View source for JudgementOfLeaders

Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

Continued from [[JimScarver]]'s [[Islam]] page.

----
Well, it is our Actions that we take, or do not take, that define what kind of people we are. Anyone can say anything. Talk is cheap. But acting, or not acting, that tells us what that person is concerned with. The measure of a human being is not what he or she says, it is what she or he chooses to, and not to, do. ----StarPilot

----
Ken,
I don't dislike Muhummad.  I don't know Muhummad.  I just know his actions.  When someone follows a Hitler, a Muhummad or a Genghis Khan, someone whose goal in life is military conquest, it is no surprise if they turn out to be a terrorist.  I don't say this because of the way I feel, Ken.  I just happen to be unable to disregard the facts like you seem to be so fond of doing.  Take away the atrocities he committed?  You can't.  You can't take away the the atrocities his followers commit every year.  Why do you think you haven't been hearing about widespread terrorism from Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and other religions around the world?  Probably because they are not following the doctrine of a vicious and ruthless military leader.

Starpilot,
I don't think that anyone would disagree with your statement, but I don't see how it pertains to this subject.  Actions?  I'm not sure what actions one would take on www.whitescarver.com, but I guess we could turn the site into a big bragging pit for all our "actions" if you like.  But I guess bragging about one's actions is just cheap talk anyway.  The easiest way for you to avoid all of this cheap talk is to shut down your computer and go take a walk in the woods(highly recommended).

Cheers,

-JeffScarver

----
Jeff, my point is that when people judge other people, they do so by looking at the actions that person took. Not by what went on in their head. Because we can never know that. We like to believe that we judge people according to their word, but as soon as that person has taken (or not taken) action, we use that as our judge. Why? Because that shows what they care about, and what they are willing to act on. If you are not willing to bleed (sacrifice/suffer pain) for something you believe in, for instance, you really don't care about that. Would you sacrifice a day of your happiness and health to secure a week's happiness and health of your child or partner?

If a man orders the death of millions, you have to take that into account in judging that man. Has morality truly changed between then and now? Remember, 2000 years ago, our cultural morality taught us to treat our fellow human beings, regardless of their beliefs, as our brother and sister. To do no harm to one who does not offer you harm first, and where possible, to not return harm unless required to secure you and yours. Seriously. People choose to ignore those teachings. They were not new teachings. We can find those teachings going back to the first recorded tablets of religious practice in Egypt, and that's at least 6,000 years ago.

People CHOOSE to commit the evils they do. For whatever rationalizations. Every person alive will have times when their 2 year old, self absorded [[HumanAnimal]] does something [[AntiSocial]], for their own pleasure and/or gain. However, looking at human history, being good is putting a leash on that little hearted animal, and doing what's best for all, regardless of the cost to self. However, forcing others to do what we think is best for all is not being good or mature... that's letting the little hearted 2 year old free off its leash, playing power games with others.

I can spend every waking moment of my life, preaching about how we should all live [[TheGoodLife]], but if I take a band of bully boys, and go about slaughtering all who disagree with me, taking whatever female that is unfortunate to fall under the eyesight of me and my [[PoliceForce]], am I good or evil? The answer SHOULD be obvious. 1 million words of good can never outweigh one act of evil. Only acts of good can right wrongful acts.

This is something I believe that we all here understand, even if we are not willing to agree in this space. "Talk is cheap" "Actions speak louder then words" "A man's measure can only be taken by looking at the actions he takes in his life." This are all common sayings, throughout all cultures of humanity, and throughout all human history.

When you judge Muhammed, what Actions did he do? Do you find those Actions to be Good, Neutral, or Evil? What Actions did he lead his followers to?

Because an over-grown 2 year old decides he does not like how you act, and sends his bully boys out to "teach" you better through the use of force, intimidation, and terror, that is not a reflection of his religion. That is a reflection of the man, as well as those that choose to Act for him, with his blessings and guidance.

