How I got over my frustration with Kerry.

I see many people out here are still angry with Kerry for conceding as quickly as he did. It frustrated me as well and I thought his gray statements -- intended to inform us that he was listening -- often made him look like the caricature the opposition painted of him (waffle boy). Part of my frustration stemmed from the Swifties when I wanted him to punch them back, and I didn't want a repeat.

However, after seeing what happened in Ohio, with recount laws having been openly trampled on, the chief justice failing to recuse himself and all the other problems we've covered ad nauseum out here, it has become clear that the way things are stacked, especially when factoring in the same Supreme Court we had in 2000, there was no chance for resolution in our favor.

We found out the hard (and extraordinarily frustrating) way how bad the system operates with partisans in control of the vote count. Kerry's team, which lives eats and breathes this stuff, undoubtedly knew well before we did.

Further, with the media virtually ignoring mounting evidence and Kerry having just gone through a public beating as the broadcast media kept alive the Swifty story long after the print media had thoroughly debunked it, it was not realistic to expect any kind of public support for a challenge to the results. (I say that now that I've seen how Ohio played out but was hopping mad earlier.)

What we have seen of Kerry after the election, however, is the beginning of a strategy to go after the problems in a way that is designed to disarm those opposed to fixing the system. Some will call him a sore loser for addressing election reform, but they really are grasping at straws and can't go far with it because he conceded. Further, he addressed the voting problems on MLK day to much criticism from Republicans, he voted down Rice, he's circulating a petition to dump Rumsfeld, he's aggressively pursuing health insurance for children, he made a stand today for clean elections and he is actively pursuing a reform agenda. As near as I can see, he is doing everything we want our elected officials to do at a time when very few of them will stick their necks out.

I thought this personal perspective might be useful to some of you who are still wound up. Not that my viewpoint is right and yours is wrong, or anything of that sort, but I thought it might help others struggling with the Kerry situation. I wanted him to stand up and fight in November so much I could have strangled him, but now that we've seen just how corrupted the system is, I can see why he's coming at it sideways.

Maybe it isn't worth the copper, but that's my two cents.

rallying in the streets over b*sh's second theft of the presidency. By backing out so quickly he took the wind out of our sails and left dead in the water.

"I'm not conceding, * cheated, some how, some way, and we're going to get to the bottom of this" that people (who were NOT in the areas where things happened) would have rallied with him, or would GOP spin doctors and right-wing media have torn him apart?

Look at this link
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm and tell me that there was a simple way for Kerry to stand up and fight.

The people had to rally first in order to get the politicians on board -- which happened. Sure, it would be great if we could get thousands instead of hundreds to attend rallies -- but it takes more of us, not celebrities and politicians, to stand up for this. The media will dismiss that in a heartbeat.

When NPR reported about Boxer and the others contesting the election -- they blew it off. I wrote them and said that the REASON that Boxer and Tubbs-Jones, and everyone else who stood for democracy did so was BECAUSE the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of phone calls and faxes that they all received. That it was because of the People getting involved in this that our politicians stood up. Did it do any good? GOPs already had their speeches written, talking about fair elections and conspiracy theories, when Tubbs-Jones and Boxer stood up for the disenfranchisement and machine disparity (visible) things that happened. Interesting.

edit: typo

Some times you have to give up a lot to get back on the road to truth and Democracy. If Kerry had stood up, said the election looked crocked and the people need to get their Democracy back. So what if the media ate him up for awhile. There were millions of people who voted for Kerry and actually had their vote count. There were millions more who voted for Kerry and didn't get their vote counted. You and I would have taken to the street without a second thought if Kerry had said "today we stand up for our right for a fair election."

But no, he left us high and dry, feeling lost and abandoned. The war in Iraq would have been played over the election fraud story but the media couldn't hide thousands of people standing in DC and not leaving until a fair count was taken. Kerry could have led mass rallies and the media couldn't have hidden them. Kerry could have stood up to the media spin. Kerry could have been our leader. Did Ukraine fall apart because people demanded fair elections? No. Neither would have the United States of America fallen apart if Kerry had lead us to rally for the right of fair elections.

feeling I don't think it would have gotten far -- look at the Recounts in Ohio -- Blackwell did everything in his power to obstruct and hinder, and counter sued when lawsuits were filed. It wasn't even until the end of November that I found DU -- had been on Brad Blog a lot -- when I realized how very deep the vote problem was... and, I wonder if it happened then, if we would have only gotten the tip of the iceburg anyway....

