The College Rape Overcorrection

[Simon_Jester]

Don't get me wrong, I take issue with "Yes means Yes" in how its interpreted at present. Its far too ambiguous, and I don't believe that the accused should have the burden of proof placed upon them that the accuser said "Yes" hard enough. I happen to believe that while you certainly should get that first "Yes", that it remains in effect until if and when they say "No"... But I suppose that's too reasonable...

Well, body language clearly indicating disinterest or resistance should count as "no" to anyone who is remotely 'reasonable.' One partner suddenly going immobile and doing nothing, for example. That does not normally happen when someone is consenting to sex.

In any event, the bigger issue to me is that if some have their way, you can't even take "Yes" to mean "Yes" if the parties have been drinking. You could be doing everything right in terms of obtaining "consistent consent" or whatever the expectation is, and find it retroactively invalidated based on whether the other party decides that in hindsight they were too drunk to make that decision.

That is an issue, especially since the amount of alcohol required to be "too drunk" is a matter of opinion. And since the amount of alcohol required to put a given person at a given level of intoxication is... a matter of fact, but a highly variable one.

If I didn't know better, I'd think the people taking the harsh stand were bitter and perhaps a bit envious of people having drunken hookups. Of course, this being SDNet, there's certainly NO WAY that emotions are coloring anyone's viewpoints. I'm sure a fact-based response will be forthcoming any minute now.

Look, that's your second "lol bitter nerds" wisecrack in a week.

As it happens I have literally zero experience with drunken hookups, and for that matter any kind of real social drinking... but as a matter of basic common sense, there's a serious problem caused when our concept of "Doing X while Y is the case is a very serious crime" when the question of "is Y the case" is a matter of some person's opinion, not of measurable or observable facts that can be known to an outside party.

[The Romulan Republic]

So far this seems to be the case with 100% of the people who have taken a hardline view on drunk sex being rape in this and the previous thread. Don't you find it troubling that only people with no personal experience whatsoever on drunken hookups share your viewpoint? That the only ones willing to make harsh declarative statements about what people can and cannot consent to at various states of inebriation have little to no experience with intoxication?

If I didn't know better, I'd think the people taking the harsh stand were bitter and perhaps a bit envious of people having drunken hookups. Of course, this being SDNet, there's certainly NO WAY that emotions are coloring anyone's viewpoints. I'm sure a fact-based response will be forthcoming any minute now.

Right. Anyone who objects to screwing someone who's mind is impaired must be jealous of those superior beings who do. We couldn't possibly have sincere principles if we disagree with you.

You arrogant little twit.

No, I've never fucked a drunk person, not that my private life is any of your fucking business. I don't plan to, and I am not jealous of the people (many of them rapists) who do.

And if the criticism of having drunk sex is generally coming from those who haven't done it, maybe its because we have less to be ashamed of and in denial about.

[AniThyng]

Incidentally, on your 4 questions: I don't drink, and I don't fuck girls who are drunk.

So far this seems to be the case with 100% of the people who have taken a hardline view on drunk sex being rape in this and the previous thread. Don't you find it troubling that only people with no personal experience whatsoever on drunken hookups share your viewpoint? That the only ones willing to make harsh declarative statements about what people can and cannot consent to at various states of inebriation have little to no experience with intoxication?

It's also interesting that no female member of the board (not that there are many left to begin with anyway) has seen fit to comment in either thread (that I recall)...

[Simon_Jester]

At this point... how many female active posters are left? The only one who springs to mind is Broomstick, plus a few who aren't in N&P with any meaningful frequency.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder if there's a connection between the lack of female posters and the fact that so many people on this board are okay with fucking drunk women (among other things).

[Simon_Jester]

It's possible, but the male-female ratio on this forum has been tilted drastically throughout its history, despite a very high turnover between the original active membership and the current active membership. And I'm honestly not sure that topics like this were even discussed with any real frequency in Ancient N&P or its predecessor (I think that once, news and politics were part of Off-Topic).

I wouldn't know; I wasn't here then.

I've always thought it had more to do with the fact that, anecdotally, most women I know have relatively little patience for the kind of dramatic browbeating debate style that seems to win people points here. And yet, there is no real correlation between that style and people's positions on the alcohol-and-rape issue, as the last thread demonstrated.

