In article <1160696294.771519.78940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com says...

Your
claim that I believe differently is a straw man.

BZZZZZZZT. I said it was "probably" the case. That is in no sense a
strawman. I left open the possibility that you might believe other
things.

Second: The rich typically don't have to steal money from the poor.

They don't "have to", but they can and actually do quite often because
they know that the poor can't really do anything about it, at least
individually.

They employ them at a cost, and produce something which can be
exchanged for revenue,

This sounds like the standard canard that the rich people "make the
jobs". In reality, it is the people who make the jobs. Rich people
would not hire someone unless they felt that person could produce more
value than the individual was being paid. Therefore, it is the rich who
are very reliant upon the poor. However, the poor, or middle class could
exchange their corporate masters for many other arrangements.

and then from that point they can simply BUY the
food.

Well, I'm glad you figured out how wages work. Now figure out how wage
slavery works in which a person is intentionally paid only barely enough
to survive, cheated at every turn and eventually discarded when that
person can no longer survive on slave wages.

Third: It's not a matter of whether the business is big or small. All
businesses deserve the same considerations.

Different situations will tend to require different responses. Not give
us that half-assed, poorly-aped egalitarian *****. Small businesses
and big businesses have very different needs, capabilities and
contributios to make, so, of course, they should be treated differently.
Because the failure of a big business can have much more of an impact
upon society, they should be regulated more stringently. Small
businesses cannot afford complex regulations, but fortunately present
less individual risk to society.

Fourth: By helping the rich, I set myself up in a situation where they
will help me back.

Not true in almost all cases.

It's a common aspect of relationships of mutual
benefit.

Keep dreaming, chump. They'd certainly like you to think that you will
get something in return, but as the Bill Gates character on the Simpsons
said, "I didn't get rich by writing checks".

I notice that you don't
even bother to try to come up with examples of how you imagine that you
will benefit by giving special breaks to large corporations. But I can
tell you that mega-corporations like walmart are decimating small
business, thanks in part to generous tax-payer subsidies. We are also
subsidizing the off-shoring of our jobs by corporations too stingy to pay
americans a living wage anymore.

How is it that you imagine you will
"benefit" from your job being outsourced to India.

I know, I know,
you're gonna make a fortune running some company that exploits all the
brown-skinned folks the way that corporations used to exploit you (when
you still had a job with one).

Fifth: There is no aspect of force in my argument that CEOs should be
able to vote their own salaries.

They don't "vote" their own salaries. They manipulate boards into
accepting a tradition of unjustifiably high salaries, not to mention
options, because there is an incestuous relationship between many board
members and CEOs who hand out corporate perks and assets like candy to
get what they want. There is also a pronounced lack of competition in
these fields because there are necessarily fewer positions at the top.

This is something they do with THEIR
MONEY

Learn something about business, please. The monies that corporations
wastefully lavish on top executives comes out of stockholder equity.
It's not their money. It belongs to all the owners of the corporations
and we're tired of being ripped off by the people at the top.

In fact, I am arguing for a restraint of force.

Which one might that be?

Sixth: You added ad hominem like elements to your statement by arguing
with verbal aggression.

No, that's not what ad hominem is. "Verbal aggression" might be
impolite, but it is not the equivalent of ad hominem. In fact, what I
was doing was not even "aggression". It's just trying to prod you off
your ***** to think for yourself, for a change.

You call me brainwashed and masochistic,

Again, that is not ad hominem. It was not offered in lieu of attacking
your arguments. Both were attacked and the speculative comments (go look
up what a hypothetical is) only fleshed out some possible scenarios.

which
are emotionally charged words, if not actually an ad hominem part of
your argument.

You are correct that they are not ad hominem, nor did I get emotional
about them in the slightest. Perhaps your fragile ego was perturbed by
them, but that's not really my concern.

The fact of the matter is, of course, that so long as government
protects inaliable rights such as life, liberty, and property (and
pursuit of happiness

Actually happiness is explicitly stated. Property is presumed.

Happiness is explicitely stated in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE.

Ummmmm... You mean the Declaration of Independ*e*nce?

Property is explicitely stated as an AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Then you'd be wrong to say that it was merely "implied by the other
three" when, in fact, it as explicitly stated elsewhere.

