Its a minefield...

[Frankito]

Perhaps not however your one line to me is more poignant than most of the last nine pages together!

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?m not original then! :)

>

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Thought of a new slogan. Black Lives Matters

> > Too.

> > > BLMT. Is that more clearer? So it?s not

> saying

> > > ?just? black lives.

> >

> >

> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Black-Lives-Matter-To

>

> > o/dp/1524601209

[TheCat]

While equality and racism activists often do good work in certain areas...when one reads articles like this, it does seem like many of them let themselves down with their narrowmindedness with regards to how to achieve their equitable goals....

THE DIVISIVE AGENDA OF WOKE ACTIVISTS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF ?ANTI-RACISM?

Every time one of our institutions gives room to performative wokery, it denies space to genuine opportunity for ethnic minorities

CHARLES MOORE

12 February 2021 ? 9:30pm

Charles Moore

The subject of today?s column furnishes so many examples that I am spoilt for choice. I think I?ll start with Winston Churchill, because everyone has heard of him.

On Thursday, a conference was held on the ?racial consequences? of Churchill. Its speakers condemned him. Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, said Churchill was the ?perfect embodiment of white supremacy?. ?The British Empire was far worse than the Nazis?, he added. No one defended Churchill. The conference was held at Churchill College, Cambridge, at that college?s instigation. The college was founded in 1964, with the great man?s blessing. It is also the home of the Churchill Archives, by far the most important collection of his papers.

Here is my second example. In 2019, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the charity which looks after charities, chose the experienced Karl Wilding, already on the staff, as its new chief executive. It was criticised for picking ?another white man?. Once appointed, Mr Wilding announced his urgent priority to improve the NCVO?s Diversity and Inclusion. He and the board commissioned ?independent consultants? to report on the situation. He also met ?#CharitySoWhite?, a campaign group devoted to attacking white dominance of charities. It was a pre-requisite for the consultants that NCVO should admit to institutional racism, so the eventual report was a foregone conclusion.

ADVERTISING

In the course of its inquiries, the leading consultant claimed she had been shocked by a meeting with Mr Wilding. He was the oppressor, she judged, and had exhibited the sin of ?white fragility?.

During Covid, Mr Wilding had scored an extraordinary hit for the charity sector ? securing ?750 million from the Government to save it from collapse. This did not save him. He recently left his post at the NCVO. A leak of the consultants? report this week claimed there had been ?bullying and harassment? on the basis of race. The new-ish chairman of the NCVO, Priya Singh, grovellingly acknowledged it was ?a structurally racist organisation? (and equally dreadful about homophobia, transphobia etc).

Both these stories reveal organisations which are unfair and ungrateful to those who help them and indulgent to those who hate them. Churchill College could never have raised the money to exist at all without the respect in which the statesman himself was held. The NCVO would have precious few charities to oversee if Mr Wilding had not obtained that huge subvention from the Government.

The question, then, is, why did Churchill College and why did the NCVO (including poor Mr Wilding) and why do bodies such as the National Trust or Historic England or the British Museum give room to those who detest what these organisations do and try to oust the people who run them?

Simple fear is part of it. No one wants to be accused of racism, harassment and ?microaggressions?. Most realise that, if they are, their colleagues will not dare defend them. It feels easier to give in ? though it isn?t. But I think there must be another feeling in the minds of the institutions blowing with this gale. They half-believe that people like Pror Andrews and organisations such as #CharitySoWhite are right ? a bit hot-headed, perhaps, but on the right track.

It is true, as a general proposition about human nature, that people who dominate tend to exploit the rest. Western nations have dominated most of the world for more than 200 years, so there is a history of (among many other, better things) exploitation. It should be told, and that tale will involve Churchill, if only because he was the last globally powerful Englishman. Any painful consequences of the past (along with many more beneficial ones such as the spread of Christianity, the rule of law and modern medicine) for minority-ethnic people alive today should not be hidden. Wrongs that persist must be righted.

