Who was more influential in the collapse of Communism?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,
For those who voted Reagan. His aggressive policy almost split the anti-communist bloc. He made more damage than good. He was just lucky to enter the stage when the process was underway.

Travel a bit in western and Eastern Europe and you will understand this, or study history outside American universities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure European views of Reagan arent biased at all.

[KellyRae]

"For those who voted Reagan. His aggressive policy almost split the anti-communist bloc. He made more damage than good. He was just lucky to enter the stage when the process was underway."

Another way of looking at this is that many disagreed with his approach and were apprehensive and fearful as regards its ability to succeed as it did. Those that disagreed were wrong yet prefer to believe that they were not, instead concluding that Reagan was "lucky" and that the results Reagan achieved were "inevitable" (perhaps true that the results were "inevitable" but inevitable can mean within 1 yr, 5 yrs, 10 yrs or 100 yrs; clearly the "process" of "inevitability" can be accelerated by choices made by those with an ability to have an impact)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah the fall of communism at that particular time was a chance event, I get it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a classic red herring. I argued that those who believe Reagan was influential in the fall of Communism also believe that Communism was doomed to failure, and that the latter did not square with the former. Nowhere did I claim it was a chance event.

[ QUOTE ]
I know the leftists will disparage he source of this basically historical account of what transpired

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not much of a leftist, but if 'disparaging' the source means finding fault with flawed logic, then yes, I plan on disparaging the source.

[ QUOTE ]
but if they find that the information presented here is in error please feel free to post how and why.


[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'll try.


[ QUOTE ]
The 1980s were a dangerous time for the world. The Soviet Union stood at the peak of its military and political power, its nuclear forces ranged from pole to pole. The globe stood at the brink of World War III, with a final countdown of 25 minutes from launch to total thermonuclear combat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's debatable as to whether or not the Soviet Union was at its peak militarily in the 1980s. Certainly their weaponry was more technologically advanced than they were in the immediate post-WWII era. Politically, however, the Soviet Union was much stronger circa 1955 than they were in the 1980s, particularly in the late 80s. Some examples of decreasing Soviet political power from the 1960s through the 1980s: Yugoslavia, China’s rejection of Soviet style Communism/increased diplomacy with the United States beginning in the 1970s, and growing nationalist movements in Eastern Europe and Central Asia all pointed to a Soviet Union whose political influence was waning.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time the Soviets started deploying the deadly SS-20 missiles, Moscow began a political program to disarm American and NATO forces opposing them in Europe. Moscow's political program included direct and indirect support for the "Nuclear Freeze" movement inside Europe and America.

The Soviets found many willing patsy friends inside America.

The "Freeze" movement pushed for the total dismantling of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons, staging massive demonstrations and pressuring the newly elected government of Ronald Reagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge someone to name one progressive movement from the period of 1945-1990 that Soviets weren't accused of covertly backing. This section is merely meant to portray anyone who supported nuclear freeze as a Communist sympathizer because it was antithetical to Reagan’s Cold War strategy. Even if we were to grant the Soviets had direct and indirect support for the nuclear freeze movement, it does little to disprove that the nuclear freeze had genuine support among environmentalists/activists who weren’t ‘willing patsy(s).’ This is similar to saying that because the US supported nationalist movements in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the people of Eastern Europe were ‘willing patsies’ to an American agenda by dissenting from Soviet rule. Because both environmentalists/activists and Soviets have similar wishes for a policy outcome (a decrease in American proliferation of nuclear arms) does not make environmentalists/ activists ‘patsies’ anymore than it makes the Pope an American patsy for supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland.

[ QUOTE ]
The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see what this has to do with Reagan’s role in the collapse of Communism. I suppose the author is saying something like, “If Reagan can withstand the heat from BOTH the liberal press and the Hollywood establishment, what chance did the Kremlin have?” Frankly, I’m not really quite what the author is attempting to claim here, other than Reagan didn’t listen to liberals. There’s an earth shattering revelation if there ever was one.

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was skeptical before, but then I read this. He went against the liberal media?!? HE IGNORED HOLLYWOOD’S ADVICE!?!? Now I’m truly convinced Reagan brought Communism to its knees.

