posted on October 2, 2004 07:57:58 AM
Here is a definition of the fallacy that you questioned, neroter. The fact that one thing follows another should not be taken as evidence that the first event is the cause of the second event.
Post hoc, also known as coincidental correlation, is a logical fallacy which assumes, or asserts, that if one thing happens after another, the first must be the cause of the second. It is a particularly subtle, and tempting, error because temporal sequence is basic to causality.
My remark was followed by Linda's remark. It's incorrect to think that my remark caused linda's remark. She could have been replying to another remark on the thread. In fact, her remark had no relevance to any remark on the thread that I can see.
posted on October 2, 2004 08:05:38 AM
trai - Yes, just as many breaking stories start out...with someone/many making accusation about an issue and then more start to investigate it.
I hope you came across the long list of countries that are believed to have made deals with saddam AND the one or two that mention/suggest that most of those countries are the ones who didn't support us in Iraq. That may well be the reason they didn't...is my point. They were benefiting from their deals with saddam. Not out of the realm of possibility as the major media has brought that question to the table.
But I do agree nothing is written in stone...and the 'solid' proof won't be there until the Congressional investigation is completed. But the connections with saddam have been made.
posted on October 2, 2004 08:17:29 AM
Back to the thread topic:
This is probably the MOST descriptive, and on point, opinion I've read about the debate so far.
townhall.com
Richard Short:
"President Bush was attacked by a morally bankrupt man who cannot understand nor be trusted with operating the local dog pound.
'Remember, Pagans cannot think straight,' not that they don't, but they can't.
I can empathize with the president when he had to listen to Kerry's diatribe and accusations, knowing that he is a source of lies; Kerry only wants the position to fulfill his narcissistic drive.
President Bush wants to lead this great nation through troubled waters."
posted on October 2, 2004 08:22:18 AM"helen - Again, what went on between kiara and myself is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS."
Oh yes, it is my business when I have to read your false allegations. I don't like you one little bit, Linda and I will continue to point out those occassions when you mistreat other people on this board.
You called Kiara a liar and delusional simply because neither she nor I understood your comment...that you refuse to explain.
Instead of making your personal attack against kiara why didn't you simply explain that your remark was directed to me. Next time try telling the truth.
posted on October 2, 2004 08:27:48 AM
helen - I don't care if you don't like me....the feelings mutual.
I only wish that you would stick to what you've said over and over and over and that is you will ignore me...won't speak to me...won't question me...etc.
Why don't you just do what you've repeatedly said you were going to do? Having trouble keeping to your own statements?
posted on October 2, 2004 08:39:17 AM
Linda_K, now you weasle out when you're backed into a corner and confess that the remark was meant for Helen but you tell her that it's none of her business yet it is the business of neroter12 who wasn't even there.
If it was such a joke where was your usual LOL You let days go by when I called you on it and then yesterday you let hours go by yet you continued to post here. It wasn't until I mentioned to trai to be careful and not disagree with you like I did that you started to weasle out of it.
Why don't you come out and tell us who you really are?
Let's see.........
No matter which political thread is started you are the authority on each subject and know the inside workings of the entire Bush regime.
You happen to know terrorists and have the capability of locating the houses of fellow posters.
You post info on countries involved in the oil-for-food scam and then tell the rest of us that we haven't read or heard of it or are aware of what happened but you are privy to an unreleased report by Congress naming the countries.
You worship, idolize and absolutely ADORE President Bush.
Almost each time you are around you have a phony permanent smilie plastered on your face.
posted on October 2, 2004 08:52:02 AM
Linda, I generally disregard your unreliable and fanatical copy paste articles but remember that "generally" doesn't mean always. I prefer to focus on other's comments in which information is reliable and true.
I'm not here 24/7 as you are but whenever I read such abuse that you delivered in this thread I will respond.
posted on October 2, 2004 09:04:24 AM
LOL - I'm not here 24/7...another false assumption I'm on and off most days - and you're one to talk - some used to accuse you of that very same thing. So maybe you think it's going to bother me that you state an untruth again. It doesn't.
And okay, I get it...like you've said before 'don't ever believe anything that I post here' [paraphrasing to NTS]. Guess you weren't joking after all...cause it's true.
