Thread: Hezbollah Guaranteed By U.s. 2nd Amendment

America, who consistently demands that every group it confronts should always disarm even before any discussions for political process can scarcely begin[/b]

Since when? The United states has always tried unilateral discussions and in worst case scenarios, sanctions before any demands are made. When demands are made it is usually in the interest of nuclear capabilities or WMDs. Which everyone can see can be a threat.
I think it is a stretch what you are trying to convey here. Global diplomacy can't be paralleled to ones own state of affairs and be considered equivalent to an entire different state of affairs of other nations.
of coarse there are similarities, there always are. Pointing them out is stating what?

What is your wish.? The US stay out of everyone's business - Is the US to disarm themselves.
What are the Americans to do?

It sounds as if I am in a total disagreement with you Leo. That is not the case. I think much of what our global affairs are majorly flawed.
Maybe I don't see this "danger" in the second amendment. The danger would be toward it's own citizens do to the fact that the gov trumps any well regulated militia these days. In other words the people cannot keep the government in check anymore as the founding fathers intended.

Originally Posted by Leo

Hezbollah Guaranteed by U.S. 2nd Amendment

”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

America, who consistently demands that every group it confronts should always disarm even before any discussions for political process can scarcely begin, appears to be depriving the World of a right it would guarantee to itself and its own constituencies. The Palestinian Hamas is a “well regulated Militia”. The Irish IRA was a “well regulated Militia”. The regiments and squads floating about all through the Balkans were “well regulated Militias”. And certainly, Hezbollah is a “well regulated militia”.

So what does it mean when America has to so severely hesitate before it can export whole its own System of Democracy? Is America tacitly confessing that its own Bill of Rights and Constitution are dysfunctional and unworkable? Or is America imposing a Multi-tiered form of Imperialistic Colonialism upon the rest of the World – one set of Rights and Privileges to its own citizens, and less hardy and inclusive rights to everybody else.

However, should I suggest that America should universalize an incredibly destructive ‘Right’ for the sake of legal consistency? Well, no. I am glad that America has come to recognize that Legitimate Governments should insist upon maintaining a monopoly in the Force of Arms within their own boundaries. No Government that can be terrorized by armed entities within its own borders can truly Represent the Interests of Its People. Indeed, we have American History, and the Precedent of its Great Civil War, where its Central Federal Government, with the support or at least the tacit agreement of its Supreme Court, allowed that even the State Militias of its rebellious Southern States should be neutralized and disarmed. Subsequently, all State Militias had been effectively Federalized. An example of that was when the Alabama State Guard had been ordered out by the Federal Government to break a blockade around segregated schools imposed by Alabama’s own Governor George Wallace. Perhaps that would indicate that the effective definition of “Well Regulated Militia” must be understood to mean that all regulations and orders must be subordinated to Federal Control and Priority of Command.

And yet it is troubling that the Idiotic (and what the American’s must now admit is very dangerous) 2nd Amendment is still on the books, and there is always the extreme danger that a future case before the Supreme Court could vindicate the right of any Paramilitary Group anywhere to equip themselves on a par with Police Forces or even Armies, even to the extent of possessing and controlling nuclear or chemical weapons.
[/b]

Hi Howitzer,

Yes, America was dragged to the Peace table with both Korea and Vietnam.

But America prolonged both World Wars by absolutely refusing to discuss Peace. World War II could have ended in 1941 but for America's absolute refusal to discuss any terms before the absolute defeat of Germany was an accomplished fact.

And I'm not making these things up. America's refusal to even have diplomatic relations with many nations is an explicit fact.

Then we can see how America encourages War. In both World Wars America assured England that it would have its unconditional and unlimited support AS LONG AS IT CONTINUED TO FIGHT. The Tacit understanding was that all financial aid would screech to a grinding halt at the first word of Peace. And so America's financial arrangement guaranteed prolonged and never ending war. I'm honestly surprised it ever stopped.

Now, America has the same financial arrangement with Israel -- THAT AMERICA WILL PROVIDE UNLIMITED MILITARY AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ISRAEL AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT WAR. With a deal like that, how could we ever expect a nation of Jews to make peace and turn off the the big money machine.

There would be Peace in the Middle East tomorrow if Israel was allowed to fight merely within its own means. But when Israel can look out to the West and see a continuous line of freighters from America laiden with replacement bombs and the next generations of Death Machine Helicopters and Death Machine Jet Fighters, and PayChecks for every dedicated War Monger that wears a yamaka, then there is no incentive to Peace but every incentive to Eternal War.