[ QUOTE ]
The SS-20, Pershing and nuclear Tomahawk missiles are no longer a threat because one man, a great man, stood alone against the madness of global nuclear war. He carried America, Europe, Russia and the world away from the brink of self-destruction – toward a world of peace and prosperity – by remaining resolute in the face of danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apparently the end of the column/article. Nowhere does the author (Charles Smith) claim that Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism; only that he successfully avoided a nuclear crisis. Okay, fair enough. But because adios posted this, I suppose he meant for this to imply that Reagan was influential in the failure of Communism. I suppose I’ll wait for adios’s reply as to how this article furthers the idea that Reagan was of great import to the collapse of Communism.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you are old enough to remember these times, perhaps not. I am old enough to remember them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, anyone responding to the original OP is old enough to remember ‘those times.’ I think what you really meant to say here was, “You don’t remember these times; I do.”

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets time honored tactic was to bluster, threaten and bluff in the face of contemplated actions that they were opposed to. There was a lot of trepidation leading up to the deployment of the Pershing missles. Reagan didn't really engage a lot of debate about deploying them. When he did the Soviets basically did nothing and it was obvious to the casual observer that their "bluff" had been called and they had lost big time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still haven’t read one word about what any of this has to do with Reagan’s influence in regard to the collapse of Communism.

[ QUOTE ]
I've long maintained that these events provided the catalyst for the collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is. But this is the end of your post! Nowhere does it say why these events provided the catalyst for the collapse of Communism. You apparently agree with me anyway (at least on this point):

[ QUOTE ]
Yes perhaps the Soviets collapse was inevitable

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps? Are you claiming that Communism was theoretically and practically strong enough to survive? Did Communism have a legitimate chance of survival in the Soviet Union?

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Reagan deserves his due in precipitating that collapse. The right man at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is a pretty definitive statement with little explanation, particularly the claim that Reagan precipitated the collapse of Communism. Does the article you posted really prove Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism? I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism because he matched one weapons system with another.

[lawpoker]

[ QUOTE ]


Reagan thought trees poisoned the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh stop. that's just retarded. do you also advocate the position that Bush knew about the 9/11 attack and intentionally didn't do anything to prevent it?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah the fall of communism at that particular time was a chance event, I get it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a classic red herring. I argued that those who believe Reagan was influential in the fall of Communism also believe that Communism was doomed to failure, and that the latter did not square with the former. Nowhere did I claim it was a chance event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you did. Two relevant statements from your original post:

My question, then, is this: Why does this debate exist at all? If Communism was a hopeless cause, then its failure should be independent of its opposing actors.

Therefore, in my opinion, the debate over who was more influential in the fall of Communism is more accurately framed this way (so long as you already believe Communism's destiny is that of unmitigated failure): "Who had the better fortune of being a world leader when Communism's inevitable collapse finally came to fruition?"

You even used the word "fortune" and in your post for cyring out loud. The implication of your post is clear, the timing of when communism would collapse was a chance event which was independent of who the world leaders were when it happened. A "fortunate" occurance that is the result of an "independent" of what any world leader did is a "chance" event.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the leftists will disparage he source of this basically historical account of what transpired

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not much of a leftist, but if 'disparaging' the source means finding fault with flawed logic, then yes, I plan on disparaging the source.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what most say [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if they find that the information presented here is in error please feel free to post how and why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'll try.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm ready.


[ QUOTE ]
The 1980s were a dangerous time for the world. The Soviet Union stood at the peak of its military and political power, its nuclear forces ranged from pole to pole. The globe stood at the brink of World War III, with a final countdown of 25 minutes from launch to total thermonuclear combat.

I think it's debatable as to whether or not the Soviet Union was at its peak militarily in the 1980s. Certainly their weaponry was more technologically advanced than they were in the immediate post-WWII era. Politically, however, the Soviet Union was much stronger circa 1955 than they were in the 1980s, particularly in the late 80s. Some examples of decreasing Soviet political power from the 1960s through the 1980s: Yugoslavia, China’s rejection of Soviet style Communism/increased diplomacy with the United States beginning in the 1970s, and growing nationalist movements in Eastern Europe and Central Asia all pointed to a Soviet Union whose political influence was waning

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't refuted the facts in bold in the least. The article didn't claim that there was no political unrest or opposition from within the Soviet Union or from any Iron Curtain countries. Your response is a classic red herring.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time the Soviets started deploying the deadly SS-20 missiles, Moscow began a political program to disarm American and NATO forces opposing them in Europe. Moscow's political program included direct and indirect support for the "Nuclear Freeze" movement inside Europe and America.