My words are available for everyone here to see and interpret. I have no confidence in your ability to interpret anything, linda and I am sure that more and more posters here are beginning to discredit and question your spin and your "facts" as stated on this board.
posted on October 2, 2004 10:06:40 AM
Linda you posted that Canada, Germany and France did not go into Iraq because of the alleged oil for food scam they had going with Saddam.
That is not the reason why these countries chose not to go to war with Iraq. We had this discussion the other day why some countries chose to stay out of it.
Canada sent their troops to Afghanistan for the war on terrorism and they are still fighting there today because that's where most of the terrorists were at that time. They would have considered going into Iraq but under the UN banner. They too were waiting for proof of WOMB and as we know today there were none.
Germany will not send troops to an offensive war because their constitutional law will not allow it, just a defensive war. But Germany will not start a war or go in bilateral. You can imagine if they did that certain groups would be screaming their heads off.
Now France is looking after their own vested interests just as the US looks after their own interests. Lots of US corporations have subsidies in France and have their fingers in the pie also.
Bottom line, business is looking after itself and there is no way they want to write off money for moral reasons. Remember profit margins know no allegiance or flags, it means nothing. Money will look after itself.
posted on October 2, 2004 10:37:03 AM
trai - I agree and am saying that's exactly why I believe the Canadian PM was involved with saddam....as were the others....their own profit...their financial gain.
The O-F-F money was intended for the Iraq people that were suffering under Saddam...to provide food and medicine, etc. to help them...NOT those who are now being connected with the profits they made by doing illegal deals with saddam....under the corrupt UN's oversight.
This program wouldn't have even been set up in the first place but some felt the poor Iraqi people were being made to suffer because saddam wouldn't comply with the years and years of non-complience of saddam to the many UN resolutions.
All those involved in taking monies away from the benefit of, the initial intent of, the Iraqi people are going to be 'outed'.
posted on October 2, 2004 11:27:55 AMtrai - I agree and am saying that's exactly why I believe the Canadian PM was involved with saddam....as were the others....their own profit...their financial gain.
Linda, that's not what I said. It's somewhat of a misquote you are doing. There is no concrete proof of evidence of any of them being involved in the oil for food scam so therefore it is not a fact.
I don't think Canada and Germany are involved in it and that is not the reason why they didn't go into Iraq. I already explained their reasons for not going.
posted on October 2, 2004 11:49:20 AM
Linda I glanced over the report for Congress on this and it mentions China, Russia and France but I see no mention of Germany or Canada.
Therefore to put them up on a post and accuse them of this when there is no proof backing it up is immature. There is enough tension in this world as there is, so there is no use throwing gas on another fire.
There are enough illiterate people out there that take things at face value without seeking confirmed proof so no point in posting it.
posted on October 2, 2004 11:55:42 AM
"rusty - Yep I was right about you. Somehow it makes you feel so much more superior to downgrade a fellow poster - rather than just stick to the issue."
the last time I checked Linda, you have insulted everyone with your shallow thought process. to think that us "liberals" wish to invite terrorism is an insult. to the contrary, us "liberals" have been the people, along side some sensible Republicans who have screamed until their heads are blue that we have to go after the terrorists, especially those who attacked us, but as i have mentioned so many times before, you only want to read what you want to read. you skip right over the fact that we want protection, we want justice, we want to promote peace. GW has done nothing but cover up one lie after another and you are there to lap it up like a bowl of milk.
"So typical of you. Shouldn't have even tried to be civil...it's not possible with you."
so pointing out your weaknesses makes me uncivil? you have once again proved my point.
"Sure....let's bring our troops home and then we can just wait until the terrorists find a way to give us a few more 'gifts' like 9-11...but many this time it will be with the use of chemical or bio weapons. GREAT PLAN...just sit and wait rather than fighting them over there."