Why do they fight? Well, because thats their job. That is what America pays them for.

And then America is puzzled why so many people hate America.

That is a sad fact about the World wars that you presented.

A rather short reply, but quite simply put it seems that America is trying to play both sides of the coin. Make themselves look good to everyone while trying to get what they want. Which tells me for two reasons that we are in the middle east for our own good (oil). The second comes to mind when you can point out possibly hundreds of other nations (Africa comes to mind) that have dictators as harsh as any in the Middle East and we are not sticking our nose in there for some sand.

I would like to address the second amendment parallel though.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are you pointing out that by giving both sides support that we are going to push them into a civil war.
I almost can't see it going down another road. I hope I am wrong.
It does not help the fact that I am ignorant to whom is right and who is wrong. Slavery was pretty clear cut. Religion is a much more opaque construct for any terms for sovereignty.

Sadly there are just to many people like you who believe that we should not only take away the rights of people in other countries but also the rights of people in our own. When you see people trying to take away the rights of the people to own guns in other countries, you can tell its all about control. So when you see them trying to take away our guns obviously that is also about control.

When you start taking the rights from people when do you stop?

Im sorry, but you guys say its about control, but in reality it IS!
If you let the middle east keep all of their weapons, and not say anything when your own country or even an allie's is attacked, then its like the blind leading the blind. Where the idea of disamenment came from was we have more of the resources and more ways to study and gain knowlege. Hell... we know more!
We are trying to lead the blind away from that cliff that will plunge them down to the rocks below called nuclear war. You think the US is trying to have a nuclear war?? If what is said about nuclear power is true, then that is the last thing ANYONE wants. Or anyone intellegent. You think the Koreans, or hezbollah wouldnt itch at the chance to get some nukes?! Why is this? Mabye because they remember hiroshima and saw this destruction?!

I garantee you that the US doesnt *want* war. If we killed everyone there wouldnt be anyone left to "control."

Originally Posted by Howetzer

What is your wish.? The US stay out of everyone's business - Is the US to disarm themselves.
What are the Americans to do?

[/b]

I would want the Americans to finally recognize their own self interest.

Now, Americans are being carried along by an influencial minority of the protestantly superstitious who beleive that God will give them a blessing for supporting Israel and for instigating some huge Battle of Armagedon.

So it is that Israel has been given a huge blank check for aggression and perpetual War. Why else would a Country the size of Connetticut have the 3rd largest Army in the World... and Army which is entirely gifted to them. Indeed, America has made War and Aggression the biggest single Industry in Israel. HOW could they ever make Peace when 3 out of 5 Jews in Israel make their living directly from American Weapons contributions.

But what American actually benefits from this. All is predicated on God approving of this Zionist Aggression. As though it was not God who destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews to begin with. But if George Bush is the foremost of Protestants, then we need not overestimate their intelligence... only their Superstition. But if we look only to self-interest... what American is benefitted from not only paying for their own swelled and overpaid Military, but the swelled and overpayed military of some little Super Connetticut in the Near East. One that is making America the Enemy of the World.

Just look at the news of last week. Iran is now guaranteeing $10,000 of instant emergency relief to every family who has experienced a loss in Lebannon. This is making Iran seem like the most benevolent and kindly Nation on Earth. But as they look about them, all the ruin they see, it is all obviously from bombs MADE IN AMERICA.

How can that possibly be in the best interest of America.

America didn't support NAZI aggression. What makes Zionist Aggression any more viable, except the interests of superstition.

It seems to be your argument that any nation should do whatever it pleases, recognizing absolutley no civilized restraints. Well, you would have been a very welcome German in 1938. But maybe you would have felt differently by 1945.

America does not have to continue this course of aggressions.

America pretends that the "Terrorists" have absolutely no motive, but only have a blind urge to Kill All Americans. Really. They just woke up one morning screaming for American Blood and have no idea on earth why, and don't care why. Really.

But the actuality of it all is that the Terrorists have political motivations. They have interests. If only America would awake to the discernment that these motivations and interests should be examimed. In exchange for our Live Back, for PEACE, what could we give us. What do they want? What would end War?

Well, all America would have to do is stop sending Israel 10 billion dollars a year. If America would simply mind its own business and save its money, there could be World Peace.

Sounds like a deal to me!

