The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[ptalar]

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.

Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

 

[nismaratwork]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

I was thinking more along the lines of vertical farming and permaculture for less dense regions. In addition, if you repurpose some farmland used for cattle by fast food... you'd also free up fairly useful land for more efficient crops and livestock.

(note: I couldn't post this last night, sorry!)

 

[nismaratwork]

Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

Should have just said that, I agree and have made that very case to the cornucopian elements here myself in other threads. That's not the same as running out of room however, just running into natural limitations as people crowd together, and what we consider to be high quality of life is highly restricted by region.

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

 

[DanP]

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?

One of the more interesting points made at the Edge conference is that “people who behave morally don’t generally do it because they have greater knowledge; they do it because they have a greater sensitivity to other people’s points of view,” otherwise known as empathy. Marc Hauser of Harvard reported that bullies—people clearly not acting morally-- are surprisingly sophisticated in the ways of interpersonal commerce, particularly in reading others’ intentions, but they are not able to "feel their pain." Which makes them good manipulators and strategic operators for their own benefit without the drag on their trajectory of caring about the impact of their actions on others.

Empathy is one of the traits that lawyers often score low on--all the better to not deter us from surging onward on behalf of our clients, certainly some would say. But firms might consider steps to counter that tendency by adopting compensation and other encouragements to "feel each others' pain."

http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

Note that for me empathy is just another emotion. A modulator of behavior. Not a intrinsic component of morality, should you choose to define it in a non-descriptive way. Just saying.

 

[nismaratwork]

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?

Well, you've got me there... I was definitely thinking of the latter, but the former present a danger too. Generally unless you get a Genghis Kahn, Attila The Hun, or Alexander The Great... you end up with just-plain-crooks. Still, that's going to be one hell of a strain on a more limited and (presumably) devastated society dealing with billions of dead.

http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

That's a very good point, and here I should probably stop speaking casually.

You have AS-PD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) aka Sociopathy/Psychopathy/Moral Imbecility... and so forth. That is a complete diagnoses based on the presence of "Conduct Disorder" that continues into adulthood, when it becomes AS-PD. MOST people who match that diagnosis just are not competent to lead their lives, never mind hold office.

HOWEVER... traits... you can have Narcissistic traits, psychopathic traits, etc... which may not add up to a diagnosis of AS-PD, or PD:NT, but which for the rest of us is pretty damned close. It's not enough to be AS-PD, but the ultimate hallmark of AS-PD is a lack of empathy... not poor empathy, but a complete lack.

Sociopaths aren't trying to be evil, they don't feel your pain at all so they live in a world of their immediate wants. Often you find that some such people transient/indigent, and many more are career criminals or prisoners.

OTHER traits however, such as a high arousal threshold (not sex), can be fantastic if you're saaaaay, a firefighter. On the other hand you have daredevils, and a subset of addicts for the same reason. Why one person walks into burning buildings to save people, and others just shoot heroin is a topic of ongoing research. I'd add, not all firefighters have these traits, but you can see how any given sociopathic trait can lead to obvious career choices.

Lack empathy, and are willing to take crazy risks with yourself and others? Politician! Lack empathy, but you're smart and capable, and you want the 'best' things in life...maybe being a lawyer is a good match.

The trick here is this: if you genuinely, clinically, lack empathy... you can't be induced to experience it, although people who rise to that level often are able to mimic some of the range of appropriate responses and pretend. This is in contrast to the Bernie Madoff sociopath, who doesn't seem to experience any anguish at all, except where it's his life, and who literally is unable to see how others didn't "do this to [him]." Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here.

I'm still posting it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh, and re: NOTE: It's not an emotion, or a guarantor of morality... it's the basis however for it, along with insight. You take away someone's ability to imagine the emotions of others, and you end with something profoundly amoral. Empathy informs us of the state of others, or possible state of others, but alone it's no sure-bet that you'll react positively to it. Some people relish the pain of others, and some understand, but they're too self-involed (clinically or not) to bother.