Did you even bother to hear Kerry in the debate? I don't think Kerry or Bush really want to leave troops there indefinitely. So, I'm not sure where you got that idea from, except for pulling it out of your butt. No one said anything about sitting back and waiting for more "gifts". This is exactly my point with you Linda. You see things in black and white. Nothing beyond that. You seem to think the way things are going in Iraq, everything is perfectly fine. North Korea building Nuclear Weapons, perfectly fine. On Bush's watch, he squandered the opportunity to prevent NK from those weapons. He ignored it while attacking Iraq, that by the way... didn't have Nuclear Weapons. So, if you think just sitting there waiting for an attack is on the agenda of the Democrats and Kerry, you are sorely mistaken. Bush has had 4 years to prove his worthiness as a President. The only accomplishment that Bush has to his credit is capturing Saddam Hussein, which as the rest of the world knew and still knows, was not a threat to the United States. He may have been a threat to the Bush crime family and their closed door negotiations with the Saudi's, but he was not a threat to the United States. Every time the Bush family thinks there is someone out there who has something on them, they go after them. Remember Noriega??? Georgie Sr. claimed he never met with Manuel, but guess what? Photos of Georgie Sr and Manuel Noriega on a fishing boat off the coast of Panama proved otherwise. Now look where Noriega is. In a prison in Miami.
"They're desperate right now...that's why the increase of fighting...they know they're losing...and you liberals just want to help them out....against your own country. figures...."
How do you know the insurgents are desperate? How can a normal, intelligent human being think that "us liberals" want to help them out? You are obviously crazy, and should seek some professional help Linda. I am serious. That is pretty delusional on you part to assume and use such far reaching blanket statements like that. It simply proves once again how desperate you are by making such absurd false accusations. If you want to take this as off subject, then go right ahead. You are making these insane claims, and I'm just simply pointing out, as a professional who worked in the mental health field, that you may be on the verge of paranoia schizophrenia and should seek some professional help.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:12:05 PM"They're desperate right now...that's why the increase of fighting...they know they're losing...
Linda must be in constant contact with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq since she knows what they are thinking. Linda wasn't it you that said people should not ASSUME what others are thinking.
What you don't like your own phrases being thrown right back at you?? LOL LOL
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 2, 2004 12:16:26 PM
trai - I didn't say there was any mention of Canada in my link. What I've said is that I've read about the connection between their PM and saddam.
Therefore to put them up on a post and accuse them of this when there is no proof backing it up is immature.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion....as am I. And from what I've read there IS a connection. To say I shouldn't post what I'm reading is, imo, to say I have no right to my first amendment rights.
Other's here have hundreds of times posted out-and out lies about President Bush..'he knew we were going to be attacked' etc etc. 'and he did nothing about it'. Did they wait until defininate proof was present? No...and to even suggest I can't mention part of the US Congressional investigate is outrageous.
There is enough tension in this world as there is, so there is no use throwing gas on another fire. This is a discussion board, and thank you for sharing your opinion, but I will post what interests me.
There are enough illiterate people out there that take things at face value without seeking confirmed proof so no point in posting it. Well, once you apply this same reasoning to the opposite side of the political arena....then that's fair. But to only call ME on it...is not. I have never seen you question any of the statements by the lefties here. And I find it amusing that you only question issue I bring to the table.
edited to clarity further - taking part of your sentence. There is no concrete proof of evidence of any of them being involved...
Just as a lot of other things discussed here don't have concrete proof...doesn't keep THEM from being discussed. You seem to me, to be holding me to some 'different' standard than others here.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:17:55 PM
I might add, Linda, it is ok to admit that GW lost the debate. I mean, I have been admitting all along that Kerry wasn't doing so well in handling the lies of the swiftboat ads. You don't always have to agree with everything your candidate does to still support them.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:25:15 PM
rusty [i]"So typical of you. Shouldn't have even tried to be civil...it's not possible with you."
so pointing out your weaknesses makes me uncivil? you have once again proved my point[/i].
What you continually avoid noticing is that I AM civil with those who are civil to me. I don't consider it being civil to name call, insult etc...and then expect the same won't be returned. I ignore a lot of rude comments made to me, but I am human and after a while 15 different people referring to me as lindDUH.etc...takes away my desire to remain civil. But pay more attention and you WILL see that I AM civil to those who are to me.
Like the golden rule....[do unto to others and you would have them do unto you] ....treat others as you wish to be treated. Obviously not an old statement many here have ever heard.