Read up on your civics. I suggest you re-enroll in high school.

Coming from someone like you, who can't even spell Declaration of
Independence, it's hard to take your recommendations very seriously.
Nice try though.

, which is implied by the other three) there is no
reason why the poor cannot become middle class and thus live
comfortably

Nor did I claim there was, at least in principle. That's not where the
major problem lies. The major problem is that too much of the resources
of society are being hoarded by a very few who don't even have a clue
what to do with it all and are mismanaging it to the extreme. One of the
symptoms of that is CEOs being paid vastly more than can possibly be
justified in a reasonably competitive market.

Actually, companies have to compete for big time managers

But it is beyond all doubt that many qualified people could do just as
effective and skillful a job for a lot less. But most of these people
will never even get a hearing.

by allowing
CEOs to set their own wages.

They don't "set their own wages", at least in a properly running
corporation. You obviously don't know much about how corporations work.

, or that the middle class canot become rich,

Sure, some can and do. Again, that's not even close to the issue. One
can become quite rich even with the maximum wage caps being proposed.
Just for the sake of novelty, try to address the issue for once.

No issue in social sciences, including economic issues, is completely
seperate from others. It's all one big interconnected system.

Well then you went around your earlobe to scratch your ***** (which may or
may not be located where your head should be). Now about about
addressing the issue with some semblance of direct comment.

and thus be
able to carry out their hopes and dreams, or even that the poor become
rich, which has happened though it takes a LOT of hard work, something
I doubt you'd be willing to endure.

I do quite well and probably have worked harder than you to get where I
am. But that's not the issue. You seem deathly afraid of actually ever
confronting the issue which was maximum and minimum wage.

Another unjustified attack.

Oh boo hoo for you, polly anna. Go cry it off later. You tried to
attack me too, in case you forgot, suggesting that I was somehow lazy and
mouthing the "hard work" mantra, despite the fact that many rich people
got their money through the lucky sperm lottery, rather than working at
all.

I was asserting people's right to a free
market,

There's no such thing as a free market and there never has been. It's
not clear that it's even remotely possible for there ever to be one, but
the evidence seems strongly against it.

Perhaps you would like to talk
about it purely in the abstract, as a theoretical construct which will
never be present in reality, but more likely you've just been conditioned
to put the word "free" in front of the word "market" without ever
thinking about what it really means. As far as this non-existent free
market entity being a "right", that's not in evidence either. There are
advantages to a reasonably competitive market and perhaps it is in the
public interest to attempt to promote that generally, but that's somewhat
of a different issue.

which invariably implies a lack of a minimum or a maximum wage.

But other than merely asserting this fiction, you did essentially nothing
to show why it was necessary, superior to a slightly regulated market,
etc.

Of course, just as the poor would support revolution to gain the rich's
money,

Is that the only reason. Of course not. Therefore by you suggesting
that this is their only motivation, it marks you as an illogical moron
who would rather contend with strawmen than the actual issue at hand.

Look who's talking.

That would be you, moron.

By characterizing it as my ONLY argument

Actually I was being charitable, because it doesn't even qualify as a
decent argument.

you do me
a great injustice, and thus proove your character is quite unsavory.

Yawn. Were you born with rigor mortis?

the rich would support the status quo for fear of losing money
to the poor. The fact is, however, that even under a government which
does not interfere in such matters, there will be reliable change.

Perhaps over the long run. In the short run we have one party taking
over from another for a few decades, reversing all the changes from
before and then the cycle repeating itself all over again. Perhaps
little pockets of progress occur, but it's often accidental.

Then support a third party.

I've explained that I would, but on in the unworkable way that present
third parties attempt to operate in our winner take all system.

By that I mean neither revolution nor status quo

Nor do I.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: There is a method of conducting
government that is fair to all parties, but it requires a level of
integrity not typically seen in politicians, and an ideal that hasn't
really ever been met to its fullest. I doubt that the rich and the poor
would see that their interests are NOT in conflict with each other

They don't have to be. But often the rich cannot resist the temptation
to exploit the relatively powerless nature of the poor. They know, for
example, that it's often easier to still money from poor people, even
though they don't have much, than from their fellow rich, because the
poor often have little recourse.

