Fairness Part II

Well, this has been a long time coming. I started a series called “Fairness” with this blog post. Chris Woody replied to that post, and a fairly (yuk yuk) thorough discussion ensued. I have been meaning to post it for some time, and I’m finally tying up these loose ends.

I may yet continue my ideas on how we see values (like fairness) and issues (like with authority), interpreted in different ways…but for now this thread should do it.

Here are couple pertinant links as well, before we get started:


the project of the conservative throughout the ages is the search for a higher moral justification for selfishness #


lucky ducky pergative


From: Chris Woody
To: spam@danielsjourney.com
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002
Subject: Reply to fairness

I appreciate your point of view and if I am not mistaken you have decided to go to the extreme polar opposite to make a point, but in that I think the truth is lost. It always is when you go from extreme to extreme. The truth is many succeed because they work hard and may succeed because they “hit the lottery of life”, by the same token not all failures are their because of hard luck. Even in your version of the story, your 2.0 student had an illegitimate child. Would you consider that bad luck or bad choice? Here in Georgia we have the Hope scholarship, poor students get great educations, if they want them.

I volunteered in a homeless mission for about a year and I could tell you after a 2 minute conversation who was going to get off the streets and who was going to be back week after week and at the end of 6 months want an extension of services. People have to want better conditions for themselves. If they are happy with what they are given, then that is all they will ever get. The welfare system is failing because their is no incentive to get off it and no punishment for abusers. In Wisconsin the state gave a grant to a couple women to purchase a small apartment building and take in 20 or so female welfare recipients. The women were to follow house rules (basically they had to not break the law and go to weekly group meetings) and get a job. At the end of the 3-6 month program all the women had steady jobs and came off welfare. 1 year later and something like 90% were still off welfare. Some of these women were 3rd generation welfare recipients.

I am all for helping those in need, the problem is it is not the Governments job, (it is the Church’s, but they are to busy building 100 million dollar buildings to bother with taking care of people) and even if it was, they are failing miserably.

I guess the reason I am writing is to try and move you to the middle. Help people but lets find a way that works and doesn’t bread quitters and failures. I grew up very poor, and after I got out of the Marines I couldn’t find anything that paid enough. I had my car repoed, lived on friends floors, and ate tuna like it was cool. One thing that I learned from that experience is that my choices, not my luck put me there. That was 5 years ago almost to the day. Today Lynn and I own a business, a home, 2 cars and I have an incredible paying job that I enjoy. But it took 5 years of sacrifice learning how to be a sales person to have the skills necessary to sell at a level that pays this well. It took a year of getting paid squat running a gym to learn what would be necessary to run our gym today.

My brother gradated from the University of Wisconsin after 5 years of schooling with little to no college loans. My parents give him little help. He was able to do this because he served in the Army for 2 years (over seas), and when he got out joined the National Guard. The Army paid half, the Guard picked up a little, and grants and loans took care of the rest. Notice most was taken care of by the Army and Guard, he busted his ass to get what he got. That is one thing that is great about this country, if you are willing to work and take a few risks, you can get what you want.

Your story should have ended like this:

Mary got her degree, learned that hard work pays dividends. She has worked her way out of poverty and now her child goes to college and has a 4.0 GPA because he doesn’t have to worry because fortunately he had the time to do study, since he was not required to hold down a job, his generous parents providing for both his education and living expenses throughout his college years.

The middle class white girl graduated with honors, got on the fast track towards the top but never made it past middle management because she did not know how to set goals and work hard to achieve them.


From: spam@danielsjourney.com
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002
To: Chris Woody
Subject: Re: Reply to fairness

I’m going to continue the fairness piece with a couple follow ups that might clarify my position; but the fact is that I’m not in the middle, I am on the “extreme left” as it is defined in this country, at least (in Europe the “right” is the equiv. of our “left” and to be “left” means to be a fascist!). If there were a socialist democrat party in the US I would probably join it (assuming it wasn’t corrupted).

It’s interesting you claim this social resposibility to be the church’s and then say that the church has dropped the ball all in the same breath. Who is to pick up the ball then? (Maybe the Mosques?)

Anyway, the point is, welfare is not socialism, not even close. My follow up pieces are actually just going to talk about how different people take fairness to mean different things. Most people consider having things they worked hard to earn taken away from them as unfair. I think Jesus rather clearly turned all of that on its head.


