An interesting article : "Why do Liberals bleed"

[Buzzcook]

You would also have to disprove the existence of Ted Turner and John Paul Stevens.

Well no, you see Turner and Stevens are verifiably real as a quick look at the googles would show you. The same can not be said by the author of the article in question. Stevens and Turner do not claim to be converts and the don't claim special knowledge about conservatives.

I have no problem with right wing polemics. I don't like the masquerade which is the only thing which gives the argument any currency.
Since the only way to verify the bonafides of the author is through deconstruction of her or his work, that is what I and other posters have done.

I have come to the conclusion that the author is false.
You might have come to a different conclusion. If so then perhaps you could argue the point? For instance the author makes assertions that she claims are universal, assertions that I say are not. Perhaps you would like to prove the universality of those statements.

 

[Uncle Billy]

If you've read my deconstruction of the essay and think I've erred in my analysis, then show where my errors are. That story only has traction with conservatives who haven't objectively tried to understand what liberal ideology is and instead settle for simplistic, derisive stereotypes and find significance in a story made from them that ought to begin "Once upon a time..." and end with "... and I lived happily ever after".

 

[Mike Irwin]

I don't think it's of any value to know if the author actually exists.

The contents of the article are what is important, and it mirrors examples of the "dawning of enlightenment" that I have seen over the years in liberals AND conservatives both over personal hot button issues.

 

[Uncle Billy]

The "dawning of enlightenment" in this case seems to have come from a traumatic event which unbalanced the victim and generated the need for a cathartic vent of negative emotions expressed in generalities and seeded by confusion and a loss of a solid base from which to relate to the world. The rest of this essay is consistent with that suggestion.

The paragraph that says "But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west." speaks of someone who has lost their footing and are reaching for answers, for a restoration of some internal solidarity to believe in, someone who is in deep uncertainty and without anything to believe in.

In that sense, if there is a Robin, I see her to be a victim of the physical crime against her she spoke of, and a victim of loosing her center in the rage, fear and uncertainty it generated. This essay reads like the entries in a journal, which is one of the therapies recommended for people trying to sort out something of great impact on them- been there, done that, and it works. If Robin is really a psychotherapist she's familiar with that therapy.

But the oversimplified generalities, emotional suppositions and derision heaped on liberals and liberal ideology that pours out of the essay, which make it sound like a simple fiction, seems to indicate where it came from is midstream in her trip from fear, anger and self-questioning that brings negative answers, to confidence in the accuracy of her view of her relationship with the world and what the truths are. I hope she's smarter than to stop with such generalities, inaccurate suppositions and group-centered identities, especially if she expects to be a competent psychotherapist. There's a danger in the inaccurate stereotypes of liberal ideology and oversimplified generalities of its tenets becoming permanent, which would pretty much put her out of a job in Berkeley.

The last paragraph: "As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey." indicates she's still not at ease yet, and that she's discovered a truth that isn't incompatible with the reasoned out and reasonable parts of liberal ideology, which she'll discover when she comes out from under her confusion and doubt.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To me, the issue of whether she is real or not is irrelevant. The issue for me is "Does her article convince anybody who wasn't already convinced?"

I don't see it as being effective in that regard. It may make some people who were already convinced feel good about their choices; but I don't think it will have any significant impact in making other people consider their opposition to the Second Amendment or self-defense in general.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Enlightenment often arrives on the heels of a crisis or traumatic event.

Why?

Because a crisis or traumatic event, by its very nature, destroys the status quo and forces an individual to face the new and unexpected and to think about personal beliefs in ways that probably were never broached before.

 

[zukiphile]

...we don't need a left vs. right or a democrat vs. republican or conservative vs. progressive or pink vs. blue or communist vs. patriot or red vs. blue or anything like that. We need to all just be Americans and debate issues and problems as Americans, instead of as some arbitrary side.

This assumes that the divisions you describe are arbitrary. I think the values people bring to issues are not arbitrary but pivotal.

The people that hate guns aren't democrats or communists or pinkies or leftists or whatever: the people that hate guns are generally the pig headed and the uneducated. That doesn't mean that the other camp (of which I assume we all belong, which is a much better educated guess than to assume all of us on here are "conservative") doesn't have its pigheaded. We need to unite under issues and specific problems, not some banner that's marked by a political party.

