High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[nomadthethird]

Also just out of interest, what is the possibility that someone that is constantly told they were "born bad" regardless of their general behaviour, is likely to fulfil that prophesy? If negative role models for women undermine female self-worth and distort aspiration, does this not apply to men too? All men have the potential to be rapists purely by having a functioning penis, most men however will not rape.

I'm just starting to wonder whether someone knowing that they're viewed as a potential criminal may not lead them to become one. Just a theory, if you think otherwise I'd be glad to hear your views.

If you have not committed rape, why would you include yourself in the population of rapists? This makes no sense on the face of it.

If a sex ed class focuses on teaching the legal definition of consent, and personal responsibility for one's sexual behaviors, how is that telling men that they're bad? That's simply giving everyone the tools to avoid date rape. Many date rapists DON'T KNOW ITS ILLEGAL OR WRONG TO FORCE SEX ON AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON.

Focusing "rape prevention" on female drinking does in fact send the message to *everyone* that women can prevent themselves from being raped, therefore if a woman is drinking, she is invited or allowing herself to be raped. REALITY bears this out. This is the prevailing view. This is the view that most jurors have. It's extremely misguided. It actually contributes to date rape, as *even rehabilitated date rapists admit*.

What is not clear about this?

 

[nomadthethird]

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/archives/html/1variation.htm

Research that holds women partially responsible for their own victimization extends well beyond the judiciary; male members of the general population are also affected. After abusing women, some men display contriteness and plea for forgiveness (Walker, 1977- 78, 1983). These behaviours often stem from stress generated by beatings, sexual assault, or both (DeKeseredy, 1988). Nevertheless, male peers can alleviate or prevent post-abuse stress by providing a "vocabulary of adjustment" (Kanin, 1967). For example, male subcultures sometime designate certain women as deviant and thus legitimate targets of aggression. Examples of the labels imposed on women who violate male dating expectations are "teaser," "loose woman," "pick-up," and "economic exploiter" (Kanin, 1985). Justifications acquired from peers may enable abusers to continue viewing themselves as "normal" and "respectable" males. Similarly, Straus' research may buffer men from post-abuse stress by providing them with a vocabulary of adjustment (DeKeseredy, 1992).

Straus' argument that a woman uses violence as a defence against physical or sexual assault, providing her abusive partner with "a precedent and moral justification for him to hit her," (1989: 10) helps violent men to continue viewing their actions as normal and legitimate. In addition to acting as a buffering mechanism, Straus' discourse of legitimation may encourage men to continue to assert their authority through abusive means.

 

[nomadthethird]

The CTS is the most common measure of non-sexual family violence and dating abuse in North America (Straus and Gelles, 1990). It is a quantitative instrument which consists of 18 (sometimes slightly more) items that measure three ways of dealing with interpersonal conflict in intimate relationships: reasoning, verbal aggression, and physical violence. The items are categorized on a continuum from least to most severe, with the first 10 describing non-violent tactics and the last 8 describing violent strategies. The last 5 items, from kicked, bit, or "hit with a fist" to "used a knife or a gun" make up the severe violence scale.

The CTS used to measure spousal violence is generally introduced as follows:

"No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they're in a bad mood or tired or for some other reasons. They also use different ways of trying to settle their differences. I'm going to read a list of some things that you and Your partner might have done when you had a dispute, and would first like you to tell me for each one how often you did it in the past year (Straus et al., 1981: 256). "

Although flawed and highly criticized, the representative sample survey data elicited by the CTS are probably the best available to determine the incidence and prevalence of spousal abuse in the population at large (Smith, 1987). A number of major limitations to this scale have been identified (Breines and Gordon, 1983; Dobash et al., 1992; DeKeseredy and Hinch, 1991; DeKeseredy and MacLean, 1990). Perhaps most importantly, the "interspousal reliability" of the CTS has been drawn into question. Typically, the CTS is administered to one spouse or the other but not to both, with the assumption that the non-responding spouse would have given equivalent responses. Various independent studies, in which both spouses were interviewed with the CTS, demonstrate significant differences between the reports of violence offered by husbands and wives (Dobash et al., 1992). The inability of this scale to reveal the context, meaning, and motives of marital violence is discussed here because the problem is directly relevant to debates on female violence.

