Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
If you are serious.... LED's are getting 2+ grams per watt.....
In Search of Thread
- Thread starter Daath
- Start date
Ellis Dee
Active Member
Well depends what your growing. Since we are in the HS section I will say anything that emits photons.
Being that we are in a marijuana growing forum, Metal Halide for vegetative and High pressure sodium for flowering. Unless energy and heat are an issue in which case LED's or CFL's can work well. Make sure you get the correct spectrum's for the correct growth stages.
Tenner
Well-Known Member
Paranoia is the habit of always looking ahead and always seeing and trying to avoid bad things happening. Its fear in its nature... Its foresight, tending towards the negative side of things... Practically "Persistant excess negative foresight"...
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
This is crazy. I never once said I think people are out to get me. Thats funny. I simply said I made a name the opposite of who I am with the added bonus of misinformation to the police.
The intent of the name was for someone to read a post of mine talking about oh lets say extracting DMT. The fact that "Agent Rick" was extracting DMT SHOULD have been funny. At least to someone with slight intelligence.
The intent of the name was for someone to read a post of mine talking about oh lets say extracting DMT. The fact that "Agent Rick" was extracting DMT SHOULD have been funny. At least to someone with slight intelligence.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
Grammer Nazi?
Tenner
Well-Known Member
I would say it differs from person to person. Everyone has both, but excess positive foresight would mean your always planning whats going to happen and abandoning the "go with the flow". Also another point to concider is: what do you do when your positive foresight doesn`t pay off, get dissapointed and negative?
Its all about how organised and prepared you want to be, and also to do with the style you do things. Some lifestyles/jobs will encourage paranoia and benefit from it.
My opinion really...
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
When surrounded by a world created with negativity in intent it is only logical and NOT mentally unstable to foresee the negative things that can and WILL happen in your lifetime in order to avoid pitfalls.
It's a matter of navigation.
Paranoia is a derogatory term used by people to insult other people.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
As with everyone else you are completely taking things out of context.
Ellis Dee
Active Member
Its true. I use a quote I repeat often " Paranoid is what people who want to take advantage call you in an attempt to get you to drop your guard."
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
So according to swag's psycho class and everyone else's opinion there are rules I have to follow like catering to peoples feelings and watching my tongue in order to be accepted by some "crowd" of "people" that I give a shit about?
Here me telling you to fuck no in stereoscopic 3D:
FUCK NO - FUCK NO
Here me telling you to fuck no in stereoscopic 3D:
FUCK NO - FUCK NO
Tenner
Well-Known Member
Where is the line drawn? What happens in an altered state of mind when you think of a few bad things and get stuck in a loop?
I used to think exactly like you, and paranoia is not a bad thing. If I were in a group of 5 smoking a J somewhere dodgy, 4 people choose to not give an F and talk when 1 decides to keep scanning possible places where somebody might come along because his feeling the paranoia, I would be nothing but thankful.
However, when somebody is paranoid about themselves and have what I would call "issues", and they get reflected negatively onto me or the group, just say I wouldn`t be thankful.
Its just fine lines, paranoia is not bad in its nature, like I said, you can be paranoid and want to protect yourself and the group from the bad your forseeing. Thats more to do with intentions...
I say the line is drawn on how your foresights effect the fun you can have/having. Negative foresights tend to do decrease the fun, thats why I gave them up. But that doesn`t mean I`m senseless either...
But saying your preventing the authorities documenting your lifestyle, you tried to tag that as something normal... Thats the excess.
But its about the line you want to draw and the experiences you have had.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
I stopped reading tenner at " I use to think like you" You have no clue how I think. If I sat here everyday worrying about the FBI then you would be right. The only time I think of the FBI is when I type in my screen name.
I don't know where I said I fear the reaper. I just know he's there. But I give a shit. Uncle Sam has alot better shit to do than fuck with me.
I don't know where I said I fear the reaper. I just know he's there. But I give a shit. Uncle Sam has alot better shit to do than fuck with me.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
OK.
heres a picture of my plants just for the fuck of it. i wanna show em off.