But it is a mistake ? indeed, for the institutions involved, a potentially fatal mistake ? to accept all ?anti-racists? at their own valuation. What is emerging as this attempted Cultural Revolution spools out is that Martin Luther King?s ideal that people be judged by ?the content of their character? not by the colour of their skin has been rejected by organisations such as Black Lives Matter.

Instead, they have set up doctrines uncommonly like those of apartheid South Africa, except that the racial hierarchy is reversed. Whereas apartheid demeaned blacks people above all, woke ?anti-racism? demeans white people. It does this explicitly. The very name #CharitySoWhite is a small example. (You can prove it by imagining how people would rightly abhor an organisation called #CharitySoBlack designed to stop black people running charities.) Whiteness is seen as badness: so it must be extirpated. This is a racist doctrine. It is pretty much as simple as that.

When our institutions accept such critiques, they are not only digging their own graves; they also ignorantly and patronisingly accepting the unwarranted claim that the authors of these critiques speak for most ethnic minority people.

Surely anyone who wants BAME people to prosper would favour greater opportunity. And surely opportunity is less likely to open up if they are taught (literally taught, as happens in some schools) that society is against them. Every time one of our institutions gives room to this performative wokery, it denies space to genuine opportunity for ethnic minorities.

There are millions of ethnic minority people in this country doing jobs well and, as a result, often getting better jobs. Some of them, funnily enough, are Conservative MPs, elected mostly by the votes of supposedly racist whites. Several have reached Cabinet level. One, Rishi Sunak, is even Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are no BAME politicians of comparable importance in the Labour Party.

A more junior minister, Kemi Badenoch, eloquently defends British culture against Critical Race Theory, speaking in a language ? English ? which is not her first. She is also active trying to overcome minorities? suspicion of Covid vaccines. Like Priti Patel, she suffers a flood of social-media abuse as a result, some mentioning her other ?race-traitor? sins, such as being married to a white man. Despite the BBC?s strengthened impartiality policy, Emily Maitlis approvingly retweets the editor whose reporter seemingly attacks Mrs Badenoch at every turn.

In BLM-style woke ideology, the rise of ethnic minorities is seen as a positively bad thing. The ineffable Professor Andrews puts it thus: ?Do not be fooled: a cabinet packed with ministers with brown skin wearing Tory masks represents the opposite of racial progress.? He would seem to prefer an all-white Cabinet, then.

Within government today, discussion is inconclusive. There are strong voices, such as that of the No 10 Policy Unit head, Munira Mirza, which understand exactly how wokery can intimidate BAME people who not agree with its doctrines. Dr Tony Sewell?s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, expected next month, is likely to show reasons other than ubiquitous racism for some disparities. Why, for example, are young black males and young white males, doing worse academically than all other ethnic groups? Might it have something to do with weak family structures?

Also within government and officialdom, however, are nervous voices daunted by the task of turning round the oil tanker of nonsense. They need urgently to understand that if they accept the essential woke premise that Britain is a racist state, they must accept the implied conclusion ? that Britain must be destroyed.

[alex_b]

This would be the same Charles Moore who wrote ?that there really is something different about blacks, or at least about black men, or at least about young black men.? and ?I wonder if the law will eventually be changed to allow one to marry one?s dog. Until now, this would have been considered disgusting, since marriage has been a law revolving around sexual behaviour, and sexual acts with animals are still, I believe, illegal.?

He also displays that curious antisemitism of the libertarian right is casting Jews as ?other? but thinking they?re being complimentary while doing so, e.g. ?If it is true, as it surely is that some races ? the Jews are the obvious example ? are highly enterprising and talented, it may also be true that some are the opposite.?

I have to presume that anyone who looks to him to support their argument either hasn?t read him very closely or has pretty suspect motives.

PS Woke is such a moronic epithet.

[TheCat]

If Nigel Farage turned around and said 'murder is wrong' would you question it becuase Nigel Farage said it? Do you believe that if someone has said things you disagree with or find offensive, therefore everything his says must be disagreeable or offensive?

