Defensive Personalities

[AFK]

Yeah, Laz is a unique animal unto himself.  Jesus Christ I don't want to bring the MW crowd into this, but there is a situation where "Discordianism" and "BIP" has been panned, mischaracterized, etc., etc., but at least there is SOME avenue for discussion about the misconceptions, misunderstandings, whatever.  Mr. Laz has retreated into his castle and raised the drawbridge.  Anyone have a trebuchet?

[Thurnez Isa]

Personally I think he was just looking for people that thought like him
combination of being socially accepted and belonging to a movement
and when it wasnt here he moved on
Hes probably somewhere else right now
completely forgot about us
no matter how much shit we raise

[Jenne]

 Or a set of orc soldiers on hand?

I think that's what sticks in MY craw.  He was contributing valuatively for some time, then up and left when his preliminary findings were "confirmed."  Instead of sticking around to find out if he was right, he just goes and "reviews" the area and leaves it for his audience.

No invitation, either, to the rest of us to see what he was up to.

Cowardly.

[Mangrove]

Yeah, Laz is a unique animal unto himself.  Jesus Christ I don't want to bring the MW crowd into this, but there is a situation where "Discordianism" and "BIP" has been panned, mischaracterized, etc., etc., but at least there is SOME avenue for discussion about the misconceptions, misunderstandings, whatever.  Mr. Laz has retreated into his castle and raised the drawbridge. Anyone have a trebuchet?

that's ECH's dept.

[Bhode_Sativa]

I'm not gone, just took a minivacation coupled with a drastic scaling back of preaching opinions that have *apparently* all been covered before.  Now I only chime in when I think I have something relevant to share. 

The thing that triggered a backlash of public opinion (at least in my view) was my criticism of a YouTube video that TGRR liked, followed by my use of a phrase that he regards as "his" which resulted in his crusade against me. 

As far as my "Rock solid worldview" is concerned, I was really enthusiastic about a particular perception of the past, but, beyond the initial shock of adjustment, I have been actively pursuing further knowledge.  I realize I don't know everything, but I don't think I'll ever give up trying.  I think most of the arguments against Anarcho-primitivism rely on certain "Shared assumptions" that I don't entirely share, but when people made sense to me (like Hangero and Vexaph0d) there was constructive compromise.

I don't think EVERYONE thought poorly of me, but Rodger's opinions and judgments of me were accepted de facto by enough people to make me want to take it easy for a while, let things cool off, and maybe start posting again when I have a better feel for the audience.  What was truly amusing was how many people piled on, in addition to how peer-pressure effected those who commented on my behalf. 

I don't know if there is anything short of boredom that could make me stop reading the forum.

[B_M_W]

I'm not gone, just took a minivacation coupled with a drastic scaling back of preaching opinions that have *apparently* all been covered before.  Now I only chime in when I think I have something relevant to share. 

The thing that triggered a backlash of public opinion (at least in my view) was my criticism of a YouTube video that TGRR liked, followed by my use of a phrase that he regards as "his" which resulted in his crusade against me. 

As far as my "Rock solid worldview" is concerned, I was really enthusiastic about a particular perception of the past, but, beyond the initial shock of adjustment, I have been actively pursuing further knowledge.  I realize I don't know everything, but I don't think I'll ever give up trying.  I think most of the arguments against Anarcho-primitivism rely on certain "Shared assumptions" that I don't entirely share, but when people made sense to me (like Hangero and Vexaph0d) there was constructive compromise.

I don't think EVERYONE thought poorly of me, but Rodger's opinions and judgments of me were accepted de facto by enough people to make me want to take it easy for a while, let things cool off, and maybe start posting again when I have a better feel for the audience.  What was truly amusing was how many people piled on, in addition to how peer-pressure effected those who commented on my behalf. 

I don't know if there is anything short of boredom that could make me stop reading the forum.

The greatest problems with anarcho-primitivism that I can be objective about are:

1) Lost knowlege: Humans, in general, have lost the cultural knowlege of living without modern technology, the uses of natural biological materials, hunting, gathering, farming (in a non-modern sense), tool making, shelter building, etc.

2) Changed environ: even if we somehow learn that information, we can't really apply it today because the modern human has so altered the landscape and the ecology as the diversity and abundance of ecological systems and biological species which this knowlege relied upon are greatly reduced.