Could you perhaps list some other issues on which you feel the forum has a large enough group that we can reasonably say 'the forum' is unwelcoming to women, on issues? As opposed to on debating style?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure I want to get into an in-depth critique of the board. I already feel like I might be playing fast and loose with Administrative Rule 4. Though I recognize that, since I have brought an issue up, its reasonable to expect me to defend my position and that the above is a cowardly answer. For now I'll just say that I've seen quite a few posts here that are rather sexist but that in fairness I feel this is more a quality of the board in its early days than the board now.

You may have a point about debating style, though we can't assume that all women would be bothered by it or that all men would be okay with it (hell, I sometimes find it off-putting, even if I'm also sometimes guilty of participating in it). But I actually like that a certain degree of aggressiveness is permitted here, as long as it doesn't detract from the quality of the arguments.

[Frank the Tank]

Right. Anyone who objects to screwing someone who's mind is impaired must be jealous of those superior beings who do. We couldn't possibly have sincere principles if we disagree with you.

You arrogant little twit.

No, I've never fucked a drunk person, not that my private life is any of your fucking business. I don't plan to, and I am not jealous of the people (many of them rapists) who do.

And if the criticism of having drunk sex is generally coming from those who haven't done it, maybe its because we have less to be ashamed of and in denial about.

You stand in judgment of others with more life experience than you, and you call me arrogant? Pot... meet kettle

You know what, twat... fuck off. When you have actual life experience, and know what actual women think about drunk sex, then come back and we can have a conversation about whether drunk sex = rape or not. Your white knight bullshit claiming that it's poor delicate women being raped by hordes of men trying to take advantage of them doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it make you more moral than anyone else, nor does it make you seem like anything other than an angry young virgin.

Look, that's your second "lol bitter nerds" wisecrack in a week.

As it happens I have literally zero experience with drunken hookups, and for that matter any kind of real social drinking... but as a matter of basic common sense, there's a serious problem caused when our concept of "Doing X while Y is the case is a very serious crime" when the question of "is Y the case" is a matter of some person's opinion, not of measurable or observable facts that can be known to an outside party.

Have you noticed who I'm directing those "wisecracks" at? It's not Mike Wong, who by all rights should be a raging nerd, yet he doesn't feel the need to act like a creepy, loser nerd stereotype, instead pursuing and marrying a beautiful woman. It's not people who act like mature adults with some moderate amount of life experience. No... I make fun of "nerds" who think that their complete lack of any experience with women or sports or the sun gives them some level of credibility to speak on those subjects. If you didn't resemble the "bitter nerds" wisecrack, then you probably wouldn't be bothered by it.

In any case, I refrained from any "loser nerds" comments until well after all the loser nerds realized they were losing because their arguments were completely logic-free bullshit and decided to deviate from logical debate into "well then you may be a rapist!!!" type hyperbole.

Look, the argument is really simple; if I have sex with a consenting women who's been drinking, that does not make me a rapist. If a woman has sex with a consenting me after I've been drinking, that does not make her a rapist. If you disagree, that MAKE A FUCKING COHERENT ARGUMENT refuting that viewpoint instead of whining like a little bitch about it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Right. Anyone who objects to screwing someone who's mind is impaired must be jealous of those superior beings who do. We couldn't possibly have sincere principles if we disagree with you.

You arrogant little twit.

No, I've never fucked a drunk person, not that my private life is any of your fucking business. I don't plan to, and I am not jealous of the people (many of them rapists) who do.

And if the criticism of having drunk sex is generally coming from those who haven't done it, maybe its because we have less to be ashamed of and in denial about.

You stand in judgment of others with more life experience than you, and you call me arrogant? Pot... meet kettle

You're damn right I stand in judgement of you. If that makes me sound arrogant, so be it.

You know what, twat... fuck off. When you have actual life experience,

I have life experience. Admittedly not the experience of having fucked someone who potentially couldn't consent. And I'm okay with that.

and know what actual women think about drunk sex,

Why do you assume I don't know about what women think about it? I know women. I talk to women. I read what women say.

then come back and we can have a conversation about whether drunk sex = rape or not. Your white knight bullshit

God knows I'm not a white knight. I'm an asshole in many ways. I just have this idea that rape is bad.

claiming that it's poor delicate women

Never said that.

being raped by hordes of men trying to take advantage of them doesn't strengthen your argument,

Never said that either, you lying piece of shit.

nor does it make you more moral than anyone else, nor does it make you seem like anything other than an angry young virgin.