In some situations that is correct.

In enough so that the rest don't matter.

, so
I doubt that government would follow this path.

Agreed, your plan is naive to the extreme. Hope is not a plan and hoping
for selfless virtue to save the day will leave you waiting at the altar
for a very long time.

It's not naive. It's naive to not see the inevitable downfall of
America due to policies like the ones you would put into place.

Explain how it would result in the "downfall of America" to have some
wage cap so high that the overwhelming majority of citizens never even
encountered it. Do you believe that minimum wage will also lead to the
"inevitable downfall of America" too? Why don't you wait to hit the bong
until after you post.

I also do not hope for selfless virtue, because there is no such thing.
All virtue is selfish.

LOL. While virtue might originate in the self, that does not necessary
make the virtues themselves selfish. By your account the "virtue" of
charity would be selfish.

If it did, however, it
would most likely not be along any plan that you would come up with.

Once you get over your knee-jerk conditioning to defend the prerogatives
of the rich against your own needs you might have enough spare rational
capital to come up with a real plan.

I can start a business with as little as a thousand dollars. I can
start a grass roots political party with as little as a few hundred.

That's still not a plan, chuckles. That's what you do after you have a
plan about what it is you're trying to accomplish.

The needs of the rich and the poor alike are secured by the same
policies: Free market policies.

Have you ever heard of the notion of demonstration or evidence, as
opposed to merely asserting your claims?

You seem to think there is a dichotomy
of interests between them. There is not.

Again, your lack of evidence is underwhelming.

Until then, my plan is far better

than yours because (1) unlike yours it actually exists and (2) it would
massively benefit shareholders to the tune of trillions of dollars. Gee,
that's almost as much as we gave away in tax breaks during our last
trough feeding of the rich by congress.

Guess what?

That's a question?

Shareholders would actually LOOSE money

You wouldn't want to LOOSE money, I suppose. It might trample people to
death.

because people
would only be willing to work as much as the money they will be paid.

CEOs could quite if they chose, but, in all likelihood there would be
plenty of qualified people willing to fill their shoes, and considering
that they couldn't make any more money anywhere else in the country, or
the world, chances are they would stay where they were.

Business would be even worse off than it is now.

You've provided no such mechanism. Under my proposal CEOS would still be
able to make several million dollars per year in salary. On the order of
$750-1500/hour. If that's insufficient to motivate them to perform their
managerial role then clearly don't have a very strong work ethic to begin
with. However, they are always free to start their own companies if they
are so brilliant and indispensible.

Another thing: Giving back people money they was wrongfully taken

It wasn't wrongfully taken, fool. It was lawfully and rightfully
assessed to them as the cost of doing business for the considerable
burdens they impose upon society and services they extract. The
infrastructure needed to support future business endeavors is crumbling
and other countries are leaping ahead of us because of the idiotic tax-
bribe/for vote scheme repugs implemented. It is kinda funny that repugs
want to bribe people with their own public funds, but as has been noted,
democracy may only endure "until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves largesse from the public treasury."

to
them is hardly trough feeding. Trough feeding is more like the policies
put into place to subsidize farms for NOT producing

It's doubtful that you really know anything about such programs, but it
certainly pales by comparison to the trillions in tax give-aways to the
rich. Naturally, it's not suprising that you'd be distracted by the
shiny trinket while the bank vault was being robbed blind.

, or allowing people
to declare bankruptcy for bad decision making when they should be
punished for such things.

That benefits plenty of rich people, particularly because their
corporations can declare bankruptcy without eating into their personal
fortunes.

What religion are you? I'm an athiest, BTW.

At least we can agree on that, although I do insist upon spelling it
"atheist" ;). I sometimes call myself a secular catholic, since that's
how I was raised originally, just to see if people catch on.

But I'm
only in church for occasional funerals and weddings. Like Roddenberry,
I've explored secular humanism quite a bit, though I'm not entirely
impressed with some of the present leadership and policies.

--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry

In article <1160696294.771519.78940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
StarbladeEnkai@Excite.com says...

Your
claim that I believe differently is a straw man.

