit, but I think he's vastly overrated and I see him as, in many ways, a distraction if not a deadend, in the history of philosophy. Also, for Pantopic, I would never gauge a thinker -- in philosophy or any field -- by looking at what the majority in that field -- even a majority of the serious -- at a given time think or believe about said thinker. Of course, I'd likely read or listen to what they wrote or have to say, but what they wrote or said would be judged, by me, based on how reasonable it was and how well it fit the facts (allowing, true, as I see reasonability and facts) and not merely on their authority. I hope you'd agree with me on this. If not, then I suppose you should read off what you think of all thinkers based on polls and let's forget about a serious discussion here. I wasn't making an appeal to Wittgenstein as an authority figure in any of my comments, Dan. I was stating that George was indeed trying to appeal to the authority of the men he mentioned to prove that he couldn't have been "duped" or "fooled" (or maybe he was just mentioning their credential for the fun of it). I agree with you, I don't care what the majority of the field says as I really don't care that George can name three or four people who agree with him - that was my point. I used Wittgenstein as one example of a "good" philosopher of language who may say something contrary to what George stated in his comment: "as any good philosopher of language will tell you, to employ metaphors in definitions is rarely a good idea." I didn't realize that George was the arbiter of who is and isn't considered a "good" philosopher (I had no idea at the time that aphorisms = not good). So I was pointing out that if George can deny Wittgenstein, why shouldn't I or anybody else deny the men he's used to back up his claim? It was silly of him to make a claim that started with "any good philosopher of language" anyway as it was a meaningless statement without an agreed upon conception of what a "good" philosopher of language even is (that's why I've been putting "good" in quotes all along). Another question: Why do you feel the need to come to George's defense, especially when you're not familiar with the whole context of the argument?

What I said was that I don't regard Wittgenstein as an "especially good" philosopher of language. I said this because, despite his flashes of insight, Wittgenstein's remarks about language are mainly aphoristic, and I don't regard aphorisms as a good way to do philosophy. I would say a similar thing about Nietzsche -- even though I like him in some respects -- to the extent that some of his more significant points, however suggestive, are expressed in aphorisms that lack detailed arguments and analyses. Various philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Brand Blanshard, have made similar observations about Wittgenstein's' approach to linguistic philosophy. Moreover, I didn't mention various philosophers who take Rand seriously to "prove" anything. Learn to read, for crying out loud. Ghs I can read just fine, perhaps you should work on being clearer "for crying out loud". I didn't realize you were name dropping for the sake of name dropping - I thought you were trying to imply that because you (a learned philosopher) and a few other "serious" philosophers take her philosophy seriously it's improbable that one could say that you are wrong (or have been duped or that you're a fool, as you put it) - especially by someone who you don't hold in the same high regard as these men. Should I have thought you meant something else by this? Seems like a blatant appeal to authority to me. Oh wait, I'm wrong - I said you said "good" instead of "especially good" - that changes everything! I must not know how to read for crying out loud!

George pronounced, in another thread, that Wittgenstein wasn't a "good" philosopher of language despite what I suspect a majority of serious philosophers might think (even if they don't agree with him they certainly respect his scholarship and contributions). That alone contradicts his attempt to name drop a few notable philosophers, who he happens to agree with, to prove Rand's philosophic abilities. If invoking Wittgenstein isn't good enough for George, then he must know that naming these also-Rands is surely not good enough.