View attachment 1610165
I always feel like your plants are watching me.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
Echelon (signals intelligence)
ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UK–USA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known as AUSCANNZUKUS or Five Eyes).[1][2] It has also been described as the only software system which controls the download and dissemination of the intercept of commercial satellite trunk communications.[3]
ECHELON was reportedly created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s, but since the end of the Cold War it is believed to search also for hints of terrorist plots, drug dealers' plans, and political and diplomatic intelligence.[citation needed]
The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[4] Its capabilities' and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001,[5] and by author James Bamford in his books on the National Security Agency of the United States.[3]
In its report, the European Parliament states that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links.[5]
Bamford describes the system as the software controlling the collection and distribution of civilian telecommunications traffic conveyed using communication satellites, with the collection being undertaken by ground stations located in the footprint of the downlink leg.
The UKUSA intelligence community is assessed by the European Parliament to include the signals intelligence agencies of each of the member states - the National Security Agency of the United States, the Government Communications Headquarters of Britain, the Communications Security Establishment of Canada, the Defence Signals Directorate of Australia, and the Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand. The EP report concludes that it seems likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool.[5]
[edit] Capabilities
The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[5] During World War II and through the 1950s high frequency ("short wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[6] and could be intercepted at great distances.[5] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications. The report to the European Parliament of 2001 states: "If UKUSA states operate listening stations in the relevant regions of the earth, in principle they can intercept all telephone, fax and data traffic transmitted via such satellites."[5]
The role of satellites in point-to-point voice and data communications has largely been supplanted by fiber optics. As of 2006, 99% of the world's long-distance voice and data traffic was carried over optical-fiber.[7] The proportion of international communications accounted for by satellite links is said to have decreased substantially over the past few years in Central Europe to an amount between 0.4 and 5%.[5] Even in less-developed parts of the world, communications satellites are used largely for point-to-multipoint applications, such as video.[8] Thus the majority of communications cannot be intercepted by earth stations, but only by tapping cables and intercepting line-of-sight microwave signals, which is possible only to a limited extent.[5]
One method of interception is to place equipment at locations where fiber optic communications are switched. For the Internet much of the switching occurs at relatively few sites. There have been reports of one such intercept site, Room 641A, in the United States. In the past much Internet traffic was routed through the U.S. and the UK, but this has changed; for example 95% of intra-German Internet communications was routed via the DE-CIX Internet exchange point in Frankfurt in 2000.[5] A comprehensive worldwide surveillance network is possible only if clandestine intercept sites are installed in the territory of friendly nations, or local authorities cooperate. The report to the European Parliament points out that interception of private communications by foreign intelligence services is not necessarily limited to the U.S. or British foreign intelligence services.[5]
Most reports on ECHELON focus on satellite interception; testimony before the European Parliament indicated that separate but similar UK-USA systems are in place to monitor communication through undersea cables, microwave transmissions and other lines.[9]
Controversy
Intelligence monitoring of people in the area covered by the AUSCANZUKUS security agreement has caused concern. Some critics claim the system is being used not only to search for terrorist plots, drug dealers' plans, and political and diplomatic intelligence but also for large-scale commercial theft, international economic espionage and invasion of privacy. British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.[10] Examples alleged by the journalists include the gear-less wind turbine technology designed by the German firm Enercon[11][12] and the speech technology developed by the Belgian firm Lernout & Hauspie.[13] An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[14][15]
In 2001 the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence.[5]
Bamford provides an alternate view, highlighting that legislation prohibits the use of intercepted communications for commercial purposes, although does elaborate on how intercepted communications are used as part of an all-source intelligence process.
[edit] Hardware
According to its website the USA's National Security Agency is "a high technology organization... on the frontiers of communications and data processing". In 1999 the Australian Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was told by Professor Desmond Ball that the Pine Gap facility was used as a ground station for a satellite-based interception network. The satellites are said to be large radio dishes between 20 and 100 meters in diameter in geostationary orbits.[citation needed] The original purpose of the network was to monitor the telemetry from 1970s Soviet weapons, air defense radar, communications satellites and ground based microwave communications.[16]
Echelon, in fact, is nothing more than a VAX microcomputer that was manufactured in the early 1970s by Digital Equipment Corp., and was used at six satellite intercept stations [to filter and sort data collected from the satellites and distribute it to analysts]. The computer has long since been obsolete. Since 9/11, whatever plans in place to modernize Echelon have been put on hold. The NSA does in fact have a global intercept network, but they just call it the intercept collection infrastructure. They don't have a code name or anything sexy to describe it, and it didn't do domestic spying. [1]
[edit] Name
The European Parliament's Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System stated: "It seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, although this is a relatively minor detail."[5] The U.S. intelligence community uses many code names (see, for example, CIA cryptonym).