At least this way we have many things -- including the contest of Ohio's votes on-record. Will it do any good? I tend to think that the deep work is just beginning. I'm not pleased with this administration, but maybe it's better for "history" to go down in disgrace instead of just being not elected for a second term.

Time will tell.

"why didn't he just stand up and fight?" but I agree that the cards were stacked, and they knew it. After all, didn't they (the GOP)strategically strike Fallujah when they thought Kerry would be "fighting" for every vote? (well you might not believe this, but there was an interesting article about this right after the election http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm ) - the author gives a good case, anyways....

But the question is what do we do now. This country is now in a Code Red status, we are moving closer to the abyss every day, what is to be done, I don't think this is the time to stay the course and play polite politics. I don't think we can wait 4 more years for a resolution here.

:bounce:

Something definitely needs to be done, and we can't wait 4 more years. I just wish to hell I knew what to do.

Hand count at the precinct level and above. Paper trail count to take precedence over any machine count. Then regain the Congress in '06. Then impeach the chimp. Two More Years at worse.

How does that get done with this Congress?
And if we don't get it done by 06, how are we going to get any seats back in Congress?

Like aWoL said that is not going to happen.

My biggest beef is with the thieves squatting in the White House, I always ask my husband how can they live with themselves for (fill in the blank with myriad acts of evil) and he keeps reminding me that they just don't care. Kerry didn't have a legal leg to stand on with the votes being stolen just enough to make a re-count impossible and any taking to the streets would have been downplayed as sour grapes and the conspiracy theorist crap they had already made a foundation with. We were punked.

before the truth is uncovered (if ever) I believe election theft has been going on smaller scale for quite a while. Local elections in Florida among other states have been the testing ground for the big "coup d'etat"

...the most important promise of all. To count all the votes. What was the big hurry with the consession? If he had stuck around ... a real recount that wasn't some phony sham would have to have been conducted because all eyes would have been watching. Once he quit..only us die-hards cared a whit, and Blackwell got a way with the murder of democracy in Ohio, and by extention in the entire United States.

In addition, I take issue with the sour grapes and sore loser political suicide theory. Barbara Boxer stood alone to call the electoral vote into question. She didn't die. She has no grapes hangin' to be sour, and I would argue that she is the most powerful voice in the Democratic Party among grass roots supporters today...BECAUSE SHE DID SOMETHING!

John Kerry made a very serious error in judgement. His 10,000 lawyers said he couldn't win and the tired, exhasuted candidate listened to them. The result is four more years of damage beyond belief. The responsibility for that is squarely at the feet of JFK II. He won this gut-wrenching election and walked away in less than twelve hours when the republican controlled tabulators, and lazy press called it for Bush.

Ah-fucking-mazing! I will never get over it.

..is that he didnt just concede, he set the tone for the current (minus howard dean) self-defeating tone of the dems.

It is possible, and IMO likely that if Kerry had made a big deal about the stolen election the MSM would have given it a lot more coverage than they did. Remember, CNN (and I don't know how many other networks) didn't even call Ohio for Bush until the next day, when Kerry conceded.

In other words, I believe that there was a chance that Kerry could have won, and even if he didn't there would be a lot more people in this country who would know what's going on.

So I think that Kerry made the wrong decision. I'm not angry at him, however. He did what he thought was right, and he has given a lot of courageous service to our country, and everyone is entitled to make mistakes.

I just feel like a very great and important opportunity was lost.

with the Swifties, I can see why they followed the path they did.

Even if the election couldn't be overturned he could of thown a monkey wrench into the Chimp's fraud machine.

"there was no chance for resolution in our favor."

This was the predominant conclusion voiced last summer by a preponderance of IT community e-voting researchers (DU, BlackboxVoting.com & .org, VerifiedVoting.com) after exhaustive analysis of how the election would likely be stolen.

"Kerry's team, which lives eats and breathes this stuff, undoubtedly knew well before we did."

Yes they knew. Just as they "know" Kerry won by at least 1.7 million votes. That's why all the IT research into voting systems last year; the gathering together of all those volunteer lawyers; the raising of millions of dollars to fight after November 2nd; and Kerry's strategy to keep the pressure off the election fraud investigation by conceding.