3) Human Population: The human population is too large on this planet to sustain such an amount of people. One of the primary reasons that we can "sustain" (quotations because I personally do not believe that current population sizes and growth rates are sustainable over time) the populations of this planet are genetically engineered species of corn and wheat, technology which would not be available in an a primitivist society. And there is certainly not enough gatherable and huntable food available on this planet for 6 + billion people.

4) Primitive societies were HIGHLY structured, with family lineages and chieftomships and tribal feuds and war parties. They were humans, and just like any other humans they were not these "eden-like" peoples that so many seem to think. Yes, their relationship was closer to ecology than the rest of us, but they still fucked things up, had wars, raped, pillaged, plundered, and lived like humans, generally.

So, there are some points. Feel free to argue them if you wish, but this is why I believe that anarcho-primitivism is a impossibility.

[LHX]

I'm not gone, just took a minivacation coupled with a drastic scaling back of preaching opinions that have *apparently* all been covered before.  Now I only chime in when I think I have something relevant to share. 

The thing that triggered a backlash of public opinion (at least in my view) was my criticism of a YouTube video that TGRR liked, followed by my use of a phrase that he regards as "his" which resulted in his crusade against me. 

As far as my "Rock solid worldview" is concerned, I was really enthusiastic about a particular perception of the past, but, beyond the initial shock of adjustment, I have been actively pursuing further knowledge.  I realize I don't know everything, but I don't think I'll ever give up trying.  I think most of the arguments against Anarcho-primitivism rely on certain "Shared assumptions" that I don't entirely share, but when people made sense to me (like Hangero and Vexaph0d) there was constructive compromise.

I don't think EVERYONE thought poorly of me, but Rodger's opinions and judgments of me were accepted de facto by enough people to make me want to take it easy for a while, let things cool off, and maybe start posting again when I have a better feel for the audience.  What was truly amusing was how many people piled on, in addition to how peer-pressure effected those who commented on my behalf. 

I don't know if there is anything short of boredom that could make me stop reading the forum.

thats respectable

kinda makes the other dude stick out even more

[Bhode_Sativa]

The greatest problems with anarcho-primitivism that I can be objective about are:

1) Lost knowlege: Humans, in general, have lost the cultural knowlege of living without modern technology, the uses of natural biological materials, hunting, gathering, farming (in a non-modern sense), tool making, shelter building, etc.

2) Changed environ: even if we somehow learn that information, we can't really apply it today because the modern human has so altered the landscape and the ecology as the diversity and abundance of ecological systems and biological species which this knowlege relied upon are greatly reduced.

3) Human Population: The human population is too large on this planet to sustain such an amount of people. One of the primary reasons that we can "sustain" (quotations because I personally do not believe that current population sizes and growth rates are sustainable over time) the populations of this planet are genetically engineered species of corn and wheat, technology which would not be available in an a primitivist society. And there is certainly not enough gatherable and huntable food available on this planet for 6 + billion people.

4) Primitive societies were HIGHLY structured, with family lineages and chieftomships and tribal feuds and war parties. They were humans, and just like any other humans they were not these "eden-like" peoples that so many seem to think. Yes, their relationship was closer to ecology than the rest of us, but they still fucked things up, had wars, raped, pillaged, plundered, and lived like humans, generally.

So, there are some points. Feel free to argue them if you wish, but this is why I believe that anarcho-primitivism is a impossibility.

I like those points, and wish I had heard them sooner, but in response:

1.  Yes, generally we have, but there are groups of people the world over who do know how to survive off of what the local ecology can provide.  In fact, in the interest of broadening my education on tribalism, I've seen a few programs on the travel channel that had westerners living with and learning from a tribe in New Guinea, as well as shows on other tribe's survival practices from the Amazon.  There are also people who are nature survivalists who get dropped in the middle of no-where and travel to a pre-determined pickup location.  Survival in nature may be beyond the abilities of the vast majority of the population, but it's nowhere near impossible on an individual/familial basis.

2.  This one I agree with almost totally, and it goes along with number three to a certain extent as in the elimination of the herds of Buffalo, the destruction of vast swathes of forests to make room for the farms we have today.