Margaret Newsham claims that she worked on the configuration and installation of some of the software that makes up the ECHELON system while employed at Lockheed Martin, for whom she worked from 1974 to 1984 in Sunnyvale, California, USA and in Menwith Hill, England, UK.[17] At that time, according to Newsham, the code name ECHELON was NSA's term for the computer network itself. Lockheed called it P415. The software programs were called SILKWORTH and SIRE. A satellite named VORTEX would intercept communications. An image available on the internet of a fragment apparently torn from a job description shows Echelon listed along with several other code names.[18]
ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UK–USA Security Agreement (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known as AUSCANNZUKUS or Five Eyes).[1][2] It has also been described as the only software system which controls the download and dissemination of the intercept of commercial satellite trunk communications.[3]
ECHELON was reportedly created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s, but since the end of the Cold War it is believed to search also for hints of terrorist plots, drug dealers' plans, and political and diplomatic intelligence.[citation needed]
The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[4] Its capabilities' and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001,[5] and by author James Bamford in his books on the National Security Agency of the United States.[3]
In its report, the European Parliament states that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links.[5]
Bamford describes the system as the software controlling the collection and distribution of civilian telecommunications traffic conveyed using communication satellites, with the collection being undertaken by ground stations located in the footprint of the downlink leg.
The UKUSA intelligence community is assessed by the European Parliament to include the signals intelligence agencies of each of the member states - the National Security Agency of the United States, the Government Communications Headquarters of Britain, the Communications Security Establishment of Canada, the Defence Signals Directorate of Australia, and the Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand. The EP report concludes that it seems likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool.[5]
[edit] Capabilities
The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[5] During World War II and through the 1950s high frequency ("short wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[6] and could be intercepted at great distances.[5] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications. The report to the European Parliament of 2001 states: "If UKUSA states operate listening stations in the relevant regions of the earth, in principle they can intercept all telephone, fax and data traffic transmitted via such satellites."[5]
The role of satellites in point-to-point voice and data communications has largely been supplanted by fiber optics. As of 2006, 99% of the world's long-distance voice and data traffic was carried over optical-fiber.[7] The proportion of international communications accounted for by satellite links is said to have decreased substantially over the past few years in Central Europe to an amount between 0.4 and 5%.[5] Even in less-developed parts of the world, communications satellites are used largely for point-to-multipoint applications, such as video.[8] Thus the majority of communications cannot be intercepted by earth stations, but only by tapping cables and intercepting line-of-sight microwave signals, which is possible only to a limited extent.[5]
One method of interception is to place equipment at locations where fiber optic communications are switched. For the Internet much of the switching occurs at relatively few sites. There have been reports of one such intercept site, Room 641A, in the United States. In the past much Internet traffic was routed through the U.S. and the UK, but this has changed; for example 95% of intra-German Internet communications was routed via the DE-CIX Internet exchange point in Frankfurt in 2000.[5] A comprehensive worldwide surveillance network is possible only if clandestine intercept sites are installed in the territory of friendly nations, or local authorities cooperate. The report to the European Parliament points out that interception of private communications by foreign intelligence services is not necessarily limited to the U.S. or British foreign intelligence services.[5]
Most reports on ECHELON focus on satellite interception; testimony before the European Parliament indicated that separate but similar UK-USA systems are in place to monitor communication through undersea cables, microwave transmissions and other lines.[9]
Controversy
Intelligence monitoring of people in the area covered by the AUSCANZUKUS security agreement has caused concern. Some critics claim the system is being used not only to search for terrorist plots, drug dealers' plans, and political and diplomatic intelligence but also for large-scale commercial theft, international economic espionage and invasion of privacy. British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.[10] Examples alleged by the journalists include the gear-less wind turbine technology designed by the German firm Enercon[11][12] and the speech technology developed by the Belgian firm Lernout & Hauspie.[13] An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[14][15]
In 2001 the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence.[5]
Bamford provides an alternate view, highlighting that legislation prohibits the use of intercepted communications for commercial purposes, although does elaborate on how intercepted communications are used as part of an all-source intelligence process.