They knew, but as most IT researchers concluded last June, uncovering sufficient proof of electronic fraud in the short time 11/2/04 and 1/6/05 to win in court was highly unlikely.

I think Kerry knows full well at this point that there is no winning a presidential election without first recovering fair, secure and accurate voting systems. The question is: How the hell can he hope to achieve this? Are Republicans in congress going to blithely give up the RNC's control of voting systems in this country? Is that why they are moving on California's and New York's voting systems as I type this? The truth is, Kerry and the Dems in congress are impotent in their efforts to change reality. The only practical course for change that has any real prospect of recovering our votes is at the state level where: the preponderance of election laws reside, election systems are chosen, RNC control is not yet absolute, and elected state officials face the real prospect (in some cases, already a reality) of RNC control of votes reaching them and their offices at the local level. HAVA reveals what we can expect out of the conference committee at the federal level should any of the federal election reform bills pass the Senate and House. HAVA gave us: e-voting without paper trails mandated, political control of all election systems in the office of SoS, provisional ballots where we vote, they decide if our votes will count, 3% phony recounts. Why do we persist in the illusion we can expect the RNC controlled federal government will roll over and fix any of this without making it worse or increasing their control of our votes? That is blindness we MUST get over. In fact, I do not want the RNC federal government given another opportunity to make our voting systems worse. Federal election reform bills give them that very opportunity of slipping in provisions and/or wording that improve their control and further erode our chances of recovering our democracy. Take the battle to the states!

The conversation was about "the only way for them to win is thru massive fraud".

When Clinton's 1996 dir of campaign Ops(Currently working for Kerry-) tells you the one worry he has is massive fraud---you listen.

And Kip I think Kerry won by -- 10% -- it wasnt even close---


Roj

...I DO think it's extremely important to understand what has happened to our country, such that the man who was elected president specifically to oust the Bush Cartel did not and could not take office.

Leading up to the election, Zogby predicted a Kerry win, saying that no president in modern times has been re-elected with such low approval ratings as Bush had. Bush's approval ratings have continued to be dismal--hovering at about 50%--and falling to 48% on his Inauguration Day (!), an unprecedented "vote of no confidence" by the American people in a recently "elected," second term president.

Nearly 60% of Americans STILL oppose the Iraq War, now, today. 63% of Americans oppose torture under any circumstances. And that's after three years of relentless lies and propaganda and fear-mongering, and a virtual Iron Curtain over the country's news apparatus screening out criticism of Bush and his war policy.

The vast majority of Americans OPPOSE Bush's two major war policies: pre-emptive war and torture. Today.

The grass roots democracy movement that arose to oust the Bush Cartel--the most magnificent thing that I've ever seen happen in this country--produced a remarkable voter registration drive--a blowout for the Democrats in new registration (Dems 57%, Repubs 41%). The exit polls of new voters on election day almost exactly paralleled those numbers, showing that 59% of new voters voted for Kerry, as opposed to 39% for Bush.

When you add all the numbers up, here's what you get as a predicted vote for Kerry (study by Dr. Steven Freeman): Gore 2000 repeat voters + huge new voter registration of Democrats + big jump of Nader voters to Kerry = a 4 to 8 million vote margin for Kerry that somehow evaporated on election day.

Were new voters flocking to the Democratic Party to vote for Bush? If you live in Wonderland they do. It's not reasonable to think that. And what about all those repeat Democratic voters? Were they dragging their co-workers, friends and family members to get registered and vote, so that they could all go vote for George Bush? Come on.

Kerry had a rock solid majority going in--that inexplicably disappeared, and ended up in Bush's column. That majority involved a huge population of new voters--hard to poll prior to an election. The pollsters thought it would be close. The evidence is that it wasn't close. Kerry won handily.

The exit polls on election day confirmed a Kerry win, by 3%. This was after massive vote suppression by Republican election officials and operatives in Florida, Ohio and other places. The exit polls talk to people who have just voted. They can't talk to people who never got to vote. So Kerry's margin was probably 4% to 5% or greater--in votes that were suppressed, or possibly some of it in actual votes. The recent UScountvotes report by nine Ph.D.'s from leading universities suggests that Kerry's margin was even greater than the exit poll 3%--they found bias toward Republican voters in the exit poll data (indicating a bigger margin for Kerry)--and further found a skew to Bush in electronic voting vs. other methods of voting at the precinct level (a skew that has been confirmed by several other studies, one by an entirely separate group of top statistics experts, at UC Berkeley, studying Florida's three largest Democratic counties).

