Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
They don't have to be identical to be logically inconsistent. On the one, they demand explicit consent (which an infant cannot give, so it's bad), in the other, they assume consent where none was given.
Yes, they can opt-out, assuming they knew about it (lots of people don't know they can opt-in to organ donation in many countries, and many people who would be okay with donation can't muster the effort to tick a box), and it's entirely possible and likely that hospital staff will either be unable to find the opt-out form or not even look for it - as doctors in many nations don't bother to harvest organs because they didn't look for the opt-in form. Organ donation has do be done in a prompt fashion, so there are many opportunities for the opt-out form to be unavailable within that window. People die unexpectedly all the time, a nineteen year old probably hasn't given organ donation a single thought.
Opt out systems are generally bad systems designed to take advantage of uninformed and/or lazy people.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
They don't have to be identical to be logically inconsistent. On the one, they demand explicit consent (which an infant cannot give, so it's bad), in the other, they assume consent where none was given.
Yes, they can opt-out, assuming they knew about it (lots of people don't know they can opt-in to organ donation in many countries, and many people who would be okay with donation can't muster the effort to tick a box), and it's entirely possible and likely that hospital staff will either be unable to find the opt-out form or not even look for it - as doctors in many nations don't bother to harvest organs because they didn't look for the opt-in form. Organ donation has do be done in a prompt fashion, so there are many opportunities for the opt-out form to be unavailable within that window. People die unexpectedly all the time, a nineteen year old probably hasn't given organ donation a single thought.
Opt out systems are generally bad systems designed to take advantage of uninformed and/or lazy people.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
If not donating your organs is so important to you for religious, personal, or ethical reasons, you or your family should be informed enough and have enough interest to just formalise that they don't want that. In reality most people don't care, and in a opt-in system many organs that are totally usable to save peoples lives are just wasted. I'm sad that for medical reasons I can't donate organs or even blood, but most people in Spain is very proud of our medical system and to be the country in the world with most organ trasplants.
If you don't like that system thats ok but to put it as inherently flawed is just dishonest.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 23:22:06
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: In Spain we have a op-out system for organ donations. It works great, we are the world leaders in organ donations.
If a family wants for the body of his loved one to remain untouched they can do it unless the person that died stated officially that he wanted to donate his organ after he died. In most cases that doesn't happen, the person dies before writting down his wishes about what he wants, the family has no problem with his organs being transplanted to other person if theres that possibility, nobody gets harmed, and 1 or more people can receive a new organ. And at his core, Spain is still a very religious country with most of his catholic values untouched.
But I assume that this doesn't helps anybody agenda, for people trying to make Iceland looks like they want to harvets their citizens for organs.
Unsurprising that Catholics have no problem harvesting parts from dead people. That's how they get relics, after all.
More seriously, Iceland does want to harvest its -dead- citizens for organs. Opt-out systems would definitely increase the supply of organs. Good for Iceland, bad for individual liberty/consent.
Do corpses have rights? Can they be negated those rights? Can they be negated of their liberty?
I disagree with the idea that liberty is the most important value no matter whatever else. We sacrifice our own liberty all the time for the shake of the community. We live under laws that tell us what we can and we can't for the "greater good". Liberty isn't inherently good, Laws aren't inherently bad, or the opposite. All cases should be studied individually.
If theres such a great benefit to the community at the expense of some corpses having some organs removed with families that didn't wanted that but for whatever reason never reflected that desire officialy, at least for me is surely worth it. And as the Spanish system shows, it appears it works. The cases where one person/family that didn't wanted his organs removed have them removed are nearly non existent.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 23:29:20
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
Yeah, fair enough. Generally speaking, a little more effort toward understanding an opposing point of view would be nice, but that is not easy under the best of circumstances.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
Based on the general backlash of the public when such systems are put in place by private entities. It's usually done in a predatory fashion.
I'm sure there are good uses for opt-out - organ donation might even be one of those uses, but it's inconsistent coming from a government that's touting individual consent over the rights of parents.
