What part of your post describes an "Orwellian" worldview?

If you want a good example of someone being so consumed by hatred of one’s political opposition that they misconstrue reality, read your posts on treason.

Mark,

The President is "nailed" for reasons unrelated to the Valerie Plame affair.

Because of this, he is shown to be a hypocrite. He has repeatedly decried leaks of both classified and declassified information. This revelation has shown him personally approving a leak of such information. (And yes, this is a leak: anonymously-sourced information given only to a NYT reporter is a leak, regardless of whether or not its classified.)

In this instance, it is also clear that he is not above using national security issues for political gains. These attempts to discredit critics were politically motivated, and constitute something that the President has railed against his opposition for allegedly doing.

Finally, and probabaly most damning, this shows the President to be dishonest. The administration has repeatedly feigned ignorance and a desire to 'get to the bottom' of the Plame investigation; now we find out that the President has been integrally involved in this (though NOT directly responsible for the leaking of Plame's name) from the beginning.

I wish President Bush would have been more straight forward in discrediting these people. While he did nothing illegal, it would have been so much quicker and more standup to just lay out the how and whys of the disloyal Plame duo. They were hacks and Joe Wilson had stated he wanted to see Bush fail and did whatever he could to try and achieve it. Does the fact that Valerie Plame was no longer even a covert opperative matter to anyone? These were just Kerry hopefuls that got more attention than they desrved.

I wish President Bush would have been more straight forward in discrediting these people.

Don't blame him, Ohio--blame his utterly sluggish PR team. It seems that every time one of these "scandals" erupts, the DemocRAT smear machine has Bush convicted, sentenced, and executed before there's any response from his staff. It's no wonder to me that the 2004 election was so close, even though the Dems nominated a true dud. It's no wonder to me that the 2006 mid-term elections may turn out to be a big disappointment for the GOP, with the constant attacks on the administration from Reid and his band of Murthas. The DemocRATs are good at what they do--slander and mud-slinging--and the GOP always wants to "get along." The Dems are running their 2006 campaign as a referendum on the administration, and they may succeed, despite their lack of an agenda.

As for you, Tom, why don't you at least attempt to intelligently contribute to this blog, or go Cheney yourself. Of all the asshat trolls who come here to disrupt and pollute this blog, I suspect that you're one of the actual adults. Quit being drawn into the gotcha crowd.

As if it matters, here's my assessment of the other trolls:

shortz--possibly a college student, probably still in high school. Doesn't know his/her arse from a hole in the ground.

Slipgrid--college student whose mind has been warped by his professors. Runs a blog that few people go to. Talking-point parrot.

Ash--still in high school, can't write, can't think independently. Very disruptive, not worthy of attention in an intellectual discussion.

It's Imperialism, Stupid--Wanker. Has changed his screenname more than anyone. Probably in college, probably does more drugs than he/she should.

Canadian Observer--your typical Canadian socialist. Doesn't have anything positive to say about his/her protector to the south. Probably frequents the legal shooting galleries in BC. Thinks he/she can convince us independent thinkers that our country is in a shambles. Redundant philosophy.

HugeWang/dav--sarcastic, disruptive, lonely. Not worty of responses. Likes to comment here, then go to winnowhead's lame blog to brag that he "kicked ass over at B4B."

winnowhead--another CO. His own blog, where he/she and dav play kissy-huggy and tell each other how much smarter than the rest of us they are.

Barneyg2000--the star of the show. This moron is a third-grade level mental midget whose hatred has blinded him/her. A nitwit who can't put two coherent sentences together without half a dozen grammatical errors. Thinks the government owes him/her an education. Will never amount to much, unless he/she has a rich relative.

teenageliberal--a fraud, unless it has loser parents. No parents I know would let a fifteen-year-old curse and disrespect adults the way this fraud does. Probably one of Ward Churchill's bodyguards. Will likely star in one of Al-Zarqawi's videos in the future.

If I left anybody out, please let me know and I'll give you an assessment. Please feel free to respond and assess me--I always find your perceptions of me amusing and will let you know if you are even close.