Every expert who looks at the election numbers--exit polls vs. official tally, paper or other voting method vs. electronic, top of the ticket vs. lower ticket, or the number of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes (at least 90 reported incidents) vs. the number of touchscreens favoring Kerry (0)--has found astronomical odds against a Bush win. The UScountvotes report puts the odds against the Bush win at 1 in 10 million.

The Democratic Party leadership, including the Kerry campaign leaders, knew much of this on election night, and certainly knew it soon afterward. They have their own internal polls, and gauges of new voter registration, etc. The puzzle is, why are they acting like they don't know it?

And here's something else I think they knew: that the election system was a set up for fraud. These are people whose JOB it is to get votes. While ordinary Americans might not have known that Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson (big Bush partisans) would be counting all our votes behind their "Wizard of Oz" curtain of SECRET, proprietary source code--because the lapdog media didn't report it--the Democratic leaders certainly knew it. Why didn't they cry foul long before the election? Why didn't they warn voters?

I've been known to read too much into the above facts. One of my speculations is that the Democratic leadership largely supported the Iraq War (most members of Congress voted FOR it); they were not interested in the 2004 presidential election until the grass roots and Dean got busy with an antiwar campaign, then jumped in with a PRO-war candidate (Kerry, who never opposed the war, just how it was conducted), and maybe it was that these Democratic leaders actually preferred that Bush win and that the Republicans take the full rap for all the deaths and cost of this war. (The Iraq War benefits Democratic leaders by pumping up our unsustainable military economy, by taking that cost out of our hides, not out of the hides of the rich--our leaders are all millionaires and dependent on millionaire donors--by securing the last reserves of oil on earth for U.S. use and profit, and by surrounding Israel with US military protection.)

An ugly picture of the Democratic leadership--who may have deliberately thwarted the will of the majority, by permitting an inherently, obviously, fraudulent election system to be put into place, by not crying foul, and then by just walking away from Stolen Election II, leaving the grass roots democracy movement, which had given the Democratic Party a blowout in new voter registration, in tears and misery, wondering what hit them.

It is a very harsh judgment. It may not be such an open and shut case of betrayal. Human beings--especially Democrats--are rarely of one mind, and generally have mixed motives, and, in the case of the Bush Cartel, FEAR may be a major factor. God knows what kinds of blackmail and threats they are using.

But there is enough truth to it (to the notion of corruption and fascism, or elitism, in the Democratic Party leadership) that we need to look at it, at the very least for strategic reasons. Who are the allies of democracy? Who are its enemies? To what degree are they allies or enemies? How are they likely to behave--and why?

In California, we just went through the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP's inexplicable attack on the best Secretary of State in the country, Kevin Shelley--who had decertified and sued Diebold for their lies about the security of their voting machines, and had provided Californians with a paper ballot option for the 2004 election. He was THE national leader for demanding accountability from these companies, and in trying to protect the integrity of our vote. Democrats did this! Democrats! (Don Perata and Gloria Romero, of the CA Senate, and Connie McCormack, L.A. elections chief.) (Note: Shelley is a Democrat.) It looked for all the world like a Karl Rove operation.

So I'm not in a good mood about the political party that I've been a loyal member of for 44 years.

And I want to understand--and I want us all to understand--what's happened to this party, and what's happening to our country. We need to look at it with clear eyes and no delusions. We need to strategize for the restoration of democracy and majority rule, using the best information and insights we can get.

As to strategy, I think there are two things that we MUST do:

1. Recover our right to vote--a struggle that has to take place state by state. (Congress is NOT going to help, and may make things worse.) It's DOABLE at the state level, but it's still not going to be easy. What just happened in Calif. tells us that the BushCons (Dem or Repub) are way ahead of us. They already know this is a local fight, and are already trying to head it off.

