Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cody, do you really feel what you are saying? You are telling me that I need to be aggressed against and that it is my best interest to allow that. Why do you hate me so? You're also saying that your friends and family need to be aggressed against as well as yourself. And if that aggression did not happen then THAT would be awful.

As far as things like Ip go.. I have no idea how that kind of thing can work but I'm certainly not suggesting that I get to point a gun at you to make it work.

It is very possible that all this stuff is entirely not about government and is instead about family. Please! go to freedomainradio.com and listen to the podcasts on family and the boards there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plzleennowhammy, could you please link (or just post the URL to, if linking 'em isn't allowed) whichever podcast you think is most relevant/important for statists to hear on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Podcast 70: How to control a human soul. 89-92: The State and the Family. 109-113: But my parents were really nice!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, checking 'em out.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree though that America is relatively more "free" than many/most places out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think America is any more free than most any developed country with a Western-based culture (such as most of Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.). The constant talk of America being the most free nation on earth is outdated. The freedom to play cards for money is but one simple example.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just an interested question to the guys who've been going at it for double digit pages:


Has either one of you guys learned anything new and/or thought about changing or at least evaluating some of their positions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. I'd never heard the term "anarchocapitalist" until a week (approximately) ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reading AC in this forum for about a month or 2 and had no idea what it stood for lol. It didn't take me much longer than that to convert I don't think. I should go look into how long it acutually took...

[/ QUOTE ]

May I ask what persuaded you? I kinda see two main lines of argument by AC's: pragmatic and justice-based.

Are you sold on the idea that (pure) free markets are universally better at providing prosperity to all than mixed markets are? And/or do you think government, no matter how liberal (in terms of leaving its citizens unmolested/restricted) is inherently immoral? And/or some third thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of those two I fall on the pragmatic reasoning. That all of us will be better off (that includes the mentally ill, homeless, etc). I also happen to be formerly homeless myself and saw first hand the nonsensical policies and practices in homeless shelters that supposedly 'help' the homeless.

Most of the prominent AC posters seemed really smart to me, their arguments made sense to me. I have done a bit of studying of semantics and logic back in the day and their posts impressed me. So I considered what they had to say with an open mind and followed the threads they were posting in.

The straw that broke the camel's back, the single post that finally 'convinced' me was a post from a statist. Someone was arguing aginst AC because of free rider issues. This guy was upset and using as an argument that if a bunch of people live by a swamp and some of the people spray pesticides to get rid of mosquito's someone might not cough up any doe and get a 'free ride' on the people who were spraying.

So as I was being educated by reading their posts, and reading in my view counter posts that seemed to be increasingly silly and misguided, my awakening finally culimiated in seeing how ridiculous it is to object to such a great thing over something as stupid as that.

The national defense issue was a little difficult for me to get by, as I posted about recently. It was also odd for me to consider fire departments and roads to be privately owned but I was not particularly resistant to those things. It simply seemed strange to me because I had never considerd it before.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moral argument for the free market is only one. Other, in my opinion, stronger arguments are rooted in economics. In Rothbard's Man, Economy & State, With Power and Market, Rothbard lays out the workings of the unfettered free market. Only then does he examine the effects of various kinds of coercive interventions into that market, showing explicitly the gigantic problems that result from those interventions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Boro, tone down your anger for a second (smoke a cig, have a drink, whack off, whatever) and answer the questions I put out before. What about things like the Pharm example I presented, what happens there.

Another, what happens with roads. Land is scarce, what happens when it's all used up (all practical land and routes) and they get together and price fix, what will you do then. You can't use agression, unless all those ACers that decry "might makes right" weren't correct.

What of those things that the free market can't handle.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you know that people who post here under the guise of being AC acually are involved in a conspiracy to convince people to disband government while secretly planning on taking over the world through the use of force?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Another, what happens with roads. Land is scarce, what happens when it's all used up (all practical land and routes) and they get together and price fix, what will you do then. You can't use agression, unless all those ACers that decry "might makes right" weren't correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there are a ton of people who want to use roads but roads are too expensive then people don't use roads and prices come down? Or maybe jetpacks?

Podcast 64 and 65

[/ QUOTE ]

Gas is expensive, but people still use it, that's because we've become dependent on cars, I myself live 45-50 min away from where I work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, didn't you hear about the plan to not purchase any gas from Mobil or Exxon for the rest of this year as a means to effect a price reduciton? Pass it on, tell 10 people to tell 10 people.

GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It ' s worth your consideration.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.

BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join wi th us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline

priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the
marketplace..... not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any

gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =3D 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE
>>>>HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am, so trust me on this one.)

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!

I'll bet you didn't think you and I

had that much potential, di d you?

Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.

THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
...and then attack the other small groups near us in an effort to drive off or enslave the men, and take "their" women and land for our own.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, but people aren't rational. Hence WWII, not to mention the slew of other wars of conquest waged by rich nations in the 20th century.


[/ QUOTE ]

These two kind of go together so I will adress both with the arguement that AC is a progression of political thought. When you live in the poverty of small tribes then the rewards of attacking your neighbours can be close to or greater than the risk of death. When society is in this state you are basically one day away from dying anyway so you can take the risk without losing out on your non-exsistant long term wealth.

Once society accumulates a large amount of capital and you actually can plan to live past 50, the threat of death becomes that more dangerous to your economic well being. You either now have to trade with others for value or get other to fight your wars for you. Since the wealthy in AC land arent going to have the ideological levers of religion or state, people arent going to go to war for the rich. Assuming that rich people are greedy and like making more money over less, it only makes sense for them trade and not take their wealth through conquest. It is very unlikely that a business leader who carefully aquired a large amount of capital over a long period of time is going to blow it all away in a year attacking some unwinnable war. But because we have a state with the support of the people who have no clue what the costs are, george bush can waste billions of dollars in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
How about a business that is rich, desparate, and fighting what it perceives is a certainly losing struggle against a more agile competitor? Would war still make no sense?


[/ QUOTE ]

As an individual business owner it makes more sense to sell your unprofitable company off than to go to war. Taking small losses is a better idea than completely wasting you money in a war or even possibly dieing. But even assuming Microsoft and Sony do go to war, they will immediately lose all support from their consumers and therefore will not be able to engage in any long term conflicts.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't happen now, despite massive wealth and a government led by people who have a bona fide reason to desire it (namely, re-election).

It certainly wouldn't behoove a security company in an AC society to kill off ALL the bad guys: this would result in fewer, and smaller, renewal fees.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if I get the first part. Are you saying that the crips dont get taken care of now? The point is, they arent a serious threat to the majority of society. Mostly just to each other.

AC police forces are going to be much more about prevention would probably act more like an insurance company. They will want to reduce crime as much as possible because the less actual crime there is versus the perception of crime, the more profit they make. Some sort of market equilibrium will be found where people are willing to pay for a certain amount of money for a certain amount of risk.

[ QUOTE ]
This is something we'll have to disagree upon, I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully I've explained it a bit more in this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I level the same accusation at you. I think war IS the natural state of human affairs. Others do as well I think, which is why you guys (AC's) get accused of being utopianists.


[/ QUOTE ]

By saying this you are providing no explanation for why wars occur. Its almost always economic or ideological. A society that has a lot of economic development and very little ideological beliefs is going to engage in very few wars. I think this is a huge and very interesting topic, mabey you should start another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Your first sentence is false, I think; your second is true, but only because you won't have a country. I certainly don't agree if you claim violence would diminish.


[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of small tribes, how often do the leaders of a country pay for and take part in their wars of agression?

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, if we did switch to AC, who would get control of the nukes? Highest bidder I assume?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting question that I dont think we've really discussed. Honestly I dont see AC coming about out of nowhere. A first step would probably be dissolving government at the federal level, leaving states with the nukes. From that point it depends on how society organizes itself. I'm not familiar with nuclear weapons technology, but its possible that the people wont want to pay for the upkeep cost of the nukes and they will be dismantled. Mabey they will want to keep a few around just in case. Hard to say really. Its very unlikely they will get used in state to state disagreements, so the problem of nukes is going to be same problem weve always had with nukes.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Another, what happens with roads. Land is scarce, what happens when it's all used up (all practical land and routes) and they get together and price fix, what will you do then. You can't use agression, unless all those ACers that decry "might makes right" weren't correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there are a ton of people who want to use roads but roads are too expensive then people don't use roads and prices come down? Or maybe jetpacks?

Podcast 64 and 65

[/ QUOTE ]

Gas is expensive, but people still use it, that's because we've become dependent on cars, I myself live 45-50 min away from where I work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, didn't you hear about the plan to not purchase any gas from Mobil or Exxon for the rest of this year as a means to effect a price reduciton? Pass it on, tell 10 people to tell 10 people.

GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It ' s worth your consideration.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.

BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join wi th us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline

priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the
marketplace..... not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea:

For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any

gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 =3D 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =3D 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE
>>>>HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am, so trust me on this one.)

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!

I'll bet you didn't think you and I

had that much potential, di d you?

Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.

THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you leveling? If not, here's why it doesn't work:

We buy gas from BP and not Exxon. After a week, BP is running low on gas, but Exxon has a surplus. BP goes to Exxon (or vice versa, or both) and offers to buy its gas. Exxon, having no other use for it, and being in the business of selling gas anwyay, happily agrees. BP continues to sell its (artificially high demand) gas to consumers for at least "going" (IE pre-boycott) rates.

Why? Because neither the supply of gas, nor the demand for it, has changed.

Want to lower the price of gas? Quit buying [censored] that was manufactured in China. That lowers both their demand for gas, and the cost of gas to transport the goods to market. (It's a hell of a lot cheaper to ship goods from St. Louis to Omaha, than from Beijing to Omaha. Of course, the goods will cost more if made in the US... and on and on.)

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
AC police forces are going to be much more about prevention would probably act more like an insurance company. They will want to reduce crime as much as possible because the less actual crime there is versus the perception of crime, the more profit they make. Some sort of market equilibrium will be found where people are willing to pay for a certain amount of money for a certain amount of risk.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure this is accurate. Actually it touches on a question I've wondered about for a while with respect to insurance. Let me think about this and get back to you.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just an interested question to the guys who've been going at it for double digit pages:


Has either one of you guys learned anything new and/or thought about changing or at least evaluating some of their positions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. I'd never heard the term "anarchocapitalist" until a week (approximately) ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reading AC in this forum for about a month or 2 and had no idea what it stood for lol. It didn't take me much longer than that to convert I don't think. I should go look into how long it acutually took...

[/ QUOTE ]

May I ask what persuaded you? I kinda see two main lines of argument by AC's: pragmatic and justice-based.

Are you sold on the idea that (pure) free markets are universally better at providing prosperity to all than mixed markets are? And/or do you think government, no matter how liberal (in terms of leaving its citizens unmolested/restricted) is inherently immoral? And/or some third thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of those two I fall on the pragmatic reasoning. That all of us will be better off (that includes the mentally ill, homeless, etc). I also happen to be formerly homeless myself and saw first hand the nonsensical policies and practices in homeless shelters that supposedly 'help' the homeless.

Most of the prominent AC posters seemed really smart to me, their arguments made sense to me. I have done a bit of studying of semantics and logic back in the day and their posts impressed me. So I considered what they had to say with an open mind and followed the threads they were posting in.

The straw that broke the camel's back, the single post that finally 'convinced' me was a post from a statist. Someone was arguing aginst AC because of free rider issues. This guy was upset and using as an argument that if a bunch of people live by a swamp and some of the people spray pesticides to get rid of mosquito's someone might not cough up any doe and get a 'free ride' on the people who were spraying.

So as I was being educated by reading their posts, and reading in my view counter posts that seemed to be increasingly silly and misguided, my awakening finally culimiated in seeing how ridiculous it is to object to such a great thing over something as stupid as that.

The national defense issue was a little difficult for me to get by, as I posted about recently. It was also odd for me to consider fire departments and roads to be privately owned but I was not particularly resistant to those things. It simply seemed strange to me because I had never considerd it before.

[/ QUOTE ]
Understood, and thank you.

FWIW while I do favor the existence of government (at least until/unless I become convinced otherwise), generally I prefer it be small and involved in as few things as possible. As I think Cody (can't remember his handle, sorry C) has said, there are a few things government seems better suited than private enterprise to manage in a way that's maximally good for the largest number of people, and least harmful to the rest. Fortunately private industry can (and in many cases does) compete with the G in the many areas the government shouldn't be involved in but is. Hopefully we (the US) will swing more libertarian over time.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. You're forcing me to do stuff for my own good. You're making decisions about how to achieve my own goals. Because you can read my mind and you're smarter than me. Thanks.

But no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read your mind? No thanks, I'd get lost in a heartbeat. I'll just stick you reading what you write. You said you like freedom, yet you never answer me when I ask how to protect it. In fact, I'm a fear hound because I talk about threats to your freedom. Nice

No, you want freedom, I want freedom, but we can't protect our right alone, so we need to band together. More over, since AC is going to cause fragmentation along idealogical lines, it will follow that many different competing services will also spring up to cater to these varying tastes. Some issues are larger then these small groups, and your only rebuttal is that you "hope" that they'll work together to protect you.

