Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want. There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist. Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs
Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.
As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
He may have gone too far with that statement. Agreed.
The irony of SDW making a cheerleading joke is indeed lost on him.
The real irony is in your post above. Let me spell it out:
You called me a cheerleader. I then made an issue of the "context" of certain quotes in a "cheerleader-like" way. Perhaps that explains things for you. I'll be here as long as you need me.
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
You need to improve your english comprehension, sir or madam.
I did not call you anything or imply what you now are replying to.
My suggestion is hateful speech is just that, and the difference between the constant flow of hateful speech from the democratic party overall, is not far off from the hateful speech from many terrorist groups. I did not say they were equal. I was mere pointing out that if this hateful and personal attacks continue to ratchet up as they have you or they, if you like, will be in a dangerous place.
I guess your answer to my criticism of said speech is to beat someone up. Thank you you made my point quite nicely.
The real irony is in your post above. Let me spell it out:
You called me a cheerleader. I then made an issue of the "context" of certain quotes in a "cheerleader-like" way. Perhaps that explains things for you. I'll be here as long as you need me.
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
oh, and for the record, I laugh at the ridiculous state of the world all the time ....then I cry myself to sleep
Wow. Facts? Really? Let me get this straight...YOU are talking about facts? When the source is invalid or partisan or just plainly not credible, you're damn right I'm going to dismiss it. For example, I'm not going to take the word of ONE MAN claiming that the current Admin. is a "bunch of crazies". A claim like that is fanatastic in the least, and insane at worst. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS. YOU POST OPINIONS and PRESENT them as facts. That's why I dismiss your "sources".
Seems to be the crux of the issue: perhaps you thought that because you were fed smoke straight out of the stovepipe?!
and perhaps you still believe it because the last thing that you would ever do is identify with anything remotely resembling our critical perspective on Bush?!
There you go again. It's not enough to gloat that there are apparently no WMD in Iraq. You have to go one step further, and imply that any person who ever believed there were is an idiot. Explain to me how that's reasonable.
Wow. Facts? Really? Let me get this straight...YOU are talking about facts? When the source is invalid or partisan or just plainly not credible, you're damn right I'm going to dismiss it. For example, I'm not going to take the word of ONE MAN claiming that the current Admin. is a "bunch of crazies". A claim like that is fanatastic in the least, and insane at worst. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS. YOU POST OPINIONS and PRESENT them as facts. That's why I dismiss your "sources".
1. Foolishness and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. (If you believe that the President is infallible and if you believe the President has done no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary- you're clearly a fool.)
2. "Everybody's wrong" is not a useful description of this thread. (Yes, of course they are, but that doesn't tell us anything about the subject at hand.)
I do not believe Bush is infallible. I have not, at the same time, seen any real evidence whatsoever that he knowingly misled the nation. None. If you have some, then post it. Unaswered questions and the lack of current WMD finds don't do the trick.
Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.
What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?
I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
Apology? Let me know what specifically to apologize for and I will, if it is reasonable. I did not attack you in any way whatsoever, so let me know what I should apologize for.
Apology? Let me know what specifically to apologize for and I will, if it is reasonable. I did not attack you in any way whatsoever, so let me know what I should apologize for.
Sorry, NaplesX, I re-read your post and besides the uber-idiot comment you really didn't insult me...
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time or you are so biased that you do not want to give GWB any benefit of the doubt.
If you use that line of logic, we would all have to assume that you just went and married the first person you met and had feeling for, and totally ignored any hints to future problem. I hope not.
You logic is week, and defies common sense. Well, at least what I call common sense, anyway. I could be the exception to the rule, though.
There you go again. It's not enough to gloat that there are apparently no WMD in Iraq. You have to go one step further, and imply that any person who ever believed there were is an idiot. Explain to me how that's reasonable.
I didn't say 'idiot' . . . . .