Originally Posted by Alric

Sadly there are just to many people like you who believe that we should not only take away the rights of people in other countries but also the rights of people in our own. When you see people trying to take away the rights of the people to own guns in other countries, you can tell its all about control. So when you see them trying to take away our guns obviously that is also about control.

When you start taking the rights from people when do you stop?
[/b]

Idiot!

If the Government does not control weapons, then PRIVATE INTERESTS will control weapons. Would you rather have a responsible government in charge of duress, or you neighbors able to impose control over you and your home.

Like Louis the IVX said about being a strong King -- it is better to have One Tyrant then live in a land of 10,00 waring tyrants.

You like a free distribution of Weapons. Well, then you like the American Civil War. The Civil Wars in the Balkans. The dissolution of the last Chinese Dynasty in the Era of the Warlords, which brought more Revolution.

Guns in Private Hands do not bring peace. You Idiots need to crack a history book for once in your ignorant lives and take a look at what actually happens when you get everything you want.

Yes, americans love guns. They say their nation was founded on guns. It was. In treason and terror, Americans committed a bloodbath of massacre against the forces of the King and those loyal to the King. American History books ignore it, as though the American Revolution was a bloodless campaign, but look at the chronicles and registers of New Jersey. It seems the Colonists in New Jersey saw no reason for War and sedition and treason and stayed loyal to the King. So over the 3 or 4 years of the war, the "Minutemen" came into the state and slaughtered upwards to a 100,000 New Jersians -- mostly killing them in their sleep and burning their homes and villiages at night. You see, those Terrorists were emboldened by their Private Arms.

Without their guns they might have stayed home in their own states and not gone roaming to kill others.

Americans!

You know, there is some truth about that Great Satan business afterall. A Nation conceived in Treason and Murder. Could we really expect anything good to come from something so inherently reprehensible?

"Would you rather have a responsible government in charge of duress, or you neighbors able to impose control over you and your home. "

It goes both ways. I would rather have a responsible neighbor who helps in time of duress than a government that imposes control over me and my home. Your problem is you some how think governments are inherently peaceful and kind and that people are inherently evil and cruel.

As for histroy, maybe you should take your own advice. All the worst genocides in the world happen because of single Tyrants. One tyrant is never a good thing if his name is pol pot or stalin. Even hitler is one of the more tamed tyrants compared with the genocide others have commited.

I am sure your now going to argue how living under stalin was the model of civilization because there was no crime in the streets and everyone was safe from each other. Seriously I have seen you bragging about how china is so great in the past even though they destroy tens of thousands of homes every year making millions homeless, harvest organs from religious dissidents and kill their own population for growth control. Oh but they produce a lot of goods at a very cheap cost!

Nearly half the people in the US already own guns. Do you see civil war? Are there huge groups of murders driving around killing people? No. Clearly having an armed population isn't doing the stuff you say it does. Your opinion isn't based in reality at all. If they where as bad as you say we would already be seeing the results.

In response to your first statement Leo. I believe it is rather simple. Yes we have self interest. But it does not lie in the realm of any religious backing. It has to do with natural resources and money. Religion I do not feel plays a bit of a role in our interests.
Ironically your post to Alric. Stating, "Guns in Private Hands do not bring peace. You Idiots need to crack a history book for once in your ignorant lives and take a look at what actually happens when you get everything you want. " Does have to do with religion.

Countries that have banned guns from their citizens have seen an increase in crime.
The countries we are discussing you point out because in nations where the religion is fanatical to the point of using these weapons to kill each other in the name of their religion is entirely different than citizens of a free nation having arms.
Sure, history shows that at one point there was an uncivilized society and social unrest. Can you say it is on route to do the same? I would hope not.
As Alric pointed out, "Nearly half the people in the US already own guns. Do you see civil war? Are there huge groups of murders driving around killing people? No. Clearly having an armed population isn't doing the stuff you say it does. Your opinion isn't based in reality at all. If they where as bad as you say we would already be seeing the results."
It is religion that has killed more people in the world than any other one thing. Possibly many combined.

Originally Posted by Alric

it goes both ways. I would rather have a responsible neighbor who helps in time of duress than a government that imposes control over me and my home. Your problem is you some how think governments are inherently peaceful and kind and that people are inherently evil and cruel.[/b]

As I said, you need to read some actually history.

Strong Governments have always risen up to liberate the vast majority of mankind for the tyranny of their neighbors.

Rule of the Neighbor is what we call the Dark Ages. Rule of the Neighbor is Barbarism.

Who most covets your property? Who most covets your wife? Your neighbor.