BZZZZZZZT. I said it was "probably" the case. That is in no sense a
strawman. I left open the possibility that you might believe other
things.

Second: The rich typically don't have to steal money from the poor.

They don't "have to", but they can and actually do quite often because
they know that the poor can't really do anything about it, at least
individually.

They employ them at a cost, and produce something which can be
exchanged for revenue,

This sounds like the standard canard that the rich people "make the
jobs". In reality, it is the people who make the jobs. Rich people
would not hire someone unless they felt that person could produce more
value than the individual was being paid. Therefore, it is the rich who
are very reliant upon the poor. However, the poor, or middle class could
exchange their corporate masters for many other arrangements.

and then from that point they can simply BUY the
food.

Well, I'm glad you figured out how wages work. Now figure out how wage
slavery works in which a person is intentionally paid only barely enough
to survive, cheated at every turn and eventually discarded when that
person can no longer survive on slave wages.

Third: It's not a matter of whether the business is big or small. All
businesses deserve the same considerations.

Different situations will tend to require different responses. Not give
us that half-assed, poorly-aped egalitarian *****.

and big businesses have very different needs, capabilities and
contributios to make, so, of course, they should be treated differently.

Because the failure of a big business can have much more of an impact
upon society, they should be regulated more stringently. Small
businesses cannot afford complex regulations, but fortunately present
less individual risk to society.

Fourth: By helping the rich, I set myself up in a situation where they
will help me back.

Not true in almost all cases.

It's a common aspect of relationships of mutual
benefit.

Keep dreaming, chump. They'd certainly like you to think that you will
get something in return, but as the Bill Gates character on the Simpsons
said, "I didn't get rich by writing checks".

even bother to try to come up with examples of how you imagine that you
will benefit by giving special breaks to large corporations.

tell you that mega-corporations like walmart are decimating small
business, thanks in part to generous tax-payer subsidies.

subsidizing the off-shoring of our jobs by corporations too stingy to pay
americans a living wage anymore.

"benefit" from your job being outsourced to India.

you're gonna make a fortune running some company that exploits all the
brown-skinned folks the way that corporations used to exploit you (when
you still had a job with one).

Fifth: There is no aspect of force in my argument that CEOs should be
able to vote their own salaries.

They don't "vote" their own salaries. They manipulate boards into
accepting a tradition of unjustifiably high salaries, not to mention
options, because there is an incestuous relationship between many board
members and CEOs who hand out corporate perks and assets like candy to
get what they want. There is also a pronounced lack of competition in
these fields because there are necessarily fewer positions at the top.

This is something they do with THEIR
MONEY

Learn something about business, please. The monies that corporations
wastefully lavish on top executives comes out of stockholder equity.
It's not their money. It belongs to all the owners of the corporations
and we're tired of being ripped off by the people at the top.

In fact, I am arguing for a restraint of force.

Which one might that be?

Sixth: You added ad hominem like elements to your statement by arguing
with verbal aggression.

No, that's not what ad hominem is. "Verbal aggression" might be
impolite, but it is not the equivalent of ad hominem. In fact, what I
was doing was not even "aggression". It's just trying to prod you off
your ***** to think for yourself, for a change.

You call me brainwashed and masochistic,

Again, that is not ad hominem. It was not offered in lieu of attacking
your arguments. Both were attacked and the speculative comments (go look
up what a hypothetical is) only fleshed out some possible scenarios.

which
are emotionally charged words, if not actually an ad hominem part of
your argument.

You are correct that they are not ad hominem, nor did I get emotional
about them in the slightest. Perhaps your fragile ego was perturbed by
them, but that's not really my concern.

The fact of the matter is, of course, that so long as government
protects inaliable rights such as life, liberty, and property (and
pursuit of happiness

Actually happiness is explicitly stated. Property is presumed.

Happiness is explicitely stated in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE.

Ummmmm... You mean the Declaration of Independ*e*nce?

Property is explicitely stated as an AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Then you'd be wrong to say that it was merely "implied by the other
three" when, in fact, it as explicitly stated elsewhere.

Read up on your civics. I suggest you re-enroll in high school.

Coming from someone like you, who can't even spell Declaration of
Independence, it's hard to take your recommendations very seriously.
Nice try though.

