Infrastructure Reforms

[ladajo]

Lots of argumentive energy in this one.
The exuberance of youth may be on the money.

[Blankbeard]

Stupid crap was not directed at you.

Fair enough.

You can combine date when it is the same source (as I suspect it may be, and already stated so.)

No, you can't. Unless they used very similar methods of data collection, it's a good bit of work to actually combine two data sets.
The national survey on drug use and health is based on a interview i.e. it is self reporting. Conducted by SAMSHA.
https://nsduhweb.rti.org/RespWeb/projec ... ption.html
The TEDS data is compiled from admissions data compiled by individual states, each of which has their own data collection method. Also by SAMSHA.
(The TEDS pdf you posted earlier, p 139.)
The World Drug Report is compiled from data collected by various governments according to their individual standards.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-an ... dology.pdf

These are not easily comparable or simple to combine.

Your level of argument is not what you think it is.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Coming from someone who seems to have trouble with simple analysis, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. Time and time again, you've chosen to ignore the actual arguments and focused on me. This is not the way to make arguments, even on the internet.

You are right in one thing. I have not been applying full attention to my efforts with you. Nothing personal, I am just busy with other stuff. As for my point, again, I do have access to things that you don't.

I'm sure you're very busy. If you have access to any advanced resources, you haven't used them. I've seen nothing beyond what a google search would find. But again, I'm not concerned with judging you. It's your arguments I find lacking.

But in that, I am merely (once again) trying to point out to you how to access similar things, or find them when you don't have the high end search engines like I do. If you don't care, then fine. It is not for me, it is for you (and others).

Again, this is a nice statement but it would have much more weight if you used them.

I bet you were a fun student in your time.

And

Lots of argumentive energy in this one.
The exuberance of youth may be on the money.

No engagement, just personal attacks. Nice. Even by the low standards of internet argumentation, this is disappointing.

And with that, I'm done with this topic for now.

[paperburn1]

And with that, I'm done with this topic for now.

Thank the gods!

[ladajo]

Stupid crap was not directed at you.

Fair enough.

You can combine date when it is the same source (as I suspect it may be, and already stated so.)

No, you can't. Unless they used very similar methods of data collection, it's a good bit of work to actually combine two data sets.

You can certainly compare and contrast them, which is the whole point of analysis. I think the issue here is terminology for you. And for the record, you can merge several sources of data into a study. It is done all the time. They are called comparative studies. And combining data is not as hard as you think . You only need to explain your method to do so in the methodology section. It is done all the time. Especially when collecting the data on your own would be cost or resource prohibative, and someone else has captured what you are looking for already. It is especially done often in composite studies that use quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
If you wish, I can recommend Merriam's Qualitative Research, Jossey-Bash 2009, particularly Chapter 4, and Part Two, Chapters 5-7. Chapter 8 has a decent discussion on Data Analytics. You may also want to look at Leedy & Ormond's Practical Research, Ninth Edition, Pearson 2010. Chapters 7-11 get to the meat of it, with a particular emphasis on Chapter 11 for analyzing quantitative data sets. I will admit that Merriam can be a little dry at times, but it is still worth the read. Both of them also have a decent section on lit. review if you are interested. Pages 72-76 for Merriam and 66-84 for Leedy & Ormond.

The national survey on drug use and health is based on a interview i.e. it is self reporting. Conducted by SAMSHA.
https://nsduhweb.rti.org/RespWeb/projec ... ption.html

Any survey can be called "self-reporting". Personally, I think interview methods are one of the more controllable versions. In the study at hand households are randomly selected based on distributive analysis for demographic diversity and balance and then persons within the household may be interviewed further. The process is very much in control of those making the data collection, and not a generic "self reporting".

The TEDS data is compiled from admissions data compiled by individual states, each of which has their own data collection method. Also by SAMSHA.
(The TEDS pdf you posted earlier, p 139.)

Yup, and the end result is measurements of abuse rates per unit population. The point of the discussion is the follow-on comparison of medical case rates per unit population verses total usage rates per unit population. In the case of numbers collection, it is not that big drama about how the numbers were collected. It is a simple matter of accounting. You yourself pointed this out earlier. And in this case what really matters is the identification of new admissions per unit population. If you wish to take issue with how they did the accounting at every clinic, have at it. It would be a long and laborious pursuit with probably no real gain. At the end, any statistical compilation requires a measure of faith. Even the prediction of nuclear reactions has to deal with this.