A Government ... a Central Government... may have an interest in establishing a General Peace and Law and Order. It can be impartial for the sake of Justice. It may want to calm everything down. Just as Louis the IVX was willing to go to war against every Neighbor in France if need be so that all the private Tyrannies would come to an end. And After he did impose Order and a Monopoly of Arms, France enjoyed a explosion of prosperity and influence, only to be opposed by other Nations who equally imposed Order for the sake of a General Prosperity.

Read.

Stop guessing.

Originally Posted by Alric

Countries that have banned guns from their citizens have seen an increase in crime.

[/b]

BULLSHIT! What, an increase in littering and J-walking.

There is no country with more per-capita guns then America. And America has the greatest per-capita class of imprisoned criminals, more ex-cons, more VIOLENT crime than anywhere that keeps any records at all.

But in Japan and Britain where guns are excluded from trade... what, there are a great many pickpockets. So what? Can you honestly compare drive-by shooting and armed rapes to "oops, I had my wallet a minute ago".

Howetzer, I was growing to expect more discernment, AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, from you. Don't begin to dissappoint me just after you began to earn my respect.

Originally Posted by Leo

There is no country with more per-capita guns then America. And America has the greatest per-capita class of imprisoned criminals, more ex-cons, more VIOLENT crime than anywhere that keeps any records at all.

But in Japan and Britain where guns are excluded from trade... what, there are a great many pickpockets. So what? Can you honestly compare drive-by shooting and armed rapes to "oops, I had my wallet a minute ago".

Howetzer, I was growing to expect more discernment, AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, from you. Don't begin to dissappoint me just after you began to earn my respect.
[/b]

As like other conversations, we are comparing apple to oranges in an attempt in comparing social and political structures of other nations, to the united states. The USA is structured to have an even greater impact because of our freedoms.
But to back up some of what I say,
All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries.
"Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987)

* Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice.

* England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S.

* Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans.

* Anti-gunners' comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law.

The reason we have so many people in jail has nothing to do with guns. A huge part of the prison population is from minor drug charges.

I don't know why I am even argueing this with you, you are totally clueless on this subject. "Who most covets your property?" Um the government does. Havn't you seen government totally abusing eminent domain over the last 20 years? Don't you know anything thats going on? The government is stealing land from people all over the country, and they are not using it for the public good, not even close. They take peoples land and then just sell them to private corporations. Last time I check its very rare for your Neighbor to just walk into your home and take it over, yet we see the government doing it all the time.

Besides who do you think the government is? IT IS YOUR NEIGHBOR! And once you vote him into office he has the power to take your home away from you. Governments are never impartial. Do you think all the people we have who are taking bribes and stuff are impartial? I know your not that naive, you have to know a large number of people in our government takes bribes.

Even if you want to ignore all the genocide that has occured due to strong governments with total control over their population, it doesn't matter. All you have to do is watch what is happening today. You don't have to read about oppressive governments when they are all around the world today. Even in the US you can see corrupt government at work, and your going to tell me that doesn't exist? The government can't control the power it has now and you want to give them even more?

By the way Leo, have you worked for the government in the past? That would really explain a lot.

Originally Posted by Alric

The reason we have so many people in jail has nothing to do with guns. A huge part of the prison population is from minor drug charges.

[/b]

Yes, good point.

What America is doing is disguising its High Unemployment rate by shuffling off a large percentage of its Minorities to the Prisons. First there is established HUGE economies in Illicit Drugs and Stolen Vehicles which the Unemployed can't help but to get involved in, and then the Federal, State and Local Jurisdictions harvest as many of these 'grey-area' workers as will fill up their prisons to capacity.

And that is the FREEDOM that Americans are killing all around the world for.

Exactly. How can you so fully trust a government who does stuff like that? Here is my question for you. Lets forget about all other governments for a minute. Would you give our current government total and full control over all force here in the US?

Why have we regressed to the topic of Simple drug charges?

Originally Posted by Alric

Exactly. How can you so fully trust a government who does stuff like that? Here is my question for you. Lets forget about all other governments for a minute. Would you give our current government total and full control over all force here in the US?
[/b]

YES!

ABSOLUTELY!

Again you need to look at History.

ANY Government, no matter what the grievances are against it, is BETTER than the only other alternative which is absolute Chaos.

As bad as the American Government is, it is INFINITELY better than Rule by KKK Militiaman, and then all the Factional Fighting that would arise to contest the Power Vacuum left by a vanquished Government.