6. See Straus et al (1981) for detailed descriptions of these findings.

First, since the CTS was designed specifically to measure only the incidence and prevalence of both physically and psychologically abusive acts, it can never come close to answering the question: "Why do wives physically assault their partners?" Second, the likelihood that many men greatly underreport their violent behaviours casts doubt upon the "mutual combat" (Berk et al., 1983) contention (DeKeseredy and MacLean, 1990). Browne comes to similar conclusions in her study of battered women who killed their partners:

"Thus, in a study combining estimations of violence by male perpetrators on female victims, one is faced with the possibility that the perpetrators will sound less violent and more victimized, while the victims will appear to have been less severely assaulted and more likely to victimize their partners, than is actually the case (1987: 8)."

In summary, inaccurate interpretations of CTS-based incidence data, such as Steinmetz's, provide misleading images of female violence in marital relationships.
Aware of the above limitations, Canadian researchers Brinkerhoff and Lupri urge that caution should be used when interpreting their CTS findings which show that except for "minor" forms of violence, "...the reported rates of violent acts by women against their partners exceed the rates reported by men" (1988: 418). They also maintain that women are more likely to sustain greater injuries than men, male violence causes more physical harm than female abuse, and women are more prone to be victimized in the home. Although these arguments are valid, Brinkerhoff and Lupri do not support them with empirical data. Thus, DeKeseredy and MacLean assert that:

"...there is the potential for such research to be exploited by apologists for male violence. Without the context of the women's assaultive behaviour the argument that women are just as violent as men, assumes that women and men assault each other for the same reasons and creates the impression that violence is gender-neutral (1990: 21). "

Even Brinkeroff and Lupri believe that CTS findings are innaccurate for the reasons I've already mentioned: male abusers are less likely to admit to serious abuse, and more likely to portray themselves as "victims" when at the hands of minor retaliations on the part of the abused wife.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes. I've already said they were cowardly and opportunistic. They are looking for someone weaker and more damaged than themselves. It does of course make perfect sense to look into using the same course of treatment on them if it might reduce the general incidence of abuse and possibly lead them to happier existences.

What I think is sort of amusing about this idea, that rapists are always "stronger and less damaged" than their victims, is that what you're acknowledging in a roundabout way is that even though all rapists have a psychosexual illness, and their victims need not have one, it is a structural privileging of the 'male' over the 'female' or the masculine over the feminine that puts the rapist in a position of power over his victim.

Strange.

 

[Shonx]

What I think is sort of amusing about this idea, that rapists are always "stronger and less damaged" than their victims, is that what you're acknowledging in a roundabout way is that even though all rapists have a psychosexual illness, and their victims need not have one, it is a structural privileging of the 'male' over the 'female' or the masculine over the feminine that puts the rapist in a position of power over his victim.

Strange.

How exactly? I've already said that the rapists are damaged, that they prey on the vulnerable and that victims are more likely to become victims by virtue of having a vulnerability the rapist can exploit, which might be being physically weaker, may involve being incapacitated via substance abuse, may involve them having mental health problems that make them more manipulable. The victim doesn't need to be mentally ill, I just said that it could be a factor.

Anyway, surely the rapist is in a position of power over his victim or he wouldn't be able to rape them. Or do women now get raped when they don't have to be?

 

[Shonx]

Even Brinkeroff and Lupri believe that CTS findings are innaccurate for the reasons I've already mentioned: male abusers are less likely to admit to serious abuse, and more likely to portray themselves as "victims" when at the hands of minor retaliations on the part of the abused wife.

I think it was noted that male abusers are less likely to admit starting the incident, and even in a situation where both parties are mutually aggressive, if the male is stronger physically, he will generally be able to escalate hostility to a higher degree.

There are also the instances of men not reporting partner abuse because of being seen as a failure and a laughing stock, so in the Home Office stats, these may be under-reported. I have seen far too many instances of women verbally and/or physically abusing their partners in public knowing full well that the man will not hit them back. A friend of mine was actually thrown in the cells for the night for defending himself from being punched and kicked by his girlfriend, the police immediately assuming he must have started it.

 

[Shonx]

If you have not committed rape, why would you include yourself in the population of rapists? This makes no sense on the face of it.