[ QUOTE ]
Well duh. Using this criteria, you can just shoot down any metaphor. Because hey, it's not the same thing.

The fact remains, you want something, and you want someone else to pay for it. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, you can shoot down metaphors that don't apply, it's niffty. Life exists on a matter of scale, you argue from one end with no consideration. So again Xbox =/= Nat'l security.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, you're still not entitled to my help. Maybe I like the new overlords. I'm trying to figure out what's so bad about them, they're basically just telling me what to do, which is the same thing you're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then leave and join them, but your leaving means that our side is weaker, now if we had a unifying force this wouldn't be so bad, but our private police are about to get killed by a larger unified force. I know, I know, I'm just thinking of boogymen, this could never happen, and the market will take care of it anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
And again, if it were this dire, you'd have little trouble getting help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people consider lack of medical care dire, yet you didn't feel inclined to help them, yet as soon as something is dire to YOU, everyone will help. See what I did there.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I get to choose. ANd there's always a possibility of someone else entering the market, and that possibility is increased since the waste is creating opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, let's just set it up ourselves shall we. Oh wait, we can't, because barriers to entry exist. Sometimes it won't be profitable for a new company to service you, then what.

You always snap at the "love it or leave it" issue, yet what's going to happen when we go AC and you're the only one around you that doesn't want a certain government. No companies are going to invest money to help one person, so you'll probably not LOVE it and have to LEAVE, won't that be ironic.

[ QUOTE ]
There's not? Let's just add this to the list of things you just make up because it suits your particular viewpoint.

* AC leads to Hermitization
* AC requires or creates (not sure which) a Perfect Market
* AC contains no liability for property rights violations

You're getting close to a basketball team of strawmen.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is so cool, I wish I could do this. Take a position, then change it so the other guy is just making stuff up. So AC allows people to have as few associations as they care too, yet it's not likely to assume people will split into small, almost singular, factions?
The market's not perfect, yet government can't do anything right?
ACers have repeatedly shot down talks about IP, yet there will be protections. There will also be arbiters, who have no real power outside their private armies (anyone remember Might makes Right) but everything will be ok?

[ QUOTE ]
B) This isn't true anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear you were referencing "There would be no promise of full faith and credit in AC, so it's unlikely that 100 small municipalities could work together without significant friction.". What?? Hell we have two parties that can't even get along, so somehow 100 aren't going to have friction?

[ QUOTE ]
You keep making assertions, this is different than that, we need governemtn for "some things". but no actual reasoning to back these assertions up. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained myself constantly, yet you continue to listen. I've given very specific examples, and more vague ones, and you laugh and say "pssh that's not an argument". If you won't listen, it does little good to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, we don't. It's pretty clear that you do want to harm others. You'll say you're doing it because you're a nice guy, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, we both want freedom, I'm just willing to accept that in the real world, we have to have the means to protect it. You've continually refused to answer my examples.

[ QUOTE ]
So quit with the hermitization BS. You're embarassing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just gonna leave this one alone, sometimes artwork this beautiful needs to be set on its own.

[ QUOTE ]
I asked jogger this, and never got an answer:

Do you think the ends justify the means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch what I do here, you ask me a question (I know cause it ended with a "?", and now I'm going to give you an answer.

I think that the ends CAN justify the means. This can't be results oriented though. If we have to kill 10 people to save 10,000, is it worth it. It can be, depending on the situation and the willingness of those 10 to help those 10,000. It's not a blank check however, to force people into whatever plan one might want, there's always a need for justification. In the end, Might always makes Right, not morally mind you, but practically.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you really do feel this way, that someone else can make better decisions for you than you can, there is NOTHING STOPPING YOU from voluntarily ceding that decision-making power to someone else, in as limited a scope as you like, under AC. So your concern is easily taken care of.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I can, and then while we're all busy bickering over which roads to take (since they're all bending us over anyway, dammit there's not more land to make competing roads, curse you nature) we have no ability to enforce anything because we have no unity beyond our community. There I go, trying to think ahead again, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
"Help" - from your perspective. As long as you get what *you* want, it's great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who didn't see that coming. Ok so go back, look at what I said (like I asked 19995 posts ago) and give me a solution.

The feeling I'm getting from reading this is that ACers can sometimes micromanage but rarely macromanage. You (PVN, not all ACers) outright refuse to answer any examples which are concerns that will face an AC community.

Cody