---StarPilot

----
Nobody is judging Muhummad.  I just have to call bullshit as I see it.
I have invited everyone to read on the subject or check out the website I listed above.  As far as I can tell, nobody has.  You obviously haven't.  I'm eager to hear your perception of what I said "judging" the morality of Muhummad.  I never did.  His life is more clearly documented than almost any other person in his era.  If you check out the facts, you may come to your own conclusion.  You seem to have thrown together a hodgepodge of senetnces that sound good, but what are you really saying???  As far as I can tell there isn't a disagreement with me in your last response.
-JeffScarver

----
I was trying to help you out in your arguments, Jeff. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was trying to get those you are arguing with to go look at the documents you wanted them to take a look at. It did not seem to me that you were getting anywhere with them, and that you were arguing on different matters then what you wanted to address. It seemed your father and his protegee were arguing that Mohammed was a blood letting Jesus, which I personally found offensive. Jesus chose the Way of the Lamb, rather then lead his followers into War and Death. Jesus always chose patience, understanding, perservence, peace, and love over splitting heads until your enemies and the heathens yielded to your desires. That is well documented. To compare the Lamb of Christianity to the Lion of Islam... that does not seem to be well thought out to me. Both men may have preached peace and patience with your fellow man, but one of those two continued to kill, after he started his preaching. Their actions tell me they were very different, and did not personally believe in similar things. Do you agree? Or am I just way off my orbit again?

---StarPilot
----
Not that far off, Star. As to Jeff's cooment about this being on whitescarver.com, I believe me and [[StarPilot]] are accessing it as wikiworld.com, where this type of arguement is fair enough... There have been worse...

This arguement is null. We obviously can't change Jeff's position, and that is not our goal. We know that what Muhammed did was wrong. But, is it any better than a Saddam wrong, or a Hitler wrong? No====
====

And Jeff, you seem to think that the followers oh Muhammed were Evil themselves. To quote something from a friend of mine "If the parent was bad, the child ain't gonna be an angel...". Maybe if they weren't under the guidance or leadership of someone, and on their own they'de be merchants, farmers, but if they are taken by leadership, they sorta are compelled.. --KenSchry

----
I do access the site under the Wikiworld.com URL. But I could just as easily access it under [[AnewGo]].Net, couldn't I? This site is this site, and the discussion of all ideas (that will not get our Wonderous Hosts in legal trouble) are welcome here. ---StarPilot

Yes, but whitescarver.com to them is a homely family site...... ;-) --KenSchry

How can anyone that knows Jim not expect discussion and debate? He doesn't do those things in RL? That doesn't seem likely to me, but when you only know someone through their extelligence, it is very difficult to know how they will be and act, in the flesh. ---StarPilot

----
[[KenSchry]], if you do not believe you can sway Jeff, then why are you engaging him in the matters you do not think he is open to change on? That seems like a waste of your time and energy. Now, I'm stubborn and known to argue with a stump until the stump surrenders, but most people aren't that silly. Do you hope you are wrong? ---StarPilot

I know I can't turn Jeff over entirely, but I am trying to point him in the right direction, as i know some of the things he says aren't entirely correct in my opinion. --KenSchry

Are those opinions emotive based (I know this is right because it ''''feels'''' right), or logical based? (I know this is right because logic allows me to conclude based on the evidence that this is the sum/consequence of the evidence)? I ask because if it is Emotive, you will not be able to change Jeff's opinion in the slightest, unless you can change how he feels. And even if you think it is a logical matter... are you sure that Jeff is using logic or emotives on this subject? From the passion in his flames, I suspect there is a strong element of feeling in his postion. And feelings are not logical, nor respond to logic. Just my intutions of course, which may easily be wrong (the ole pattern recognizer may have misfired on my part. ;-) ---StarPilot

Based on what I've read, and gathered my own opinions, it seems more that my opinion is logic based. I can say that because I bear no hatred or bias to Muhammed, he is just an event in history. On Jeff's part, I don't think your "ole pattern recognizer" was off by much ;-). "I was just trying to explain what a virtueless piece of shit Muhummad was." Jeff isn't looking at it from a neutral point of view... --KenSchry

----
A child can throw off the teachings and leadership of their parents. Most do, at least for a time, until they decide what they believe in, and how they are going to live. In the Western Society, that's what the teens and 20s are about... rebelling against your presumed place and the presumed values, and finding your own identity. That process is the natural weening phase, of leaving the family nest, and becoming a mature adult. I doubt it is any different elsewhere. Merely what is considered acceptable "rebellion". Must humans return to the beliefs that they were raised with, when they are raising their own little ones. We are most comfortable with what we know, and you only know how to act like those that you were around (and for most, the only parents they were really around were there own). Now, some individuals will always and truly break away from the family and society teachings, and chart their own path regardless, not falling back on the "known and therefore proven" means. Some will succeed, others will fail. But that is the way of our [[CollectiveIntelligence]]. ---StarPilot