Why, George, you extremist nutcase radical! I suppose next you'll be telling slaves they should be free -- rather than urging them to select the middle ground of being beaten only half as much. Reality police! The world we live in is a rather muddy, murky place. Instead of floating above the muddy water by using extreme examples that are rare, unlikely, and mainly exist in your heads, you should get your hands dirty once in a while. I always find it funny when people who know nothing about my life tell me I should get my hands dirty or something along those lines. The things I could show you! Again, I see the program as bad and likely to lead to worse things. Granted, any bad program that paves the way for worse things is something most of us will have to learn to live with -- and, it's quite likely, most of us will not live in constant agony over the program. But what are the silver linings you see to this very dark cloud? Well, when are you going to write the article George asked for? What's the "useful contribution to the health care conversation" to be made here? I think the most useful contributions anyone can make at this time are to persuade as many people as possible to go against this program and to find ways around it. That's for the short run. In the long run, I think the best contribution would be getting as many people as people to understand what a free market in healthcare could be like. My remarks are based on what I've read here. I'm sure there's plenty I don't know about you and would hope that there is something you have to contribute to the world (I hadn't assumed you didn't, but thanks for making that clear)! I'm not going to write an article because George asked for it. Why would I or should I do what he tells me to do? I respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them. That's why things are murky, not because I said something about "middle ground", but because there are plenty of intelligent people who hold different opinions. I do have another observation to make that admittedly isn't necessarily on topic. If Objectivists believe in individualism why do they seem so worried by what other people do and so keen on forming an 'us' against 'them' dichotomy? Don't they believe that they are responsible for their own lives and whatever happens is of their own making? Look at Ayn Rand, she didn't stay in her country and try to change things - she upped and moved to America where she was free to take up her writing and philosophy. Albeit she made it one of her goals to show how her home country was wrong and to 'help' from a distance, but she left to a place where she was safe and could make a good life for herself first. One could say that she was lucky to have a country like America to come to, but my understanding is that Objectivists don't believe in luck because that could potentially reduce an individual's accomplishments to something like fate and that would be problematic in a theory of free market capitalism where hard work and intelligence are responsible for an individual's achievements (although I'm not sure what would have happened if she didn't have an 'America' to move to). So here you are in America - you perceive a negative change that could affect you personally what do you do about it? It would seem to me that Rand would say that if you let this affect you it would be your own fault not the fault of some ambiguous 'them'. So, what do you do? You can get depressed and write dreary articles like this guy did or come up with extreme scenarios or blame another group for your unhappiness, but in the end an Objectivist is responsible for their own life first and foremost. So if you don't believe what I said about making things work for you, who do you think should? Do you think you should suffer and sacrifice for your cause - Rand didn't and probably would say that it is unethical to even think about sacrificing your happiness for it. Am I wrong to believe that whatever happens with health care I'll be fine? I'm competent at plumbing, electrical, and building; know enough about biology, chemistry, medicine, to get by if things got really bad; am strong, fit, and know self-defense; know how to grow and catch food; etc. I'd like to think I've done my best to prepare myself for the worst and feel confident that if I needed to I could survive.

That's awesome Brant! Way to make another useful contribution to the debate! I'm curious: Why did you not complain about GS's similarly "useful contribution to the debate"? Because although everyone here is quick with the insults, rarely do they dedicate an entire post to it without at least pretending to make another point that is relevant to the topic of the debate.

That's awesome Brant! Way to make another useful contribution to the debate!

Yup, I've been objecting to governmental violations of individual rights for a long time. You, in contrast, seem to regard increasing the use of coercion as a good thing. So tell me -- if a thug, while robbing you, tells you that he will merely shoot you in the foot rather than kill you if you refuse to turn over your money, do you consider his mitigated threat to be "middle ground"? You don't want to be an unreasonable extremist, after all. Ghs Why, George, you extremist nutcase radical! I suppose next you'll be telling slaves they should be free -- rather than urging them to select the middle ground of being beaten only half as much. Reality police! The world we live in is a rather muddy, murky place. Instead of floating above the muddy water by using extreme examples that are rare, unlikely, and mainly exist in your heads, you should get your hands dirty once in a while. Just because I would reject the idea that I would consider his threat to be "middle ground" or that I think we should resist and fight if people wanted to bring back slavery or if the Nazis made a come back does not mean that taking the middle ground in reasonable situations is wrong or "weak" as you might believe it to be. Sometimes there is simply more than one useful way to look at things - and that's how I think about things despite what you may believe to the contrary. I did not like this article, not because I don't agree with it, but because I don't find that the author made a useful contribution to the health care conversation. My opinion, yup it sure is. You're entitled to your own and the author of the article to his, so don't keep coming up with ridiculous examples or make it seem like I'm advocating something I'm not to try to bully me into a corner - it's not going to work.