Um, isn't angry young virgin a label associated with the sexist/rapist types?

Oh, and treating being a virgin as shameful. You know, I'd take being a virgin over being a rapist any day.

Have you noticed who I'm directing those "wisecracks" at? It's not Mike Wong, who by all rights should be a raging nerd, yet he doesn't feel the need to act like a creepy, loser nerd stereotype, instead pursuing and marrying a beautiful woman. It's not people who act like mature adults with some moderate amount of life experience. No... I make fun of "nerds" who think that their complete lack of any experience with women or sports or the sun gives them some level of credibility to speak on those subjects. If you didn't resemble the "bitter nerds" wisecrack, then you probably wouldn't be bothered by it.

In any case, I refrained from any "loser nerds" comments until well after all the loser nerds realized they were losing because their arguments were completely logic-free bullshit and decided to deviate from logical debate into "well then you may be a rapist!!!" type hyperbole.

Look, the argument is really simple; if I have sex with a consenting women who's been drinking, that does not make me a rapist. If a woman has sex with a consenting me after I've been drinking, that does not make her a rapist. If you disagree, that MAKE A FUCKING COHERENT ARGUMENT refuting that viewpoint instead of whining like a little bitch about it.

I have long been inclined to think that anyone who posts on a site called Star Destroyer.net and mocks others for being nerds is stunningly hypocritical.

Also, while its true that people frequently use such insults, I wonder if the fact that you use "...whining like a little bitch..." to insult those you disagree with is indicative of your view of women.

[Terralthra]

I find it interesting that Frank the Tank deliberately steered the debate to "poor delicate women" raped while drunk, and then used that idea to attack someone else's motives in taking that position as a "white knight" angry virgin, when what The Romulan Republic has been reasonably consistent in saying is

This is a staggeringly selfish and irresponsible attitude. If the only way to be sure that the person I'm having sex with is consenting is to not have sex with a drunk person, that's a very small sacrifice to make.

If you screw a drunk person and go to prison, expect my sympathy to be extremely limited.

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

But if you are sober and screw someone who is heavily intoxicated, you are by definition a rapist. You may not think of yourself as one and you may not have intended to be one, but you are. Maybe you aren't legally, but morally you are.

I suspect a big part of the problem is that a lot of people have screwed someone who was drunk and don't want to admit that what they did was rape because they think, as you said, "...normal people don't rape other people..."

Right. Anyone who objects to screwing someone who's mind is impaired must be jealous of those superior beings who do. We couldn't possibly have sincere principles if we disagree with you.

You arrogant little twit.

No, I've never fucked a drunk person, not that my private life is any of your fucking business. I don't plan to, and I am not jealous of the people (many of them rapists) who do.

And if the criticism of having drunk sex is generally coming from those who haven't done it, maybe its because we have less to be ashamed of and in denial about.

Huh.

Looks as though The Romulan Republic is being awfully assiduous in asserting that drunk people, regardless of gender, can't consent to sex, and it has nothing to do with being women or men.

So, I'm curious, Frank the Tank, did you bring up gender just so you could paint TRR as a white knight, questioning their motives (appeal to intent fallacy)? Or did you seriously not notice that they never once (that I can find) said "women", and your mind substituted the gender of the victims in, along with your preconceptions of TRR's motives??

No matter which answer you give, it will be...revealing.

[ArmorPierce]

I wonder if there's a connection between the lack of female posters and the fact that so many people on this board are okay with fucking drunk women (among other things).

Please. There was never much female posters here and that's more related to the history of hyper aggressive posters, the board subject matter being more of a guy thing, and the angry virgin brigade/white knights.

I remember forum members chased away a new female poster because certain members were convinced she must be a troll, turned out she wasn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder if there's a connection between the lack of female posters and the fact that so many people on this board are okay with fucking drunk women (among other things).

Please. There was never much female posters here and that's more related to the history of hyper aggressive posters, the board subject matter being more of a guy thing, and the angry virgin brigade/white knights.