Empathy is not Morality, but without empathy you have at LEAST an amoral person, who is not much of a person at all.

 

[DanP]

Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here.

I'm still posting it.

You can't say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

 

[nismaratwork]

You can't say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime. Drive... well... that's complex... he did in fact take the cheap way, the easy (at first) way, without appreciation for the snowball he was rolling. Absurd given his knowledge of what he was doing, right?... not if you truly lack that capacity, and for you it's better to steal a candy bar than buy it with the money in your pocket.

 

[DanP]

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime.

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ? The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

There's nothing written in stone that says sociopaths can't be intelligent... in fact they run the gamut. As with any personality disorder, it's not a monolith, and simply throwing out diagnositic criteria is of limited use. Do I KNOW that Madoff is a sociopath? Hell no... I've never met him for one, and that's a deal-breaker already. Do I suspect, based on his conduct? Yep. His scamming has been long term, but from what I read he made tons of mistakes, but had the charm and connections to smooth them over. That's not insight, that's manipulative behaviour, which is another major diagnostic critera for both CD, and AS-PD.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ?

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy. John Wayne Gacy is a fine example of someone who had no empathy, no remorse, and no insight and minimal planning. He was very good at being a predator, but he sucked at hiding it... he was caught wtih 30+ bodies AROUND him. That's very typical of sociopaths and serial killers (who are sometimes sociopathic, and sometimes not).

This is the basis of the quasi-myth of "Superficial Charm"... it's not empathy however, anymore than a crocodile empathizes with a gazelle... it just knows to wait until they take a drink.

The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

For one thing, people in such powerful positions are often surrounded and supported by family members and colleeagues; they are after all, master manipulators. Having no compunctions about hurting others in any way makes you BETTER at manipulation. Remember however, that MOST sociopaths end:
1.) In prison
2.) Indigint
3.) Dead

The exceptions are not the rule, they're the really smart sharks, and ones who get lucky. If you look at a guy like Ted Bundy, he could have been caught earlier, but circumstanes conspired FOR him... eventually they have to for someone. That's not the norm however...

Another side of the lack of empathy, is the lack of regret and remorse, even when the harm is done to one's self, and the projection of blame. It's not just the usual, it's a genuine inability to appreciate personal responsiblity.

Hence the old, "Moral Imbicile"... or the translated from french, "Mania without Delirium"

It's long been held that sociopaths are not generally salvagable, and that while it's a mental illness, it's not an excuse. A sociopath knows they're doing the wrong thing, they just don't care.

 

[DanP]

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy.

empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

 

[nismaratwork]

empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

I'm not an expert in AS-PD, but you'll often notice innapropriate reactions in such people, and fankly they ARE good mimics. You can be a fine mimic, and manipulator based on cues given, and experience through trial and error.

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

 

[DanP]

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

Just saying, is not easy at all to conn somebody of billions, and doit on Wall Street where everybody and their mother is a financial expert.

As much as the deed itself is socially repugnant, it takes skills which frankly, too few ppl possesses IMO. You don't make billions by luck.

 

[octelcogopod]

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?



What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.



Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on Earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..



Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I received for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?



To what end ?

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does. Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it? I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work. By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves. The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics. The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence, and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

 

[DanP]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

Its not whatever they are happy or not, the question is whatever there exist an ESS. Happiness and unhappiness doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[alt]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack.

No personal attack assumed - thanks for your comments. The world is in perfect, omnifarious balance. There are a huge variety of people, from the most wealthy to the most poor. That, I would say, is humanities lot. It has always been so - go back in history as far as you care, and tell me where or when it hasn't been so !

But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

But seriously, what would happen if they got those riches ? Have you thought this through ?

Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it?