The World Drug Report is compiled from data collected by various governments according to their individual standards.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-an ... dology.pdf

And where do you think the US Government (as one of the only two nations in the world doing annual surveys) gets the bulk of it's data from to fill out the annual UN Form? Do you think it might be the annual study the government sponsors?

These are not easily comparable or simple to combine.

We are not talking about merging disparate data sets into one, although it can be done. We are talking about compariing data sets which produce same unit outputs. "percentage of total". What is so hard about that?

Your level of argument is not what you think it is.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Coming from someone who seems to have trouble with simple analysis, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. Time and time again, you've chosen to ignore the actual arguments and focused on me. This is not the way to make arguments, even on the internet.

While I have not been applying my full attention to you in our 'discourse' to date, and have admitted it, I am certain that you can not take our limited exchange and make a sweeping statement on my abilities. That shows immaturity on your part.
You also continually miss my point. That could be your failure, or mine. But I think it is more the both of us not finding a common framework to communicate. That said, you are certainly showing a very thin skin, and a prediliction of assuming a personal attack is taking place when it is not, or if it is, it is very minor in nature.

You are right in one thing. I have not been applying full attention to my efforts with you. Nothing personal, I am just busy with other stuff. As for my point, again, I do have access to things that you don't.

I'm sure you're very busy. If you have access to any advanced resources, you haven't used them. I've seen nothing beyond what a google search would find. But again, I'm not concerned with judging you. It's your arguments I find lacking.

Actually, you have no idea what I do or how busy I am and it matters not.
I do have access to a plethora of resources, but why would I use them to point you to something you can't get at? That would be like posting a photo of a luxury yacht and saying it's mine, but you can't go to it. I go to great effort sometimes here to link things that are accessable to all. Why would I go the quick route only use references you(or others) can't get too?

But in that, I am merely (once again) trying to point out to you how to access similar things, or find them when you don't have the high end search engines like I do. If you don't care, then fine. It is not for me, it is for you (and others).

Again, this is a nice statement but it would have much more weight if you used them.

For your edification, three of the primary resource tools I have are EBSCO Discovery Service, Proquest (two versions) and Central Search. Central Search is a federated engine we have licensed and linked to a wide variety of databases and sources to include paid and free access. There are also a number of other research and search tools I have that are not worth mentioning, or I choose not to for my own reasons. And again, why would I post a reference to something that others can not see or access?

I bet you were a fun student in your time.

And

Lots of argumentive energy in this one.
The exuberance of youth may be on the money.

No engagement, just personal attacks. Nice. Even by the low standards of internet argumentation, this is disappointing.

Merely an observation, not an attack. If you think this is an attack, that does again point to a level of immaturity on your part that would suggest young age. I continue to think that you would have been a fun student.

And with that, I'm done with this topic for now.

So you want to take your toys and go home. Your choice.

[ladajo]

And here we have something further to consider in regards to teen trends. It indicates the timeframes of usage and perception shifts that seem to corrospond in time with the larger Pro-Pot Lobby marketing efforts. It would be nice to see the MTF space data as well to see if national trending is driven by marketing areas of the Pro-Pot Lobby efforts.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig11_1.pdf

[ladajo]

From the 2011 National Drug Survery we have the trend of first time pot users by rate and median age.

2011 nsduh results

This tells us that about 10 years ago, first time user rate was about 2%, while in 2011 it was up to 2.6% while the age median went from about 17 to 17.5. (Page 55)

We also see on Page 66 a notable down trend in perceived pot use risk over the last ten years. This the core tenant of the Pro-Pot lobby. 'Pot is good for you'. 'Pot is not bad'. 'Pot is medicine'.
Notice figures 6.3 and 6.4 in relation to pot. Pot is on a perception positive swing. 55% in 2005 thought pot had great risk, while in 2011 it was down to 44.8%.