Look, I have no particular affinity for Charles Moore, I don't 'look to him for support', I have no idea what his views on other issues are, and I frankly couldnt care less. I don't even agree with everything he's said in this specific article, but some of it I do..and I happen to think that some of what is said in this article is worthy of discussion. People don't just fall into nice little buckets where you can extrapolate all their views on every issue from (for example) the author of an article they link to. So you can presume what you like my friend - but it will most likely be quite a flimsy presumption. Any comment on what was actually in the article above? Or just on who wrote it?

PS. It's notable that it was the 'woke' who first started calling themselves 'woke'..go back trawl through guardian articles from 3-4 years ago, and you'll find many call to arms on how to be 'woke'. But since everyone else started also calling them the woke (and perhaps not in the most complimentary manner), it's suddenly now dismissed as a right wing generated slur.

[alex_b]

In your example I?d certainly be on the look out for what dodgy proposition he was using it as cover for. Just like neo-nazis using superficially un-contestable statements like ?all lives matter? or ?blue lives matter? to appear reasonable when opposing the BLM protests, I would be suspect he had an ulterior motive.

And so it is with the Moore article. As with most of his others he cobbles together a collection of anecdotes with some innuendo to advance a fundamentally individualist view that if you want to succeed you will, and that society (and particularly the educational system) has no place critically evaluating our history or the structural inequalities that remain. The last paragraph is pure fiction, acknowledging deep structural racism (and misogyny) in our society doesn?t imply the end of the nation state it just shows we need to be better, something Moore is ideologically opposed to as it implies prioritising society over individualism.

I particularly like the selective quoting of MLK, I suspect that he wouldn?t have supported MLK?s point of view when he was alive and would point out that MLK?s daughter has repeatedly disavowed this type of argument from right wing politicians misconstruing for her father?s words in this way.

[TheCat]

I agree that the last para is hyperbolic and unnecessarily provocative. As I similarly disagree with the notion that a desire to improve certain aspects of various organisations (-e. In the NCVO exam?ple) is evidence of a desire to tear down the whole organisation and everything they stand for.

However, I do find concerning, what I see as the knee jerk reactions of some activists to specific situations, as irrefutable evidence of their broadly held position (in this case 'structural racism). I.e. the NCVO appoints a white man for their top job, so we must complain irrespective of whether he is a well qualified candidate with significant achievements in the sector or not.

I also find it appallingly hypocritical, the treatment which conervative minority ethnic politics suffer by many proclaimed 'anti-racists'. Roundly calling them race-traitors and uncle toms, or with 'internalized racism'. This makes a mockery of the whole desire to listen to minority voices and place importance of "lived experience'. You can see why many people are cynical that for many activist groups, 'lived experience' is only important if it is the lived experience which suits their narrative.....

I also agree with his comments about the 'weaponisation' of the word 'white'. The now ubiquitous use of the word 'white' to imply something negative is divisive and counter-productive. As pointed in the article, if the word 'black' were used in its place - in most of these contexts the terms would be quickly derided as offensive and unacceptable. Further, i's quite extraordinary really that there is large support for this type of (offsenive?) language from the same groups of activists who will support someone being publicly hounded out of a job for the smallest slip of the tongue or poor choice of words, while using phrases like 'words matter' or 'words can be violence'.....

Just finally, on your own comment....."Just like neo-nazis using superficially un-contestable statements like ?all lives matter? or ?blue lives matter? to appear reasonable when opposing the BLM protests, I would be suspect he had an ulterior motive"....

It seems that's a common tactic at both ends of the spectrum. Terms like 'anti-rascist' and 'stop funding hate' sound similarly superficially un-contestable, but often cover up much more divisive, prejudiced and bigoted (in some cases) ideas and positions.....

