For the record, I don't argue from a position of feigned idiocy. Actually, I believe BSG summed it up rather nicely, "Mal-informed political opinions translated into national defense commentary" though he misinterprets my underlying motives... and assumes I am ignorant, when in fact I am not ignorant. I am merely lazy. And further, I argue from a presupposition that the world *will* at some point come to an end in a hell and brimfire, biblical fashion.
This ultimately leads me to be rather zealous and to no longer care whether or not I sound well-researched or intelligent, and thus I formulate my arguments to capitalize on the production of thought, and the enjoyment of the reading, regardless of whether or not they are based in reality. And I inject such a high level of sarcasm into them that any who take me seriously are ridiculed for lacking a sense of humor, and the rest argue back with the same flippancy. But now that you find yourself going along, sit back and think. Isn't it fun being able to argue without having to spend hours in research and more hours carefully choosing your words so as not to be purposely misconstrued by your peers in order to facilitate their discredidation of your position. I for one approve.
Further, whoever this Ted is... I thoroughly approve. He/she/it seems to understand the underlying style of this thread, even though he/she/it's posts do not even reflect on the issue at hand. [Clap]
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.