If a sex ed class focuses on teaching the legal definition of consent, and personal responsibility for one's sexual behaviors, how is that telling men that they're bad? That's simply giving everyone the tools to avoid date rape. Many date rapists DON'T KNOW ITS ILLEGAL OR WRONG TO FORCE SEX ON AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON.

Oh, I think they do. They might have thought they could get away with it, but to be unaware either indicates some level of serious mental health issue (delusional thinking at least) or utter stupidity rather than lack of education. I'd agree it's worth a go though. If it was just saying "you could be a rapist", I think it just increases the amount of suspicion from women (where caution is understandable) towards men. Although it's completely understandable, I feel quite uneasy when realising that I'm being assessed for signs of being a potential attacker when I'm not. I just think that an underlying presumption of guilt regardless of innocence may not be a healthy thing in the nations subconscious.

Focusing "rape prevention" on female drinking does in fact send the message to *everyone* that women can prevent themselves from being raped, therefore if a woman is drinking, she is invited or allowing herself to be raped. REALITY bears this out. This is the prevailing view. This is the view that most jurors have. It's extremely misguided. It actually contributes to date rape, as *even rehabilitated date rapists admit*.

What is not clear about this?

I'll try and explain this by way of analogy. A few years back, I had a dispute with a friend over trying to find a house - we were just about to sign a contract and he left an answerphone message to say that he'd decided to move out of the area and so left me effectively homeless for a third month. I decided to keep some high quality speaker cable (worth £100) to make up for the inconvenience. He later came round with his mate and stupidly, I opened the door, which they then proceeded to barge through. I was pinned face down to the ground in a stranglehold by the larger guy screaming at me whilst the other guy recovered his cable. I was shaking for two hours afterwards and was quite shook up for a few weeks.

Now, regardless of the particular ramifications of taking reparations where I felt they were due (in hindsight, I should have just given it back and then cut him off as a mate), and whilst in my opinion I did not "deserve" or was "responsible" for being attacked in my own home, if I hadn't opened the door, it's unlikely they would have kicked it down (quiet residential street would have attracted attention). By doing that I gave them the opportunity to attack me. I am not to blame for being attacked, I made a mistake and was attacked.

Do you see the difference between increased likelihood of attack as opposed to blaming? Women mostly already seem to take this into account if they're drinking (always stay in the group, don't go off with people you don't know, make sure someone looks after you or you go somewhere safe if you feel too drunk), so it's obvious that advice is followed. It's about decreasing risk, not about blame.

I agree the culture's wrong and that juries should be re-educated as to why drinking, clothing, etc are not excuses for rape, but I think I said this earlier anyway.

 

[nomadthethird]

The only reason why women can get raped is because they're physically smaller than rapists. Period.

You need not be: "weak", "damaged", or even "female" to get raped.

All you need to be is small enough to be overpowered by someone else, or unconscious.

 

[nomadthethird]

Oh, I think they do. They might have thought they could get away with it, but to be unaware either indicates some level of serious mental health issue (delusional thinking at least) or utter stupidity rather than lack of education. I'd agree it's worth a go though. If it was just saying "you could be a rapist", I think it just increases the amount of suspicion from women (where caution is understandable) towards men. Although it's completely understandable, I feel quite uneasy when realising that I'm being assessed for signs of being a potential attacker when I'm not. I just think that an underlying presumption of guilt regardless of innocence may not be a healthy thing in the nations subconscious.



I'll try and explain this by way of analogy. A few years back, I had a dispute with a friend over trying to find a house - we were just about to sign a contract and he left an answerphone message to say that he'd decided to move out of the area and so left me effectively homeless for a third month. I decided to keep some high quality speaker cable (worth £100) to make up for the inconvenience. He later came round with his mate and stupidly, I opened the door, which they then proceeded to barge through. I was pinned face down to the ground in a stranglehold by the larger guy screaming at me whilst the other guy recovered his cable. I was shaking for two hours afterwards and was quite shook up for a few weeks.

Now, regardless of the particular ramifications of taking reparations where I felt they were due (in hindsight, I should have just given it back and then cut him off as a mate), and whilst in my opinion I did not "deserve" or was "responsible" for being attacked in my own home, if I hadn't opened the door, it's unlikely they would have kicked it down (quiet residential street would have attracted attention). By doing that I gave them the opportunity to attack me. I am not to blame for being attacked, I made a mistake and was attacked.

