# Anything else you motherfuckers need? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231 "2009-07-16T16:51:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 67
**Author:** ![C3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/c3/32/3108_2.png) [@C3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C3)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1321 "2009-07-23T02:33:20Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Sure… just look at 95% of them. Um, no. Nobody here said “the government should be able to do anything it wants.” Most of us simply want some form of UHC. Certainly you can see the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1322 "2009-07-23T02:34:05Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I contend that as you’ve not met the framers that whatever you say the framers would’ve wanted means fuckall as it’s entirely your opinion. You can throw up as many quotes from the founding fathers as google will cough up, but unless they say “All men are created equal, and UHC is a bunch of crap” you’ve done no more than to post your own opinion. So you can’t come up with anything. Not surprising. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1323 "2009-07-23T02:35:32Z")
> [@C3](#): > > Um, no. Nobody here said “the government should be able to do anything it wants.” Most of us simply want some form of UHC. Certainly you can see the difference. But it’s not an enumerated power in the federal constitution. Hence the states should do it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want federal UHC, _amend the federal constitution_. You shouldn’t distort the meaning of the general welfare clause. If you’re free to distort the meaning of anything in the constitution, then why even have a constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1324 "2009-07-23T02:38:36Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > So can’t come up with anything. Not surprising. Neither can you. You’re simply draping yourself in the flag and acting as if your interpretation of cherry picked quotes is perfect and everyone else’s is flawed. It’s not a real argument. It’s showmanship. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1325 "2009-07-23T02:38:49Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > And I’m confident that if the founding fathers were alive today, they’d be vampires who would hunt patriotic americans for their delicious red white and blue blood. That, or zombies. Bentley Little, is that you?!?! ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1326 "2009-07-23T02:42:14Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I understand John Adams was often mistaken for a Guardian of Oa… If the British had been yellowcoats, we would have been screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1327 "2009-07-23T02:43:34Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Neither can you. You’re simply draping yourself in the flag and acting as if your interpretation of cherry picked quotes is perfect and everyone else’s is flawed. It’s not a real argument. It’s showmanship. Ah, I see. So Mr. Madison _ **didn’t** _ say, _“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”_ And Mr. Madison _ **didn’t** _ say, _“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”_ And if he \*did \*say it, those words don’t have any meaning. Got it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1328 "2009-07-23T02:43:43Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Some quotes for ya: > > “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” - **James Madison** in a letter to James Robertson > > “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” - **James Madison** , letter to Edmund Pendleton > > “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” - **Thomas Jefferson** , Letter to Albert Gallatin > > “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” - **Alexander Hamilton** , Federalist 83 > > Again, I know these aren’t “law”… For the record, this is “[Originalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)”, a belief that the wording of the Constritution should be construed more or less as their writers intended them to mean. You’re in good company; Justices Scalia and Thomas are in general Originalists, ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1329 "2009-07-23T02:46:56Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > If you’re free to distort the meaning of anything in the constitution, then why even have a constitution? You say we’re distorting the meaning. I say we’re properly interpreting the words. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1330 "2009-07-23T02:51:26Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > In my opinion it’s a gross abuse of the general welfare clause. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote about it, and basically said the federal government was limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution. Of course, their comments are not law, but I think we should abide by the spirit of them. Two points. First, Hamilton’s Federalist 31 may as well be directly responding to you in this thread, **Crafter\_Man** : > [@](#): > > [A]ll observations founded upon the danger of usurpation, ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers.The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty. In what does our security consist against usurpations from that quarter? Doubtless in the manner of their formation, and in a due dependence of those who are to administer them upon the people. If the proposed construction of the Foederal Government, be found upon an impartial examination of it, to be such as to afford, to a proper extent, the same species of security, all apprehensions on the score of usurpation ought to be discarded. In other words, the proper checks on federal usurpation through taxing and spending are not so much in explicit limits on taxing or spending power, but on the structure of democratic government itself. And, of course, he’s 100% right. Obama has the clear constitutional power to set the federal tax rate at 90%. The reason he could never do it, in reality, is the structure of our government’s democratic checks and balances. Second, the health care industry is too large and the issues are too interconnected and complex for any one state to solve these problems within their borders. That is the exact reason for the interstate commerce clause, and indeed for a federal government at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1331 "2009-07-23T02:54:28Z")
Oh snap indeed. I go off, read a few other threads, have a sandwhich, think about going to bed then come back to a whole page of discussion. The point I was making is that the founding fathers are not perfect. I strongly agree with liberty, but founding fathers, nor as **jsgoddess** points out, their times, were perfect. There’s a lot of ugliness in American history that gets glossed over. It’s best not to paint over it, but to understand it, and understand how we’ve grown and grow. It’s better to understand that America is a work in progress. Today we have a free-er society then the ones the Founding Fathers put together, because we’ve went beyond their original limits. Liberty isn’t defined in musty 200 year old documents. It’s in the hearts and minds of those who fight for it. It’s expanded, defined, and protected by each generation. The only real questions are: does the Constitution forbid federal UHC, and do the governed give their consent for it? ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1332 "2009-07-23T02:56:07Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > I’m still waiting for **curlcoat** to read my post and explain to me Eh, I’m sick of that pissant. I don’t care if she ever answers. > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Our society is orders of magnitude different from the one the framers/founding fathers/old dudes lived in I was thinking about this a couple of days ago, when \*\*Crafter\_Man \*\*was posting about his views. I’m not pondering the constitutionality of UHC, I’m thinking about our obligations to each other and changes in the way people look at health care. It occurs to me that the ‘every man for himself’ way of doing healthcare is just not feasible anymore. Years ago sickness and death were a common denominator - everyone was susceptible to diseases which could easily cripple and kill. Nobody had access to much heathcare. People weren’t expected to live long lives; many children weren’t expected to make it past their fifth birthday. Now we have all this good medical knowledge and skill. People want to live long, healthy lives. People see affordable health care as something that everyone should have, just like access to clean water. People want their friends and neighbors to stay healthy. Business owners want their workforce to stay healthy. Like it or not, that is a change which has occured in social thinking over the last few decades, and the notion of UHC is a logical outgrowth of that thinking. There may be better ways to set UHC up other than this plan currently under consideration. But I think it is inevitable. It will come about one day. Also, I’m dubious that individual states could do it. I don’t think that they posess the bargaining power that the Feds do, or the initial funding outlays - especially the poorer states. I think that it will take the 500-lb gorilla of the federal government to make UHC work. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1333 "2009-07-23T02:58:16Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > For the record, this is “[Originalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)”, a belief that the wording of the Constritution should be construed more or less as their writers intended them to mean. You’re in good company; Justices Scalia and Thomas are in general Originalists, Scalia’s philosophy is a bit different from your description. He believes the text should be read as it was understood at the time of its ratification. Sometimes this corresponds to what the writers of the text intended, other times it does not. The key difference is that while the writers intentions carry no special democratic legitimacy, the understandings of the people who adopted the text do carry special democratic legitimacy. This difference is most obvious in Scalia’s view of legislative history. If writer’s intentions were key, he would privilege the documents showing various Senators intentions for the bill. Instead, he actually totally rejects such legislative history as irrelevant. Thomas is a bit more a mixed bag, thought he might be more properly thought of in the way you describe. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1334 "2009-07-23T03:06:54Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Ah, I see. So Mr. Madison _ **didn’t** _ say, _“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”_ And Mr. Madison _ **didn’t** _ say, _“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”_ And if he \*did \*say it, those words don’t have any meaning. Got it. :rolleyes: Ah, I see. So someone in this thread did say “I want the government to have unlimited powers, and I want a pony.” And if they didn’t say it, those words were strongly implied. Got it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1335 "2009-07-23T03:20:20Z")