"[i]So typical of you. Shouldn't have even tried to be civil...it's not possible with you."
so pointing out your weaknesses makes me uncivil? you have once again proved my point[/i].
posted on October 2, 2004 12:30:40 PM
Another uncivil post from rusty -
[i]Did you even bother to hear Kerry in the debate? I don't think Kerry or Bush really want to leave troops there indefinitely. So, I'm not sure where you got that idea from, except for pulling it out of your butt.
Yes, I heard what kerry said during the debate. Why haven't you been listening to all the times he's changed his mind on what he says he'll do. Started out with saying we weren't moving fast enough on Iraq...to voting for the war...to saying he'd keep our troops there as long as needed...to saying he'd have them out within his first term...then within his first year...then within his first six months...and now, a month ago...back to four years.
So....why would you expect me to be foolish enough to believe what he said at the debates. His MO is to constantly change what he says. That's not a person who I could EVER count on to actually MEAN what they say.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:38:37 PMLinda must be in constant contact with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq since she knows what they are thinking.
There you go....thinking again....wrongly of course. As I have stated I constantly read the DoD website where everyone can get the same information from our ground commanders there. No crystal ball necessary at all.
Linda wasn't it you that said people should not ASSUME what others are thinking.
Yes, I did when they make PERSONAL statements they have no way of knowing about. Not when it comes to reading our military commanders statements. Little different ball game.
What you don't like your own phrases being thrown right back at you?? LOL LOL
I don't mind my phrases being thrown back at me at all. Because they're usually just like yours....making false accusations like you just did about me and how I know what's being reported.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:44:16 PM
No need for interputation helen...you own words will do just fine.
Helenjw posted on January 30, 2003 06:07:07 AM
NeartheSea
Don't ever take what I say here as an indication of how I really feel. Helen
rememberthat!
Helen
--------------
in answer to:
Linda_K posted on October 2, 2004 09:04:24 AM edit
LOL - I'm not here 24/7...another false assumption I'm on and off most days - and you're one to talk - some used to accuse you of that very same thing. So maybe you think it's going to bother me that you state an untruth again. It doesn't.
And okay, I get it...like you've said before 'don't ever believe anything that I post here' [paraphrasing to NTS]. Guess you weren't joking after all...cause it's true.
posted by Helenjw
posted on October 2, 2004 09:19:59 AM
My words are available for everyone here to see and interpret. I have no confidence in your ability to interpret anything, linda and I am sure that more and more posters here are beginning to discredit and question your spin and your "facts" as stated on this board.
--------
Don't think anyone will have a problem interpreting your words, helen.
posted on October 2, 2004 12:49:44 PM
LOL!!! You really kill me Linda. Have you ever heard the old saying, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me?" Get over it and get some help.
You once again failed to address your far reaching claims against liberals. Do you have one speck of fairy dust to prove that "us liberals" want to help the terrorists? Do you seriously think you are civil when you make these broad generalizations? I mean, you claim to be civil to those who are civil to you, but you didn't say that I was the only one to believe this. You said, "all liberals". I might suggest taking a good hard look in the mirror and think about every time you have lied here. How many times you make a statement to put one group of people all together so that you can throw stones at them. Think about accusing me of insulting women, as if this has anything to do with gender. Don't act as if you are some women's rights activist when you don't defend women on other boards. You have a chance to participate in anti-women's threads, but you don't. Instead, you attack a group of people who I would guess to say, have as many people amongst them who support terrorism as do the Republicans and neo-cons.
If you want to cry and moan about it, go ahead. You're whiny attitude only serves as a defense mechanism when you know you are wrong. It may hurt to hear it Linda, but it is true. You have come onto this posting to do the very same thing that the rest of us do. If you really believe that you are a victim and do not do the same thing, then you probably shouldn't particiapte. I could care less that someone calls me a name. I have the intelligence to know it is nothing more than words in the heat of debate. Perhaps you should do the same. I can take the fact that you really want to believe that all liberals want to run over to Osama and give him a great big hug and kiss his dusty feet, but understand, I will throw it right back at you and you can't stop me from doing it. Quit being passive aggressive and learn to defend yourself.
posted on October 2, 2004 01:16:08 PM
Linda for two days you have been accusing Canada and Germany of having ties to Saddam and saying that is why they didn't go into Iraq and I am just telling you the real reasons why they did not go in. You also had these two countries mentioned by name and included Canada in your google link and you insinuated that they were in the report that was to be released so that's why I read it over and they are not in it.