Why?

I would caution against assuming that people whose conclusion you do not share do so primarily from ignorance. To paraphrase RWR, it isn't what we do not know that gets us in trouble; it's what we do know, but are wrong about. You can be very smart, but still have values and socialisation that turn you away from valuing the role of armed individuals in a society.

If a you only mean that people are ignorant and "pig-headed" generally ab out everything, I concur generally but don't think it sheds light on this issue specifically.

But my major point is this: who the hell cares if you're left or right, what matters is the issues. You can be pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-welfare and still support troops, as such: you can be pro-life, anti-gun, anti-welfare and still support troops or any combinations of the options. Either way: you're still American. This article just further pigeonholes gun owners as one side vs. the other in the "left vs. right" debate.

It seems only reasonable to note who usually stands with you and who against. It doesn't make them an enemy necessarily, but it does indicate some underlying difference that can be interesting to address and useful to identify.

 

[zukiphile]

I am intrigued by the impulse to label the author a fraud simply because she has a recent history of writing from a perspective critical of the reform liberal american tradition.

As for the OP- She's a liberal no longer (if she ever was one at all, and I'll bet Berkeley was picked because it was thought to be the epicenter of liberalism about 40 years ago), and not much of a psychologist either, which is probably also a fraud. It sounds way too much like it was written by someone of neo-conservative emotions (I'm reluctant to call them "ideas") and is a sham, a fiction whose purpose is to denigrate "liberal" perspectives for the entertainment of non-liberals in a blatant performance of "preaching to the choir".

A neo-conservative, i.e. someone new to conservatism, will generally be a former liberal. These people often consider themselves to still be essentially liberal, but with an asterisk. No mystery there. Neo-conservatives include Irving Kristol and Bill Bennett. The pattern ordinarily involves a sort of loss of faith or community with a liberal orthodoxy.

Only those who hate liberals and really don't objectively understand what they stand for would take it seriously.

Or people who used to be liberals and have come to reject all or part of their framework. Ever talk to a militant anti-smoker? They are routinely former smokers. David Horowitz was a red-diaper baby. It is an often observed phenomenon.

Upon reading the catalog of stuff that comes up on taking that link to "American Thinker", it seems to me it ought to be called "Neo-Conservative American Non-thinker", but that's redundant.

That's nice. Is it possible that the author feels the same sort of passion about her former views that you feel about her current position?

Taking a discussion of ideas very personally is not usually a good idea, but that can be difficult where those ideas have personal significance.

 

[MTT TL]

Stevens and Turner do not claim to be converts and the don't claim special knowledge about conservatives.

Actually Stevens claims to be a reformed conservative now libertarian but his rulings and decisions put him firmly in the socialist style left. Turner claimed to be a conservative till he married Jane Fonda then claimed to be a liberal but most of his recent statements and gifts to the UN place him firmly in the far left too. I guess Turner could be a neo-con but I don't even know what that really means?

Ever talk to a militant anti-smoker? They are routinely former smokers. David Horowitz was a red-diaper baby. It is an often observed phenomenon.

How about a recently born again Christian? No one proselytizes more than a convert.

If you've read my deconstruction of the essay and think I've erred in my analysis, then show where my errors are

You are attacking the arguer and not the argument. I think we have made that pretty apparent.

To me, the issue of whether she is real or not is irrelevant.

For me it is relevant. If the story of the writer is indeed not true than the argument begins with a lie. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.

But the oversimplified generalities, emotional suppositions and derision heaped on liberals and liberal ideology that pours out of the essay, which make it sound like a simple fiction, seems to indicate where it came from is midstream in her trip from fear, anger and self-questioning that brings negative answers, to confidence in the accuracy of her view of her relationship with the world and what the truths are. I hope she's smarter than to stop with such generalities, inaccurate suppositions and group-centered identities, especially if she expects to be a competent psychotherapist. There's a danger in the inaccurate stereotypes of liberal ideology and oversimplified generalities of its tenets becoming permanent, which would pretty much put her out of a job in Berkeley.