[TheCat]

PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion on 'woke'. I think this article by Kenan Malik (I 'presume' he is more acceptable to you as a commentator?:)) is a great outline of the bigotry and divisiveness on display from both the 'woke' and the 'unwoke' alike...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/14/those-who-use-woke-as-an-insult-forget-the-point-of-a-real-debate

[Nigello]

"Wokery" has become a hobby and a lifestyle for many. It won't last. Something else will come along and the fast-clicking "first-to-like" types will leave it behind. There's a kind of corporateness to it, a sort of mass-scale aspect - there are unofficial but strictly adhered-to checklists of good and bad and every effort has to be made to show you are with A and against B and any absence of such demonstration is an indication you are siding with the baddies. Social media has permitted the fast and furious spread of the fight for social justice but it seems flimsy and shallow to me, which is a pity as real change in certain areas is needed. Just be nice and don't apologise to yourself or anyone for being short, black, gay, academically gifted, double-jointed, blind, - it is just the way you are and you, despite your feelings of "empowerment" and "agency" and other such buzzwords, cannot change your genes and nor should you. Attitudes can alter, of course, but most people are fundamentally OK so don't beat yourself up if you are not able to turn yourself into a shining example of the W-word, let alone maintain it.

[TheCat]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Wokery" has become a hobby and a lifestyle for

> many. It won't last. Something else will come

> along and the fast-clicking "first-to-like" types

> will leave it behind. There's a kind of

> corporateness to it, a sort of mass-scale aspect -

> there are unofficial but strictly adhered-to

> checklists of good and bad and every effort has to

> be made to show you are with A and against B and

> any absence of such demonstration is an indication

> you are siding with the baddies. Social media has

> permitted the fast and furious spread of the fight

> for social justice but it seems flimsy and shallow

> to me, which is a pity as real change in certain

> areas is needed. Just be nice and don't apologise

> to yourself or anyone for being short, black, gay,

> academically gifted, double-jointed, blind, - it

> is just the way you are and you, despite your

> feelings of "empowerment" and "agency" and other

> such buzzwords, cannot change your genes and nor

> should you. Attitudes can alter, of course, but

> most people are fundamentally OK so don't beat

> yourself up if you are not able to turn yourself

> into a shining example of the W-word, let alone

> maintain it.

great comment.

[ianr]

The Cat wrote:

> PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion on 'woke'.

What/where is this?

[TheCat]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Cat wrote:

> > PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion

> on 'woke'.

>

> What/where is this?

alex_b Wrote:

--------------------------------------------------.

>

> PS Woke is such a moronic epithet.

TheCat Wrote:

>

> PS. It's notable that it was the 'woke' who first

> started calling themselves 'woke'..go back trawl

> through guardian articles from 3-4 years ago, and

> you'll find many call to arms on how to be 'woke'.

> But since everyone else started also calling them

> the woke (and perhaps not in the most

> complimentary manner), it's suddenly now dismissed

> as a right wing generated slur

[JohnL]

If woke wasn't such a provocative word (I don't know why but it is - maybe because it's not really a word in the sense it's used).

It's meaning is rather boring - just an ability to understand injustice and history - nothing bad.

[ianr]

> It's meaning is rather boring -

> just an ability to understand

> injustice and history - nothing bad.

Cool.

[TheCat]

It's fascinating to me that many of the people who often protest loudly about the need to 'educate yourself' about racism are the same people who are dismissing the Sewell report without even bothering reading it, on the basis on cherry picked soundbites and mis-represnted excerpts they've read in the Guardian or on social media....

I had a social media 'debate' today with a number of people who are calling it a disgrace. As it happens, Ive actually read most of it....not one of them had even opened it.....

[alice]

Tony Sewell was saying exactly those things back in very early 2000s, I remember going to hear him speak at Lewisham town hall.

[EDguy89]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's fascinating to me that many of the people who

> often protest loudly about the need to 'educate

> yourself' about racism are the same people who are

> dismissing the Sewell report without even

> bothering reading it, on the basis on cherry

> picked soundbites and mis-represnted excerpts

> they've read in the Guardian or on social

> media....

>

> I had a social media 'debate' today with a number

> of people who are calling it a disgrace. As it

> happens, Ive actually read most of it....not one

> of them had even opened it.....