From: Chris Woody
To: danielsjourney-spam
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002
Subject: RE: Reply to fairness

I think I was not clear on my point. People make choices and those choices have ramifications on their lives for years to come. I am not saying that we aren’t to help others, what I am saying is that the government has failed miserably. Instead of throwing good money after bad, maybe we should find some kind of alternative. One that breaks a cycle of poverty and creates a new one of hope. In the beginning of the welfare and unemployment systems in this country, those receiving it gave back to it. i.e.. when my grandfather was on it, he and several other men built my home town’s swimming pool. They got taken care of and the city got something out of it. Many of those men learned a trade while building the pool and they all had a sense of accomplishment when finished.

As for the Church dropping the ball and who should pick it up…You and I. It seems we both believe this or we would not update our blogs or write columns or debate our sides. But it is one thing to rage against the machine, it is another to do something about it. Maybe we need a bit more organization, working together for what we believe, instead of just against what we disagree with.

As for welfare being socialism or not. It is completely. But so is Christianity. It the truest form of both, all are taken care of by all, those with more help those with less. But if you take from those who have more without their permission you are forcing your Christianity and Socialism on others. Christ didn’t do that, he told the rich rulers to give to the poor, but the choice ultimately rested on them.

As for the Mosques picking up the ball, yes they have. In fact Ramadan looks a lot like Isaiah 58:

6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
9 Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

So maybe we need to take a note from them. Considering they worship the same God as us (the God of Abraham). If, as Paul put it, we are to provoke the Jews to jealously, maybe we are to provoke them as well.


From: spam@danielsjourney.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002
To: Chris Woody
Subject: Re: Reply to fairness

People make choices and those choices have ramifications on their lives for years to come

…and generations to come

who should pick it up…You and I. It seems we both believe this or we would not update our blogs or write columns or debate our sides. But it is one thing to rage against the machine, it is another to do something about it. Maybe we need a bit more organization

…you mean like a/the church? ;)

As for welfare being socialism or not. It is completely. But so is Christianity.

…and this is where we disagree. welfare is absolutely not socialism and that was the point of my post. a specific group of people following the Way as described in the book of Acts did operate under a social commune paradigm where all money was shared. i do believe that within these small value-based groups, such a socialistic system can work. it does not work for nations, as i believe the great communist experiment of the 20th centurty has proven. but something like “if you take from those who have more without their permission you are forcing your Christianity and Socialism on others” is the kind of paradigm of fairness that i wish to address with my blog posts (even the second of which i haven’t penned yet, but this dialog is helping…btw do you mind if i anonymously quote you).

Christ didn’t do that, he told the rich rulers to give to the poor, but the choice ultimately rested on them

This is true, but Christ wasn’t in the social governing business, he was in the individuals business, as am I; and when I say “give all your money to the poor” people shout “not fair!” ha ha. “i earned it” “they are lazy.”

Curious: do you support legislation that would make abortion illegal in the USA? I find it interesting that Christians are willing to legislate a moral issue they feel strongly about–abortion–but fight to the bone anything that would help provide for the poor. IMHO they twist the bible to prove their own opinions/desires. I believe that the civil government is here to provide for the continuity of the society which it governs. Abortion, while a poor choice IMHO, does not contribute to the breakdown of society (psychological and spiritual effects on the mother, yes, but no direct sociological effect). The increased corruption in our economic and political systems is directly contributing to the breakdown of our society, and eventually there will be either revolution or anarchy, the result being a radically new controlling structure, and–and here’s where i sound like a conservative all of a sudden (but it’s just a circular continuum)–the demise of one of the most beautifully and brilliantly conceived governmental systems in history. Bottom line: faith aside, we need a system that concerns itself with the welfare of ALL of its citizens. At some point (actually pretty early on, historically, towards the beginning of the 19th century I would say), our leaders–with some notable exceptions–stopped being wealthy idealists and simply became wealthy (and worried about keeping that wealth).