Of course they are oversimplified. Same as how the left paints the right. Check out the Doonesbury cartoons of the Starbucks open carriers. At least as a cartoon it is a "honest" lampoon. But the garbage spilled forth by the political hacks and media spokesmen are not. Sort of like the liberal media's intentional attempt to disguise the racial identity of the open carrier of the rifle at the Obama rally as black.

 

[SigP6Carry]

Alright, Zukiphile, explain to me why lines drawn concerning State power vs. Federal power has anything to do with gun control, abortion, environmental laws and welfare? That's what I mean. It's fine if you adhere to the "Republican mindset," but the issues aren't all based in what Republican v. Democrat means, that's what I'm saying. That we shouldn't split the community that way, when (on this forum) we're obviously all for gun-owners rights.

 

[zukiphile]

Alright, Zukiphile, explain to me why lines drawn concerning State power vs. Federal power has anything to do with gun control, abortion, environmental laws and welfare? That's what I mean.

Certainly.

A limited federal power with remaining power reserved to the states is the federalism embodied in the COTUS.

The 2d Am. is a limitation on the power of the federal government set forth in the COTUS.

The role of the Supreme Court should be to determine whether a matter represents a justiciable issue under the COTUS, and then resolve the matter according to the COTUS. Where, the Court moves to resolving social and criminal issues playiong out in individual states, but that are not addressed in the COTUS at all, they move beyond their constitutional role.

Where an environmental law effectively takes some of my ownership or control of my property without compensation, that law represents an uncompensation taking, which the COTUS doesn't permit the federal government to do.

Where property rights are generally matters of state law, even in bankruptcy courts, it is not obvious that the COTUS grants the federal government the authority to redistribute property for the sake of an egalitarian ideology.

I see a common thread underlying these positions. That doesn't mean that one can't have a more creative view of the issues, or bring extra-constitutional standards to constitutional law, or that the positions are categorically correct. However, that does explain what they have to do with one another.

It's fine if you adhere to the "Republican mindset," but the issues aren't all based in what Republican v. Democrat means, that's what I'm saying. That we shouldn't split the community that way, when (on this forum) we're obviously all for gun-owners rights.

I appreciate the efforts of pro-2d Am dems, and as always local influences matter very much. (I have an acqaintance who is a far left congressman who felt he had to change his abortion position when he grew national ambitions.) John Dingle has done great work. I live in a heavily unionised area in which the rank and file are very pro-2d Am.

However, to assert that the national parties over the last several decades have not been easily distinguishable on 2d Am issues involves a denial of the obvious. When people observe how these divisions generally sort out, they are often observing the obvious and general, to which there can always be exceptions.

 

[Uncle Billy]

"You are attacking the arguer and not the argument. I think we have made that pretty apparent."

Where?

For what I wrote to be an "ad hominem" fallacy, I would have had to attack her on issues and in language unconnected with what her "argument" is. My point is that she used oversimplified generalizations and distortions of liberal ideology which are common among those members of the right that have made similar assumptions. That is the flaw in her argument, not who she is as a person.

She wrote "But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west " and "As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey." If there is a Robin who had the experiences written of and who as a result finds it accurate to write these descriptions of herself, it's clear she's in a mid-point in sorting out how to relate to what happened to her and as a consequence how to relate to the world around her. If she progresses no further than to hold those oversimplified stereotypes, generalities and suppositions of the right as her perspective on the world, she won't be very effective as a psychotherapist, especially in Berkeley, and she will remain a victim of the crime against her.

As I wrote, her essay has the aura of a journal entry. "Journaling" is a technique used to help people who have conflicts and confusion to deal with as the result of a very significant event in their lives which destroyed their confidence in themselves and their understanding of the world around them.

They thought they had it figured out, they thought they understood the world and their place in it, most of all they thought they could trust what they knew and their understanding of the people around them. Then something comes along that seems to knock all of that down to zero, leaving them without a core, a center they can have confidence in and trust, and a credible link that they understand between that center and the world outside themselves.