And on page 67, we see (again, it was argued here before between me and Msimon) figure 6.5 which indicates, that while pot is on a perception and usage uptrend, it is considered harder to get by teens. Dropping frmo 55% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2011. Of note is that all illicit drugs are considered harder to get (an indication that prohibition has been working on some level).

On page 92, figure 8.3, we see a comparison of the two annual major drug studies focusing on youth pot use. We see all four mjor onging studies compared in figure 8.4. The overall take is that the data trends are valid for all studies with a significant rate difference that seems to speak to methodology around admitted usage rates.

On page 25 we have a summary finding of drug use to geography, which indicates a higher use rate in the western US, which is also the main focus area of the Pro-Pot lobby.

Geographic Area
• Among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use in 2011 was 10.5 percent in the West, 9.2 percent in the Northeast, 8.5 percent in the Midwest, and 7.5 percent in the South.
• In 2011, the rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older was 9.2 percent in large metropolitan counties, 8.7 percent in small metropolitan counties, and 7.2 percent in nonmetropolitan counties as a group (Figure 2.13). Within nonmetropolitan areas, the rate was 8.5 percent in urbanized counties, 6.3 percent in less urbanized counties, and 5.7 percent in completely rural counties.

Of interest is to note that usage is highest in urban areas. A seeming dichonomy given cities/population density distributions when compared across major census regions East to West. Ie. the West has comparatively less cities but more users as a whole over given land area.

[ladajo]

In a comparison between TEDs pot admission data by geography, and states with pro-pot legislation (which relates to Pro-Pot lobby efforts)
We can see a pretty clear relation.

Pot Laws by State

1. Alaska 1998 Ballot Measure 8 (58%) $25/$20 1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) unknown1
2. Arizona 2010 Proposition 203 (50.13%) $150/$75 2.5 oz usable; 0-12 plants2 Yes3
3. California 1996 Proposition 215 (56%) $66/$33 8 oz usable; 6 mature or 12 immature plants4 No
4. Colorado 2000 Ballot Amendment 20 (54%) $35 2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) No
5. Connecticut 2012 House Bill 5389 (96-51 House, 21-13 Senate) * One-month supply (exact amount to be determined) No
6. DC 2010 Amendment Act B18-622 (13-0 vote) ** 2 oz dried; limits on other forms to be determined unknown
7. Delaware 2011 Senate Bill 17 (27-14 House, 17-4 Senate) $125 6 oz usable Yes5
8. Hawaii 2000 Senate Bill 862 (32-18 House; 13-12 Senate) $25 3 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
9. Maine 1999 Ballot Question 2 (61%) $100/$75 2.5 oz usable; 6 plants Yes6
10. Massachusetts 2012 Ballot Question 3 (63%) TBD7 Sixty day supply for personal medical use unknown
11. Michigan 2008 Proposal 1 (63%) $100/$25 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
12. Montana 2004 Initiative 148 (62%) $25/$10 1 oz usable; 4 plants (mature); 12 seedlings No
13. Nevada 2000 Ballot Question 9 (65%) $200 +fees 1 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
14. New Jersey 2010 Senate Bill 119 (48-14 House; 25-13 Senate) $200/$20 2 oz usable No
15. New Mexico 2007 Senate Bill 523 (36-31 House; 32-3 Senate) $0 6 oz usable; 16 plants (4 mature, 12 immature) No
16. Oregon 1998 Ballot Measure 67 (55%) $200/$1008 24 oz usable; 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature) No
17. Rhode Island 2006 Senate Bill 0710 (52-10 House; 33-1 Senate) $75/$10 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
18. Vermont 2004 Senate Bill 76 (22-7) HB 645 (82-59) $50 2 oz usable; 9 plants (2 mature, 7 immature) No
19. Washington 1998 Initiative 692 (59%) *** 24 oz usable; 15 plants No

TECs page 12, Figure 3 gives a geo overview by state for admission rates from 1998 until 2008.
Bolded States are those with Pro-Pot laws. Underlined States are those that got worse. States that got better are in italics.