From: Chris Woody
To: spam
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003
Subject: RE: Reply to fairness

People make choices and those choices have ramifications on their lives for years to come

…and generations to come

Thank you.

who should pick it up…You and I. It seems we both believe this or we would not update our blogs or write columns or debate our sides. But it is one thing to rage against the machine, it is another to do something about it. Maybe we need a bit more organization

…you mean like a/the church? ;)

Isn’t that what this is? Our conversing back and forth. Interesting that most of the New Testament is nothing more than letters from Church leaders to others. Wonder what Timothy said in reply to Paul. Like it or not your “Installations” at the Gravatt’s house was Church, and your reading, performing, and displaying your art at the local coffee house is evangelism. Church is now a four letter word because of the idiots running the show. They made a monster out of a beautiful thing, but that does not mean that we should then change the name of what we do to detach ourselves from them.

When I speak of organization I do not mean USMC, button down, chain of command, organization. I like the model of the Internet better. Millions of interconnected computers (people) sharing thoughts, ideas, fears, loves and faith. But to make that work there is required, routers (moderators such as you and I) to direct the computers to what they are looking for, Network Administrators to maintain and build the network (people who bring people together to have conversations), you get the picture.

I have marveled over the last 3 years on how God has seamed to strategically move some of us though-out the US, and soon the world. Doesn’t it seem that the “Global Church” that Denise talks about is happening? Did we plan it? No, but it is happening and there is some loose organization going on. Your link is on Gravatt’s page, which leads me to your writings, which leads me to write you, which leads to our conversation, which leads to the shaping of our minds. Two more computers come on line in our WAN. The things I talk about when I mention organization: planning an “installation” around your visiting Florida when you return from your missionary trip to Sarajavo. Me and Lynn going to Boston to see CPM play and spend time with Aaron and Calvin seeing how much they have learned on their journey from when Lynn was one of their youth leaders and here more about India. Introducing you to my friends and vise versa, growing the network. Kinda like Amway, Jesus told 12 people, they told twelve people, lol.

welfare is absolutely not socialism

Then why is it called social security? Communism failed not because it is a bad idea but because it is a bad idea when not partnered with the faith and love of the early Church. The more responsibility you give a government to provide your security, the more you become a slave to that government! I do not want the government taking care of the poor because the government is a non thinking machine that follows rules and regulations instead of common sense and emotion.

Besides, if I did not have the government taking so much of the money I earn I could give more of it to those who I, the earner of the money, believe need it. The wall between Church and state does not allow the government to sponsor children through World Vision, or give to a missionary friend of mine in Miami reaching out to gang-bangers, or help a coffee house in Stone Mountain, GA that gives kids a safe place to be (cause in their case, home is not). Point is if you can’t trust an organization with the money you give it, then how can you justify giving it. Again, I am not against welfare, I am against taxation being used to support welfare. The government has become the Church to the poor. When the Anti-Christ comes into power they probably won’t even feel it, they are already slaves to the machine!

Curious: do you support legislation that would make abortion illegal in the USA?

I do, only because I support legislation that makes murder illegal. If we looked at a embryo as a baby and not a mass of cells we would not be having any debate in this country. Do you support legislation that would oppose me from sticking a pair of scissors in any child walking down the streets head and then vacuuming out it’s brains? Why do we care if Priests molest kids? Is there a window of age where a child has value and it is not ok to harm, but outside of that window it is open season? Hell, why punish the women in TX that drowned her 5 kids? If she would have made the choice years earlier it would have been fine, her only crime is timing.

But aside from thinking it should be illegal to take human life early on, I also oppose putting animals to sleep, and the euthanasia of the old. Follow me on this for a moment. Once you start taking the value of life away you do “contribute to the breakdown of society”. Solomon reasoned that no one knows if the spirit of animal goes to heaven or into the ground, but we allow for the destroying of animals out of convenience. Dog pissess on the carpet kill it, grandma is in the home and doesn’t know who we are anymore (and pisses on the carpet) kill her, I was ready for sex, but don’t want to throw MY life away, kill the rapidly dividing mass of cells. We have taken the value of life away from both ends, soon it will unravel like a old sweater. The two greatest assets we have, hope in the future and wisdom from the past, are destroyed for the convince of the now. It is sad. You said that the abortion only effects the sprit and psyche of the women who had the abortion, considering our society is made up of people, the more spiritually and psychologically injured people we have the weaker our society becomes!

Now just because I think it is right to outlaw abortion, I will not protest, lobby or bomb abortion clinics, instead I will present my beliefs to those who come across my path and hopefully change their mindset. I think I read about a guy doing that once. A Jes-something or another.