There's anger that all they believed seems to have been wrong, there's fear that they don't know what the truths are since the ones they held seem to have been wrong, there's insecurity that they are lost and don't understand how to not be lost.

The first step is to quell the anger because it clouds reason and objectivity. I think that's where Robin is, if she's real, and that's why I think her attack on the left comes from a strong sense of betrayal and the anger that produces. If she manages to progress in her quest not to "be in a tizzy 24/7" and that state subsides, she'll eschew some or all of the gross oversimplifications and accusing suppositions of leftist ideology she spewed forth in her essay. If she stays with the ideology her essay attributes to her, she's pretty much done with being an effective, objective psychotherapist since they can't operate when they're capable of using such angry, accusatory generalities and name-calling oversimplified suppositions.

Of course they are oversimplified. Same as how the left paints the right. Check out the Doonesbury cartoons of the Starbucks open carriers. At least as a cartoon it is a "honest" lampoon.

Right, and Robin's disparagement, derision, demeaning name-calling and oversimplified suppositions she attributes to the "Left" as a whole, aren't honest (i.e. certainly representative of what she believes, she said everything she believes is "up for grabs" and she "doesn't know if up is down, etc"), they are a temper tantrum. Here you and I agree. I think she might have written in that manner as a catharsis, a purge of negativity and anger, a strike back at what she thinks to be her attacker- the ideology of the left. Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology and be able to objectively assess the causes of such actions to find what might be done to remediate them instead of her unreasoned and emotional rejection of causation as a worthwhile thing to know- that's what a psychotherapist does.

But the garbage spilled forth by the political hacks and media spokesmen are not [an honest lampoon].

Oh, you mean Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, about all of the Fox network? Again, we agree.

 

[SigP6Carry]

I see exactly what you mean, Zukiphile. I don't see it myself, but I can understand your argument. I'm gonna stick to my wish-washy politics and believe that many issues are not black and white Rep/Dem or even Left/Right. But the way I see it: we're on the same side of this issue, so I say: let's let the overarching issue of bipartisan politics down and worry about pro-gun rights.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"As I wrote, her essay has the aura of a journal entry. "Journaling" is a technique used to help people who have conflicts and confusion to deal with as the result of a very significant event in their lives which destroyed their confidence in themselves and their understanding of the world around them.

They thought they had it figured out, they thought they understood the world and their place in it, most of all they thought they could trust what they knew and their understanding of the people around them. Then something comes along that seems to knock all of that down to zero, leaving them without a core, a center they can have confidence in and trust, and a credible link that they understand between that center and the world outside themselves."

Well, we are essentially discussing the point of view of a blogger. Someone who writes frequent short articles in response to what goes on around them in their lives, rather than publishing in some peer-reviewed professional periodical. Perhaps they are basically journal entries.

I agree with the second part also - it certainly seems as if something came along and radically altered her world-view from whatever liberal paradigm she had formerly held. Mike Irwin captured that tramatic mental re-adjustment when he observed:

"Enlightenment often arrives on the heels of a crisis or traumatic event.

Why?

Because a crisis or traumatic event, by its very nature, destroys the status quo and forces an individual to face the new and unexpected and to think about personal beliefs in ways that probably were never broached before."

I think this goes in spades when the traumatic event has to do with personal power, and the recognition that an unarmed person really doesn't have much when facing an armed attacker. It's tough to lose one's illusions.

"Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology..."

Somehow I don't think that will happen:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_weird_failure_of_the_left.html
"The Weird Failure of the Left"

Its probably a little broad to speak of "all of liberal ideology" (however that is defined,) but I suspect that with specific regard to owning a firearm as a means to response against future attacks on her person, she may be unwilling to return to what she now recognizes as a decided 'one-down' or powerless (unarmed) position vis a vis attackers.


One thing about traumatic enlightenment is that it tends to be life-changing on more than one level.

 

[Uncle Billy]

I made a mistake of inattention when I took the link that Antipitas posted on page 1 of this thread that led to the "American Thinker"- I didn't catch that all of what was on the page that came up were essays by "Robin of Berkeley" only. Taking Doc Intrepid's link on this page which revisited Robin of Berkeley's essay collection again, and finally realizing she was the author of all of that, and reading most of it, requires that I correct what I wrote about the OP essay.