, which is implied by the other three) there is no
reason why the poor cannot become middle class and thus live
comfortably

Nor did I claim there was, at least in principle. That's not where the
major problem lies. The major problem is that too much of the resources
of society are being hoarded by a very few who don't even have a clue
what to do with it all and are mismanaging it to the extreme. One of the
symptoms of that is CEOs being paid vastly more than can possibly be
justified in a reasonably competitive market.

Actually, companies have to compete for big time managers

But it is beyond all doubt that many qualified people could do just as
effective and skillful a job for a lot less. But most of these people
will never even get a hearing.

by allowing
CEOs to set their own wages.

They don't "set their own wages", at least in a properly running
corporation. You obviously don't know much about how corporations work.

, or that the middle class canot become rich,

Sure, some can and do. Again, that's not even close to the issue. One
can become quite rich even with the maximum wage caps being proposed.
Just for the sake of novelty, try to address the issue for once.

No issue in social sciences, including economic issues, is completely
seperate from others. It's all one big interconnected system.

Well then you went around your earlobe to scratch your ***** (which may or
may not be located where your head should be). Now about about
addressing the issue with some semblance of direct comment.

and thus be
able to carry out their hopes and dreams, or even that the poor become
rich, which has happened though it takes a LOT of hard work, something
I doubt you'd be willing to endure.

I do quite well and probably have worked harder than you to get where I
am. But that's not the issue. You seem deathly afraid of actually ever
confronting the issue which was maximum and minimum wage.

Another unjustified attack.

Oh boo hoo for you, polly anna. Go cry it off later. You tried to
attack me too, in case you forgot, suggesting that I was somehow lazy and
mouthing the "hard work" mantra, despite the fact that many rich people
got their money through the lucky sperm lottery, rather than working at
all.

I was asserting people's right to a free
market,

There's no such thing as a free market and there never has been.

not clear that it's even remotely possible for there ever to be one, but
the evidence seems strongly against it. Perhaps you would like to talk
about it purely in the abstract, as a theoretical construct which will
never be present in reality, but more likely you've just been conditioned
to put the word "free" in front of the word "market" without ever
thinking about what it really means.

market entity being a "right", that's not in evidence either. There are
advantages to a reasonably competitive market and perhaps it is in the
public interest to attempt to promote that generally, but that's somewhat
of a different issue.

which invariably implies a lack of a minimum or a maximum wage.

But other than merely asserting this fiction, you did essentially nothing
to show why it was necessary, superior to a slightly regulated market,
etc.

Of course, just as the poor would support revolution to gain the rich's
money,

Is that the only reason. Of course not. Therefore by you suggesting
that this is their only motivation, it marks you as an illogical moron
who would rather contend with strawmen than the actual issue at hand.

Look who's talking.

That would be you, moron.

By characterizing it as my ONLY argument

Actually I was being charitable, because it doesn't even qualify as a
decent argument.

you do me
a great injustice, and thus proove your character is quite unsavory.

Yawn. Were you born with rigor mortis?

the rich would support the status quo for fear of losing money
to the poor. The fact is, however, that even under a government which
does not interfere in such matters, there will be reliable change.

Perhaps over the long run. In the short run we have one party taking
over from another for a few decades, reversing all the changes from
before and then the cycle repeating itself all over again. Perhaps
little pockets of progress occur, but it's often accidental.

Then support a third party.

I've explained that I would, but on in the unworkable way that present
third parties attempt to operate in our winner take all system.

By that I mean neither revolution nor status quo

Nor do I.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: There is a method of conducting
government that is fair to all parties, but it requires a level of
integrity not typically seen in politicians, and an ideal that hasn't
really ever been met to its fullest. I doubt that the rich and the poor
would see that their interests are NOT in conflict with each other

They don't have to be. But often the rich cannot resist the temptation
to exploit the relatively powerless nature of the poor. They know, for
example, that it's often easier to still money from poor people, even
though they don't have much, than from their fellow rich, because the
poor often have little recourse.

In some situations that is correct.

In enough so that the rest don't matter.

, so
I doubt that government would follow this path.