Do you see the difference between increased likelihood of attack as opposed to blaming? Women mostly already seem to take this into account if they're drinking (always stay in the group, don't go off with people you don't know, make sure someone looks after you or you go somewhere safe if you feel too drunk), so it's obvious that advice is followed. It's about decreasing risk, not about blame.

I agree the culture's wrong and that juries should be re-educated as to why drinking, clothing, etc are not excuses for rape, but I think I said this earlier anyway.

First, you try to say that women SHOULD be suspicious enough of men to avoid drinking alcohol in public, because women may inadvertantly be raped if they are especially drunk.

THEN you say that it's wrong to admit the undeniable fact that women are raped at alarming rates by men, because that would make women too suspicious of men?

Are you for real? Do you not see how these are entirely contradictory points of view that cannot be held simultaneously?

At this point I've completely lost patience with this. You claim you care so much, but you'd rather descend into completely illogical and even self-contradictory claims just to avoid putting the onus on men for preventing THEIR OWN IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS.

This is getting to the point where it's just becoming sick. It's not worth discussing with you anymore.

Are you seriously trying to make some sort of analogy between a person stealing something and being retaliated against and a woman or man or child(remember, anyone can get raped) being, through no provocation of their own, held down and raped?

So going out to drink and have fun is somehow simliar to "stealing" and inviting yourself to be attacked by provocation of an assailant? I thought this was exactly what you claimed that you did not believe?

As has been pointed out before, when it comes to rape, or anything else, invidious comparisons do not make any sense. I can't bear to read any more of this. It's really making me too depressed to know that there are people who believe that they're well-intentioned, and also would say something so hideous and ill.

 

[nomadthethird]

If women were really going around "presuming" all men were rapists, don't you think they'd all be sitting at home, rather than participating in this hysterical "rise in female drinking" (which is completely baseless, as statistics have shown)?

Nobody presumes "all men" are anything. People know for a fact that some men are rapists. People have a right to be angry knowing that women in ridiculously large numbers are raped by men all the time.

I resent just about every implication you've made in this thread, and I'm done.

It's not worth talking to someone who can't understand the most basic facts and figures, who will make the most obviously spurious arguments and employ circular logic just to avoid admitting that men DO rape women often, and even worse, they GET AWAY WITH IT in all but 3% of cases, and the VICTIMS CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO PROVOKE A RAPE. Rape doesn't happen because a wo/man or child "opened the door." NO ONE not one person in the world INVITES THEMSELVES TO BE RAPED by "opening a door." Rapists seek out people to rape and then HOLD THE VICTIM RESPONSIBLE because the victim "opened the door" by existing, by being drunk, by looking good. This is *EXACTLY* what you're doing in this thread.

You may want to keep your mouth shut around anyone with a brain, Shonx, or I'm pretty sure you'll never have a partner who isn't also an idiot.

 

[Shonx]

Are you seriously trying to make some sort of analogy between a person stealing something and being retaliated against and a woman or man or child(remember, anyone can get raped) being, through no provocation of their own, held down and raped?

So going out to drink and have fun is somehow simliar to "stealing" and inviting yourself to be attacked by provocation of an assailant? I thought this was exactly what you claimed that you did not believe?

It was the opening the door part I was referring to. That was quite clear

 

[matt b]

my less than 2c: nomad otm throughout this thread

 

[waffle]

As has been pointed out before, when it comes to rape, or anything else, invidious comparisons do not make any sense. I can't bear to read any more of this. It's really making me too depressed to know that there are people who believe that they're well-intentioned, and also would say something so hideous and ill.

The disavowal is everywhere, though, isn't it, and not just on the subject of sexual abuse. You could present them with vast volumns of all the latest research on rape, along with the theoretical underpinnings, and their response will be yet further reactionary retrenchment. We don't have to look very far for evidence, either: many of the threads on Dissensus wallow in it (with mods like Eden pretending they don't even notice them), and always with the same anamorphic 'reasoning' structure ("Of course I'm anti-racist, but we have to destroy all them suspicious-looking Muslim types", "Of course I'm anti-far-right, but The Left are the cause of the rise of far-right groups", "Of course I'm anti-rape, but there would be much less rape if women were not so openly asking for it", etc). The problem is structural, of course: they remain slaves to Libido (and the need to invent scapegoats for their own behaviours) and the (non-existent) Big Other.