Have a nice day...

Mark

Why would you be surprised? The lefts seething hatred for this country is finally shining through and who's the symbol of the United States? It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Yo, keef.

One thing that has struck me ever since I started to peer over the fence from the Left Side was the blithe assumption of Lefties to simply assign motive for an action and then attack the motive. This is, of course, all they could really do when and if the action itself was unassailable.

Listen to what passes for political discourse on the Left and note how much of it depends on erecting Straw Men, such as vile motives for otherwise not-so-bad actions.

The simple revelation of the fact that Joe Wilson was not sent by Cheney's office but in fact had to have his wife, who worked in the CIA and was trying to move over into State, recommend him for his trip, would not have generated much heat. None, actually, as it was a simple declarative statement of fact.

The only way to sex it up was to invent, out of whole cloth, a nefarious "motive" for this disclosure. It was easy for the easily led, constantly overheated, tinfoil hat brigade to get behind---and OUTRAGED by---the very meanness of Motive 1; Revenge, and Motive 2; Destruction of an entire innocent family (!). So WHAT if most of the Beltway knew Plame worked for the CIA? THESE PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR REALLY REALLY BAD REASONS!!!!!!!!!!!! So ipso dipso, these are really bad people.

A local radio talkie got corrected on his oft-repeated claims that George Bush had insisted that Osama was to blame for 9/11. When the President's own words were read to him, he reluctantly agreed that the President HAD said Osama was not implicated---but he said the President "casually referred" to the fact that Bin Laden had not been involved in 9/11, "a few times", and then went on to explain that, however, the President was at the same time "trying to imply" a connection.

I wrote to the station to see if I could somehow buy one of the host's balls---his crystal balls, that is, since they were obviously very powerful and could divine facts and meanings and motives where no one else could.

That is one reason I had to leave the Left---it was too exhausting. All the conclusion-leaping, motive-assigning, OUTRAGE, All Hate All The Time, fact-dodging, hyper-emoting, conspiracy-dependent hysteria just wore me out. I admit it, I bailed out, and took the easy---or easier---way out---the plodding, methodical, fact-driven, issue-driven, possibly more boring but far more logical path of conservatism, where a fact is just a fact, a cigar can be just a cigar, and Occam's Razor is a more convincing tool for evaluation of evidence than a crystal ball that only rolls to the left.

"The simple revelation of the fact that Joe Wilson was not sent by Cheney's office but in fact had to have his wife, who worked in the CIA and was trying to move over into State, recommend him for his trip, would not have generated much heat. None, actually, as it was a simple declarative statement of fact."

This is the biggest misconception of this entire thing.

Wilson correctly stated in the NYTimes oped that he was sent to Niger by the CIA at the request of the office of the vice president. The VPs office asked that the CIA look into these claims. The CIA decided to send Wilson. (and if you keep up with the news, Plame did not recommend Wilson for this trip. She had suggested him for an earlier assignment. Apparantly the CIA liked him, as they asked him to go to Niger).

There was no reason to refute Wilson's claim because it was 100% accurate.

"Tom, why don't you at least attempt to intelligently contribute to this blog"

I do. On the other hand, I only see you insult people. Try taking your own advice.

This non-story is dead the only proven liar is Joe Wilson according to the Senate Intelligence Comittee report. Everyone is talking about the booming economy and stock market. Fox has blared this headline nearly every fifteen minutes. Don't know about the MSNBC or CNN since their ratings are quite low. Also, now the new story is Harry Reid killing the immigration bill.

I wonder if the racist rep. will get arrested next week.

Almiranta, I'm shocked, no, surprised that you used to be a member of the left. You've always written very thoughtful posts here. Of course, there are members of the left who do think for themselves--evidently you were one of those folks. I have yet to encounter a single troll on this blog who doesn't parrot the mantra of the DNC.