States of note (top 2 brackets) in 1998 are: Oregon, Idaho, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio

States of interest (middle 2 brackets) 1998: Washington, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, NY, CT, RI, VT, ME, HI, Alaska

States of note 2008: Oregon, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Kansas, NY, VT, RI, Maryland, Delaware
States of Interest 2008: Washington, CA, ID, Colorado, North Dakota, OK, AR, LA, IL, Michigan, NJ, CT, ME, South Carolina, HI

So from five states of note in 1998, up to 14 in 2008. Of these, one of five had Pro-Pot law in 1998, and five of 13 in 2008. About double the rate increase for Pro-Pot states jumping to the high bracket.
Of those with Pro-Pot laws, of 19 states listed, in 1998 there were 11 of interest, and 1 of note (11 total). DC showed no data on the TEDs geo graphic. In 2008 there were 5 of note, and 7 of interest (12 total) with AK and DC not showing data.. Of these, 2 Pro-Pot law states (WA & MI) showed 'improvement' by moving down a reporting layer in the middle grouping. Overall, Pro-Pot Law states show a significantly higher rate of pot admission rates, than other states, and this also shows correlation with the reported zones of the annual National study for usage rates, even when considering that the current national data is more recent than the TEDs 2008 data. From TED one can see for the most part trending negative, From this one can assume that the TED rates are trending negative

From the 2011 National Data:

Geographic Area
• Among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use in 2011 was 10.5 percent in the West, 9.2 percent in the Northeast, 8.5 percent in the Midwest, and 7.5 percent in the South.

For states of interest, 19 in 1998, and 15 in 2008. Of the 19 in 1998, 10 got worse and moved up to the high bracket, while one (ID) moved down.

In closing, of the 19 states referenced above with Pro-Pot law, as of 2008, 13 are on the TEDs reporting data as mid or high grouping. Of the non-reporting, in 2008, AK & DC showed no data, and four (NV, NM, AZ & MA) were in the low end of reporting.
It appears that having Pro-Pot laws would indicate a higher incidence rate of usage and abuse admissions than not. Or we could chicken and egg it and say, having higher usage rates would increase chances of Pro-pot laws and obviously abuse admissions. But that does not answer the mail in regard to why the usage rates are higher. Saying that Pro-pot lobbying and subsequent legal limitations reductions does.

[ladajo]

For an understanding of who, when and where the Pro-Pot folks target, you can just look for yourself:

http://www.mpp.org/our-work/campaigns/

or

http://norml.org/normlpac/item/norml-pa ... ory_id=629

Easy to see where they are focusing.

[mvanwink5]

Ladajo,
In college I had to not use pot due to its effect on my ability to do engineering classwork. It was as available as alcohol, but the alcohol did not have the same effect. My brain is how I made my living. Moreover, my roommates could drink and the alcohol fumes in the room would not have any impact on me, but pot smoking involves all in the room. I don't go to concerts for that same reason.

The point is that there are key differences in drugs, but some will use one over the other. For instance, due to liver damage, a person might prefer pot to alcohol, or due to being a bad drunk, the person might use pot. So, studies that look at only one variable misses a larger trade off dynamic. It is a complicated picture, at least that is what it seems to me. I just think criminalizing a drug is the wrong way to meddle here.
Best regards

[ladajo]

Just as pot smoking greatly drives up your chances (and those around you) for trashing your lungs and suffering a cancer or emphysema fun death.

I agree that the current system is not well. But I really can't think of anything better. I have tried. As you know I have taken a hard look at government regulative approaches, but it comes back to the same basis for me. There will be lines drawn, the same folks that don't want those lines now, will cross them as they do now. The risk factor for kids and idiots will go up, and especially in the early annals, as we have seen elsewhere, drug tourism will rocket.
The most troubling thing for me is that the lobbyists are really trying to sell pot as hot harmful and even healthy. When the cigarette idustry went on that tact, they were hung out to dry for it later (at significant taxpayer expense beforehand.).
If we go this route, I posit we darn well better put the same onus on it as we do smoking and even drinking to some extent. The idiocy right now really lays in the fact that the niave are being taken advantage of by those with an agenda that under neath is really is all about money just as it always has been with other similar topics. Anyone that thinks the Pro drug lobby is not funded by folks looking to make a buck are niave idiots.

[Blankbeard]

Hey, paperburn1, see what being smarmy gets you? Just kidding. No offense intended.