If not donating your organs is so important to you
It's not. It's just meat, and I'm opt-in, though I know my relatives will object if the time comes, because my organs living on after me gives them the creeps.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 23:35:15
The organ-harvesting analogy doesn't even make any sense.
Taking organs from a corpse does not have an impact on the person whose body is being altered without their consent, because that person is dead and no longer able to experience anything. Sure, there's an argument for respect and not unnecessarily defiling a body, but you can't argue that the person actually suffers any harm from it. At that point it's all about what is best for society, and what is best for the friends and family of that person. And I don't think there's a very credible argument that using the organs of a dead person to save the lives of other people is such an obvious act of disrespect that we should presume a default "no" to it.
Cutting parts off a child who is unable to consent to the act does have an impact. They might not be aware of what is going on at the time, but they have to live with that decision for their entire lives. That's a definite and direct impact to the person whose consent is ignored.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
Based on the general backlash of the public when such systems are put in place by private entities. It's usually done in a predatory fashion.
But thats different. Those private entities gain money from doing it. Public health services don't. They have all the interests to make opting-out as difficult as possible. If the privates entities gived the family of the deceased person a good chunk of money after harvesting them, well, that would be different, but I think nobody would like that because it can degenerate in all kind of creepy stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 23:37:55
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
My parents are foster carers, so I've seen a lot of neglected children over the years. There was an eleven month old baby who'd been locked in a room and paid virtually no attention his whole life. It was somewhat eerie, he never screamed or made any noise; on account of the fact that he'd learnt that it wasted energy and achieved nothing (nobody would pay him any attention or give him what he wanted). He just sat and stared silently. Meanwhile, there was another younger girl who got very little of the right kind of input, and had zilch in the way of capacity to empathise. Utter sociopath.
In both cases, the children had already been physically affected by their parents. If you perform a brain scan on abused children both at the time and when they are older, there are certain areas of the brain which simply don't develop if they don't receive the appropriate stimuli and input at the right time. And they never will. Those forms of development have to take place at that crucial younger age, or it simply doesn't happen.
My point? Bad parents do this sort of physical harm all the time to their kids, and most of them are never taken away by social services. If you advocated taking children away from all bad parents, it would be chaos. Yet those parents are doing infinitely more irreparable physical biological harm to their children than a quick snip ever could possibly begin to; and few people advocate the State intervene en masse. It is quite obviously socially accepted that anything short of downright sustained abusive behaviour is permitted by parents towards their children with no state intervention.
And if we are to remain a free society, I think it likely has to remain that way. The State trying to intervene in parenting to any real degree is a massive minefield. In the case of FGM the health risks and complications are generally quite severe. In circumcision? Not so much. In much the same way, hitting your child over and over is considered abusive and grounds for removing them. One quick snip at birth due to religious devotions? Not really.
Doubtless some would (and do) consider it abusive; but I consider that unfair. Abuse has a very specific meaning and context; and few Jewish parents circumcise their children because they dislike them/hate them/want to control them/get off on sadistic urges. FGM is very much about controlling the child when it is older; circumcision is not (another key distinction there, I feel).
Additionally, there's a certain degree of cultural imperialism in attempting to curb circumcision which shouldn't be lost sight of. For argument's sake, say it was the law that Jewish children got circumcised on their bar mitzvah later in life when they were able to vocally consent to the action. A Jewish child raised in an isolated kibbutz where everyone had had it done and considered it normal would simply consent to it as part of the ritual of becoming a man without thinking twice. He'd never have been exposed to the strain of thought that considered it abusive after all; in the same way that he wouldn't be questioning at that age whether or not God was real, whether the Talmud was really the best way of doing things, and so forth. He'd treat it in the same way he did Kiddesh; just part of the way things are done.
It would be the same if there was an Amish sect that decreed you cut off the last part of your left hand pinky finger at 13. Or a pagan one which had a 'Trial of pain and hunting', or whatever. There's a lot of African tribes which have similar rituals (I believe there's one which involves walking on fire, or somesuch). Being able to consent/deny means nothing if you're not surrounded by the cultural and social structures which would actually make you want to dissent (for the most part that is, you'll always get the odd outlier). In effect, what those who want to ban circumcision would like to do is not only make explicit consent necessary, but also inculcate the child in the strain of cultural thinking which would make the child actually want to dissent (instead of just treating it as commonplace).