3.  You're right, there is not enough huntable/gatherable foodstuffs to sustain our current population.  Technology has given us the ability to genetically alter crops, but time allowed the same thing as the domestication of certain plants followed a pattern of natural selection that reinforced traits useful to humans.  We just cut out the interim generational mutation necessary to get there.

4.  Being more environmentally acceptable is the point.  I think the systems of raiding and raping eliminated the weak and propagated those genes better suited for survival, regardless of the emotional stigmas associated with those behaviors in "Modern" society.  I have no illusions about an "eden-like" existence, but I don't see tribal behaviors as any worse than what goes on in society today.

Just for the record, reading Guns, Germs, and Steel has helped to show me reasons why certain societies have subjugated or eliminated others, and shown me the almost inevitability of a culture like ours coming to dominate a world landscape.  Even were I to wave a magic wand and return the world to groups of hunter/gatherers, eventually it would return to something resembling what we have now. 

I readily admit the impracticality of trying to establish a worldwide return to tribalism, but I think that embracing some of the good things about it (like reducing society's ecological impact and strengthening interpersonal relationships) can provide achievable goals to improve the quality of life most people experience.  It has become a part of my map, but by no means the totality of it. 

Currently I am intrigued by efforts to use technology to reduce the output of CO2 such as can be found here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/

Hangero pointed out that currently the best thing to do is to pursue scientific answers to the problems we've created for ourselves, and that also made sense to me. 

I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think that more people should include Anarcho-Primitivism in their education, regardless of its problems, simply to expand their knowledge base and help eliminate some of the assumptions they take for granted without even knowing.

Sorry for the incredibly long post.

[B_M_W]

The greatest problems with anarcho-primitivism that I can be objective about are:

1) Lost knowlege: Humans, in general, have lost the cultural knowlege of living without modern technology, the uses of natural biological materials, hunting, gathering, farming (in a non-modern sense), tool making, shelter building, etc.

2) Changed environ: even if we somehow learn that information, we can't really apply it today because the modern human has so altered the landscape and the ecology as the diversity and abundance of ecological systems and biological species which this knowlege relied upon are greatly reduced.

3) Human Population: The human population is too large on this planet to sustain such an amount of people. One of the primary reasons that we can "sustain" (quotations because I personally do not believe that current population sizes and growth rates are sustainable over time) the populations of this planet are genetically engineered species of corn and wheat, technology which would not be available in an a primitivist society. And there is certainly not enough gatherable and huntable food available on this planet for 6 + billion people.

4) Primitive societies were HIGHLY structured, with family lineages and chieftomships and tribal feuds and war parties. They were humans, and just like any other humans they were not these "eden-like" peoples that so many seem to think. Yes, their relationship was closer to ecology than the rest of us, but they still fucked things up, had wars, raped, pillaged, plundered, and lived like humans, generally.

So, there are some points. Feel free to argue them if you wish, but this is why I believe that anarcho-primitivism is a impossibility.

I like those points, and wish I had heard them sooner, but in response:

1.  Yes, generally we have, but there are groups of people the world over who do know how to survive off of what the local ecology can provide.  In fact, in the interest of broadening my education on tribalism, I've seen a few programs on the travel channel that had westerners living with and learning from a tribe in New Guinea, as well as shows on other tribe's survival practices from the Amazon.  There are also people who are nature survivalists who get dropped in the middle of no-where and travel to a pre-determined pickup location.  Survival in nature may be beyond the abilities of the vast majority of the population, but it's nowhere near impossible on an individual/familial basis.

Two points to this: 1) The groups you are speaking of (which I do know of) are located in remote locations far from where you are living, thus the methods, the knowlege on which they use to survive would be highly different than the methods that would need to be used where you live, and even that has been highly altered. 2) A family group (as I believe it has been said here before) is far too small a population to be sustainable over a long period of time. You need only look to the science of population ecology for that information.

2.  This one I agree with almost totally, and it goes along with number three to a certain extent as in the elimination of the herds of Buffalo, the destruction of vast swathes of forests to make room for the farms we have today.

And because of that altered ecology, the ability to sustain even an individual human in a primitivist manner is depressed.