I remember forum members chased away a new female poster because certain members were convinced she must be a troll (turned out she wasn't).

Oh, its certainly not just the drunk sex stuff, which I already said. But that is representative of a larger picture which could be off-putting to some women (and some men for that matter).

And I question the idea that science fiction/fantasy, science, and debating (if that's what you mean by "...the board subject matter...") are "...more of a guy thing..." except insofar as sexism has encouraged that.

Oh, and I see that you're adopting Frank the Liar's angry young virgin/white knight stuff. Is that going to be the new tack of this debate? Ad hominem fallacies?

[ArmorPierce]

It has been referred to angry young virgin on this board for years, there's even a wiki on it http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wik ... in_Brigade

There was a pretty big thread about it pointing out the harassment towards female members and super mods using the term themselves http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=71216

Are you actually accusing me, forum mods, and administration of ad hominem fallacy by using that term?

Also, please provide support to back up your implied assertion that male view on drinking and having sex is any different than other boards or mainstream society at large.

[ArmorPierce]

As the term was being used in this term, yes the angry young virgin brigade was also the 'white knights'. If you think about it it makes sense, instead of treating females as you know, people, they treat them as some sort of mystical creature and would mood swing from one extreme to another.

We had posters who were worshipping female posters at the same time receiving complaints for their harassing behavior, for good reason.

[Terralthra]

As the term was being used in this term, yes the angry young virgin brigade was also the 'white knights'. If you think about it it makes sense, instead of treating females as you know, people, they treat them as some sort of mystical creature and would mood swing from one extreme to another.

We had posters who were worshipping female posters at the same time receiving complaints for their harassing behavior, for good reason.

White Knight is a term from the MRA anti-feminist codebook. It means a man who (duplicitously, generally) makes arguments in favor of feminism or takes a woman's side for the purposes of getting positive attention and reactions from the women watching. It is an appeal to intent by its very nature.

[The Romulan Republic]

It has been referred to angry young virgin on this board for years, there's even a wiki on it http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wik ... in_Brigade

There was a pretty big thread about it pointing out the harassment towards female members and super mods using the term themselves http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=71216

Are you actually accusing me, forum mods, and administration of ad hominem fallacy by using that term?

Also, please provide support to back up your implied assertion that male view on drinking and having sex is any different than other boards or mainstream society at large.

As far as I recall, I made no claim about the attitudes of this board relative to anywhere else, and thus feel no need to defend such a claim. I commented on here.

And I am not accusing mods and administration of an ad hominem. The term angry young virgin was used by Frank the Liar to attack me, and your use of it right after he did felt like someone jumping on the bandwagon or something. Maybe I jumped to that too quickly, and if so I'm sorry. That's where the ad hominem accusation came from, not how the term was used in other contexts.

Edit: Moreover, if you are trying to get me in trouble with the mods, there is a report button for that and you should put your money where your mouth is and use it or avoid insinuating that I am falsely attacking the staff here.

[ArmorPierce]

I am a feminist by definition of the word. I don't know what a MRA is.

Look up the term white knight, I guess it can be used as a anti-feminist term depending on context.

[Jub]

Here's the issue that nobody here has yet answered.

If I take a woman I met online out for a date somewhere the serves drinks, have a few drinks myself while buying her a few drinks, and we both end up buzzed and having sex, why should I have to worry that she might change her mind the next day and claim that I raped her after purposefully getting her drunk?

Assuming that she never made any indication she was having anything other than a good time, and never said anything about not buying her more drinks, what's the issue? If she didn't want the drinks she didn't need to accept them, if she didn't want to head somewhere private she had every right to walk away, if she didn't want the sex should could have said no. If these things didn't happen, why should she have the right to retroactively turn a consensual night of adult fun into a crime? If we're going to treat women as equals we should expect them to have the same responsibility to own up to their actions while drunk as any male, that includes not getting to make a big deal of something they consented to while drunk.

To further highlight the absurdity of the idea that a drunken women is so out of control of her actions that she is incapable of consent how about we apply this same logic to other things. I could go to a bar, have a friend buy me drinks, do something stupid that would otherwise get me in trouble, and then claim I had the drinks forced on me and that my friend coerced me into doing said stupid thing. How far do you think that would fly with the police and do you agree that it should be a valid means of getting away with doing stupid things while forcing the consequences onto somebody who thought you were having a mutually enjoyable evening together? If so, you're a moron, and if not you have no right to support women doing this same thing.