You need an example -- look at Iraq. Everybody in the Uninverse parades around and makes a big show of discussing just how bad Saddam Hussein was. But look at Iraq today. There isn't a single person in his right mind in the entire world today who doesn't know in his mind and heart that Iraq would have simply been better off if Saddam Hussein's Government had been left in place.

Any Government, no matter how bad, is still better than any Anarchy, no matter how self-righteous it can claim to be.

Originally Posted by Leo

Yes, good point.

What America is doing is disguising its High Unemployment rate by shuffling off a large percentage of its Minorities to the Prisons. First there is established HUGE economies in Illicit Drugs and Stolen Vehicles which the Unemployed can't help but to get involved in, and then the Federal, State and Local Jurisdictions harvest as many of these 'grey-area' workers as will fill up their prisons to capacity.

And that is the FREEDOM that Americans are killing all around the world for.
[/b]

This Actaully makes a lot of sense Leo, that's a very valid point mentioned, but keep in mind that the U.S Political Structure is all a Scandal toward the American people. This is nothing more than Simulated Chaos an corruption on a grand scale.

Originally Posted by Leo

Any Government, no matter how bad, is still better than any Anarchy, no matter how self-righteous it can claim to be.[/b]

While I agree that anarchy is a a worse case scenario than that of a dictatorship, neither should be acceptable.
And things will get worse before they can get better in the case of Iraq.
Under a form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator, a dismanteling of that dictator will obviously cause groups of insurgence in an attempt to claim power.
You see this in African Nations all the time.
The difference is that the US and other nations are trying to suppress fascism in an attempt to spawn a form of government without so much injustice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Leo Volont @ Aug 19 2006, 06:44 AM) *

There is no country with more per-capita guns then America. And America has the greatest per-capita class of imprisoned criminals, more ex-cons, more VIOLENT crime than anywhere that keeps any records at all.

But in Japan and Britain where guns are excluded from trade... what, there are a great many pickpockets. So what? Can you honestly compare drive-by shooting and armed rapes to "oops, I had my wallet a minute ago".

Howetzer, I was growing to expect more discernment, AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, from you. Don't begin to dissappoint me just after you began to earn my respect.[/b]

As like other conversations, we are comparing apple to oranges in an attempt in comparing social and political structures of other nations, to the united states. The USA is structured to have an even greater impact because of our freedoms.
But to back up some of what I say,
All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries.
"Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987)

* Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice.

* England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S.

* Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans.

* Anti-gunners' comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law.

Leo, once again your warped views make you look stupid

Militias are fine as long as they are not active. The IRA and such go around killing people, but our "militias" dont.

Besides, that ammendment applies to americans, not dirty stinking no good towel-heads

Thats really a false choice leo. I never said anything about anarchy. Are you saying our current government is anarchy and we are worse off today than if the government got total control over us?

I don't see why you cant just use the US as an example. We have functioned for a long time as an "anarchy" government as you put it. So why does the government need more control to stop the chaos? All it has to do is remain the same, never gain or lose any amount of control over the people, and all would be fine.

"ANY Government, no matter what the grievances are against it, is BETTER than the only other alternative which is absolute Chaos."

Thats total and absolute bull. You want everyone to believe that the only two options are totalitarianism and anarchy. There is a HUGE space between them. You do not have to have one or the other. And personally I don't want either. Both are horrible choices.

Nice found leo.

Only ofcourse all restriction never apply to america, and all the rights people are entiteled to don't count for 'terrorists' (Every country but america).

Originally Posted by Hominus

Besides, that ammendment applies to americans, not dirty stinking no good towel-heads
[/b]

Hominus Feralis.
Please, for the sake of this Forum and the longevity of your presence on this forum, please keep your racial, and or religious slurs to yourself.
Thanks.
Try not using your emotion to negotiate your arguments.

sure thing, howetzer.

once again, my bad. But on a more civilized level, the ammendments only apply to americans.

Originally Posted by Hominus

sure thing, howetzer.

once again, my bad. But on a more civilized level, the ammendments only apply to americans.
[/b]

Precisely Hominus Feralis!
That is why i said, - As like other conversations, we are comparing apple to oranges in an attempt in comparing social and political structures of other nations, to the united states. The USA is structured to have an even greater impact because of our freedoms.
Although we have discussed in some detail the parallel of other countries, it is pertinent to THIS discussion that it does pertain to the United states, as you and I have pointed out.
But most topics will go astray when they don't go the poster's way.