You can certainly compare and contrast them, which is the whole point of analysis.

I snipped your paragraphs because they don't contradict what I wrote. I never said it was impossible, just that it took work. You need to know what data was collected and how it was collected as well as what limitations are present in the data.

If you'd like conformation of this, any statistician can provide it in just a few minutes. I'm sure you'd find such a visit quite educational.

Yup, and the end result is measurements of abuse rates per unit population.

If the snipped paragraph were true, there would be no such profession as statisticians. I'm not saying it's impossible to compare different data sets, just that it needs to be done with care and understanding of what data. It's a lot more than just saying "Oh, the units match."

While I have not been applying my full attention to you in our 'discourse' to date, and have admitted it, I am certain that you can not take our limited exchange and make a sweeping statement on my abilities. That shows immaturity on your part.
You also continually miss my point. That could be your failure, or mine. But I think it is more the both of us not finding a common framework to communicate. That said, you are certainly showing a very thin skin, and a prediliction of assuming a personal attack is taking place when it is not, or if it is, it is very minor in nature.

Actually, you have no idea what I do or how busy I am and it matters not.

No, it doesn't. I wish you'd recognize the same of your imaginings about me.

I do have access to a plethora of resources, but why would I use them to point you to something you can't get at?

Let me restate this problem one last time. I can only hope this will be clear.

I haven't asked you for super secret resources. I have asked you to give me primary research which is available through the free to use Pubmed search engine. If you're uncomfortable with that front end, at least EBSCO searches the same database (MEDLINE). Linking to a drug policy paper is not the same as linking to primary research. Remember, I only asked you to do this because you kept claiming that you had studies that supported your arguments.

And let's be clear: By law, all publicly funded research goes into the MEDLINE database. Your studies are in there unless they are classified. You can link them, you can give me author and title, whatever is easiest for you. But if you claim to have a study to support you, You need to produce it. How is up to you but saying "It's somewhere past here" is not producing it.

Merely an observation, not an attack. If you think this is an attack, that does again point to a level of immaturity on your part that would suggest young age. I continue to think that you would have been a fun student.

Why not stop discussing what sort of person you think is making the argument and start discussing the argument? Is there some reason you don't want to do this?

So you want to take your toys and go home. Your choice.

Since I'm actually engaging your arguments, it takes over an hour to make a post. I have to read your sources, find my own, read them, and then reply. It takes time.

By contrast, you haven't engaged any of my arguments. So why waste the time?

From the 2011 National Drug Survery we have the trend of first time pot users by rate and median age.

Page 8 says you can't do that.

This tells us that about 10 years ago, first time user rate was about 2%, while in 2011 it was up to 2.6% while the age median went from about 17 to 17.5. (Page 55)

Page 8 again. Sorry. Hint: Pay attention to what happened in 2002 and the different event in 2007.

Of interest is to note that usage is highest in urban areas. A seeming dichonomy given cities/population density distributions when compared across major census regions East to West. Ie. the West has comparatively less cities but more users as a whole over given land area.

This is called "Network Effect."

And here we have something further to consider in regards to teen trends. It indicates the timeframes of usage and perception shifts that seem to corrospond in time with the larger Pro-Pot Lobby marketing efforts. It would be nice to see the MTF space data as well to see if national trending is driven by marketing areas of the Pro-Pot Lobby efforts.

You forgot the part where you put something in to show a correlation with the lobby's efforts. Since that's your point, it's important you do so.

TECs page 12, Figure 3 gives a geo overview by state for admission rates from 1998 until 2008.
Bolded States are those with Pro-Pot laws. Underlined States are those that got worse. States that got better are in italics.

Where did the division into states of note and states of interest come from? Neither phrase appears in the TEDS data or at least, neither shows up when searched for.

States of note (top 2 brackets) in 1998 are:

This entire section is a mess. You have 25 states under 1998, then 29 under 2008. And they're not the same states. That distorts the picture you're making. Just as an example, Alabama is one of the states that got worse. It's missing from your 2008 list, probably because there was no data for it in 2007, causing it to drop off the list. Not because it got better. Utah and Alaska are missing as well. Alaska is missing all data after 2003 so I'll leave it out.