> [@NinetyWt](#): > > Eh, I’m sick of that pissant. I don’t care if she ever answers. > > I was thinking about this a couple of days ago, when \*\*Crafter\_Man \*\*was posting about his views. I’m not pondering the constitutionality of UHC, I’m thinking about our obligations to each other and changes in the way people look at health care. > > It occurs to me that the ‘every man for himself’ way of doing healthcare is just not feasible anymore. > > Years ago sickness and death were a common denominator - everyone was susceptible to diseases which could easily cripple and kill. Nobody had access to much heathcare. People weren’t expected to live long lives; many children weren’t expected to make it past their fifth birthday. Strangely enough, [Washington’s stepdaughter, Patsy Custis was an epileptic.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_epilepsy#Leadership.2C_politics_and_royalty) She died during a seizure at the age of 17: > [@](#): > > The daughter of Martha Washington and step daughter of George Washington. She had seizures from early childhood and died during a seizure, aged 17. Unusually for the time, her parents did not hide her epilepsy and encouraged her to lead a normal life. They tried various treatments including mercury, valeriana, factitious cinnabar, bleeding, and spring waters. ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1336 "2009-07-23T04:34:01Z")
Interesting, Guin. I’m glad you haven’t been subjected to those ‘treatments’. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1337 "2009-07-23T04:38:05Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Personally, I could live with either a Federal OR a State based UHC, though I have MANY concerns about how such a program would be implemented. I’m currently living with a national UHC (in South Korea) and am thrilled with it because I work for a government entity and they do follow the law. Implementation nationwide is a bit iffy since far too many employers blow off the law and either don’t enroll their employees into the system or cheat the employees by taking the full amount of the employee’s payment into the system and either pocket it all or just report the employee’s salary has half what it is and turn over the employee’s contribution declaring it to be both the employer’s and employee’s contributions. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1338 "2009-07-23T05:07:28Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > .You specifically referenced children conceived via IVF being less healthy than their intercourse-conceived counterparts. Unless you think that having impaired fertility means that the parents are terribly sick people passing on all sorts of illnesses, the logical interpretation of your comment was that IVF in itself created less healthy children. There is no evidence of either. Well, there is [this](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3420265.stm), and [this](http://slate.msn.com/id/2109131/). Or how about [this](http://www.ivf1.com/ivf-birth-defects/) or [this](http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20081117/cdc-ivf-may-boost-birth-defects-risk)? All you had to do is Google it. > [@](#): > > All insurance plans, then, are irresponsible. Because that is how insurance works, **you pay in** , That bolded bit is the whole difference since that is not expecting someone else to take care of you. > [@](#): > > You’re relying upon the healthy people covered by your plan, who aren’t using the dollars that they’re putting in, to pay for your care. You are also relying on the investments that the insurance companies make - if they only had the premiums to pay the bills, they’d be out of business in no time. > [@](#): > > Of course, by buying into that plan, you are also agreeing to take care of other people, many of whom _will_ act in an “irresponsible” manner in one way or another. Yeah, but at least they are paying premiums. And the insurance companies do try to weed some of them out. > [@](#): > > But you have failed to demonstrate how either a.) a public healthcare plan _for which people will pay premiums_; or b.) putting strict limits on how insurers can treat individuals with pre-existing conditions; somehow amounts to anyone “sitting back and expecting someone else to take care of it.” For a) they seem to have two basic plans, the first being they are going to cover everyone and make everyone pay a premium based on income. Which means I would end up paying more to cover the fact that there are so many that say they can’t pay much at all. Or they are just going to essentially create a group plan with subsized lower premiums for those who currently cannot afford insurance, paid for by taxes. How are they going to decide who can or cannot afford insurance? Just because they say they can’t? The government simply cannot follow up on each one. > [@](#): > > Probably quite a few. But honesty, how much planning is ever enough? The median U.S. household income in 2008 was $50,233. A week in the hospital, especially in a NICU or a pediatric intensive care is going to rival that. Are you really suggesting that people should have several years worth of income saved up before they have children? You do realize that this would mean that more children would be born with genetic illnesses because of advanced maternal age, because younger, healthier people who _should_ be having babies, medically, wouldn’t be able to afford them, by your standard? It’s not realistic. Then don’t have babies! Why is it ok with you that there are so many people having babies who cannot afford them at all? Who are having them while uninsured, unemployed, as anchor babies. Why can’t they at least have insurance, some savings and no debt before they create another bundle of expenses? > [@](#): > > When I couldn’t afford COBRA, which would have been $1,700 a month, I was driving a five year old economy car. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Just because _you_ didn’t have an expensive car doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’d like to know how often. > [@](#): > > The fact that there are people who are working hard at professional jobs, full time jobs, and still aren’t offered insurance, and cannot afford private insurance means that something is wrong with healthcare. _Professional_ full time jobs? You mean like had to go to college to qualify to get such a job? Well over minimum wage jobs? What the hell are they spending their money on then? > [@](#): > > The fact that insurance companies pay people to do _nothing_ but deny claims Uh, you have a cite for that? If nothing else, that would be illegal… > [@](#): > > The fact that someone can be in an “in network” hospital and can be assigned a doctor and be _told by the insurer_ that their services would be covered only to have the insurer change their minds later and leave the family holding a huge bill (see **MsWhatsit** ’s story of her son’s NICU stay) after the fact means that something is wrong with healthcare. And you have resources to deal with that sort of thing! Do you think the government is going to give a rip if that sort of thing happens while you are covered by a UHC? > [@](#): > > The fact that we spend a larger percentage of our GDP on healthcare than any other developed nation and have [the second worst infant and maternal death rates](http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/) amongst developed nations means that something is wrong with healthcare. That is exactly what I am talking about. You want to encourage even more women to have babies they cannot afford by paying their maternity costs. If a woman cannot afford prenatal visits, what the hell is she doing having a baby in the first place? > [@](#): > > The fact that people are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions _for which they require absolutely no medical care and incur absolutely no medical expense whatsoever_ means that something is wrong with healthcare. You don’t have to have a UHC to fix that. > [@](#): > > The fact that families _are_ going bankrupt, people _with_ insurance are going bankrupt, because of medical debt, means that something is wrong with healthcare. Can you prove it? Can you prove that the only significant debt they had was medical? No one seems to be able to do that. And what makes you think a UHC would change that? The ability of the taxpayer to support all of these things is extremely finite. It could easily be that there will be a cap on what will be covered, just as there is with private insurance companies. Or the UHC may flat out not cover things like keeping a newborn alive that has no hope of survival off the machines, or will be a hopeless vegetable. There may be a cap on how long they will pay to keep a coma patient on the machines. You want the taxpayer to cover all of these extremely expensive things that do drive actual responsible people into bankruptcy, as if there is no limit on how much we can afford to spend on it. > [@](#): > > And you keep coming back to this, but you’ve not given a single example of who is trying to do this, and what it has to do with the plan working its way through Congress right now. I have given examples, and the plan working its way through Congress right now is just the latest attempt. Which according to a news blip I heard on the radio, is facing a majority against it so it probably won’t go thru. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1339 "2009-07-23T05:09:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So if I demand that your taxes go up, why is that my problem? Are you threatening me? > > I make less than $300,000 a year; my taxes won’t go up. Why is it my problem if your taxes go up to pay for universal health care? > > Try to keep up. You are either extremely stupid or trolling. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231/1340 "2009-07-23T05:13:07Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You don’t vote, so it doesn’t really matter what you think, does it? If that is what you want to believe. > [@](#): > > You also don’t pay federal taxes. Why in the world would you think that? > [@](#): > > And you haven’t responded to any of the scenarios I’ve posted for your consideration. Since you all seem to have all kinds of time for this sort of thing - instead of working? - I will be slow to catch up. First bitching that a thread suddenly got busy because I posted, and then bitching because I am not answering fast enough for you is ridiculous for even this place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231.md?page=66) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-else-you-motherfuckers-need/503231.md?page=68)