Nowhere did I say that you couldn't post what you believe but in this case it is not fact so I think it just throws gas on a fire.
Over the years I have called other posters on certain issues where they had there facts wrong, it's just that they are not here now in this discussion so no use bringing them in too. I do not hold you to any different standards than anyone else and have always tried to be fair. Maybe you are reading more into this than what I meant by it.
If you notice I don’t post to a lot of these political threads because there is no discussion here or debate most of the time. I don't approve if this comes from the left or the right.
You really kill me Linda. Have you ever heard the old saying, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me?" Get over it and get some help.
Yes, I have heard that saying. Doesn't excuse rudeness nor being uncivil while having a discussion, imo. There's no need for it to become personal. Imo, it shows a huge lack of personal self-control, immaturity and an inability to stick to the issue being discussed.
And I don't need 'help'. I just appreciate civility. It's not a mental illness to be polite or civil with others. Least not the last time I checked. LOL
You once again failed to address your far reaching claims against liberals. Do you have one speck of fairy dust to prove that "us liberals" want to help the terrorists?
I don't think all do it on a conscious level...but do believe some do - especially most here, yes.
Just like it happened in the VN war. kerry, fonda and others like them did enormous damage to our still fighting soldiers/POWs and the VN people who were murdered after we pulled out....mainly because the liberals persuaded the majority of American's it was a war that couldn't be won.
But after the war...when the communist leaders honored kerry, fonda etc..for helping their side....stated, themselves they would have surrendered HAD they not see how successful the anti-war protesters were here...that says a lot to me - and that's all the proof I need.
And you liberals are repeating this same process now with Iraq. Where all the terrorists have joined together to fight our cause. If you [collectively] have your way...kerry will withdraw our troops as soon as possible....and it's NOT going to stop them from coming after us here just like they did on 9-11. President Bush seeks to prevent this...and in that, I 100% agree and support him.
Do you seriously think you are civil when you make these broad generalizations? I mean, you claim to be civil to those who are civil to you, but you didn't say that I was the only one to believe this. You said, "all liberals". I might suggest taking a good hard look in the mirror and think about every time you have lied here.
In this medium MANY make 'broad brush' statements. Group liberals as a whole..etc. just as most do with calling the few conservatives who post here neocons...or neconazi's. I'm not a neocon... Again...it's okay when the left does it but not okay when the right does it.
AND I don't lie. Nothing I have ever said here is a lie, imo. It is all how I view the issues, the person etc....just as everyone else does when they express their views.
How many times you make a statement to put one group of people all together so that you can throw stones at them. Think about accusing me of insulting women, as if this has anything to do with gender.
I didn't mean to imply it had to do with gender. But heaven knows there are many men who will speak to a woman in one way - degrading, insulting - but would NEVER speak to a man the same way. I have no way of knowing if you are either man....I only can base what I say on how YOU respond to me and what YOU say to me.
Don't act as if you are some women's rights activist when you don't defend women on other boards. You have a chance to participate in anti-women's threads, but you don't.
I've never been a women's rights activist. I feel they've done a lot of damage to men and women relationship and to marriage. I'm not a feminist, rusty. And why in the world would it matter to you if I do or don't respond to ANY thread posted here. Do I ask you to report into me why you choose to respond in some threads and not others. Who cares? Not me.
Instead, you attack a group of people who I would guess to say, have as many people amongst them who support terrorism as do the Republicans and neo-cons. LOL....I don't attack, imo, I respond back - posting my OWN take on what was said. And it's very clear to see that there are only a couple of moderate dems who post here. Most all the rest usually are in agreement with one another. Not hard to see that.
If you want to cry and moan about it, go ahead. You're whiny attitude only serves as a defense mechanism when you know you are wrong.
Another false crystal ball reading from a leftie. And I don't believe I am wrong...I think the left is taking the wrong platform and it's not in this country's best interest.
It may hurt to hear it Linda, but it is true. It didn't hurt....so sorry.
You have come onto this posting to do the very same thing that the rest of us do. If you really believe that you are a victim and do not do the same thing, then you probably shouldn't particiapte. I could care less that someone calls me a name.