[edit] Hardware
According to its website the USA's National Security Agency is "a high technology organization... on the frontiers of communications and data processing". In 1999 the Australian Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was told by Professor Desmond Ball that the Pine Gap facility was used as a ground station for a satellite-based interception network. The satellites are said to be large radio dishes between 20 and 100 meters in diameter in geostationary orbits.[citation needed] The original purpose of the network was to monitor the telemetry from 1970s Soviet weapons, air defense radar, communications satellites and ground based microwave communications.[16]
Echelon, in fact, is nothing more than a VAX microcomputer that was manufactured in the early 1970s by Digital Equipment Corp., and was used at six satellite intercept stations [to filter and sort data collected from the satellites and distribute it to analysts]. The computer has long since been obsolete. Since 9/11, whatever plans in place to modernize Echelon have been put on hold. The NSA does in fact have a global intercept network, but they just call it the intercept collection infrastructure. They don't have a code name or anything sexy to describe it, and it didn't do domestic spying. [1]
[edit] Name
The European Parliament's Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System stated: "It seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, although this is a relatively minor detail."[5] The U.S. intelligence community uses many code names (see, for example, CIA cryptonym).
Margaret Newsham claims that she worked on the configuration and installation of some of the software that makes up the ECHELON system while employed at Lockheed Martin, for whom she worked from 1974 to 1984 in Sunnyvale, California, USA and in Menwith Hill, England, UK.[17] At that time, according to Newsham, the code name ECHELON was NSA's term for the computer network itself. Lockheed called it P415. The software programs were called SILKWORTH and SIRE. A satellite named VORTEX would intercept communications. An image available on the internet of a fragment apparently torn from a job description shows Echelon listed along with several other code names.[18]
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
FBI method of profiling
The FBI method of profiling is a system created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is used to detect and classify the major personality and behavioral characteristics of an individual based upon analysis of the crime or crimes the person committed.[2]
The FBI method of profiling is the approach most commonly used by profilers in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and other European countries.[3]
One of the first American profilers was FBI agent John E. Douglas, who was also instrumental in developing the Behavioral Science method of law enforcement.[4]
Profiling phases
Criticism
To profile serial murderers, it is first necessary to link crimes to a type of common offender. To accomplish this, the offender is determined based on classes of action committed at the crime scene.[10] This classification should be reliable and empirically tested in order to assign cases to one group. The classification system should also meet the assumptions of a typology. To specify the characteristics that define a typology which must occur together frequently, and the characteristics specific to one type must not occur frequently with the characteristics specific to another type.[10]
Much criticism surrounding the FBI process of profiling focuses on the validity of the classification stage. In particular, the criticism targets the organized vs. disorganized dichotomy and its theoretical and empirical foundations and assumptions.[11] This dichotomy has become a commonly cited and used classifications of violent, serial offenders.[7] The only available study that examines the reliability of the classification system involved the reading of a sexual-homicide case summary. In this study, interrater reliability was found to be between 51.7% and 92.6%.
This study, although dated, does provide limited support for the reliability of the FBI sexual-homicide classification system. However, this form of reliability contributes little to the usefulness of the offender profiling system if the classification is not effective. The FBI classification system is derived from a single interview-based research study with a small sample of apprehended serial killers who operated in North America.[12][13]
The ecological validity of the FBI's classification system considering its limitations has also been criticised. Further limitations of the original study include the subject selection process that relied on non-random self-selection, and the extensive use of potentially biased data.[14] The interviews were unstructured and led in an ad hoc fashion that was dependent on the interviewees.[15] The process whereby participants were divided into groups based on organized or disorganized characteristics and behaviors has been described as the product of circular reasoning, involving the “reification of a concept” in contrast to an empirical validation of this concept.
The organized/disorganized dichotomy is further flawed in that it fails to meet the criteria of a typology .[10] David Canter examined the relationship between the behavioral styles and background characteristics of 100 serial-homicide offenders using a multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure called Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) that statistically represents the co-occurrence of variables. No evidence was found to support the co-occurrence of behavioral styles or background characteristics related to the organized/disorganized taxonomy as proposed in the Crime Classification Manual (CCM).