The Soviets found many willing patsy friends inside America.

The "Freeze" movement pushed for the total dismantling of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons, staging massive demonstrations and pressuring the newly elected government of Ronald Reagan.

I challenge someone to name one progressive movement from the period of 1945-1990 that Soviets weren't accused of covertly backing. This section is merely meant to portray anyone who supported nuclear freeze as a Communist sympathizer because it was antithetical to Reagan’s Cold War strategy. Even if we were to grant the Soviets had direct and indirect support for the nuclear freeze movement, it does little to disprove that the nuclear freeze had genuine support among environmentalists/activists who weren’t ‘willing patsy(s).’ This is similar to saying that because the US supported nationalist movements in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, the people of Eastern Europe were ‘willing patsies’ to an American agenda by dissenting from Soviet rule. Because both environmentalists/activists and Soviets have similar wishes for a policy outcome (a decrease in American proliferation of nuclear arms) does not make environmentalists/ activists ‘patsies’ anymore than it makes the Pope an American patsy for supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another red herring. The point of the portion that you bolded was that there was tremendous political pressure on Reagan to take further steps towards disarmament rather than deploy the Pershing missles.

[ QUOTE ]
The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.

I fail to see what this has to do with Reagan’s role in the collapse of Communism. I suppose the author is saying something like, “If Reagan can withstand the heat from BOTH the liberal press and the Hollywood establishment, what chance did the Kremlin have?” Frankly, I’m not really quite what the author is attempting to claim here, other than Reagan didn’t listen to liberals. There’s an earth shattering revelation if there ever was one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made the point above and in my response to your post. There was tremendous political pressure on Reagan to take further steps towards disarmament rather than deploy the Pershing missles. There was tremendous fear of what the Soviets might do as the if the Pershings were deployed. The Soviet threats scared many. Yet the Pershings were deployed they did NOTHING.

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat.
I was skeptical before, but then I read this. He went against the liberal media?!? HE IGNORED HOLLYWOOD’S ADVICE!?!? Now I’m truly convinced Reagan brought Communism to its knees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny that there was tremendous political pressure on Reagan not to deploy these weapons? What's your recolletion of those times? Again you've obfuscated the point of the article.

[ QUOTE ]
The SS-20, Pershing and nuclear Tomahawk missiles are no longer a threat because one man, a great man, stood alone against the madness of global nuclear war. He carried America, Europe, Russia and the world away from the brink of self-destruction – toward a world of peace and prosperity – by remaining resolute in the face of danger.
This is apparently the end of the column/article. Nowhere does the author (Charles Smith) claim that Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism; only that he successfully avoided a nuclear crisis. Okay, fair enough. But because adios posted this, I suppose he meant for this to imply that Reagan was influential in the failure of Communism. I suppose I’ll wait for adios’s reply as to how this article furthers the idea that Reagan was of great import to the collapse of Communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm offering a historical account of what transpired. Look at the chronology of events.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you are old enough to remember these times, perhaps not. I am old enough to remember them.

Obviously, anyone responding to the original OP is old enough to remember ‘those times.’ I think what you really meant to say here was, “You don’t remember these times; I do.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong you're putting words in my mouth. If you weren't old enough to remember those times you wouldn't understand the nature of the political pressure as fully as someone who did and the impact that the nuclear arms race had on people. You may be old enough to remember those times and have a different take. If you aren't old enough your knoweledge comes from what you read and that's ok but living through those times offers a different perspective methinks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets time honored tactic was to bluster, threaten and bluff in the face of contemplated actions that they were opposed to. There was a lot of trepidation leading up to the deployment of the Pershing missles. Reagan didn't really engage a lot of debate about deploying them. When he did the Soviets basically did nothing and it was obvious to the casual observer that their "bluff" had been called and they had lost big time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still haven’t read one word about what any of this has to do with Reagan’s influence in regard to the collapse of Communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Background in case you weren't old enough to remember which I suspect you weren't. Before you put words in my mouth I only offer it because I thought you might find it interesting and perhaps informative. However, methinks that anyone who offers a counter argument to what you state is automatically rejected by you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've long maintained that these events provided the catalyst for the collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is. But this is the end of your post! Nowhere does it say why these events provided the catalyst for the collapse of Communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I said why. Reread what I wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
You apparently agree with me anyway (at least on this point):