Depends. With the amount of input in today's world (IE: Television, teachings, peers, whatever) many things can change a persons mind, or even mold it. But think about this. What if you were kept in your home, not allowed to goto school, no friends, not television or means to the outside world. What if all you knew was what your parents told you? And what if your parents weren't so good, had the motive to teach you wrongly? --KenSchry

Again... it depends. {wink} Eventually, most people get out on there own, or at least, get out into another group away from their parents. Unless you are talking about a family that keeps someone locked in a secret basement? And so they get to die of starvation when their parents die as noone knows to go feed them or let them out? ---StarPilot

Think about it like this. Secret Basement bullshit aside, I'm talking about [[Isolation]]. If your in the middle of a forest, or a desert, and as I said before no outside input, from birth it may be possible to mold the childs mind as you wish. At that age a child is young and impressionable. I'm going to look up, whether they've ever experimented with something like that before... --KenSchry

Now who is shovelling the bull? ;-) True [[Isolation]] such as you talk about is extremely rare these days. Even the most isolated peasants of China and North Korea have connections and interactions to the [[GlobalVillage]]. They might not be wide channelled connections, as we have, but they still have them. So unless you and your family get ship-wrecked next to Gilligan's Island (Gilligan's Island itself was plugged in by constant radio and interactions with local tribes) without a working radio, the best chance for someone to be raised completely isolated from the world is "Secret Basement". Which isn't bullshit, btw. It's just rare. However, ever year, such a setup is discovered. Some people are just insane, and the children of insane people suffer with their parents.

And studies on the truly isolated have shown that you cannot mold the minds of children, even held in isolation, very much. The best you can do is limit their knowledge about what is out there and available to them. You can teach them to act in a certain way, but at some time, they will rebel against what they are taught, while in isolation. It's the natural outcome of forming and testing their own identities. We test the bounds of our world from the moment we are born. Even the most passive of [[HumanAnimal]]s will occasionally test their bounds, just to see if things have changed because they have changed. This is a part of how [[HumanAnimal]]s relate to their world. Between this and the fact that we are emotive beings who have occasional boughts of logical reasoning, makes each of us unique. We act the way we act because we feel that way... and you cannot teach make someone feel the way you do. That is why children do not turn out to be some sort of average of their parents... because each and every individual ''''feels'''' their existance differently from everyone else. ---StarPilot

----
At some point, the child will get out and away from their family. Even in the most repressed societies in the world, they will be married off to another family. Most families of the world cannot just keep a child at home, wrapped up, and protected from the outside world for its entire life. Heck, most of the world puts their little ones to work alongside them, whether its weeding, seeding, milking goats, or working in a sweat shop. Even in the most male dominanted, female are chattel for warming the house and raising little ones, they still get outside family exposure as other women are brought into the house to teach them various skills. And eventually, those women leave that house. And lets not forget, that those women still get outside (outside the family) social values, because they have to attend daily prayers and sermons.

I say that, to point out the flaw in your statements and implied arguments about followers and leadership. Good parents can and have raised devil children. Evil parents can and have raised angel children. But for most, it is far ''''easier'''' to get away from your family and their values then it is to get away from your political leadership and their imposed way of life on the common citizen. Otherwise, we'd all live in our own small, personal community utopias (as we would just pick up and move until we found a spot to start our own, or found a group that believes as we do and settle down there). Remember, [[Terrorism]] leaders will show that they always fight anything that would do that... as they would then loose their political power over their society. [[Terrorism]] isn't about changing another society to better suit your own, [[Terrorism|SocietalLeadDog]]s use the [[CooperativeBully]] tactic directly, by employing a [[PoliceForce]] to impose their will on the common people. It is only when we see a strong level of dissatisifaction with how things are, a certain level of desperateness where people are willing to risk what they have for a small chance of improvement, do we see the populous break from its [[SocietalLeadDog]] and rebel. [[Terrorism]] itself is simply their [[SocietalLeadDog]]s redirecting their most anger and desperate people to perform their [[AntiSocial]] acts of rebel against OTHER societies. As long as their [[SocietalLeadDog]]s can keep their malcontents unelightened, and focus their hate and anger on others, those leaders will remain in power. This means to break the cycle of [[Terrorism]], you need to educate, empower, and enable the masses the terrorists are from to live [[TheGoodLife]]. And a review of the current [[Terror|]] is about sending your [[AntiSocial]] force to other societies so you can maintain your own position of power.