I just have one question: Who is going to settle the debate next? This thread is in desperate need of a facilitator. Who knows, maybe the idea that it can be resolved is a bit altruistic???

That's the only option, of course. I've never posted on a board with so many people who jump to extremes and see no middle ground. I can see what you call "middle ground," but I would probably call it a "swamp." Ghs You can't see the middle ground and what you imagine in its place is swamp. I'm sure that's what you meant as you obviously can't objectively know what I mean by middle ground. If you did, you might come to visit - and you'd be surprised, you wouldn't need boots or bug spray. First you need to shovel your way out from where you are and that might take a while - seems you have been at this a long time.

That's the only option, of course. I've never posted on a board with so many people who jump to extremes and see no middle ground.

Let's bring back slavery! I could use a couple of slaves around the house. "We'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great." You betcha! I do draw the line at Naziism, but I'm sure we could even adapt to that once we finish up with the Jews. --Brant Haha. Nice try Brant.

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them. Bob If that's what she meant then we should looking for tautological arguments within her system.

No, I don't consider Wittgenstein to be an especially good philosopher of language, but that's not the point. My comment referred to the use of metaphors in definitions, not to their use in other contexts, where they can be extremely useful. Literal definitions are to be preferred over metaphorical definitions, whenever this is possible. I daresay you will find this advice in almost any elementary text on logic that you care to consult. As for the claim that "all words are metaphors," that simply robs the term "metaphor" of any meaning, since there remains no literal meaning -- or "polar" term, as a Wittgensteinian might say -- to contrast it with. Ghs Time-binding is a concept, not a definition yet you went on to say that it was a metaphor and that made it bad because you shouldn't use metaphors in definitions. That was the cause for my confusion.

'Conceptual', there is another vague term. Can you explain this in more detail? Speaking of vague terms, I've been hoping that you would define what you mean by "time," and define it in such a way that it is meaningful to say humans can "bind" time. So far, no luck. I suspect that "time-binding" is a metaphor -- and as any good philosopher of language will tell you, to employ metaphors in definitions is rarely a good idea. Ghs Actually any good philosopher of language, like Wittgenstein, used metaphors all the time, e.g., "language game" or "form of life". There are also 'good' philosophers of language wo say that the essence of language is metaphor - that all words are metaphors. I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "good" philosophers of language - perhaps you meant to say "those philosophers of language who I agree with".

Leonid, Do you realize you're not making any sense? You're arguing that Rand created a perfect definition of sacrifice and that any definition that does not agree with it is violating A=A. There are at least two major flaws here: 1. Why is Rand's definition the correct one and the non-Rand definition the contradiction? Why not the other way around? 2. Do you believe that either a dictionary or Rand's lexicon represent some kind of transcendental master texts (bibles if you will) that contain absolute knowledge and truth. If I write a book and decide to define "man" as a cold blooded reptile and used that definition consistently throughout would the word police come to my home or would I be struck down by lightening? Would my definition be wrong if it made sense within the context of my text?

Leonid, I think we are saying the same thing, but if that's the case one of your comments has to be wrong. You can't say: and then say: Why can "bank" mean different things in different systems, but "man" cannot? You were arguing that the word "man" has an absolute essence in reality, which is why I said your argument was Platonic, i.e., you're arguing that the word "man" has only one absolute "true" meaning. Whenever you enter the realm of absolute truth you're treading on Plato. I also disagree with you about the words "Ellsworth Toohey" - can't these arrangements of letters refer to a concept in Rand's book? If they don't refer to a concept what do they refer to, since in this case it can't refer to flesh and bones because it's a fictional character? Here's a test for you: think of the words "Ayn Rand" if the only thing that pops into your head is "proper name" then maybe you're on to something. If however you think "author", "philosopher", "woman", etc. are you still certain that "Ayn Rand" refers to nothing but "proper name" or do you think it might also refer to your conception of who or what "Ayn Rand" is?

Leonid, If you wanted to write a story with a character named Ellsworth Toohey who happened to be the model of rugged individualism, capitalism, and objective reasoning could you do that or would it be wrong because that's not the 'essence' of the the particular arrangement of letters that form the words Ellsworth Toohey? What your discussing is purely Platonic - that there is some kind of form or essence hiding behind each word.