[ QUOTE ]
Yes perhaps the Soviets collapse was inevitable

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps? Are you claiming that Communism was theoretically and practically strong enough to survive? Did Communism have a legitimate chance of survival in the Soviet Union?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know for 100% certainty that the collapse was inevitable? If you do I'd sure like to know why you would know and if you don't then perhaps is certainly an appropriate word to use.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO Reagan deserves his due in precipitating that collapse. The right man at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is a pretty definitive statement with little explanation, particularly the claim that Reagan precipitated the collapse of Communism. Does the article you posted really prove Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism? I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that Reagan was influential in the collapse of Communism because he matched one weapons system with another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I've made my point but you fail to address the point i.e. which is that the deployment of the Pershings and the Soviet response (which was to do absolutely nothing after making their typical threats and doing their typical blustering) showed the emptiness of the Soviet rhetoric and lack of will to follow through which showed how weak the Soviet system was politically. The deployment of the Pershing missles ran counter to a great deal of political pressure at the time to pursue further disarmament negotiations. If Reagan would have yielded to that political pressure, medium range nukes would have been deployed at Western Europe's doorstep with virtually no time to responsd to any launch by the Soviets. Reagan didn't yield to the political pressure not only countering the Soviet deployment but it also showed that the Soviets didn't have the political will thus it showed how weak their political system was. A message that was not lost on it's citizens and the rest of the world for that matter.

BTW it's obvious to me that you actually don't want to engage in any kind of debate and wouldn't acknowledge someone's point if it differed from your viewpoint. Your preference is to try and win an argument rather than actually addressing the topic at hand. I expect another response to this post from you that has more red herrings and obfuscations of what I wrote. If that's the case I'm through with you.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Im sure European views of Reagan arent biased at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you trust European views from New Europe, like Rumsfeld right?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
But you trust European views from New Europe, like Rumsfeld right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in "New Europe" they don't credit Reagan much for the fall of Communism. In Russia, they "blame" the Poles. In other Eastern countries they credit themselves, Gorbachow, the Poles and Helmut Kohl.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You even used the word "fortune" and in your post for cyring out loud. The implication of your post is clear, the timing of when communism would collapse was a chance event which was independent of who the world leaders were when it happened. A "fortunate" occurance that is the result of an "independent" of what any world leader did is a "chance" event.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The collapse of Soviet style communist rule wasn't a product of chance; I’m arguing that (and you agreed) this collapse was inevitable. The ‘good fortune’ of which I spoke was merely that President Reagan was fortunate to be President when the inevitable happened.

To see this more clearly, take the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that this fact is inevitable. Humans are fortunate that the sun will rise tomorrow. Claiming that humans are fortunate beneficiaries of the sun’s rising does not mean I’m claiming that the sun's rising is a product of chance. In the same regard, the failure of communism was inevitable. Reagan was fortunate to be President when this occurred.

One more: When David Sklansky and Doyle Brunson bust Joe Blow (our $5 SnG player), the idea that Joe Blow is busting is inevitable. Doyle and David are the fortunate beneficiaries of Joe Blows horrid poker play, but any two viable, alternative poker players would have achieved the same outcome and been just as fortunate to get Joe Blow’s chips. Communism would have collapsed with or without Reagan. His influence is negligible at best and your article proved he averted a nuclear crisis, not that he was influential.

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't refuted the facts in bold in the least. The article didn't claim that there was no political unrest or opposition from within the Soviet Union or from any Iron Curtain countries. Your response is a classic red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I attempted to refute the notion that the Soviet Union was, as Smith claims, at the ‘peak of its political power,’ because you (adios) demanded to know if the information presented as in error. I believe it was. The Soviet Union was NOT at the peak of its political power, and its disingenuous to suggest so. I fail to see how my response was a red herring, but, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
Another red herring. The point of the portion that you bolded was that there was tremendous political pressure on Reagan to take further steps towards disarmament rather than deploy the Pershing missles.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the fact that Reagan was facing ‘tremendous political pressure’ proves that he was influential in the collapse of communism?