Now, other then that... ;)

I see Jeff having the problem with his argument that a religion that includes teachings about putting down the heathens and forcibly spreading the world and defending the faith from the non-believers, yadda yadda blah, being Evil as being flawed. Unless he wants to claim that Christianity itself is also a religion of Evil and Terror. :shrug: He might. But it isn't the Teachings or the Way of a religion that makes it followers Good or Evil... it is the Teachings they choose to follow, and the Way they follow those Teachings. Philosophically, we can argue that in all things Good there is Evil, and in all Evil there is Good. Too much or too little of anything can be bad, but from bad things (like forest fires) there comes new things. Living things die to feed and make room for more living things. We Westerners tend to think of killing as a bad thing, but our lifestyle is founded and upheld on the death of billions (trillions?) of our fellow beings (although not all that can communicate as easily with us as our fellow [[HumanAnimal]]s).

Evil is merely what destroys your society and its continuity. Good is merely what supports your society and its continuity. Arguing about whether something is "Evil" or "Good" is arguing your viewpoint, and not something hard, like mathematics. This should be remembered when people start casting around words like ''''Evil''''.

Remember, the Jewish leaders of the time found what Jesus was doing to be Evil, as it threatened their way of life. Many millions of humans have found the Christian societies to be Evil, as they destroy many cultures/societies and the individuals that believed in those cultures and societies. Were the Christians of the USA in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s Evil because their society worked hard to destroy every Native America and their societies?

Not everyone that follow Islam will be evil. Not even all those individuals that believe America is the biggest contributor to their plight will be Evil. That's because we judge each other on the actions we take, or do not take. Nothing else truly has value that translates between each of our own ''''Personal Universe''''s. If you do something to cause damage or destroy my ''''Personal Universe'''', you are bad. If you do something to aid or improve my ''''Personal Universe'''', you are good. Everything else are labels for philosophy and rationalization. Therefore, I do not believe that Jeff thinks that every Muslim is Evil; Nor that the entirity of their Teachings are evil. Merely that their Prophet performed many acts that he finds Evil, and that he is upset with those teachers and leaders of the Muslim faiths that use Muhammed's acts of violence as a guide and illustration to what their own flock should do to "preserve their way of life" (and therefore, his power). I do believe that it is the findings of this community that any leader that uses his power for the preservation of his position at the costs of his followers to be bad, and therefore, ''''Evil''''. Yes?

So, we have several "yardsticks" to use on judging the leaders. How they preserved their own society, how they have acted to better their society, how their teachings and actions affect other societies, and how we ourselves may have been directly affected. That's a lot of different "philosophical" formulas to total up for each "column", and if we come up with different figures on "Good" and "Evil", that would be very normal, as all of it will be subjective, due to the nature that all society is subjective.

Now, we can debate on what actions a particular leader took, and whether that was good only for him(or her)self, good for their local, regional, national, continental, or global society, and by THAT total, if we find him "Good" or "Evil". Do you want to do that? Or go back to arguing that not all Muslims are "Evil"? ( Cause, that's on another page, and should go back to there, yes? )

---StarPilot

----
Thanks to [[StarPilot]] for being the voice of reason.  There are parallels that can be made between Christianity and Islam in certain instances, but as a whole Islam is very different from all the major religions.  Ken is just saying whatever, regardless of the facts.  The only factual things you have said have agreed with me.  So I suppose if I just sit back and let you talk, you will eventually come to recognize the truth.

-JeffScarver

----
Jeff, you are welcome. It seemed to me that you two were no longer talking to each other on the same matter. I hope some understanding of what the other guy was talking about has been communicated, as I believe you are both intelligent people, and have validity on certain aspects of your presentations. As this place is about improved communications, I hoped I might help the conversation and debate past what I perceived as an impasse.