So I haven't read all 258 pages, but i've read some of it and I think the section "Perceptions and Realities" is a good starting point to see what the report says and see if there's any credibility to the people who disagree with it

I'll quickly paraphrase the section:

-The first argument is that media and social media amplifies the perception that racism is on the rise

-A think tank found that 13% of white people experienced racist or prejudiced insults online compared to 19% for those who are Pakistani and 22% for those who are black

-Police recorded hate crimes increased 131% in 9 years, but they claim it's due to more broad definitions of hate crime and better reporting

-Crime Survey for England and Wales, often considered more reliable, has seen a decrease in hate crimes by 45k compared from 2010-2012 to 2018-2020

-The perception of racism exists also in part of COVID due to black and south asian people living generally in higher density, urban areas with more levels of deprivation, work in higher risk jobs, and live with older more vulnerable relatives

- "if it were true that Black and South Asian groups were suffering from systemic racism

throughout their lives" then we would see a higher mortality rate because the quality of life would be lower (education, health, income, housing, and employment)

-However, mortality rates for Black and South Asian groups were lower when all causes of death were considered and "data for Scotland suggests Asian ethnic groups groups have higher life expectancy than White ethnic

groups." -----I'll return to this point later

-Instead of focusing on race and ethnicity, they suggest focusing on underlying risk factors (socio-economic)

-They ponder why it is that while situations have improved for ethnic minority groups, why public perception is that nothing's changed

-The quote Sunder Katwala - essentially saying that academics, media, and political environments are overplaying racism as it isn't the lived experience for most people and that we need to hear more from people who "just get on with their everyday lives and are not defined by race"

-The finish up by suggesting that these pessimistic narratives in media help form a negative view on a matter that they show has improved. They're not happy with Lobbying groups that do some good things, but emphasize lived experiences "with less emphasis on objective data"

A bit lengthy, I know. That's a pretty objective retelling of what they claim in that section. If you don't think that's right I'd suggest you go read it and tell me what was wrong.

So now, why is it that people can look at this report questionably? What's questionable in that synopsis?

I think the bit about the increase in hate crimes recorded by the police then contradicting that statement with the bit from the thinktank isn't helpful. They make excuses for why the police figures have increased, but then talk about how the thinktank data is seen as more reliable. So if it's the most reliable why did they include the police then attempt to discredit it? Why bother making excuses for the increase if it's not credible?

I think they contradict themselves a lot when they're talking about Black/South Asian communities being more likely to die from COVID due to their work, their living standards, environment, and who they live with. They later talk about bit that I said I'd return to. They say Black/South Asian mortality is lower than white mortality, despite Black/South Asian people living in the more deprived communities in general. So, they're admitting that the people who they say are most impacted by the soci-economic issues they're wanting to address are Black/South Asian people. Why not just say it?

The other issue with that part is that they do reference two separate papers for Black/South Asian death causes from all sources and then the Scottish report about white people having lower life expectancy rates. I feel this bit is pretty cherry picked because the statement about "less death dates from all causes for Black/South Asian" comes from this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf but that same paper says "Black males were 3.9

times more likely to die than the White group, compared with 2.5 times in Asian males.

Among females, death rates were 3.3 times higher in the Black ethnic group, and 2.3

times higher in the Asian ethnic group than the White group." ---Ok, so? Well they followed that bit up with the statement from the Scottish report that White people have a shorter life expectancy. There's no link to that report and it's 5 years old at this point.

Is it really acceptable to compare a report on deaths during a pandemic to a report about life expectancy from a time before COVID? Surely those life expectancy rates would have shifted in 5 years? Even if they haven't, with a pandemic they really should comparing like for like. Plus, you're also comparing death rates in the entirety of England to life expectancy in Scotland. They're not the same.

Then my last bit since I'm going on and on and on is about the quote from Sunder Katwala - The bit about needing to hear from regular folk whose lives aren't defined by racism. Who would that be? People like me. White people. We're not defined by racism because WE ARE the societal norm. White people are the baseline in life. We don't need to hear from regular white folk when it comes to talks about racism. We need to listen more than we talk.

So yeah, that section alone is questionable, plus they don't even bring up things like stop and searches with this nice bit from a report published in Feb 2021: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest#by-ethnicity

"there were 6 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 54 for every 1,000 Black people"

But yeah, they also have the audacity to say IF when they're talking about systemic racism. IF.

Systemic racism is real.