Probably a combination of both, an also, probably because they don't measure happiness by the standards which you assume, i.e., material assets, money, Western lifestyle, etc. I maintain that some people in poor third world nations, may in fact be healthier, happier, have greater longevity, etc, than many of your fellow citizens.

I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work.

Answer me this - a question I have put many times here, but which no one endeavoured to answer; What will you do with those now fed millions, their subsequent aspirations towards a wealthy (and probably profligate) lifestyle, and their multitudinous offspring for which such aforementioned aspirations would be even more compelling ?

By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves.

I agree. Even in the poorest societies, exists a hierarchy of workers and owners / bosses. Anyway, I work to support myself. Most folk here would be working to support themselves. What are you saying here ? That everybody in the world should have the same, or similar roles ?

The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ? That no one should have more than, say, one million dollars in net assets, and that anyone who has an excess, should have it seized and redistributed to the poorest ? What are you going to do then, when those poorest prosper ? Nobody here ever develops this argument to the extent of replying to this and other such questions that I pose.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics.

I agree that the West is overconsuming. I don't believe the answer is to enable millions, billions more, to head in the same direction. Giving them the basics sounds kind, and humanitarian and all, and I agree it IS. But you, other similar thinkers, contributors here, NEVER seem to want to take this part of the discussion one or two steps further.

The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence,

Not necessarily a good thing IMO

and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

And then what ?

 

[chiro]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

 

[nismaratwork]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

As contrasted with India, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, England, Russia, Italy, (enter African Nation Here)... or any other country save for a few largely homogeneous (and successful) wealthy Scandinavian countries?

 

[apeiron]

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ?

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

 

[nismaratwork]

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

Now that I'll buy.

 

[chiro]

As contrasted with India, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, England, Russia, Italy, (enter African Nation Here)... or any other country save for a few largely homogeneous (and successful) wealthy Scandinavian countries?

I know its hard to generalize anything, but specifically I am thinking about how say for example manufacturing goes to the lowest bidder, and the exploitation involved allows people to live a comfortable lifestyle where they have decent purchasing power compared to say the country that pays its citizens scrap to produce the crap for the wealthier nations.

I will say however that such a process is not likely to go on indefinitely.

But as a result of so called "free trade", someone is going to be exploited to provide cheap crap to someone. Everything comes at a cost.

 

[nismaratwork]

I know its hard to generalize anything, but specifically I am thinking about how say for example manufacturing goes to the lowest bidder, and the exploitation involved allows people to live a comfortable lifestyle where they have decent purchasing power compared to say the country that pays its citizens scrap to produce the crap for the wealthier nations.

I will say however that such a process is not likely to go on indefinitely.

But as a result of so called "free trade", someone is going to be exploited to provide cheap crap to someone. Everything comes at a cost.

I would say the process is going to continue, but the focus will keep changing to different countries and regions, until we either follow the cornucopian view, somehow come to our senses, or die IMO.

 

[alt]

Now that I'll buy.

You'll need a micro loan ..

 

[alt]

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

I believe this concept too is unsound. Assume that everyone suddenly gets equal opportunity. Such a state is only going to be ephemeral - at best. The recipients, being an omnifarious lot, will handle such opportunity with a wide variety of results. On the one extreme, some will make great progress with the opportunity. Others will squander it. What then ? Do we wave the magic wand again ? And again ? And of course, we haven’t even touched upon the vastly UNEQUAL opportunity that the planet itself can dish out at a moments notice, way beyond ANY human control. New Zealand ? Japan ? The best laid plans of mice and men ..

BUT, even if every recipient of this new found equality of opportunity used it similarly well and derived optimum benefit, it would still be of no ultimate benefit to anyone. You would simply be transferring them to a status somewhat higher than what they might be on at the moment, but still in similar competition relative to each other - and closing in on YOU. In fact, you would ultimately exacerbate their problems, by facilitating their populations to increase more than they would have otherwise done, had you not interfered.