I cannot judge how different Islam is from the other major practiced religions of the world at this time. I need to learn more before I make such a personal judgement. However, having been through several churchs of Christianity, I know that it certainly has its cults of hate and intolerance and "its all everyone elses fault", just as it has its cults of love and universal patience with all humanity and creation. As a consequence of that, I tend to favor the argument that says a long standing religion of over 600 years of continual practice and refinement is a religion of peace with the occasional passages of violence and self-defense and questionable meaning. In the time frame of successful religions, it is young yet. Should it survive another 1000 years, most of the violence passages will fall to the wayside and not be included in the mainstream records, otherwise there won't be any Muslims left. Just my opinion...

---StarPilot

----
"Ken is just saying whatever, regardless of the facts." I resent that statement, Jeff. Your saying what you believe, and I am objecting based on my opinion. Basis of [[WikiWorld]], no? -- [[KenSchry]]

----
"Were the Christians of the USA in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s Evil because their society worked hard to destroy every Native America and their societies?"

Evil's all in the eye of the beholder... We know and believe that it was wrong, but they did not. --KenSchry

Do we know that was wrong? I doubt most Americans know that the US Government decided to engage in the "Indian Wars" after the Civil War to suck up as many of those trained men who had served on either side of the Civil War, to keep them from deciding to form a militia and rebel again. I certainly doubt anyone outside the USoA knows about it, other then the few individuals who might be very fascinated with the "Cowboys and Indians" (frontier/settling of the West days) of the USoA. ---StarPilot

----
Star, [[WE]] cannot be the [[JudgesOfTheUniverse]]. Each person is their own judge, trial and Jury. --KenSchry

Bull feathers==== {wink} [[WE]] are the Judges of the Universe. That's why we were given these wonderful pattern recognition machines behind our eyes, and are also such emotive, feeling beings. [[WE]] know what Evil is... it's whatever hurts us. We know what Good is... it's everything that benefits us. Everything else is just posturing, to impress someone (us, others, that cute person down the block, etc).
====

It is true that each of us, are our own ''''Personal Universe''''. But the blending, the intersection of our ''''Personal Universes'''', that is the [[WE]]. And that [[WE]] knows that what is Good for the Majority of its little participants, is Good. And what harms more people then helps, is bad, and therefore Evil. As each of us are components (nodes) of the [[WE]], it is our duty to the [[WE]] to be judges, and communicate our findings and feelings. ---StarPilot

----
You misunderstand me. I mean it {teaching the children} as it can be used as a possible wrong purpose, brainwashing kids to misinterpret right from wrong. But you are also right, some kids are like that without being isolated... --KenSchry

Did I? We are all "brainwashed". That's your family and social teachings. They teach us to "do the right thing" and "not tattle on your teammates" and "do anything to get ahead" and "No means yes, yes means no" and "never trust a politician or a used car salesman", etc etc etc. Anything we do not learn on our own (red hot eyes on electric stoves ''burn''), is merely a teaching of faith to you. If you accept it, but do not test it, you took it on faith. If you test it, and it's true ("Don't put your hand in a fire, you'll get burned" ''''OUCH====''''), that shows you its [[Wisdom]] (learned knowledge of value). And every time an individual tests what they are taught (faith/brainwashing), and discovers it is right, casts a weight of their truth by association onto what else that source taught you. However, every time you test what you are taught and discover it is false ("don't lie because bad things will happen to you if you do"), it shows that what that person has taught you is not correct.
====

What does an individual learn on their own? Unsupported things will fall to the ground. Hot things burn. Cold things are cold. Eating makes the hungry feeling go away. But what is Good and what is Evil... those we are taught. We know from our experiences that some things are good (eating) and some are bad (being hungry for a long time), and since we know that good is Good, that means bad is Evil. But have you experienced and tested everything that is "Good" and everything that is "Evil"? Of course not. And so much "Evil" of the world is done because it makes the doer feel "Good", or because they think they are doing "Good". Remember, unless you test it yourself, you are accepting the matter on faith... and that means you are accepting values other people want you to hold. That is "brain-washing". ---StarPilot

----
Additionally, don't underate technology and how far spread it has become. One of the most isolated people on the planet, the Siberian steppes nomads, who at most see a stranger outside their family once every 2 years at best, all have radios. Little hand-cranked things (crank for 5 minutes, have 30 minutes of listening time), from World War 2==== Even the deepest Amazon pygmy tribes, get outside broadcast media (radio) on a weekly basis. ---StarPilot
====