Secondly, Statistical significance? Which have it?

Third, You're saying that a state with pro-pot laws is more likely to "have gotten worse" than one without pro-pot laws. So here's a list of the states that were both bolded and underlined.

Pro-pot, worse
Oregon, Montana, VT, RI, Delaware, CA, NJ,CT, HI

9 states out of 29

NOT pro-pot, worse
WY, SD, Missouri, KS, NY, MD,ND, OK, AR, LA, IL, SC

12 states out of 29. Alabama also got worse, making a 13th state.

So, no the states you identified as pro-pot were not more likely to have higher pot treatment numbers in 2008 than 1998. In fact, they are less likely to do so.

It is true that pro-pot states were more likely than not to increase treatment numbers (9 increased, only 2 decreased) but states without pro pot laws were also more likely to increase treatment numbers(12 increased, 1 decreased, 3 remained relatively unchanged.) This is because the nation on average increased treatment numbers, not because of any laws.

So this doesn't appear to support you either. Even if you look for inflection points after the change of pot laws, you don't find any support.

In closing, of the 19 states referenced above with Pro-Pot law, as of 2008, 13 are on the TEDs reporting data as mid or high grouping. Of the non-reporting, in 2008, AK & DC showed no data, and four (NV, NM, AZ & MA) were in the low end of reporting.
It appears that having Pro-Pot laws would indicate a higher incidence rate of usage and abuse admissions than not.

This is exactly what you didn't find.

Or we could chicken and egg it and say, having higher usage rates would increase chances of Pro-pot laws and obviously abuse admissions. But that does not answer the mail in regard to why the usage rates are higher. Saying that Pro-pot lobbying and subsequent legal limitations reductions does.

Except for the part where you didn't show that at all. You can't use what category a state falls into as a proxy for an increase in treatment numbers when you have the treatment numbers. And as we've already seen, the actual treatment rates scale with population, not any efforts by pot lobbies.

Do pot lobbies have any effect on drug use? Maybe. Or maybe not.

This is the sort of poor analysis I keep pointing out. You can't just arrange your data to fit your conclusion.

[ladajo]

This is the sort of poor analysis I keep pointing out. You can't just arrange your data to fit your conclusion.

Maybe the issue here is that you just don't understand.

It is also funny that you are doing exactly what you claim I am.

The data is simple, you can look at it and see that being a Pro-Pot law state also corrosponds with having higher risk of more abuse admissions. If you can't see that I just do not know what to say.

As for posting links, again I ask (since you can never seem to answer it), why would I post a link to something you can not open? That is silly.

I also apologize is my entries were not perfect. The flaws you point out do not really matter. But for the record again, it is really onerus to edit and format with this software.

It also continues to amuse me that you think my saying "I bet you were a fun student" is in a negative context. Since you still don't get it, and seem predisposed to take it so, I will clearly state: It is not intended as a negative comment. It is merely an observation, and actually a positive one. I would have enjoyed to have you in one of my graduate classes.

Maybe I should pay more attention to what you are actually saying, but I intend no actual offense for so far not giving it full measure.

[GIThruster]

The data is simple, you can look at it and see that being a Pro-Pot law state also corrosponds with having higher risk of more abuse admissions. If you can't see that I just do not know what to say.

This is why I can't discuss the issue with him or with Simon. It simply does not matter what facts you find, what studies you uncover, how compelling and decisive an argument you fashion. He is going to pretend you didn't. He's going to call you irrational and eventually resort to personal attacks.

The gateway drug argument is just one of many that obviously obtain. There is the reduced IQ argument, the reduced work ethic argument, the altered personality argument, the criminal intention argument, the health based arguments relating to cancer and sloth and psychosis and paranoia and on and on and on.

Fact is, if one can look at life and not see drugs as a horrible, plague upon mankind, then that person is so twisted there is never going to be anything resembling common sense come from him.

[ladajo]

I did not think I made it that hard to follow, nor violate terms of a logic train. Beh <shrug>.

[Diogenes]

I did not think I made it that hard to follow, nor violate terms of a logic train. Beh <shrug>.

It was a valiant effort, but you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.


Religion, is still the closest approximation to the ill that afflicts them.