I am re-iterating the ISSUE . . . which is that we were told to believe something that was NOT true . . . and, had any leader worth credibility scrutinized the sources of that information rather than 'sexed-it-up-for-his-purposes' then we would not have been lead to believe that falsity to such an extent that we INVADED another country
invaded preemptively . . . 'pre-emptively*' meaning, prior to aggression or real cause on the invaded countries' part
*This is terminology that even the admin uses
I am pointing out that even you seem to indicate that your mistaken idea that we would find WMD is the result of information FED to us all: hence: ". . . is about me being wrong about Iraq [ . . ] Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that"
The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?
Funny you should put it this way, since basically every one of your past opinions and beliefs have turned out so dead wrong.
Hey Giant,
I am not going to get into it with you again, as I am very busy and do not need to be called an idiot or uninformed zealot or whatever new catch-phrase is in these days in your circles.
But thanks for thinking of me. How are you doing. Good I hope.
The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?
See you did it without me even replying to your previous post.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
NaplesX,
Did you ever criticize Clinton? Were you un-American when you did so? It is actually part and parcel of being american that we express our views (however insipid) whenever we want. There is nothing un-American in calling the president a moron, because from my perspective he is; just as calling him a genius is not un-American. The thing that is different between the criticisms of Bush in the US versus elsewhere is that more often than not the elsewhere critiques also call for some illegal actions.
It is most american to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you will. Without free exercise the rights mean nothing. So if you have evidence that suggests the president isn't an idiot, you might as well bring it out.
You need to allow yourself a broader opinion on what it means to be an American so you don't get labeled with the term nationalist. Also, if you honestly feel that polls that show in most cases barely 50% agreeing with "conservative" positions are a sign of strong support for these positions, then I am going to have to call you on your blunder. Polls can be spun in any way shape or form. The phrasing of the question gets different results. So putting your faith in one poll done with 1000 people in "rural" america, certainly isn't indicative of what the nation feels as a whole and may not be indicative of those people polled...
bbs
Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.
As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't know about you, but I was brought up to show respect for those that are our elected leaders,
say no more...I think this is the root of the friction here.
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
He may have gone too far with that statement. Agreed.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
*WHOOSH*
The irony of SDW making a cheerleading joke is indeed lost on him.
The real irony is in your post above. Let me spell it out:
You called me a cheerleader. I then made an issue of the "context" of certain quotes in a "cheerleader-like" way. Perhaps that explains things for you. I'll be here as long as you need me.
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, I see. Consitent criticism of Bush means we're with the terrorists? Consistent criticism of Bush can *only* be explained by the simple fact that the critics simply "hate Bush."
We're all treasonous bastards, is that it?
No, sir. I would suggest that you look at your own rhetoric before you go attending to that of others. We have been criticizing the president calmly, fairly, with documentation.
You are criticizing us and equating us with terrorists for doing so.
I swear, this kind of rhetoric isn't going to stop until some liberal pundit on O'Reilly or Hardball beats the crap out of someone for saying things like this.
You need to improve your english comprehension, sir or madam.
I did not call you anything or imply what you now are replying to.
My suggestion is hateful speech is just that, and the difference between the constant flow of hateful speech from the democratic party overall, is not far off from the hateful speech from many terrorist groups. I did not say they were equal. I was mere pointing out that if this hateful and personal attacks continue to ratchet up as they have you or they, if you like, will be in a dangerous place.
I guess your answer to my criticism of said speech is to beat someone up. Thank you you made my point quite nicely.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The real irony is in your post above. Let me spell it out:
You called me a cheerleader. I then made an issue of the "context" of certain quotes in a "cheerleader-like" way. Perhaps that explains things for you. I'll be here as long as you need me.
ziing! double-zing! reverse zing! zing again!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.
Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?
oh, and for the record, I laugh at the ridiculous state of the world all the time
Wow. Facts? Really? Let me get this straight...YOU are talking about facts? When the source is invalid or partisan or just plainly not credible, you're damn right I'm going to dismiss it. For example, I'm not going to take the word of ONE MAN claiming that the current Admin. is a "bunch of crazies". A claim like that is fanatastic in the least, and insane at worst. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS. YOU POST OPINIONS and PRESENT them as facts. That's why I dismiss your "sources".
Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah, I wonder why you would have thought that?!
Seems to be the crux of the issue: perhaps you thought that because you were fed smoke straight out of the stovepipe?!
and perhaps you still believe it because the last thing that you would ever do is identify with anything remotely resembling our critical perspective on Bush?!
There you go again. It's not enough to gloat that there are apparently no WMD in Iraq. You have to go one step further, and imply that any person who ever believed there were is an idiot. Explain to me how that's reasonable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. Facts? Really? Let me get this straight...YOU are talking about facts? When the source is invalid or partisan or just plainly not credible, you're damn right I'm going to dismiss it. For example, I'm not going to take the word of ONE MAN claiming that the current Admin. is a "bunch of crazies". A claim like that is fanatastic in the least, and insane at worst. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS. YOU POST OPINIONS and PRESENT them as facts. That's why I dismiss your "sources".
*I* didn't present any sources
Originally posted by ShawnJ
1. Foolishness and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. (If you believe that the President is infallible and if you believe the President has done no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary- you're clearly a fool.)
2. "Everybody's wrong" is not a useful description of this thread. (Yes, of course they are, but that doesn't tell us anything about the subject at hand.)
I do not believe Bush is infallible. I have not, at the same time, seen any real evidence whatsoever that he knowingly misled the nation. None. If you have some, then post it. Unaswered questions and the lack of current WMD finds don't do the trick.
Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.
What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?
I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
Originally posted by billybobsky
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
Apology? Let me know what specifically to apologize for and I will, if it is reasonable. I did not attack you in any way whatsoever, so let me know what I should apologize for.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Apology? Let me know what specifically to apologize for and I will, if it is reasonable. I did not attack you in any way whatsoever, so let me know what I should apologize for.
Sorry, NaplesX, I re-read your post and besides the uber-idiot comment you really didn't insult me...
Sorry again...
Originally posted by billybobsky
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time or you are so biased that you do not want to give GWB any benefit of the doubt.
If you use that line of logic, we would all have to assume that you just went and married the first person you met and had feeling for, and totally ignored any hints to future problem. I hope not.
You logic is week, and defies common sense. Well, at least what I call common sense, anyway. I could be the exception to the rule, though.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There you go again. It's not enough to gloat that there are apparently no WMD in Iraq. You have to go one step further, and imply that any person who ever believed there were is an idiot. Explain to me how that's reasonable.
I didn't say 'idiot' . . . . .
I am re-iterating the ISSUE . . . which is that we were told to believe something that was NOT true . . . and, had any leader worth credibility scrutinized the sources of that information rather than 'sexed-it-up-for-his-purposes' then we would not have been lead to believe that falsity to such an extent that we INVADED another country
invaded preemptively . . . 'pre-emptively*' meaning, prior to aggression or real cause on the invaded countries' part
*This is terminology that even the admin uses
I am pointing out that even you seem to indicate that your mistaken idea that we would find WMD is the result of information FED to us all: hence: ". . . is about me being wrong about Iraq [ . . ] Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that"
Originally posted by NaplesX
So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time ...
Funny you should put it this way, since basically every one of your past opinions and beliefs have turned out so dead wrong.
Originally posted by giant
Funny you should put it this way, since basically every one of your past opinions and beliefs have turned out so dead wrong.
Hey Giant,
I am not going to get into it with you again, as I am very busy and do not need to be called an idiot or uninformed zealot or whatever new catch-phrase is in these days in your circles.
But thanks for thinking of me. How are you doing. Good I hope.
Originally posted by giant
The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?
See you did it without me even replying to your previous post.
What a gas.