3.  You're right, there is not enough huntable/gatherable foodstuffs to sustain our current population.  Technology has given us the ability to genetically alter crops, but time allowed the same thing as the domestication of certain plants followed a pattern of natural selection that reinforced traits useful to humans.  We just cut out the interim generational mutation necessary to get there.

Please explain further what you are saying here.

4.  Being more environmentally acceptable is the point.  I think the systems of raiding and raping eliminated the weak and propagated those genes better suited for survival, regardless of the emotional stigmas associated with those behaviors in "Modern" society.  I have no illusions about an "eden-like" existence, but I don't see tribal behaviors as any worse than what goes on in society today.

They are no worse, but they are also no better, and they are certainly not anarchic, which was my point. If you are trying to build an anarchic-primitivist "society", you can't use any tribal organisation as a model.

Just for the record, reading Guns, Germs, and Steel has helped to show me reasons why certain societies have subjugated or eliminated others, and shown me the almost inevitability of a culture like ours coming to dominate a world landscape.  Even were I to wave a magic wand and return the world to groups of hunter/gatherers, eventually it would return to something resembling what we have now.

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

I readily admit the impracticality of trying to establish a worldwide return to tribalism, but I think that embracing some of the good things about it (like reducing society's ecological impact and strengthening interpersonal relationships) can provide achievable goals to improve the quality of life most people experience.  It has become a part of my map, but by no means the totality of it.

What you are forwarding with Anarcho-primitivism is not a return to tribalism, which, as earlier stated, was highly organised, but a completly new system. And I agree, decreasing ecological impact and strenghthening interpersonal relationships are two very important things that people would do well to pay more attention to.

Currently I am intrigued by efforts to use technology to reduce the output of CO2 such as can be found here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/

Hangero pointed out that currently the best thing to do is to pursue scientific answers to the problems we've created for ourselves, and that also made sense to me. 

I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think that more people should include Anarcho-Primitivism in their education, regardless of its problems, simply to expand their knowledge base and help eliminate some of the assumptions they take for granted without even knowing.

Sorry for the incredibly long post.

No problem. You seem to be coming to a personal consensus on what you feel needs to be done, and I commend you for that. The reason that people reacted to you badly in the first place was your advocation for massive human death in responce to ecological crisis, a very (to say the least) controversial and (in my opinion) amoral approach to the problem.

That is all for now.

[Bhode_Sativa]

I like those points, and wish I had heard them sooner, but in response:

1.  Yes, generally we have, but there are groups of people the world over who do know how to survive off of what the local ecology can provide.  In fact, in the interest of broadening my education on tribalism, I've seen a few programs on the travel channel that had westerners living with and learning from a tribe in New Guinea, as well as shows on other tribe's survival practices from the Amazon.  There are also people who are nature survivalists who get dropped in the middle of no-where and travel to a pre-determined pickup location.  Survival in nature may be beyond the abilities of the vast majority of the population, but it's nowhere near impossible on an individual/familial basis.

Two points to this: 1) The groups you are speaking of (which I do know of) are located in remote locations far from where you are living, thus the methods, the knowlege on which they use to survive would be highly different than the methods that would need to be used where you live, and even that has been highly altered. 2) A family group (as I believe it has been said here before) is far too small a population to be sustainable over a long period of time. You need only look to the science of population ecology for that information.

Yup.  But, were some sort of cataclysm to happen, people would figure out a way to survive, or die, leaving only those people who already had some knowledge of plants/animals, those who could figure it out, and those that could establish dominance over other survivors with resources.  Pretty much "good luck" but if individuals pursue whatever wilderness lore is appropriate for their usual surroundings they could improve their chances.

2.  This one I agree with almost totally, and it goes along with number three to a certain extent as in the elimination of the herds of Buffalo, the destruction of vast swathes of forests to make room for the farms we have today.

And because of that altered ecology, the ability to sustain even an individual human in a primitivist manner is depressed.

Which is why we need to stop further predation upon natural resources.

3.  You're right, there is not enough huntable/gatherable foodstuffs to sustain our current population.  Technology has given us the ability to genetically alter crops, but time allowed the same thing as the domestication of certain plants followed a pattern of natural selection that reinforced traits useful to humans.  We just cut out the interim generational mutation necessary to get there.