I too was a member of the anti-war, anti-America left--back in my high school years, during the final days of the Vietnam War. It was the "in" thing to do back then, the easy way out, if you will. In 1976, I joined the military, and concentrated on my military career, leaving politics behind. It wasn't until I was stationed in England, during the Reagan/Thatcher years, that I paid attention to what my leaders were up to. During the first four Clinton years, my last four in the military, I became apolitical. I only became interested again around 2000, and really woke up during the last DemocRATic primary season. That is when I changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican. I didn't care for the way Bush was being treated by several prominent members of the DC elite. Maybe I should have paid more attention to Clinton's last term, as I have been told that the GOP treated him about the same as Bush has been treated. Maybe I'll see, depending on how the mid-terms go this year. Who knows? As long as my golf game is still relatively sound, I won't lose any sleep...

The Dem's are using this as their centerpiece of the whole "culture of corruption" business. If this fails, so does their whole ploy. I don't see them giving up anytime soon, especially with all that they have invested in it.

No you don't, Tom. You attack the owners of this blog, and offer nothing in return, except short answers like "I do."

I'm going to continue to attack jerks like you, because I don't like you and your misguided rhetoric. If you don't like it, tough. You're here for one reason--to be a disruptive ass. Otherwise, you'd contribute.

BTW, don't ever forget 9/11, Tom...

"You attack the owners of this blog, and offer nothing in return, except short answers like "I do.""

You're just plain wrong on this Keefer. I suggest going through some recent threads and reading what I've written.

Keefer

I'm astonished!

You have managed to post some slightly interesting comments. I can't speak for the other trolls but your profile for CO is fairly accurate, with the exception of the B.C. reference. The city I call home, is a bilingual one (French & English). I know, I know, you Bush lovers have a special hatred for all things French, but you should know your fellow citizens come to enjoy all we have to offer without a thought to whether or not it is political correct. We welcome all free-thinking Americans and boy do they have a real good time.

Hey Keefer and Tom!

Can we put the conversation of personal attacks aside for a while and concentrate on the subject of the threads? As much as I am exasperated by a lot of what I read, I understand that engaging in a "Am not! Am too!" dialogue doesn't really lead anywhere and is a distraction to true debate. I don't want to play footsy with those with whom I vehemently disagree, but I also don't want to get sidetracked by ad hominum attacks.

A little comity here, please?

As for Joe Wilson, I don't know what to believe any more. If you follow his series of statements and appearances in the media, you quickly realize that he contradicts himself on substantive points time and again. He was/was not asked to go to Niger by Cheney's office. He was/was not recommended by his wife. He did/did not meet with top levels in Niger's government. He did/did not issue a written report to the CIA when he got back...

And the list goes on...

I'm still behind the President on this issue. The infamous "yellowcake" line in the State of The Union Address has never been successfully refuted. In fact, it is my understanding that the British Intelligence (M5?) still stands by their intelligence.

By their actions before and following the trip to Niger and the "outing" of Ms. Plame, this couple has shown that they are comfortable swimming with the political sharks. She had a career in the CIA. He had one in one or more Administrations. They were well aware of the political waters, and how the currents flowed. It is beyond belief that Mr. Wilson would engage in high-profile criticism of our Commander-In-Chief during a time of War and expect no repercussions.

Most telling of all to me is the report I heard about a month or so ago. While travelling with their children, presumably on vacation, the couple was stopped by reporters in an airport terminal. I believe it was in Arizona, but I'm not certain about that. The reporters were asking some generic questions of Ms. Plame - probably for the upteenth time the question was asked. Without any prodding or provocation, one of the children who was present piped up, "My mommy is a secret agent!"

Out of the mouths of babes!!

That's how "secret" Ms. Plame's identity was. But to hear the Tinfoil Brigade spin it, Ms. Plame is furtively darting about in fear for her safety because so much critical information was "leaked" about her. Now compare that leak to the "secret camps in Europe" story leaked by the Old Gray Hag (New York Times). Compare the consequences of the Old Gray Hag's leaking the "domestic wiretapping" information to national security against the national security "compromised" by "outing" Ms. Plame...

It's a no-brainer.