Boy, she's one angry, emotional basket case!

I wrote ""Further, if this is the case, she will eventually return to some more careful, thoughtful, reasoned attitudes and not be so virulently hateful of all of liberal ideology..."

Somehow I don't think that will happen:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._the_left.html
"The Weird Failure of the Left"

I don't think so either, now that I think I have a more complete understanding of Robin.

Here's what I get from what she has written about herself in these essays:

She grew up in a family where her parents weren't much interested in her in favor of their friends and "partying, drinking and carousing" (her words), and her sadistic brother (also her words) hated and tormented her and nearly killed her; as a child she was rejected by her peers and had no close friends (often the experience of Jewish kids in upstate NY where she's from) and so created an alter ego of herself that she could love and understand, I think to gain aspects of her real life she lacked.

Probably while she was a student in a large university she found a community wherein she was, for the first time in her life accepted, liked, made welcome, valued, and respected: "Doing political work in young adulthood, I suddenly had a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning. Working with others in groups, marching with thousands of people, was not only an emotional high but a physical thrill, almost like an aphrodisiac. A legal high. And feeling like you're saving the world is positively orgasmic.", and which was incidentally politically very liberal. But the ideology probably didn't matter, membership in the group was probably what she valued most because the group of politically active and passionate students provided her with the emotional needs that didn't get met in her childhood- a lot of disaffected and emotionally hungry youth in those days found themselves what they needed in odd places of the "counter-culture", the worst, most pernicious one being Charlie Manson and his girls (not that Robin was anywhere near that insanity).

Later in her life she moved to Berkeley, which is a center of far-left rabid liberalism, where she probably found the same sort of nurture among the radical left. Again she took up with their ideology (severely leftist in this case), not because she gave it a lot of thought and objectively decided it was her ideology too, but because she got the nurture of the group that was always a basic need for her which she could earn by pandering to their ideology as before.

But it came to pass that she was mugged, beaten up and maybe raped (her essay "The Rape of America" has the ring of "biography" about it). The group- radical liberals in Berkeley, maybe including her husband- offered her no sympathy and instead was sympathetic to the creep who did it, and that was a sharp betrayal to Robin and was why she included liberals and their ideology, that she blamed as the source of the crime against her, in her raging anger and lashing accusations.

As she states, writing "memoirs" is popular among the left; psychotherapy recognizes "journaling" as a sometime useful tool in sorting out confusions, uncertainties and anger when one is "in a tizzy 24/7 and every belief is up for grabs". Her friend Virginia (who might also be a psychotherapist) urged her to write of her boiling anger... at the liberals who had abandoned her, and including a blanket accusation of all of liberal ideology which she blames for creating the crime. (Accuracy isn't the goal in this sort of catharsis, venting the bile and anger so that reason can return is). The editor of AT realized that posting such an essay would become hugely popular with conservatives so he put it online. The resulting comments offered support, agreement and sympathy which her former allegiances didn't and so the new group- conservatives- became the supplier of the group nurture that the betrayal of her by the liberals in Berkeley denied her. And once again she didn't care much what their ideology is, writing from the right got lots of warm fuzzy which got warmer and fuzzier the further right it came from and so encouraged a whole series of rants from a far right perspective. This also gave her a receptive audience to express her utter disgust and rejection of those who had rejected her and their ideology, sticking it to them in a blizzard of revengeful put-downs and humiliations.

In short, I think Robin, who was incidentally a member of the radical left for reasons other than their ideology, has become a member of the radical right for exactly the same reasons- she needs to belong to a group who accept her, who support her, who are sympathetic to her, and who are innocent of betraying her and denying her the emotional stuff she needs a lot of, since no capability of creating it internally ever evolved in her. The ideology is trumped by the need to be accepted, admired and supported now and before, in both iterations of Robin's politics.

She recognizes rejection though- not all the feedback she got from her contributions to AT were positive and some were outright evil. That rejection and condemnation, while legitimately creating fear of physical reprisal, also begets in Robin the need to "make nice" which shows up in her surprisingly gentle and deeply hypocritical essay called "A Letter to Liberals". It seems to me to be more than just a plea to reduce the direct threats to her, it has an echo of some remorse in her for having condemned liberal thought so completely and so vehemently and thereby alienating people who respond by rejecting her, the ultimate anathema.