Please explain further what you are saying here.

We've genetically engineered plants that produce larger yields, resistance to diseases and other things.  Given enough time, every sedentary group that developed any amount of agriculture would also have bred their crops for larger yields, and the ones more resistant to diseases would survive.  It may have taken a lot longer but differences in size of domesticated vs wild plants are well documented.  I'm just saying, genetic manipulation allows a quick path to more options, but over time, it would have happened anyway.

4.  Being more environmentally acceptable is the point.  I think the systems of raiding and raping eliminated the weak and propagated those genes better suited for survival, regardless of the emotional stigmas associated with those behaviors in "Modern" society.  I have no illusions about an "eden-like" existence, but I don't see tribal behaviors as any worse than what goes on in society today.

They are no worse, but they are also no better, and they are certainly not anarchic, which was my point. If you are trying to build an anarchic-primitivist "society", you can't use any tribal organisation as a model.

Okay, I get you.  I need to stop qualifying my position as Anarcho-Primitivist until I do more research than two books and some TV shows. 

Just for the record, reading Guns, Germs, and Steel has helped to show me reasons why certain societies have subjugated or eliminated others, and shown me the almost inevitability of a culture like ours coming to dominate a world landscape.  Even were I to wave a magic wand and return the world to groups of hunter/gatherers, eventually it would return to something resembling what we have now.

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

ditto

I readily admit the impracticality of trying to establish a worldwide return to tribalism, but I think that embracing some of the good things about it (like reducing society's ecological impact and strengthening interpersonal relationships) can provide achievable goals to improve the quality of life most people experience.  It has become a part of my map, but by no means the totality of it.

What you are forwarding with Anarcho-primitivism is not a return to tribalism, which, as earlier stated, was highly organised, but a completly new system. And I agree, decreasing ecological impact and strenghthening interpersonal relationships are two very important things that people would do well to pay more attention to.

Currently I am intrigued by efforts to use technology to reduce the output of CO2 such as can be found here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/

Hangero pointed out that currently the best thing to do is to pursue scientific answers to the problems we've created for ourselves, and that also made sense to me. 

I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think that more people should include Anarcho-Primitivism in their education, regardless of its problems, simply to expand their knowledge base and help eliminate some of the assumptions they take for granted without even knowing.

Sorry for the incredibly long post.

No problem. You seem to be coming to a personal consensus on what you feel needs to be done, and I commend you for that. The reason that people reacted to you badly in the first place was your advocation for massive human death in responce to ecological crisis, a very (to say the least) controversial and (in my opinion) amoral approach to the problem.

That is all for now.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion. 

Sorry it took so long to reply, I'm playing poker at the same time, and formulating responses takes my attention away from the game, so it takes a while.

[B_M_W]

All I have left to note is that you feel there needs to be catyclism for your primitivist society to occur. And that sounds suspiciously like the "human holocaust for ecological problems" that you stated before.

And another note, I guess. The reason we are having this intelligent disscussion is because you are trying to be more intelligent about the issue. I told you more than once that when you wanted to talk about real enviromental ethics (and not something as childish as global cataclysm to solve all our problems) then you should come tall to me.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

Thought that was Jared Diamond.

Sweet Caroline, BA DA DA!  Your nerve gas never looked so good...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like those points, and wish I had heard them sooner, but in response:

1.  Yes, generally we have, but there are groups of people the world over who do know how to survive off of what the local ecology can provide.  In fact, in the interest of broadening my education on tribalism, I've seen a few programs on the travel channel that had westerners living with and learning from a tribe in New Guinea, as well as shows on other tribe's survival practices from the Amazon.  There are also people who are nature survivalists who get dropped in the middle of no-where and travel to a pre-determined pickup location.  Survival in nature may be beyond the abilities of the vast majority of the population, but it's nowhere near impossible on an individual/familial basis.

Two points to this: 1) The groups you are speaking of (which I do know of) are located in remote locations far from where you are living, thus the methods, the knowlege on which they use to survive would be highly different than the methods that would need to be used where you live, and even that has been highly altered. 2) A family group (as I believe it has been said here before) is far too small a population to be sustainable over a long period of time. You need only look to the science of population ecology for that information.