The FBI method of profiling is a system created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is used to detect and classify the major personality and behavioral characteristics of an individual based upon analysis of the crime or crimes the person committed.[2]
The FBI method of profiling is the approach most commonly used by profilers in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and other European countries.[3]
One of the first American profilers was FBI agent John E. Douglas, who was also instrumental in developing the Behavioral Science method of law enforcement.[4]
Profiling phases
- The process this approach uses to determine offender characteristics involves, first, an assimilation phase where all information available in regard to the crime scene, victim, and witnesses is examined.[5] This may include photographs of the crime scene, autopsy reports, victim profiles, police reports, and witness statements.
- The next phase, the "classification stage", involves integrating the information collected into a framework which essentially classifies the murderer as "organized" or "disorganized". Organized murderers are thought to have advanced social skills, plan their crimes, display control over the victim using social skills, leave little forensic evidence or clues, and often engage in sexual acts with the victim before the murder.[6] In contrast, the disorganized offender is described as impulsive, with few social skills, such that his/her murders are opportunistic and crime scenes suggest frenzied, haphazard behavior and a lack of planning or attempts to avoid detection. They might engage in sexual acts after the murder, because they lack knowledge of normal sexual behavior.[7]
- Following the classification stage profilers attempt to reconstruct the behavioral sequence of the crime, in particular, attempting to reconstruct the offender's modus operandi or method of committing the crime.[8]
- Profilers also examine closely the offender's “signature” which is identifiable from the crime scene and is more idiosyncratic than the modus operandi—the signature is what the offender does to satisfy his psychological needs in committing the crime.[9]
- From further consideration of the modus operandi, the offender's signature at the crime scene, and also an inspection for the presence of any staging of the crime, the profiler moves on to generate a profile. This profile may contain detailed information regarding the offender's demographic characteristics, family characteristics, military background, education, personality characteristics, and it may also suggest appropriate interview techniques.[8]
Criticism
To profile serial murderers, it is first necessary to link crimes to a type of common offender. To accomplish this, the offender is determined based on classes of action committed at the crime scene.[10] This classification should be reliable and empirically tested in order to assign cases to one group. The classification system should also meet the assumptions of a typology. To specify the characteristics that define a typology which must occur together frequently, and the characteristics specific to one type must not occur frequently with the characteristics specific to another type.[10]
Much criticism surrounding the FBI process of profiling focuses on the validity of the classification stage. In particular, the criticism targets the organized vs. disorganized dichotomy and its theoretical and empirical foundations and assumptions.[11] This dichotomy has become a commonly cited and used classifications of violent, serial offenders.[7] The only available study that examines the reliability of the classification system involved the reading of a sexual-homicide case summary. In this study, interrater reliability was found to be between 51.7% and 92.6%.
This study, although dated, does provide limited support for the reliability of the FBI sexual-homicide classification system. However, this form of reliability contributes little to the usefulness of the offender profiling system if the classification is not effective. The FBI classification system is derived from a single interview-based research study with a small sample of apprehended serial killers who operated in North America.[12][13]
The ecological validity of the FBI's classification system considering its limitations has also been criticised. Further limitations of the original study include the subject selection process that relied on non-random self-selection, and the extensive use of potentially biased data.[14] The interviews were unstructured and led in an ad hoc fashion that was dependent on the interviewees.[15] The process whereby participants were divided into groups based on organized or disorganized characteristics and behaviors has been described as the product of circular reasoning, involving the “reification of a concept” in contrast to an empirical validation of this concept.
The organized/disorganized dichotomy is further flawed in that it fails to meet the criteria of a typology .[10] David Canter examined the relationship between the behavioral styles and background characteristics of 100 serial-homicide offenders using a multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure called Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) that statistically represents the co-occurrence of variables. No evidence was found to support the co-occurrence of behavioral styles or background characteristics related to the organized/disorganized taxonomy as proposed in the Crime Classification Manual (CCM).
Ellis Dee
Active Member
Just the fact that your saying this is 'proof' that you what to be accepted. In your beliefs. And you want us to make an accommodation for your beliefs and attitude.
Which I think most of us are happy to do.
Posting about 'Echelon' and the Charter of Independence, or what ever you guys call it, is probably more suited to another thread like toke and talk or politics. There are many more people who will react to you in much more 'enlightened' way. But if you can't make room for the middle ground you'll have no road to drive on.
Agent Rick (FBI)
Member
The fact that you tell me a subject is more suited somewhere else. Is wrong. It's suited anywhere I want it to be.