2. After we restore our right to vote--which we MUST do--then we will need to get out a big broom and clean house.

As to the latter, the erosion of majority rule, and of all our rights, has occurred over several decades. It did not happen overnight. And some of the things that have most harmed us have been done by Democrats. (It wasn't the Bush Cartel that signed NAFTA et al into law, the so-called "free trade" agreements--the major cause of job outsourcing. It was Clinton and a Democratic Congress!).

Global corporations have moved from controlling politicians (including many Democrats) through our filthy campaign contribution system, to outright control over the counting of our votes (with some Democratic Party collusion or malfeasance). They have done this for a REASON--because our votes are a very powerful item, as to the regulation of US-based corporations, as they roam the globe in search of slave labor and seeking power and more profits from all of earth's remaining (and highly stressed) natural resources. They KNOW that we are actually a fairly well-informed population (despite all their efforts to the contrary), and that the majority of Americans favor peace, justice, fairness, true democracy, the rule of law, and strong environmental protection. They therefore had to inflict the coup de grace--direct disenfranchisement.

Some Democrats no longer represent the interests of the majority, and those who are trying to are hamstrung by UNDESERVED minority status. It is ludicrous that Democrats now have to try to stop the destruction of the Social Security fund. We SHOULD BE talking about how to END POVERTY, how to reform our horrible, racist prison and court system, how better to share wealth and opportunity, and how to save this planet from its predicted demise 50 years from now (due to the impacts of global corporations!).

We can't even prevent a torture advocate and law breaker from becoming Attorney General! The effort to stop the nomination of Alberto Gonzales was killed by SIX DEMOCRATS who voted for Gonzales, and THREE DEMOCRATS who didn't bother to show up to vote. (They killed the filibuster!) True, the majority of Democrats TRIED to stop it. But they didn't, and couldn't.

63% of Americans oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

How is it that the majority is not ruling?

This cannot happen without the collusion of at least part of the MAJORITY Party.

We might start with those 9 Democrats, when we get the big broom out. They are:

MARY LANDRIEU-LA, KEN SALAZAR-CO, MARK PRYOR-AR, BILL NELSON-FLA, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN-CT, BEN NELSON-NE, voting FOR Gonzales, and (not voting) Max Baucus-MT, Kent Conrad-MD, and Daniel Inouye-HI (the latter a shocking and inexplicable non-vote, need to find out if there was an innocent reason for it).

The most critical strategic question, to my mind, with regard to the national Dem leadership is: To what extent will they support, or--deliberately, or inadvertently--harm the necessarily local struggle for election integrity?

They don't have the votes in Congress to enact good legislation. And Congress could enact very bad legislation (for instance, a bill that does not require a solid voter verified paper ballot, and open source code, but which otherwise LOOKS GOOD, say, on minority voter rights). And ANY BILL that endorses, pushes or requires electronic voting is to be held in great suspicion. Re: minority voter rights. They can repeat the Voting Rights Act all they want, but who is going to enforce it? Alberto Gonzales--Bush's shill? And if BushCons can just tweak the source code and manufacture votes--as they did in 2004--what good are minority rights?

Beware of this--because we may see something get passed, with everybody including Bush crowing how they've done something--and it actually seriously undermines our rights, OR does nothing, but makes people think that things are now okay (and thus serves to defuse local movements for reform).

In so far as any Democratic Congress folk (or others, say Jeffords) are on the side of democracy, what they can do is, 1) prevent a really bad bill from being passed (or not be silent about it, if it is); and 2) jawbone election reform, to educate the public and get it in the news, and put pressure on the states.

I DO believe that Howard Dean (new DNC chair) is well informed on this matter, and will do all he can--nationally AND locally. That bodes well for the Democratic Party, and for our democracy. But the BushCons are not going to easily give up the control they've gained over vote counting--so look out for sabotage and worse against any genuine effort to regain true majority and public control--including stealth attacks like the one against Shelley.

As for John Kerry--and peoples' need to get over their anger at him, or forgive him, or whatever--I think he is a special case, in our evaluation of the Dem leadership. He was in one hell of a spot on 11/3. No matter that he might have helped put himself there--I think his choices at that time, from his point of view, were bad and terrible, and he chose bad (silence). "Terrible" was leading a revolution that might have turned bloody, or might simply have fizzled, due to BushCon control of Congress and the news media.