If the legacy media hadn't latched on to this story and spun it totally out of context, it would have been much ado about nothing. But the Tinfoil Brigade has wrapped themselves in their conspiracy theories and worn the mantle of deceit so well, that it's hard any longer to really understand what actually happened in what has now been dubbed "Plame-gate."

This issue, like so many false issues hyped up by the Bush-haters among us, will most likely be resolved long after the principals involved have left the scene. As much as I hate it, I must admit that it will be a long, long time before the dust settles and history speaks with clarity...

Not that it matters to the Tinfoil Brigade...

Chris,

It is a matter of calling something what it isn't - for our Democrats, two plus two equals five.

Tom,

Naw; we've seen it - Wilson was recommend for the Niger trip by his wife: he came back home and confirmed that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa: he then lied about it in the NY Times RIGHT AFTER he became a Kerry campaign advisor: Vice President Cheney's office tried to set the record straight: Wilson, caught in a web of his own lies, decided to try one more - he lied and said that his wife's name was leaked (even though she definitively was NOT covert at the time her name appeared in the Novak collumn) in order to destroy him because he was "speaking truth to power" (ie, lying his butt off in order to curry favor with the Party he thought would win in November, 2004): the left, which will seemingly believe anything, then ran with it.

Thats really all there is to it.

Keefer,

I'm depressed that you left me out. I'm eager to hear your comments about me. I actually wanted to comment in here about something kinda off topic. I noticed today that President Bush has threatened to veto appropriations bills since he finally noticed that you can't cut taxes and increase spending and fund a war at the same time. Thank God! I applaud him for finally getting his fiscal act together.

As for this topic, it isn't about Plame, it's about being a hypocrite. Of course most of us already knew that about him.

I did forget you, Captain (mo)Ron. I forgot Saliva and morongeo too.

I noticed today that President Bush has threatened to veto appropriations bills since he finally noticed that you can't cut taxes and increase spending and fund a war at the same time.

You noticed? He noticed? Pray tell, Captain (mo)Ron, where did you "notice" this? Or is it yet another Bush quote spun out of context by Captain (mo)Ron?

db, I love ya, and I'm on your side. But please don't go suggesting how I post. I don't suggest that you shorten yours, do I?

keefer:

I have yet to encounter a single troll on this blog who doesn't parrot the mantra of the DNC.

Which, ironically, is the exact manra of the RNC. See it don't work anymore.

Keefer,

love you back, and yes - we're clearly on the same side of many issues. My suggestion to you was heartfelt and based upon the fear that if we succumb to the tactics and rhetoric of the Tinfoil Brigade, we'll somehow become confused with them. I mean no personal offense, but hoped to jog your sense of e-courtesy and professionalism...

Yes, my posts are a bit on the heavy side, and I regret that I cannot seem to distill my thoughts down succinctly enough. I appreciate your critique and response...

I apologize if you took offense, but I was fearful that B4B might become confused with dailykos.com if we encouraged the "Am too! Am not!" dialogue... that's all...

But I will admit that it's exceedingly difficult to not jump in, open up a can of whoopass, and have it with many of these dipsticks, isn't it!? LOL!!

By the way, I loved your speculations on some of the Tinfoil Brigade posters often found barking on this blogsite. I believe we think in similar ways. Did you notice a few loonies chimed in to ask why you forgot to "label" them!?

P.S. Should Mark or Matt post some sort of admonition to the effect of:

"Don't feed the trolls!"

Mark,

I notice you do not address the substance of what i wrote. Namely that Wilson correctly claimed in his oped that the office of the vice president asked the CIA to investigate Niger and that the CIA asked Wilson to go investigate.

The entire rationale for this attack on wilson is that he claimed Cheney sent him to Niger, which Wilson never did. He correctly stated who sent him there.

And Mark, read up on the news, and you'll know that claiming Plame sent wilson to Niger is an absolute lie.

"Wilson was recommend for the Niger trip by his wife: he came back home and confirmed that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa"

I don't have time to get into this now (the latter half), maybe tomorrow. But this too is incorrect.