I have attached a doc, that I would like you to take a look at. Keep in mind that it is a working draft, but the general idea is there. If you not tired my ramblings give this the once over and let me know what you think, but more importantly if you would consider being involved. I’ll explain in our next service.

This is what I mean when I talk about organization,

A Democrat says “A large portion of your money belongs to the government, and that money is to help the people who have less than you through the helpful hand of the system.”

A Republican says “A smaller portion of your money belongs to the government, and that money is to help the people who have less than you by letting people help themselves.”

A Christian says “All of your money belongs to God, and that money is to help those who He says to and in the manner He directs.”

The reason the Democrats and Republicans fight is not because they both do not want to help their fellow man, but because they do not trust the people to help the people. Their faith is in a machine not in a loving God who rules the heavens and earth. They are men of position that wish to direct the course of time, when they can not even direct the course of their lives.

The Christian is the only one who has the right idea, but only when he chooses to be a Christian and not a Republican or Democrat.


From: spam [mailto:spam@danielsjourney.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003
To: Chris Woody
Subject: Re: Reply to fairness

I’ll give the doc a look see soon. In the meantime here are my first thoughts in response.

A Democrat says “A large portion of your money belongs to the government, and that money is to help the people who have less than you through the helpful hand of the system.”

A Republican says “A smaller portion of your money belongs to the government, and that money is to help the people who have less than you by letting people help themselves.”

A Christian says “All of your money belongs to God, and that money is to help those who He says to and in the manner He directs.”

While I only think the last one is even true in theory, none are true in reality/practicality.

Then why is it called social security? Communism failed not because it is a bad idea but because it is a bad idea when not partnered with the faith and love of the early Church. The more responsibility you give a government to provide your security, the more you become a slave to that government! I do not want the government taking care of the poor because the government is a non thinking machine that follows rules and regulations instead of common sense and emotion.

1: Just because something has the word “social” in it doesn’t mean it’s socialism! 2: The actual idea of communism is absolutely not “partnered with the faith and love of the early Church”, you couldn’t partner it. Still, this is akin to saying we would have world peace if we were all “partnered with the faith and love of the early Church” …great, but highly impractical. 3: “the more you become a slave to that government” …only if it is a tyrannical government. If there is a collective trust in the leadership to govern, be it monies, armies, whatever, then there is a productive social agreement. 4: “I do not want the government taking care of the poor because the government is a non thinking machine that follows rules and regulations instead of common sense and emotion.”…

I’m going to spend more time on that one…I’ve been thinking about this exchange…I think we both agree in our mistrust for the church and our government as a whole; however I have a great trust for most of the people in both institutions as well. I also believe that both institutions are helping people, despite of themselves, because of those good people who make them up. Of course there is also a mess of people in civil, church, and even family government (and even self–we just call that one “selfish”) who are in it to use and advance the system, the institution, and themselves within that institution. They give it a bad name. But the fact is that there are a ton of people in all these institutions that just want to help people. I believe in their ability to transform at least small portions of those institutions.

To say that welfare is given unjustly and so we should disband welfare and allow people to fend for themselves and/or allow private organizations take care of the poor is like saying our foreign policy is to go to war so we should disband the diplomacy/foreign service and allow countries to fend for themselves. (Now I see why so many conservatives make this jump so easily!)

Part of the reason for my faith in the people in these institutions is that I know so many of them. My wife works for the State Department. I have met a lot of her co-workers–most all of them as idealistic, peace-loving people as she and I.

I also see a lot of mothers, and other people not-of-privilege, who would not survive without welfare. I hear stories from people against welfare about people taking advantage of the system, but I never actually hear these stories first hand. In Bowling For Columbine, Mike Myers covers a shooting in Flint Michigan. The state was “getting people off welfare” by busing them from their homes in the cities and ghettos to affluent suburban malls where they worked two or three jobs at minimum wage. A boy shot a girl in elementary school. He had found the gun at his uncle’s house, where he was staying because his mother had to leave so early in the morning to make it to work many miles away, as part of the work program, that she did could not be with her son before (or after) school. His fault? Her fault? Because of pressure by anti-welfare people (let’s not call them activists or lobbists), the state government took that single mother away from her child 15 hours a day.