How nice we are each individuals and entitled to our OWN feelings.
I have the intelligence to know it is nothing more than words in the heat of debate. Perhaps you should do the same.
Really not appropriate to offer advice when it's not requested. I'll decide what I should or shouldn't do. Thank you anyway.
I can take the fact that you really want to believe that all liberals want to run over to Osama and give him a great big hug and kiss his dusty feet, but understand,
See there you go again...assuming. I don't think that. What I since you didn't choose to ASK, rather than assume incorrectly, is that we have a history of watching the dem administrations in action. They want to 'talk' forever...warning after warning..after warning...and then talk some more. A lot of righties what action...not for all the 5 different attacks from terrorist to be ignored as they were during the clinton administration...which led binladen and AQ to think we were weak. All talk, no action. Now they know differently. The majority of American's, when asked, will say they believe the Republican party will better defend our country and the democratic party is better with domestic issues. Has been that way for decades. Not going to change in the middle of a war now.
I will throw it right back at you and you can't stop me from doing it. Quit being passive aggressive and learn to defend yourself.
Again more unasked for advice. I don't need you, a stranger to me, telling me what I should or shouldn't do...how I should or shouldn't react. I'm my own person and will deal with it the way I choose. And being civil with those who hold different opinions than I do doesn't make me in anyway passive...it is called being polite...being civil...not being rude and condesending.
"Don't think anyone will have a problem interpreting your words, helen'
Actually, "anyone" will not - with one exception and that is YOU. Only you have that problem and it is clear that you have a problem interpreting other's thoughts also.
My point...which you missed of course was that I will rely on others to interpret my words as I have written them here...not taken out of context and spun. As you have illustrated in your last post to me, you are incapable of understanding something as simple as a joke. So rant on with your hysteria. Even your posts look hysterically scattered...much like your thoughts. Maybe you need a little rest?
posted on October 2, 2004 02:03:04 PMMaybe you are reading more into this than what I meant by it.
Maybe I did...if so I apologize. One tends to get defensive when several attack at once. Least I do. As I've said many times, this is a difficult medium to converse in. Sometimes what is said IS taken the wrong way. It certainly has happened to me enough times to understand that. So, again, if I have, please accept my most sincere apology.
If you notice I don't post to a lot of these political threads because there is no discussion here or debate most of the time.
I have and wish you, and more like you, would decide to enter the threads more often. We need more who can civilly disagree with other. Kiara made a statement earlier and one I'd like to give my OWN position on. To me she implied - least that's how I took it...that if you were to disagree with me...then you too would be in trouble. That's not true. I have NEVER had a problem with anyone who disagrees with my positions/opinions. I enjoy the back and forth of different views. I enjoy posting my arguments/sides. I just prefer to keep it civil with others without all the personal stuff that continues to take place here. I realize I don't control that...but I do believe it has been the reason many have left our boards...they've felt they can't express themselves without all the name calling or insults. And I admit my own part in that. I do have days when it's not as easy to ignore it all. Negative appears to breed negative. Kind of like mob rule I guess.
I don't approve if this comes from the left or the right. Okay...that's good to hear you are consistant in your standards. I guess I just didn't see it that way...since all the unproven lies that have been posted here...and no one challanged them. I was feeling I WAS being held to a different standard...thus why I said what I did.
Imo, there are about three other posters who also have that ability...and I've said many times I respect them for that...even though we don't agree on almost every issue.
posted on October 2, 2004 02:15:05 PM
ROFL - Initally, helen, I took it that you were being serious. But you later said you were just joking. Well...read my above comment about 'guess you weren't really joking after all'....maybe you'll get my point. Then again...maybe not. Just as you and kiara BOTH misunderstood who my post about 'your friends' was addressed to. When most intelligent people could easily see I was responding to YOUR comment. But you misunderstood that too...so I don't feel I'm alone on this issue.
Are we going to go on and on and on and on over this too, helen. Or can you just let it go now?
But the connections with saddam have been made.
Least I do. As I've said many times, this is a difficult medium to converse in. Sometimes what is said IS taken the wrong way. It certainly has happened to me enough times to understand that. So, again, if I have, please accept my most sincere apology.