[ArmorPierce]

Edit: Moreover, if you are trying to get me in trouble with the mods, there is a report button for that and you should put your money where your mouth is and use it or avoid insinuating that I am falsely attacking the staff here.

It's called providing context and establishing precedent. You accused me of using an ad-hominem by using the term while describing the history of the board and effectively accused me of deceit. You are arguing over my use of the term when that term has had a long established history on this board.

Since we are throwing around fallacies here nice use of the red herring fallacy.

[Frank the Tank]

Just so I'm clear, are you (Romulan Republic) actually accusing me of being a rapist or of supporting or tolerating rape? Just want to make sure I'm clear on which fallacy you're using this time to avoid addressing my questions.

Please explain why sex after any quantity of alcohol is rape, but other decisions made (like buying rounds for the whole bar, or buying expensive booze, or driving while drunk) are not get out of jail cards.

I'll be waiting...



Oh, terraltha, you're welcome to answer those questions as well. Or you can fuck off. Your call

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: Moreover, if you are trying to get me in trouble with the mods, there is a report button for that and you should put your money where your mouth is and use it or avoid insinuating that I am falsely attacking the staff here.

It's called providing context and establishing precedent. You accused me of using an ad-hominem by using the term while describing the history of the board and effectively accused me of deceit. You are arguing over my use of the term when that term has had a long established history on this board.

Since we are throwing around fallacies here nice use of the red herring fallacy.

I found your referring to the term in question suspicious in this context, but its possible I was too quick to do so, which I already acknowledged and apologized for.

And I'm still inclined to think that Frank the Liar was using it as an ad hominem. That it has been used differently in other contexts is irrelevant to that.

Just so I'm clear, are you (Romulan Republic) actually accusing me of being a rapist or of supporting or tolerating rape? Just want to make sure I'm clear on which fallacy you're using this time to avoid addressing my questions.

I have addressed what you've said, or at any rate I've tried to. If you don't agree with my response, that's not the same as me avoiding anything.

And no, I am not accusing you of being a rapist. I have no proof of such a thing and have no desire to make such an accusation falsely.

However, if you are defending having sex with drunk people, especially if you are defending having sex with drunk people while one is not intoxicated, then yes I believe you are potentially defending rape.

Please explain why sex after any quantity of alcohol is rape, but other decisions made (like buying rounds for the whole bar, or buying expensive booze, or driving while drunk) are not get out of jail cards.

I'll be waiting...

Obviously sex after, say, one sip of beer isn't rape, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. If I did, it was certainly unintentional. Sex with a drunk person, however, is a different matter.

And if I understand what you're saying, you're arguing that a drunk person who has sex is responsible for that action despite being drunk. That is simply rape victim blaming, and utterly disgusting.

So yes, I think you're defending rape, and I think you are morally bankrupt.

Edit: I also take exception to your apparent attempt to turn the debate into a debate about my character rather than my arguments. Granted, I've probably been guilty of that kind of debating myself a bit. Perhaps we should both show better conduct.

[AniThyng]

And if I understand what you're saying, you're arguing that a drunk person who has sex is responsible for that action despite being drunk. That is simply rape victim blaming, and utterly disgusting.

Why is "a drunk person who has sex" being treated as equal to "a drunk[or for that matter, sober] person who is raped"? These are two very different things, or should be. Especially since your own sentence parsing implies active participation by the said drunk person, ("has sex"), rather then being the unwilling victim of the action. I would think that at that point it is not "victim blaming" to consider the implications of such a standard.

[Terralthra]

Fascinating. Rather than respond to the question I asked, you demand immediately that I answer your (unrelated) question while ignoring mine.

First of all, I haven't said "after any quantity" of alcohol, consent can not be given (this is my second post in the thread, and you appear to have completely ignored my first post, so it's unsurprising you now call on me to defend something no one has said. Straw man, but oh well). What I will say is that the amount of alcohol necessary for a particular individual's judgment and insight (technical term here, meaning ability to self-assess) to be sufficiently impaired that they might make decisions that, sober, they would not have made is not a predictable quantity. What's troublesome about this is that insight, the key ability to self-examine and accurately assess exactly how much their own inhibitions have been lowered and how much their judgment is impaired, is generally one of the first things to go. Consents, much like contracts, are (and should be) made of sound mind, and void if not.