The economic issues involved here are MUCH more complicated than just “this is America, anybody can make it.” It is easy for us (even immigrants), with our social mobility, no personal experience of poverty, money, education, class status (and social structures within that class–even in broken middle class families no one has to worry about not having anyone to turn to at all), and race (American Indians and African Americans are the only two races trans-generationally oppressed, or oppressed without equal restitution…and what races most need government support now?…exactly…this is what I mean by “…and generations to come”)…it is easy for us to point the finger at just about anything.

The fact is that even with our “wealth redistribution” (not that I would really consider it that) of government assistance for the poor, the gap between classes continues to widen, people continue to die from exposure and hunger IN THIS COUNTRY of all places. The government had to take over the job of feeding the hungry because our civil institutions (churches) and individuals (the wealthy) dropped the ball a long time ago. You think that if we just throw the ball back into their arms they’ll carry it this time? While greed and consumption decay them even further?

There are two postures: start your own something, hold it to the highest standards, (still one would have to admit that his/her one project could not stop the tide, that welfare is still necessary (although hopefully someday, through organic growth of such projects, not))……..or, join the institution, holding onto the same values, the same ideals, and do your part to transform that thing back to what it is supposed to be.

I have given up on the church. I think our society can function without any institutional churches and still thrive spiritually. I am not so “optimistic” when it comes to government (or I’d be an anarchist).

Curious: do you support legislation that would make abortion illegal in the USA?

I do, only because I support legislation that makes murder illegal

Yes I’ve heard this argument ~1000000 times before. But this is an argument for a government that governs individual morality, which I was saying is not the government’s job; murder is illegal because if we were allowed to kill each other our society would slowly collapse into a tribal, militaristic anarchy (of course being a pacifist I would be long since dead before that point, having not taken up any arms to defend myself).

What I find most confusing and troubling is that you (collective you) want to disband a proactive part of the government performing a moral good–providing for the poor–and give that moral imperitive back to individuals, but you want to create federal legislation to prohibit a moral bad, instead of allowing that moral decision to the individual.

Don’t get it.


From: Chris Woody
To: spam
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003
Subject: RE: Reply to fairness

My brother and you share much of the same thinking when it comes to the government and it’s role, what I love about the conversations I have with the two of you is your passion and the fact that we can talk about such subjects and still remain civil. I am quite enjoying this. And please know that some of what I say is tongue in cheek. Since we never really met in the past, some of my humor may be lost in writing. Lynn says I write like I talk, but if you never had a conversation with me, you would might mistake my quips for insults or that I am just being an ass.

While I only think the last one is even true in theory, none are true in reality/practicality.

That bit I wrote when I sent my brother money when he needed it. As I said our political views are quite different, I wanted to show the similarities (the Republican/Democrat part) in our thought and over all desire to help others and then explain that my political views had no bearing on my financial choices. He didn’t ask for the money, Lynn and I just felt impressed to give it to him. You say none are true in reality/practicality, I say (not meant to be a proud statement) take a look at our (Lynn’s and my) 2001 tax return. Believe me, we (you and I) share the same passion for the poor and needy. Where we disagree is in how to fix it. I do NOT advocate the demise of the US welfare system, but it needs to be fixed. (Read my doc.) I am not naive enough to believe that I can fix it over night, or ever. “The poor will be with you always.” But if something is not done soon the cycle will never be broken.

What if we used the systems the rich use to get richer to fill in that class gap? Social security gains about 3% a year (1% under the average growth of inflation) but the stock market (including the recent down turn and the Great Depression) average over 10%, 2 1/2 times inflation. But only the rich evil Republicans think we should privatetize and actually make money on our retirement investment… If a poor family goes on “Section 8” they can only rent a house, they can not rent with an option to buy, they can not use it as a mortgage payment. The landlord gets paid, gets an asset paid for by you and I, and the poor family gets nowhere. Why not let them use it to pay or mortgage or at least use it in a rent to own option so they would have a down payment in place? Jessie Jackson said that one of the reason blacks are still poor is because they rent houses and buy cars. You owned a house…did you loose any money on it when you sold it? Did you get more back in taxes when you claimed the interest on your home or when you were renting? This is my point, we are chasing bad money with good, and there are more below the poverty level now than ever.

Just because something has the word “social” in it doesn’t mean it’s socialism!