This is proof that speculation is still modus operandi on Wall Street, nothing more.

Tony, Thanks for your earlier, thoughtful, response. As I come to understand Rand's definitions vs. colloquial definitions I am getting a better sense of what she meant and a lot of the confusion is falling away. For instance, after reading some Comte, who coined the term altruism, I now have a better understanding of what Rand means by altruism and I think it's safe to say she was more or less 'true' to his conception of the word. I know that some people aren't fond of the way she "co-opted" so-called "common" terms, but I've yet to read a philosopher who didn't have to create some kind of novel vocabulary to explain their theory (I think of Foucault's use of "archaeology, langue, and parole; Heidegger's "equipment" or "being"; Dewey's "consummatory moment"; Bergson's "elan vital"; Wittgenstein's "grammar"; not to mention the many philosophic definitions of "reality", "knowledge", etc.). Learning the unique vernacular of a philosophical treatise is all part of the game. The real issue is not the word itself or its definition, but whether or not the philosophy leaves out or fails to adequately explain certain phenomena. It also becomes an issue if the word, along with its definition, is used inconsistently within the context of a particular philosophy. Remember that words are just signifiers. If Rand is using common words as some kind of rhetorical trope to cause confusion then that's an issue. For example, if she left the definition of "altruism" ambiguous so that it might also include colloquial definitions, then we should be able to find inconsistencies in the way she used it or phenomena she includes or excludes in particular examples. She can't have her cake and eat it too.

No big deal... I do agree about overreacting. It does get to be a bit much, especially in politics where many portray their team or plan as the salvation of the nation while, at the same time, painting their adversaries and their plans as completely depraved and wicked -- and each conflict as Armageddon rather than merely just another disagreement unlikely to even be remember a decade or two hence. I don't think David Hogberg (the author of the article) is overreacting at all. Assuming his facts are correct, which they probably are, his predictions are simply a matter of black letter law. I agree with Dan that Obama Care will lead to greater governmental restrictions on behavior, in the name of keeping down health care costs. If anything is inevitable in politics, this surely is. Ghs I don't think that you can necessarily say "so it is written, so it shall be done" (unless you're Yul Brenner, of course). I personally don't like articles like this, but that's just my opinion. I don't like the way it's written, I don't like the sarcasm, and I don't like the defeatists language. I don't find it helpful and I think it's discouraging. Not that everything needs to be upbeat and serious, but we're getting bombarded by this kind of gloom and doom journalism and few of these people are talking about how to make the best of this or how to protect ourselves. If you really want to be informed, read the plan. I'd encourage everyone to do that - it's long, but if it's the panacea one side thinks it is or the end of the US as the other side thinks it is then it's probably worth skipping a few weeks of American Idol for. Frankly, I predict that most Americans won't even notice the change especially all of 'us' in the "silent majority" who are going to continue to do what we've always done, which is get by and do it with the kind of pizazz only an American can. In other words, even if everything happens that he says will happen, we'll find a way to make it work for us because that's what we've always done and that's what makes us great.

I'm wondering when the argument will be made that behaviors should be further regulated to keep down national healthcare costs. This has already been done, of course, but it'll, no doubt, start to play a bigger role in national politics if and once the reforms are passed. As a realist, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'm not going to get hung up in speculation. I've been burned too many times by so called "experts" on either side of the aisle and in the media who have touted the next best thing or the thing that's going to ruin America and send us into an apocalypse. The truth is, the deed is done - we can either sit around and speculate how good or bad the fallout is going to be and rage against reality or we can find ways to deal with whatever comes around the corner be it good or bad. I wasn't saying nor did I mean the Earth was going to fall into the Sun or society would come to an end. My statement was rather more limited, I think, than your reaction would lead one to believe don't you think? And I also find nothing wrong, per se, in speculating. One can speculating and still deal with reality. I don't think one must do one or the other. Sorry, my reaction wasn't to your comment it was to the article in general. I shouldn't have quoted your comment in my response.