At this point in the farce, I should imagine someone like 3 Body No Problem making an entry with his game-theory tool kit of universal solutions looking for problems and thereby further institutionalizing the 'it's her fault, she was drunk' mindset, conveniently rendering it politically 'neutral' with the help of some (scientistically twisted) applied mathematics:

Assume two actors AA and BB and 4 future events w, x, y, z (which may be, among others, doing nothing). A has the following assumptions/preferences.

AA thinks of him/herself as being able causally to bring about w or x

AA prefers w over x.

AA also prefers xy (standing for x and y) over wz.

AA assumes that BB has y and z as behavioural options.

AA expects that BB would react with y if AA does x, and BB would react with z if AA does w.

AA thus chooses action x rather then w, and attributes this choice to B's influence.

AA, while in his local pub, prefers 'having' Maeve (w) over 'having' Suzanne (x).

But Maeve is drinking coffee so if he 'has' her later on, she might hit him on his head with her umbrella and persuasively report him (z) to BB (the Law). Suzanne, however, is fond of the Vodka, so if he 'has' her and she subsequently tries to report him, BB will laugh her out of the police station .

AA, being a 'rational agent', will settle for xy, for raping Suzanne, followed by a BB laugh-fest.

He's a credit to Game Theory!

 

[3 Body No Problem]

At this point in the farce, I should imagine someone like 3 Body No Problem making an entry with his game-theory tool kit of universal solutions looking for problems and thereby further institutionalizing the 'it's her fault, she was drunk' mindset, conveniently rendering it politically 'neutral' with the help of some (scientistically twisted) applied mathematics:

I find this post extremely objectionable, as it insinuates that I condone and rationalise rape in any form or shape.

This is totally uncalled for, and not based on anything I have said.

I will request that waffle will be banned.

 

[vimothy]

Which is fair enough. That was quite an offensive post. Still, I rather pity waffles -- he really can't help himself.

 

[waffle]

I find this post extremely objectionable, as it insinuates that I condone and rationalise rape in any form or shape.

It is your unhinged right wing ravings about Game Theory ('interactionism') being capable of, and suitable for, modelling 'anything' (political, social, economic) that is offensive.

This is totally uncalled for, and not based on anything I have said.

Yes it is called for, and appropriately so. It is an application of your stupid, reductivist 'game'. It is an example of the implications of your amoral 'rational choice' Game-Theoretic fetish, just the sort of thing the RAND Corporation has been 'modelling' for the past half century.

I will request that waffle will be banned.

And I'll request you get some counselling.

 

[waffle]

Which is fair enough. That was quite an offensive post. Still, I rather pity waffles -- he really can't help himself.

Back to your old sickening tricks again, opportunistically posting in a thread, not to condemn those here who have been defending the implicating of rape victims in the crime of rape, but to demonize those who question it.

 

[nomadthethird]

The disavowal is everywhere, though, isn't it, and not just on the subject of sexual abuse. You could present them with vast volumns of all the latest research on rape, along with the theoretical underpinnings, and their response will be yet further reactionary retrenchment. We don't have to look very far for evidence, either: many of the threads on Dissensus wallow in it (with mods like Eden pretending they don't even notice them), and always with the same anamorphic 'reasoning' structure ("Of course I'm anti-racist, but we have to destroy all them suspicious-looking Muslim types", "Of course I'm anti-far-right, but The Left are the cause of the rise of far-right groups", "Of course I'm anti-rape, but there would be much less rape if women were not so openly asking for it", etc). The problem is structural, of course: they remain slaves to Libido (and the need to invent scapegoats for their own behaviours) and the (non-existent) Big Other.

At this point in the farce, I should imagine someone like 3 Body No Problem making an entry with his game-theory tool kit of universal solutions looking for problems and thereby further institutionalizing the 'it's her fault, she was drunk' mindset, conveniently rendering it politically 'neutral' with the help of some (scientistically twisted) applied mathematics:



AA, while in his local pub, prefers 'having' Maeve (w) over 'having' Suzanne (x).