Agreed, your plan is naive to the extreme. Hope is not a plan and hoping
for selfless virtue to save the day will leave you waiting at the altar
for a very long time.

It's not naive. It's naive to not see the inevitable downfall of
America due to policies like the ones you would put into place.

Explain how it would result in the "downfall of America" to have some
wage cap so high that the overwhelming majority of citizens never even
encountered it. Do you believe that minimum wage will also lead to the
"inevitable downfall of America" too? Why don't you wait to hit the bong
until after you post.

I also do not hope for selfless virtue, because there is no such thing.
All virtue is selfish.

LOL. While virtue might originate in the self, that does not necessary
make the virtues themselves selfish. By your account the "virtue" of
charity would be selfish.

If it did, however, it
would most likely not be along any plan that you would come up with.

Once you get over your knee-jerk conditioning to defend the prerogatives
of the rich against your own needs you might have enough spare rational
capital to come up with a real plan.

I can start a business with as little as a thousand dollars. I can
start a grass roots political party with as little as a few hundred.

That's still not a plan, chuckles. That's what you do after you have a
plan about what it is you're trying to accomplish.

The needs of the rich and the poor alike are secured by the same
policies: Free market policies.

Have you ever heard of the notion of demonstration or evidence, as
opposed to merely asserting your claims?

You seem to think there is a dichotomy
of interests between them. There is not.

Again, your lack of evidence is underwhelming.

Until then, my plan is far better

than yours because (1) unlike yours it actually exists and (2) it would
massively benefit shareholders to the tune of trillions of dollars. Gee,
that's almost as much as we gave away in tax breaks during our last
trough feeding of the rich by congress.

Guess what?

That's a question?

Shareholders would actually LOOSE money

You wouldn't want to LOOSE money, I suppose. It might trample people to
death.

because people
would only be willing to work as much as the money they will be paid.

CEOs could quite if they chose, but, in all likelihood there would be
plenty of qualified people willing to fill their shoes, and considering
that they couldn't make any more money anywhere else in the country, or
the world, chances are they would stay where they were.

Business would be even worse off than it is now.

You've provided no such mechanism. Under my proposal CEOS would still be
able to make several million dollars per year in salary. On the order of
$750-1500/hour. If that's insufficient to motivate them to perform their
managerial role then clearly don't have a very strong work ethic to begin
with. However, they are always free to start their own companies if they
are so brilliant and indispensible.

Another thing: Giving back people money they was wrongfully taken

It wasn't wrongfully taken, fool. It was lawfully and rightfully
assessed to them as the cost of doing business for the considerable
burdens they impose upon society and services they extract.

infrastructure needed to support future business endeavors is crumbling
and other countries are leaping ahead of us because of the idiotic tax-
bribe/for vote scheme repugs implemented. It is kinda funny that repugs
want to bribe people with their own public funds, but as has been noted,
democracy may only endure "until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves largesse from the public treasury."

to
them is hardly trough feeding. Trough feeding is more like the policies
put into place to subsidize farms for NOT producing

It's doubtful that you really know anything about such programs, but it
certainly pales by comparison to the trillions in tax give-aways to the
rich. Naturally, it's not suprising that you'd be distracted by the
shiny trinket while the bank vault was being robbed blind.

, or allowing people
to declare bankruptcy for bad decision making when they should be
punished for such things.

That benefits plenty of rich people, particularly because their
corporations can declare bankruptcy without eating into their personal
fortunes.

What religion are you? I'm an athiest, BTW.

At least we can agree on that, although I do insist upon spelling it
"atheist" ;). I sometimes call myself a secular catholic, since that's
how I was raised originally, just to see if people catch on. But I'm
only in church for occasional funerals and weddings. Like Roddenberry,
I've explored secular humanism quite a bit, though I'm not entirely
impressed with some of the present leadership and policies.

--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry

quibbler wrote:

In article <1160687802.165989.266600@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tucodrat@yahoo.com says...

Looking out for the poor, ignorant, brainwashed masses? Aren't we
generous?

Hey, you resemble that first remark. I guess somebody has to watch out
for *you*, because you apparently don't have the intellect or attention
span to do it for yourself.

And for that I am doubly grateful, Dr.Quibbler!