This is a tongue and cheek thing…

The actual idea of communism is absolutely not “partnered with the faith and love of the early Church”

Never said it was. I said it was a good idea and would work IF partnered with the faith and love of the early Church.

What I find most confusing and troubling is that you (collective you) want to disband a proactive part of the government performing a moral good–providing for the poor–and give that moral imperitive back to individuals, but you want to create federal legislation to prohibit a moral bad, instead of allowing that moral decision to the individual.

Please do not group me in with conservative right-wing thinkers this is simplifying my views and rather insulting. If you have read anything I have posted on my sight you would see how I am not in the “you” collectively. You don’t know enough about me to say this. In the political arena I consider myself a Libertarian, but I will break ranks when my faith comes in conflict with my political party.

I don’t want to change the world, just the part I come in contact with. My love goes out to all of God’s creation, and not in the kumebya way, but in a practical logical way. The poor, the animals, the Earth, the persecuted, etc. If I did not disagree with abortion, wouldn’t that conflict with all that I hold dear. You did not address euthanasia of animals or the old. Why? Doesn’t this show that I have a deeper love and respect for life than just political rhetoric?

Is there not a conflict in defending the poor, who have a voice and not defending those who do not. But I do not raise a stink about abortion, because I don’t think we should govern morality. You can’t, you can valiantly present you point of view and hope and pray. If the clowns that protest spent more time praying and befriending those around them (actually befriending them with no ulterior motive) we would see change.

A little background:

As I said I have an incredible paying job and Lynn owns her own business, but it wasn’t always so. I was technically homeless for quite sometime. Staying on people’s floors and sharing a 2 bedroom apt. with 4 guys (slept on the floor then too). So I know what it means to be lean. Last year together Lynn and I grossed $110,000.00 and carried no debt other than the mortgage and cars, so I know what it is like to be fat. This year our business has wiped out all our savings, we racked up $70,000 in debit to get it started, and until I started this job I have now, we didn’t have any income. (The employer I had couldn’t pay me.) We have had our lights shut off, came days from being evicted at our business, are behind on almost all our bills. So I know what it means to have faith. I am not some rich white suburbanite (actually we live in an all black neighborhood) touting my “anyone can do it” mantra, instead I am just going to make as much money as I can and help as many people do what I did. Screw the Tithe, I want to keep 10% and give away 90%. Does that sound right wing to you?

There are two postures: start your own something, hold it to the highest standards, (still one would have to admit that his/her one project could not stop the tide, that welfare is still necessary (although hopefully someday, through organic growth of such projects, not))……..or, join the institution, holding onto the same values, the same ideals, and do your part to transform that thing back to what it is supposed to be.

Agree 100%. READ the DOC.!!!

I’m going to spend more time on that one…I’ve been thinking about this exchange…I think we both agree in our mistrust for the church and our government as a whole; however I have a great trust for most of the people in both institutions as well. I also believe that both institutions are helping people, despite of themselves, because of those good people who make them up. Of course there is also a mess of people in civil, church, and even family government (and even self–we just call that one “selfish”) who are in it to use and advance the system, the institution, and themselves within that institution. They give it a bad name. But the fact is that there are a ton of people in all these institutions that just want to help people. I believe in their ability to transform at least small portions of those institutions.

Agree, and my duty as an American and a Christian is to try and help fix those short comings and encourage those who are busting there ass. I don’t fault the people, just the machine that they are part of.

One last thing…

I do not mind you quoting anything from this, but if at all possible I ask 2 things. 1) you post this dialogue in its entirety for others to reference. I want for readers to be able to decide what I mean by reading my thoughts in there entirety not basing their opinion on a sound byte. 2) you add a link to my sight to the posting of this exchange. I am not sure you have read anything I have written, here or in the General Discussion of Scott’s interview. Some of my thoughts here are fragments of what I have written before. I kinda feel that you have misunderstood my beliefs a few times for this reason and I don’t want that to trickle down to you readers. Maybe I am taking the whole “you collectively” thing too personal, but I do not want others to think that I believe something that I do not.


endnote: Chris and I cleared things up in a couple more emails that I, for some unknown reason, do not have anymore. We realized we agreed on more than we disagreed on and left it at that. Just wanted to clear that up, based on the tone of the last couple sentences there.