But Maeve is drinking coffee so if he 'has' her later on, she might hit him on his head with her umbrella and persuasively report him (z) to BB (the Law). Suzanne, however, is fond of the Vodka, so if he 'has' her and she subsequently tries to report him, BB will laugh her out of the police station .

AA, being a 'rational agent', will settle for xy, for raping Suzanne, followed by a BB laugh-fest.

He's a credit to Game Theory!

Yeah, all those times I was sexually assaulted on the subway? And by coworkers? It was me, so stupid, having to work to pay the bills, and to get to and from work somehow. Who did I think I was? First, a woman in public is a potentially assaulted woman. Obvs. Probably would have been better for me to stay at home pushing out kids I could barely afford while a man earned money for me. Safer that way, after all.

Second, I clearly opened the door to being touched by not wearing a chastity belt and full body armor. Really, how dare I read a newspaper on the subway and fail to notice that there was some creep putting his hands down people's pants, up their skirts, and dry humping any woman who was distracted or going about her business in a crowded car?

All those people who stood there and watched and did nothing while I was assaulted a few feet away? See, they shouldn't have done anything, because it was my fault for having the nerve to be on the subway in the first place. All those MTA workers I'd tell immediately after leaving the train so others could avoid assault who shrugged or rolled their eyes or snorted or pretended not to speak English (a New Yorker's favorite trick I've done it myself many a time), who had no problem radio-ing in burglaries and getting thieves off the train, I suppose it was also my fault that they were suddenly and inexplicably rendered helpless when it came to calling the train conductor and having him kick the pervs off the train along with the thieves. They were totally right: I was just being a pain, and lying to make their lives difficult or to "get attention" from--who else?--male MTA workers. A couple of times I did find female MTA workers but they said it was worthless to dispatch anything because central dispatch wouldn't bother sending anyone out even if she did.

I've learned a lot of valuable lessons in New York. If it weren't for all those assaults that I "opened the door" for so many times on the subway and at work, I would never have stopped wearing fitted clothes, ceased wearing skirts and dresses entirely unless I could afford a taxi both ways, and begun to wear my coat over my clothing for the entire work day and even on the subway in the summer. That doesn't stop the really determined ones, but really if I cared about myself and respected myself, I wouldn't be a victim of assault in the first place. I suppose the years of therapy I'd already completed didn't count in the mind of those poor guys who just can't control their sexual impulses--they must have been able to read it on my face that I have "low self-esteem"...

 

[nomadthethird]

For some reason, this conversation reminds me of the standard NYC line on homeless people:

Good for nothin drunks/crackheads!

Instead of: untreated schizophrenics and "war heroes" who have no family members (at least who care enough to ensure their treatment) and who continuously check themselves out of Bellevue (if the cops manage to admit them somehow) because in the U.S. it's against the law to keep a mentally ill person against their will unless they're a direct suicide risk. Not having the capacity to make decisions in their own best self-interest, and often motivated by paranoia (that gets reaffirmed everytime they're "abducted" by "government agents" and "institutionalized") that is fed by each admission to Bellevue, can you blame them for checking out ASAP? Can you blame them for self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs? (Alcohol is a fav as CNS depressants are pretty useful in controlling schizophrenia...and cheap and legal!)

This is not a political problem that could be solved by more public awareness, better protection under the law, entitlement to treatment without pay or supervision even if treatment is refused, and more compassionate government intervention.

Nope. They're just lousy alcoholics who can't get their damn shit together like everyone else!

Political realm? What political realm?

 

[nomadthethird]

Which is fair enough. That was quite an offensive post. Still, I rather pity waffles -- he really can't help himself.

Yes, Vimothy. It was Waffle's post that was offensive.

Not the eighteen trillion posts in this thread that victim blame and imply and/or openly state that women who drink are dangling themselves in front of rapists as too-hard-to-resist bait.

Yes, Waffle is by far the most offensive poster on this thread.

Thanks for throwing in your completely disengaged, unwarranted dig at Waffle.

It's a completely legitimate criticism of game theory to point out that it reduces the political realm out of existence by denying external ideological motivations. This is not a new idea. Waffle isn't the only person who's ever pointed this out. I'm sure 3BNP is smart enough to realize this.

Also, thanks a million, 3BNP, for only contributing to this thread in order to talk about the hideous offenses of Waffle here.

High fives all around.