Meanwhile, I think politics and ideology aren't what drive her, they are whatever brand feeds her emotional needs best. And as one who needs to find a center, who needs to understand what she is better than she admits she does, her capabilities as a psychotherapist are pretty compromised, in my opinion.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Being a victim of a violent assault can take a lot out of you.

I've never been raped, but I've been carjacked with a 12 gauge held against my head, and the experience tends to focus your attention on fundamental issues wonderfully. I can only imagine that rape and personal violation would compound that effect dramatically.

Both sorts of experiences make a compelling case that you really aren't in control after all, and any sense that you are is mostly illusion.

Being a victim of a violent assault and then having all your radical liberal friends take up for the attacker - telling you he's a victim also, etc. - might be enough to leave some folks terminally annoyed...


Its at least possible that BillCA's adage has more than a bit of truth to it after all ("a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet"). One of the things that tends to be most irritating in the aftermath of such attacks is that people who haven't been shot, raped, or pistol-whipped speak in such glib, lofty, rhetorical tones about abstract and ideological subjects. Abstraction and ideology have a way of receding into the background when some kid with shaking hands is holding a 12 gauge to your head......but they of course would have no way of knowing that.

Either way, I think you're onto something Uncle Billy, and I think also that Irwin pegged it when he noted that (many folks, not just Robin) are just one tramatic event away from revising our personal beliefs in "new and unexpected" directions.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Exactly, Doc, and that's why there's a growing number of otherwise liberal people who have a sincere interest in arming themselves and protecting the right to do so, which has resulted in gun rights arching over all sorts of politics. It's not just the conservatives who want to protect 2A individual rights, it's becoming everyone's issue. Not that they've all had some violence done to them, but because they can see what's going on around them and seek to protect themselves before the fact. They don't want the government to tell them what they may or may not not do when it's not the government's business to decide that, thanks to the Constitution.

There was a pretty long thread on this forum about the NRA's insistence on widening their politics past gun rights issues to include evangelical Christianity and the simple, vocal, thought-free stereotypes and generalities of the far right (which is how Robin's essays sound), and it was suggested by me and others that if the NRA focused on just gun rights, they'd have a lot larger membership, with all the benefits of that. I think Robin's hatred of "liberals" has emotional roots with her, not reasoned ones. Other than that, there's a growing number of people from all sides of the political spectrum who join her in exercising gun rights. Conservatives who are serious about the 2A ought to realize this.

 

[areilly]

Speaking as a liberal, NRA member and gun owner, I can directly relate to some of the points here. Most liberals automatically assume that the NRA is an organization that is thoroughly republican and conservative, and they simply wouldnt be welcome. I still feel that way to some extent, and I don't get involved in political discussions at the range, especially when people start talking about "liberals" like I'm some kind of freedom-hating, terrorist-loving idiot.

Many liberals are however frankly scared of firearms, mostly from lack of information and exposure. For your typical urbanite liberal, the only time they hear about guns is from crime reports, or reading about kids with AKs in Africa. In their minds, guns kill people, and they don't want people to be killed, so less guns means less killing. I of course don't need to go into that fallacy here.

Every time someone is ranting about liberals, and painting them with a simplistic brush, they are working against their own cause, no different from when a liberal thinks of gun owners as yee-haw gun-crazy rednecks. I always find it interesting how Heston's now famous line on the stage of "from my cold, dead hands" is seen as a rallying cry from the right, and the cry of a zealot from the left. I see it as a bit of both. It's the duty of BOTH sides to be able to be objective and discuss their viewpoints in a constructive manner. Most liberal friends that I've taken to the range ended up interested, and that goes a long way to making them see firearms in a completely different light.

A country without different political viewpoints would descend into fundamentalism. It's an important part of the process. Listen to both sides, I believe the truth is usually somehwere in the middle.

 

[RWNielsen]

Bravo

That was one of the best threads I've read. Well done. Thank you.