[ QUOTE ]
I've made the point above and in my response to your post. There was tremendous political pressure on Reagan to take further steps towards disarmament rather than deploy the Pershing missles. There was tremendous fear of what the Soviets might do as the if the Pershings were deployed. The Soviet threats scared many. Yet the Pershings were deployed they did NOTHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? I agree this is interesting. Courage in the face of political pressure is impressive in its own right. But how did this incident lead to the collapse of communism?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you deny that there was tremendous political pressure on Reagan not to deploy these weapons? What's your recolletion of those times? Again you've obfuscated the point of the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not deny there was tremendous political pressure on Reagan. My recollection of these times is similar to yours; like I said, I agree there was political pressure on Reagan. Does intense political pressure on Reagan = he was influential in the collapse of communism?

[ QUOTE ]
No I'm offering a historical account of what transpired. Look at the chronology of events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I’m looking at the chronology of events. I suppose what you’re trying to claim here is that because, immediately after the Soviets removed their SS-20s from Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union collapsed. This is a typical case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; meaning that simply because Outcome B occurred after Action A, Outcome B was the result of Action A. It’s tempting to claim but is easily falsifiable. Regardless, ‘chronology of events’ isn’t evidence here. Long before the mid 80s standoff over SS-20s, the economy of the Soviet Union had long been in decline:

“Since the 1970s, the growth rate had slowed substantially. Extensive economic development, based on vast inputs of materials and labor, was no longer possible; yet the productivity of Soviet assets remained low compared with other major industrialized countries. Product quality needed improvement. Soviet leaders faced a fundamental dilemma: the strong central controls that had traditionally guided economic development had failed to promote the creativity and productivity urgently needed in a highly developed, modern economy.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)

Therefore, because communism was proving inept at necessary innovations and development integral to its survival, should we conclude that failure to reform economically was influential in the collapse of the Soviet Union, merely because it happened first? Or should we view it another way; because the Soviet Union was able to survive and prosper militarily for another decade and a half after the beginning of its economic stagnation in the 1970s, failure to reform economically was wholly irrelevant to the collapse of communism?

What’s my point? Chronology is awful evidence.

In this case, chronology certainly fails to prove anything about Reagan’s influence in the fall of communism in regard to the SS-20/Pershing standoff.

[ QUOTE ]
However, methinks that anyone who offers a counter argument to what you state is automatically rejected by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad hominem attack against me which has nothing to do with your case.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know for 100% certainty that the collapse was inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If you do I'd sure like to know why you would know

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren’t you a capitalist? Don’t you believe in the power of free markets and free people? Simple game theory would dictate that, if we all agree communism is the worst of all options, it fails so long as better, more viable options exist. I assume you view communism as worse than capitalism, so I’m not sure why this is contentious for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Again I've made my point but you fail to address the point i.e. which is that the deployment of the Pershings and the Soviet response (which was to do absolutely nothing after making their typical threats and doing their typical blustering) showed the emptiness of the Soviet rhetoric and lack of will to follow through which showed how weak the Soviet system was politically.

[/ QUOTE ]

By inferring that Soviet’s always threatened through blustery rhetoric, then always backed down because of their weak will (and that this proves how weak the Soviet system was politically), then you’re implying the Soviet system was naturally weak already! What does Reagan have to do with the natural, inherent weakness of the Soviet system? You’re essentially arguing what I am; the Soviet system was intrinsically weak, and doomed to failure anyway.

Again, I ask: who was more influential in beating Joe Blow (the $5 SnG player), Sklansky or Brunson? Neither. Joe Blow was his own worst enemy and was doomed to fail long before he sat down at the table. Sklansky and Brunson were largely irrelevant actors just caught in Joe Blow’s terrible storm of bad play, just as Reagan was mostly impotent in bringing down communism.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW it's obvious to me that you actually don't want to engage in any kind of debate and wouldn't acknowledge someone's point if it differed from your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

More ad hominem; haven’t I spent a few thousand words engaging in debate?

[ QUOTE ]
Your preference is to try and win an argument rather than actually addressing the topic at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t particularly view arguments as having winners or losers; but if I did, I would certainly try to win rather than lose, so you’re right on that count. Do you try to lose arguments?

[ QUOTE ]
I expect another response to this post from you that has more red herrings and obfuscations of what I wrote. If that's the case I'm through with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then…Adios, adios