The big lie about this whole Wilson thing is that he claimed Cheney sent him to Africa -- which is apparantly what made the Bush admistration make public the fact that his wife was a CIA agent who was responsible for him going to Niger.

Well, Plame was not the one who suggested wilson to go to Niger. She had referred him to the CIA before, but for this specific mission, she did not suggest him. Others in the CIA requested Wilson.

And on to the greater point: Wilson never said Cheney sent him to Niger. He correctly stated the chain of events that occured that led him to the country in his oped:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

This is 100% accurate and needed no rebuttal from the white house to set the record straight.

"...This is 100% accurate and needed no rebuttal from the white house to set the record straight...."

Oh really?

Your assertions as to what constitutes a lie and what constitutes the truth is about as believeable as the various op-eds and media appearances made by Mr. Wilson himself. I can't keep up with the variations on a theme that Mr. Wilson has repeatedly constructed over the past several years.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, by his own "admissions" on various dates, Mr. Wilson has asserted, then denied, then counter-asserted various aspects of the who, what, where, why and when involving his trip to Niger. He did/did not meet with Nigerian officials who did/did not validate the rumors about yellowcake. His wife did/did not recommend him as someone who could check out the yellowcake rumors. Dick Cheney's office did/did not authorize him to go to Niger. The only point not in contention is that he did IN FACT go to Niger. When he came back, he did/did not offer a written assessment to the CIA about the details of what he did/did not discover in Niger. His op-ed in the New York Times was contradicted in several salient points by his later appearances in various media venues.

In short, the man is a living, breathing, walking example of contradictions. Feel free to pick and choose which portions of his "facts" that suit you. As an honored member of the Tinfoil Brigade, you're already used to that process.

In keeping with the "did/did not" exercise, it is clear that the President, in declassifying (you call it "leaking") relevant documents did/did not authorize the outing of Valerie Plame who was/was not a covert CIA agent.

See how easy that was?

And I absolutely agree with you: This is 100% accurate and needed no rebuttal from the white house to set the record straight...

Which, ironically, is the exact manra of the RNC. See it don't work anymore.

Uh, hello? As a highly-trained intelligence analyst, I'm able to decipher the above poorly-written statements. However, you have succeeded in confusing your fellow trolls, Ash-breath. Now, Barney thinks that the DNC and the RNC have the same platform.

The second sentence confirms my earlier assessment of Ash-wipe. He/she/it is just a kid.

CO, my BC reference did not imply that you lived there, only that you frequented the shooting galleries there. Maybe they have them in Montreal as well.

dbogdan,

Sorry about the earlier admonition; it wasn't deserved. And I do tend to get out-of-hand with our leftist kook trolls, but they deserve to be spanked. I will attempt to tone it down. I think you are right--don't feed 'em. Especially when they play the "did/did not" game, as Tom has been for the last few days.

As for your long posts, keep 'em going. I wish mine were as informative as yours. Rock on...

So what is it going to take for you people to realize that Bush misled us about the war??? You can keep spitting out rhetoric until your teeth fall out, you can't refute facts.

Long before Scooter Libby was ever indicted, Bush said on multiple occasions that he wants to find out who the leaker is. Well, he KNEW who the leaker was. And no, it's not illegal, but it's selective leaking in order to MISLEAD the public. Bush will go down in history as the WORST President ever. He is as imcompetent as they get and you're all gonna feel like morons when the rest of the truth comes out.

Once again Bush is showing what a moron he is by playing the blame game with Congress. Hey, the republicants control both houses and it's not the Dem's fault. He can't pass a bill on immigration because he can't even satisfy his own party. That's pretty weak. Good luck in November...this country is finally ready for a change from the dishonesty, incompetence, and scandal.

dbogdan,

Do you have an example of Wilson claiming that Cheney sent him to Niger?

Tom,

Google "Cheney+Joe+Wilson+Niger" and you'll get a whole bunch of stories and references to the "affair in question."

First, read his Op-Ed in the Old Gray Hag (New York Times).