[TheCat]

With regards to your last point, I think its worth looking at the section starting on page 33 called 'the language of race' which sets the context for how the report is considering various commonly used terms. And the perhaps help frame the discussion around what labels we apply to modern Britain's race relations with a little more nuance than just something is REAL or NOT REAL based of different people's understanding of different terms....which is a gross oversimplification of what is by its nature a subjective discussion.....

In anycase....while you, me and others might not agree with everything in the there, or every data comparison, at least you've read a bit of it and can have a discussion about its content, which is more than most people reacting angrily, but being uninformed. This is opposed to most press characterisation, which even in the past 24 hours has lost almost all attempts at any form of nuance....are are often chacatrisiing the report as basically denying racism exists in modern Britain...which any objective read of even a bit of would suggest is very untrue, even if one disagree with the approach taken in certain areas.

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's fascinating to me that many of the people who

> often protest loudly about the need to 'educate

> yourself' about racism are the same people who are

> dismissing the Sewell report without even

> bothering reading it, on the basis on cherry

> picked soundbites and mis-represnted excerpts

> they've read in the Guardian or on social

> media....

>

> I had a social media 'debate' today with a number

> of people who are calling it a disgrace. As it

> happens, Ive actually read most of it....not one

> of them had even opened it.....

It?s pathetic to me that you claim to have read a report on racism and all you have to say is to criticise unidentifiable people for saying things in a debate that probably no one one here has seen (although it?s clear that?s a tactic you like)

Why not provide a link to that debate at least?

[TheCat]

Oh goody, so pleased that you've decided to return with your 'friendly' posts and 'well informed' posts.

No, I don't think I'll provide a link to my friends personal Facebook page. You'll just have to limit embarrassing yourself again to this forum it seems.

[pk]

Still nothing to say of any substance then

What?s the point of coming on here to moan about what goes on on your friends FB but not letting anyone see what you?re talking about?

[TheCat]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Still nothing to say of any substance then

>

Brilliant. You are beyond parody PK. Never change.

[Sephiroth]

Govt issues summary of report and prevents journalists access to full report for 24 hours

Initial positive spin from usual suspects gives way to widespread condemnation as people get their hands on report

People quoted deny their part in the process

Even the govt itself has to issue an ?explainer?

Near Everyone concludes it?s a complete fiasco

Apart from one lone brave man. A pudgy white, comfortable man with no experience of racism on the receiving end. He might come from a country which near-wiped out an indigenous population just a few generations ago and one might think he would have some self-awareness. But no

[pk]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Still nothing to say of any substance then

> >

>

>

> Brilliant. You are beyond parody PK. Never change.

Still parading your ignorance and question dodging, please change

[TheCat]

Seph and PK...If both of you can get past your prejudicial dislike of me and my posts and actually re-read my first two posts on this issue, you'll see that nowhere have I said I endorse the report and all its findings. In fact I've actually specifically said at one stage that I don't agree with parts of it. And yes, I have also said that parts of it seem reasonable and sensible, adding a bit of nuance to some aspects of the discussion, in my view.

The focus of my posts is very, very clearly asking that people who wish to criticise and discuss the report to please bother reading it, to promote a discussion based on more than just what you've read second or third-hand.

I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

But since neither of you can even actually be bothered reading my posts (which are significantly shorter than the report) without bile, loathing and personal insults dripping from your pores....then perhaps it is unreasonable to ask people like the both of you....who seemingly base all your thoughts on what others think, rather than dare to engage your brain for yourselves.

Perhaps one of you wants to start a 'We hate TheCat' thread, so you both don't keep hijacking other topics constantly.

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Apart from one lone brave man. A pudgy white,

> comfortable man with no experience of racism on

> the receiving end. He might come from a country

> which near-wiped out an indigenous population just

> a few generations ago and one might think he would

> have some self-awareness. But no

You make a lot of assumptions here about someone you know nothing about. And on a number of counts you could not be more wrong. Ask yourself why it is that I care about this issue so much? I'm not going to answer that question publically, becuase it's none of your business. But you can kindly keep your character assasinations to yourself, and I'll be reporting your post to admin.