Yup.  But, were some sort of cataclysm to happen, people would figure out a way to survive, or die, leaving only those people who already had some knowledge of plants/animals, those who could figure it out, and those that could establish dominance over other survivors with resources.  Pretty much "good luck" but if individuals pursue whatever wilderness lore is appropriate for their usual surroundings they could improve their chances.

2.  This one I agree with almost totally, and it goes along with number three to a certain extent as in the elimination of the herds of Buffalo, the destruction of vast swathes of forests to make room for the farms we have today.

And because of that altered ecology, the ability to sustain even an individual human in a primitivist manner is depressed.

Which is why we need to stop further predation upon natural resources.

3.  You're right, there is not enough huntable/gatherable foodstuffs to sustain our current population.  Technology has given us the ability to genetically alter crops, but time allowed the same thing as the domestication of certain plants followed a pattern of natural selection that reinforced traits useful to humans.  We just cut out the interim generational mutation necessary to get there.

Please explain further what you are saying here.

We've genetically engineered plants that produce larger yields, resistance to diseases and other things.  Given enough time, every sedentary group that developed any amount of agriculture would also have bred their crops for larger yields, and the ones more resistant to diseases would survive.  It may have taken a lot longer but differences in size of domesticated vs wild plants are well documented.  I'm just saying, genetic manipulation allows a quick path to more options, but over time, it would have happened anyway.

4.  Being more environmentally acceptable is the point.  I think the systems of raiding and raping eliminated the weak and propagated those genes better suited for survival, regardless of the emotional stigmas associated with those behaviors in "Modern" society.  I have no illusions about an "eden-like" existence, but I don't see tribal behaviors as any worse than what goes on in society today.

They are no worse, but they are also no better, and they are certainly not anarchic, which was my point. If you are trying to build an anarchic-primitivist "society", you can't use any tribal organisation as a model.

Okay, I get you.  I need to stop qualifying my position as Anarcho-Primitivist until I do more research than two books and some TV shows. 

Just for the record, reading Guns, Germs, and Steel has helped to show me reasons why certain societies have subjugated or eliminated others, and shown me the almost inevitability of a culture like ours coming to dominate a world landscape.  Even were I to wave a magic wand and return the world to groups of hunter/gatherers, eventually it would return to something resembling what we have now.

 

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

ditto

I readily admit the impracticality of trying to establish a worldwide return to tribalism, but I think that embracing some of the good things about it (like reducing society's ecological impact and strengthening interpersonal relationships) can provide achievable goals to improve the quality of life most people experience.  It has become a part of my map, but by no means the totality of it.

 

What you are forwarding with Anarcho-primitivism is not a return to tribalism, which, as earlier stated, was highly organised, but a completly new system. And I agree, decreasing ecological impact and strenghthening interpersonal relationships are two very important things that people would do well to pay more attention to.

Currently I am intrigued by efforts to use technology to reduce the output of CO2 such as can be found here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/

Hangero pointed out that currently the best thing to do is to pursue scientific answers to the problems we've created for ourselves, and that also made sense to me. 

I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think that more people should include Anarcho-Primitivism in their education, regardless of its problems, simply to expand their knowledge base and help eliminate some of the assumptions they take for granted without even knowing.

Sorry for the incredibly long post.

No problem. You seem to be coming to a personal consensus on what you feel needs to be done, and I commend you for that. The reason that people reacted to you badly in the first place was your advocation for massive human death in responce to ecological crisis, a very (to say the least) controversial and (in my opinion) amoral approach to the problem.

That is all for now.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion. 

Sorry it took so long to reply, I'm playing poker at the same time, and formulating responses takes my attention away from the game, so it takes a while.

Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

Come on, dude...it's the only way to save the dolphins!

[Cain]

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

Thought that was Jared Diamond.

Sweet Caroline, BA DA DA!  Your nerve gas never looked so good...

How on earth did I miss that?

Hows the site business going?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just for the record, Guns Germs and Steel by Neil Diamond is an excelent book and I would suggest it to each and every person here on this forum.

Thought that was Jared Diamond.

Sweet Caroline, BA DA DA!  Your nerve gas never looked so good...

How on earth did I miss that?

Hows the site business going?

It's not, yet.  I got busy, then I saw what all was going on, and said "why bother"?