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Make sure you pay careful attention to the issues as they are framed by you and addressed in his Op-Ed.

Then read the various other articles after the infamous NYT Op-Ed and see where the divergent interpretations of what he said begin almost right away. I read a series of different interviews with Mr. Wilson and when it comes to Cheney "himself" asking him to go to Niger, it was never explicity alleged. However, the original Op-Ed which states,

"...In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government..."

OK. So that would seem to put your spin up as the correct one...

However, only a short few paragraphs later, Mr. Wilson wrote,

"...Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government..."

While consistent with the first excerpt, this paragraphs implies a more direct chain-of-command tied to the Vice President's office, no?

Cutting hairs? Sure. But to quote someone who is no doubt a favorite politician yours, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is..."

It can be clearly established by the two excerpts above that the entire trip was a result of questions raised by the Vice President. That the CIA was directly involved in the logistics of sending him to his mission is explicit, but their actions would not have been possible or necessary except for the request by the Vice President. Using your line of reasoning on another issue, it can said with some degree or certainty and glee,

"The President didn't send any assistance to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama after Hurricane Katrina. It came from FEMA..."

However, correct me if I'm wrong but... didn't everyone who was anyone jump all over the President because of the lack of timely and efficient response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Like it or not, the facts of the matter are thus. The CIA is a part of the Administration. As such, it gets its marching orders directly from the President and Vice President through a well-established chain-of-command structure. They don't just go off on a tangent and decide to do things like sending someone to check out a story that their "bosses" have questions on without being directed to do so...

What I find most intriguing about this individual is that, since his Op-Ed in the Old Gray Hag, and subsequent appearances on various news organizations, his story morphs to an incredible degree. I spent about an hour reading many different links to the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame issue and was surprised at how much the "details" of the trip were hashed out, rehashed, and sometimes ignored, depending upon where Joe Wilson was at the time. You've clearly drawn your conclusions and they appear to be set in stone. I have never been able to, because every time I heard about this story as it unfolded, I was struck by the variations on a theme that were occurring. To this day, I don't know who to believe, because it's been dissected, dissambled and re-assembled so many times that it's hard to follow.

That's enough for me to assert that at very least, Mr. Wilson has contradicted himself on several occasions about the specifics of his trip and how it all came to be...

"...Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government..."

This is 100% accurate and as you say consistent with what Wilson wrote above.

If Cheney's office thought this was too ambiguous, all they had to do was refer people to Wilson's original statement a few paragraphs up to clear up any confusion. I don't see anything that would call for declassifying material to leak to the press.

I have yet to see anywhere that Wilson said Cheney directly sent him. He's always said the office of the vice president asked for this matter to be investigated and that the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger.

"I spent about an hour reading many different links to the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame issue and was surprised at how much the "details" of the trip were hashed out, rehashed, and sometimes ignored, depending upon where Joe Wilson was at the time."

So he didn't go over every detail of his trip during every media appearance he made... so what? If you have seen instances of Wilson misleading people about his trip, then why don't you provide them?

Again, so far I have seen nothing that would justify the white house having to correct the record on who sent Wilson to Niger.

"...Again, so far I have seen nothing that would justify the white house having to correct the record on who sent Wilson to Niger."

Nor do I.

For that matter, in this issue, I don't see anything that the White House has to correct in their handling of this affair in any instance. From the infamous 16-word statement in the SOTU Address to the declassification (not "leaking") of intelligence surrounding how they got to the conclusions that they drew, the White House has been consistent and focused on the variety of threats - some more imminent that others - that were posed to this nation's security by the murderous Saddam Hussein regime.

This is just a big to-do between partisan political operatives. The hope is that by their muddying up the waters and thrashing about, the public will somehow grow suspicious enough to think there's a legitimate issue here. There isn't.

I've got better things to do with my time than spend any more energy detailing what is already available on the Internet. I'm not about to prepare a thesis to try to convince you, whose opinion is already set in stone, of anything.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.

That's all I have to say on this subject for now...