The TV networks had CHANGED the exit polls to fit the "official results," so very few people knew (on 11/3) that Kerry had won the exit polls. Also, the BushCon Congress would have endorsed Bush no matter what. Kerry could have presented them with a hundred "smoking guns"--including photos of Rove and O'Dell hacking the computers--and it would not have made ANY difference. They are crooks, liars and Bush Pod People--many of them "selected" by BushCon voting machines. No way they would have backed Kerry. They would have crucified him--possibly quite literally--had he tried to cry foul at that point (11/3, or thereafter). Lord knows what he went through. I don't think we can judge him any time soon.

Doesn't mean we can't assess and judge what's going on generally with the Dem Party, and with other Dem leaders, especially on the matter of the election system. We have to!

...it's not up to the leaders. It's up to US, collectively, as a democratic people. This is a democracy movement. THAT'S what it means. We, the people. It always has meant that, but maybe we're only just now fully realizing it.

I am not positive that Kerry won the popular vote. There were some Dem defections (5) in my immediate circle. Only 1 republican defection. I think the so called stats showed a higher Dem defection rate than Republican. In the case of my associates, it was the terrorists. They believed that Bush had kept the terrorists at bay because we had not been attacked again.

On the other hand, I remember the MSM talking about how the anti gay state ballots were to draw the conservatives out and the comment was while the religious leaders were fired up the congregations didn't think it was that important. So prior to the elections the MSM was reporting that the anti gay ballots would have limited impact.

From my small world view it could have gone either way.
I still want election justice, though. Ohio and Florida were just BS.

FWIW,
trudyco

Thank you for your valuable insight in this post. I appreciate your understanding of Kerry's complex situation. We have a huge battle ahead of us. The dirty tricks are so deep now, the stronghold of corruption so fierce, what the hell can we do to overcome this monster and take our country back?

not need Kerry to hold our hands, we know right from wrong (don't stop doing what you are doing ,thats what they want you to do) is what Kerry told us. This sounds like an order from the captain who's hands are tied for the moment. We need each other to fight this fight not Kerry.One e-mail or 35 thousand phone calls at a time,thats what it is going to take,not Kerry running from one supreme court to another,all while they cover up there crime's committed through out the country.If I was Kerry and saw all the dedicated web sites working against election fraud,I would not come out either,not just yet. If we convince vast majority of people in this country that Kerry did indeed win, Kerry would come out faster, than a cat trying to sh*t on a hot tin roof. And bushco had better take cover.

NGU

That crackhead in chief doesn't speak for me. (I guess this was his only chance). I want our hope back. We dems are supposed to be united. It's not fair. :mad: :cry:

If that was because of bad advice from his attorneys, then he should have listened to the people. That doesn't change the result. Not fighting has made it much harder for those of us in the grassroots working our hearts out to take back our voting.

To have the massive disenfranchisement of Americans who tried to vote, not to mention all the irregularities with the vote counting put in the news, even if it was spun in a way that hurt Kerry's image (or whatever), would have been the boost we needed to make some real headway in changing things. So what if they couldn't have won in court, at least some of the foul play would have gotten into the mainstream corporate bloody media.

And besides, this wasn't about Kerry. This fight was and is for democracy, and for the people of America. Let's just hope that it wasn't all about worry about his image that kept him from fighting for us. If so, he isn't the man he was when he fought in Vietnam and then came back to protest, or when he fought corporate crime as a prosecutor.

Look at the real heroes now, like Barbara Boxer, Kevin Shelly, and Athan Gibbs. Boxer seems to have come out on top, thank the good lord. But Shelley is paying for it with his career. Athan paid with his life. Maybe his death was an accident. Maybe he was so tired and worried that he made a mistake while driving. Or maybe it wasn't. We'll probably never know unless if it wasn't an accident, someday someone comes forward. The last I heard, a prominent attorney here in Georgia investigated it and all that they came up with, as far as I know, is that the 18 wheeler that ran Athan off the highway in Nashville had been sitting at idle for a long time before the accident.

Then he would be a real hero in our eyes. At least Gore fought. Sad. :cry: :cry:

I just want to SCREAM at those people who let the crackhead back in office. :mad:

How nice to hear a civil, reasonable viewpoint!! You were upset, but you got over it, and learned approach the issue from other angles and make some sense of it.

Positively refreshing!

Very well written, and good points.