Before anyone rushes to disagree because they feel that I'm saying this is a bad thing; I'm not. We all prefer our own cultures and social structures, and strive to make neighbouring ones more like our own. Many cultures preach FGM currently; and we're doing our best (and rightly so) to squash it here in the UK. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that what we are doing in that case is still ultimately a case of forcing one set of cultural rules onto people who often do not wish them. And that for the State to start doing that sort of thing is a bit wobbly, and a bit ethically questionable. In every case where it takes place, it really needs to be done on a case by case basis and receive a certain degree of ethical justification, i.e., is it really necessary?
In this case, I (personally) think there are bad parenting practices which do far more physical damage to children which are utterly unpoliced by the State. Given that the parents wish the best for their child (the motivation is not abusive), the effects are minimal, and the vast majority of those who had it done to them utterly indifferent; I do not think it a cultural affectation that requires active purging by the State.
But of course, YMMV. And damn that post got a bit rambly,
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 23:44:56
Taking organs from a corpse does not have an impact on the person whose body is being altered without their consent, because that person is dead and no longer able to experience anything.
People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
John Prins wrote: People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
It's incredibly rare, and I'd be very surprised if this was happening in a case where they were in a hospital and proper verification of death was able to happen. I suspect most of these cases involve things like an accident victim being declared dead at the scene, and people realizing later that they were just very badly injured and the signs of life were too faint to be detected by a particular observer. The chances of someone getting their organs removed without anyone realizing that they are still alive are not zero, but it's incredibly unlikely that it would ever happen outside of theoretical debates.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
I agree. Both sides have had their say. Some people on both sides put forth some good arguments, others are less... eloquent.
I feel it would be best if the thread would get locked now, so that it won't get out of hand.
Galas wrote: But thats different. Those private entities gain money from doing it. Public health services don't. They have all the interests to make opting-out as difficult as possible. If the privates entities gived the family of the deceased person a good chunk of money after harvesting them, well, that would be different, but I think nobody would like that because it can degenerate in all kind of creepy stuff.
I think in the case of organ donation, it's more the politicians who stand to gain from the opt-out system. I'd rather the system assume that my body belonged to my heirs, rather than the state, even if I'm pro-organ donation.
John Prins wrote: People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
It's incredibly rare, and I'd be very surprised if this was happening in a case where they were in a hospital and proper verification of death was able to happen
Not hard to find on google. A drug overdose was involved, which caused the misdiagnosis.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
Wait, you're now arguing parents have no right to instruct their children on religion? My how Leninist of you.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
Wait, you're now arguing parents have no right to instruct their children on religion? My how Leninist of you.
Okay he's quite literally saying he dislikes the idea of people being forced to accept something permanent on their body due to religious faith laws that are irreversible in the grand scheme of things. This is as very disingenuous.
Can you actually debate what he's saying or are you really just going to give irrelevant snark?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/21 01:00:11
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
Loss of sensitivity is a benefit dude.
No its not...
Spoiler:
delayed ejaculation quickly loses it's appeal, when your girlfriend loses patience and demands that you stop so she can go to sleep.
He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
I didn't mention left or right. besides in the UK at least the far right have zero influence over safe spaces.
Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
Are you in favor of female genital mutilation, pedophilia, child marriages, and the like?
There are religions who are for those things, and parents have the right to raise their children however they want.
Please quote where that's in a religion.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Peregrine wrote: And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
.
So do I. The right for a parent to choose how to raise their children.
It has in the vast majority of circumstances acceptable for society to allow a parent to make sort and long term choices for a child under the age of consent. This includes life changing decisions like cultural rooting and education.
Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.
Jews and Moslems have shown through millenia and centuries of history that their covenant fashions a cultural bond which does not impair and is important to their people.
All you have to offer is your hysterical hatred of religion.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 01:10:14
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