Do you acknowledge that there is some amount of alcohol an individual can imbibe after which their consent is invalid?

As for why this doesn't apply to buying booze or signing credit card receipts, or other matters of contract, that's actually been argued (successfully) in court, though the court held that being intoxicated only rendered a contract "voidable, not void, so that the party intoxicated may, upon recovering his understanding, adopt it, when it will become obligatory." IE, a person who agrees to something while drunk may in fact void it upon regaining their sobriety; if they do not do so, it becomes obligatory. That precedent is from the late 19th century, though I can't find SCOTUS precedent overruling it. Courts have generally been leery of voiding contracts will-he nill-he due to drunkenness, unless someone deliberately intoxicated someone else in order to get them to agree to something they wouldn't otherwise, though they have on occasion.

My guess is that the current state is more of a detente between credit card companies and bars: if people went around challenging their credit card statement for every drunken & regretted beer purchase, either credit card companies or bars which accept credit cards would start taking huge losses. This would naturally lead to cash-only bars and a big loss of convenience (hence business), so everyone agrees to simply let it lie as it is, while bartenders (that I've seen) tend to be cautious about charging rounds of drinks to obviously inebriated individuals.

As for drunk driving, the simple fact is that it is not particularly consistent with consent law, but the same drug that impairs judgment and insight (themselves necessary for driving) additionally impairs motor-visual acuity, making the average intoxicated person dangerous behind the wheel, regardless of the lack of the ability to assess their own impairment. My belief is that the regime of harsh punishment of drunk driving is to convince people to decide before they go out to drink that they should plan to rely on other means of transportation. If you can come up with a better plan to keep people from driving drunk, I'd be happy to switch to it, since the current one does make a person guilty of a crime for which they can not possibly have mens rea.

[Jub]

Obviously sex after, say, one sip of beer isn't rape, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. If I did, it was certainly unintentional. Sex with a drunk person, however, is a different matter.

And if I understand what you're saying, you're arguing that a drunk person who has sex is responsible for that action despite being drunk. That is simply rape victim blaming, and utterly disgusting.

My question to you is if we can hold that drunk person accountable for things such as crimes committed, purchases made, drunken phone calls to their boss/ex-partners, how and why is sex any different?

Using I was drunk and later regretted having sex with him as an excuse to accuse somebody of a vile crime is stupid. Here's an example that should prove it once and for all:

A friend and myself were both drunk and for reasons that made sense at the time he cut the sleeves off the shirt I was wearing with a knife and in doing so cut up my arm. Now, if I were thinking like a woman who would accuse a man of rape for having sex with her while she was drunk, I could have charged him with assault; even though I was willing to let him use the knife to cut the sleeves off my shirt at the time. Why? Well I was technically unable to consent to allowing him to batter me with a knife as I was drunk, and he did convince me to go out and drink with him so I could even claim he coerced me into having the drinks as a pretense for later harming me.

Now I think we can all agree that charging him with a crime after the fact for accidentally cutting me while we were both drunk is stupid. So why does it seem less stupid if we apply this same logic to sex?

[The Romulan Republic]

And if I understand what you're saying, you're arguing that a drunk person who has sex is responsible for that action despite being drunk. That is simply rape victim blaming, and utterly disgusting.

Why is "a drunk person who has sex" being treated as equal to "a drunk[or for that matter, sober] person who is raped"? These are two very different things, or should be.

If someone does not consent to sex, it is rape, and for consent to be valid, it cannot be given by someone who is impaired to the point that they cannot rationally make such a decision. Very simple.

I want to add that I feel I was needlessly antagonistic and worded some of my posts poorly, that it hurt my position, and I am sincerely sorry for that. I believe that having sex with a drunk person is rape in at least some circumstances, that that is unacceptable, and that its absurd to even debate that, and I have absolutely no intention of conceding on that. However, I regret that this debate has gotten as personal as it has and feel that I could have worded some of my posts better.