But will it extent to those who don't wish it? You don't ''''need'''' a telephone, or a computer, or a television. Those are all convieneces. --KenSchry

You missed the point. They get it whether they want it or not at first, but then they discover uses for it. For example, the steppes nomads want different things from their radio, by age group. The older folks want word of what is happening elsewhere, but only the events that will affect the price of their wools and furs and other items they found/collected that they are going to sell. The teens of the tribe want it to hear of the outside world, to feel like they belong to the [[GlobalVillage]] and therefore something bigger then just thier little world of their family and their trails. And they do that by listening to the latest music, and the latest gossip about exotic spots like Los Angeles, Moscow, Paris, Singapore, and Hollywood, and the super celebrities of the world. The small children want the radio for the comedies and silly kid songs. That's why they the tribe totes the radios around... they want information and entertainment from it, for their own purposes. {And note its primary purpose... it makes them feel better.} The Amazons get it primarily for the same reasons... ---StarPilot

----
So, just how many people do you think get locked up in the basement for all their lives? There cannot be more then a handful in all the world. The closest I believe you can come to children being totally isolated from the outside world will be the highest of the aristocracy (The Imperial Children of Japan, perhaps), and the insanely rich (or is that the richly insane? Such as Michael Jackson's children). ---StarPilot

Haha==== They are kept out of sight for one reason or another, maybe their parents don't want them to get too egotistical that they are rich, or they want to protect them from the outside world. But I'm not talking about that... What about a long term project in terrorist cells, they brainwash kids to make the perfect killer, unafraid of his life and devoted to his cause. But they already have those...... {Got to go, going to finish this later} --KenSchry
====

Long term projects? So, do you think it is any different from what the governments and societies of the world teach their people? How is training a terrorist to go blow up a hotel any different from what our government taught its agents to do to the Soviets (go blow this building up, go kill this man, etc)? Anywhere there is poverty, you can find desperate people. Hunger and desperation will always have that effect. Note that the leaders of these terrorists live like kings. Seriously... they live like the top elite of the world. How do you maintain that your people will just have to suffer through having only 1 meal a day, when you have 4? How can you justify to the people that their daughters must sell their physical selves to others just to feed their brothers and sisters, when yours are attending shool at Harvard or Yale? It's a shift the blame game. It's a political game that has been around since there were two oversized groups of [[HumanAnimal]]s with abutting territories. "The gods are angry with those darn Mud Tribe hiding their face and thoughts from them, and are punishing those heathens with this 4 year drought. But the drought is keeping us from having our proper bounties. The gods have told me if we get rid of those heathens that try to hide their thoughts and foul deeds from the gods, that the rains will come, the bushes will make many of berries, the herds will have many fat slow calves, and we will all have plenty====" Please... it's just pass the buck. The only reason it has such a capability to have such a strong impact on us today is because we are so inter-related and inter-depedant. We truly are a [[GlobalVillage]]. The best way to stop this, is to educate their people; create and support a different breed of political crook, by leading them to create a system where they have multiple leaders, allowing the leaders to shift the blame internally; and by cutting down the number of determined desperadoes by plugging in their people into a "better" way of life that enables them to have enough of what they need, and feel good often. ---StarPilot
====

----
[[KenSchry]], I put in sigs on your additions and mine, since you have chosen to make repeated break outs in the middle of the long replys I've made. It makes for a very thick and difficult read for someone new to the page, doesn't it? Looking it over, I had trouble following all the broken out replies, and their nested replies, so I've tried refactoring this page. All those nested replies really add density to the page. I thought we had agreed not to do that? Seems we forget in our haste to answer individual points. My apologies to the others. Anyways, this page can be restored to the original nested reply by going back in the history, if anyone wants to do that. I think I broke things out logically, but as always, I might have goofed (and probably did somewhere), so feel free to update my refactoring... I will. ;-D ---StarPilot

*Yes, i remember bringing that up before -_-. Oops, thanks star for fixing it...

No problem. We are constantly trying to find improved ways to debate and exchange ideas here. Long replies that address many points seem to inspire "on the spot" inline replies. And that seems fine to me, as long as someone doesn't then come along and reply to the inline reply, and create those dense nested chains. Of course, having a few layers of those did make for "sectional" breaks. Humm... maybe we just need to keep in mind the need to refactor increases as the density of cross directional-words/debate goes up? ;-) ---StarPilot