Where is it written that we must take the third world and increase it’s comfort level by an amount of our choosing, whereas evolution, natural forces, (or God / the Great Pumpkin, or whatever be your predilection) decrees that it should be where it is at this moment ?

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation)

I’m not sure of the point you are making here. Life is to be set up ? By who ? Who elevated you or I to the status of being setters up of life for other peoples ? Life sets itself up - and in an infinite variety of ways. If you came across an undiscovered island or country whose aboriginals lived in poverty and squalor (by our measure) but lived nonetheless, would you feel compelled to rush in and better their lot according to Western standards ?

then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

And there it is. They will enter some race if given the chance. What race ? The race sustainability ? The race to treading lightly upon the Earth ? Nah ! That’s what they must be doing already - and for millennia past, in order to have survived until now . More likely, the race they will enter will be that of personal gain by the stronger among them, at the expense of the weaker. The race to enter the glittering benefits and riches and consumerism of the West. The race to propagation of their race and proliferation of their culture and religion, into an already burgeoning global population, not without it’s share of existing conflicts.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

Giving everyone the same opportunity is akin to giving no one opportunity. Think this through a few steps.

In an earlier post you said something about micro loans being part of the answer. A cute, feely goody concept - but have you or it’s proponents ever really thought this through ?

Take a million destitute, third world people. You want to help them. Micro loans - how many are you going to give them to ? A thousand ? Ten thousand ? What about the rest ? You have given a huge economic advantage to them by way of monetary leverage (look up monetarism) over the rest of them. Why did you discriminate against the other 990k ? You have disturbed the balance in their society, and you will soon have avarice, jealousy, revolt on your hands.

Oh, you didn’t ? You’re going to give equal opportunity to everyone ? A micro loan to each of the entire million ? I won’t even bother to continue with this part .. Surely you can see the absurdity of it.

Micro loans, my friend, become macro loans .. are a mere device to get a whole country addicted to the most toxic, addictive, enslaving substance on this Earth - it’s called DEBT. We are swimming in vast oceans of it. To create multiple millions more debt junkies ..

Nah ! .. I don’t think so !

 

[apeiron]

I believe this concept too is unsound. Assume that everyone suddenly gets equal opportunity. Such a state is only going to be ephemeral - at best. The recipients, being an omnifarious lot, will handle such opportunity with a wide variety of results. On the one extreme, some will make great progress with the opportunity. Others will squander it. What then ? Do we wave the magic wand again ? And again ?

But it is not logical to suggest that a social system that could create that level playing field, that prevailing state of opportunity, would not continue to do so. If it has arisen in the first instance, you have to explain why it does not continue to remain in place.

I started to reply in more detail to the rest of your post, but it is such a sad rant that I just erased any further comment...

 

[nismaratwork]

You'll need a micro loan ..

(P.S. Will respond to your email soon, requires thought.)

@apeiron: I could see such a situation degrading due to birth-rate, or the formation of sects... not likely, but not beyond imagination.

 

[alt]

But it is not logical to suggest that a social system that could create that level playing field, that prevailing state of opportunity, would not continue to do so. If it has arisen in the first instance, you have to explain why it does not continue to remain in place.

I started to reply in more detail to the rest of your post, but it is such a sad rant that I just erased any further comment...

Sad rant ? I'll get you some tissues.

Or maybe that's not quite the reason you erased further comment.

 

[alt]

(P.S. Will respond to your email soon, requires thought.)

Cool. BTW, I like your new pic .. but .. what is it ?

 

[apeiron]

Sad rant ? I'll get you some tissues.

Thanks.

Or maybe that's not quite the reason you erased further comment.

It really was.

 

[nismaratwork]

Cool. BTW, I like your new pic .. but .. what is it ?

Alucard from an anime called 'Hellsing'. Very good music in that one...


The name is not creative, alas... spell it backwards. *shrug*

@ap/alt: Guys... come on, you could verbally spar all day and night, which means you could probably communicate too.