NationStates Jolt Archive

I glanced over all the previous UN resolutions and found something to this effect to be necessary, yet lacking:

Whereas much of the world’s population can justifiably be called “religious-minded,”
And whereas the loyalty of the religious-minded, by definition, lies first with their respective religions,
And whereas any international organization hoping to foster peace must be loyal first to those abstract principles from which peace is concretized (precluding the presence of multifarious the religious convictions within),
And whereas any international organization, for this, must furthermore unite philosophically under one common metaphysical system,

Understanding fully that the United Nations, has been, is, and, justice withstanding, always will be an eclectic organization with respect to religion:


Be it resolved that no bill considered by the United Nations shall vindicate its principles by virtue of any religious or otherwise sectarian, anti-philosophical system; the United Nations shall assume all entities qualified in immediacy, never positing the existence of a mediator between a value and the postulants of that value.

The United Nations itself, as distinguished from the individuals who constitute it, shall remain forever religiously and philosophically neutral, for the sake of practical functioning.

Tell me what you think...should the resolution include something else?

Tell me what you think...should the resolution include something else?

A clue might help...

You want people to take off their beliefs and moral background in the cloak room because you feel offended that not everyone shares you intollerant, reactionary, opressive, offensive athiest religon?

I believe the proper reply here might be "Get Stuffed!"

I almost forgot....

AMEN!!!

I almost forgot....

AMEN!!!

Hm, now who's being "intollerant (sic), reactionary, opressive (sic), offensive?"

To the OP, I think instead of "atheist", you should use "religiously and philosophically neutral" to prevent offending certain pricks.

A clue might help...

You want people to take off their beliefs and moral background in the cloak room because you feel offended that not everyone shares you intollerant, reactionary, opressive, offensive athiest religon?

I believe the proper reply here might be "Get Stuffed!"

Are you William Jennings Bryan? I am trying to foment peace. Personal authenticity is one thing--and that's the concern of the individual; an organisation per se cannot be authentic, nor an it properly BELIEVE things.

Therefore, religion, in view of the passion that necessarily concomitant therewith, is an insuperable obstacle to the proper functioning of the UN.

I’m afraid there’s a lot I don’t like about this. I happen to belong to no religion so don’t worry about getting "amen" directed at you but I don’t see the need to unite under one metaphysical system.

Why? I agree that the UN should be unbiased but I think the principles advocated by the Religious Tolerance (#19 I believe) resolution are a far better method of achieving that. It would see that the UN promotes awareness of all religious beliefs equally thus avoiding bias or offending those member nations that constitute it. I think an organisation as a whole should be representative of its components in some way.

I’m not entirely sure whether this could be considered to contradict Religious Tolerance (I’m not well and trying to be helpful, not a good combination) because your resolution would have the UN remain “neutral” (assuming that’s what you meant to say) whereas Religious Tolerance would have it actively promote all religions.

I shall stop rambling now and leave this to somebody far more eloquent.

Irrespective of the outcome I congratulate you on your efforts and wholeheartedly welcome you to the UN. I look forward to hearing your perspective on issues in the future and please do ignore those of us who are more vitriolic, new ideas are a very valued commodity and they're clearly something you have in abundance. :)

Also, Seabear should you be a Christian I suggest you re-read the way you communicated your views just now. Surely you must see that the aggressive nature with which you defended your religious convictions contradicts the tenets of your religion? Each to their own though...

To the OP, I think instead of "atheist", you should use "religiously and philosophically neutral" to prevent offending certain pricks.

Advice well taken. I agree.

"You can't force UN Nations to just drop their religion when they enter the UN Chambers or write UN Proposals. Although i've never seen a proposal that even has a hint of bringing religion into any discussion. Your just getting all upset about nothing and we feel that you need to 'Grow a thicker skin'."

--Random Shazbotdom Understudy to the Deligate

"Your just getting all upset about nothing and we feel that you need to 'Grow a thicker skin'."

--Random Shazbotdom Understudy to the Deligate

A common metaphysics is surely necessary, since the religious/anti-religious dichotomy favors contention among delegates, when debating implementation of bills. In positing a value-mediator, the religious minded approach the task of attaining values differently than the anti-religious--appealing to the mediator demands specific methodology. I am quite consternated, seeing the UN pass bills without explicitly assuming immediacy.

How can bills be implemented in individual nations (who differ religiously) otherwise?

As to the conflict with Resolution #19, it only provides for the promotion of "tolerance" and execration of religious wars. It has no bearing on the practical functioning of the body promoting this tolerance.

While the representative of Seabear70 has as ever grasped not so much the wrong end of the stick as the wrong stick entirely, there is a valid point underlying his histrionics. The simple fact of the matter is that members of the UN do not share the same values, nor will some metaphysical sleight of hand enable representatives here to justify different values to their national superiors. While your efforts at providing a common ground for understanding is to be applauded, we fear they are doomed.

OOC: Great...another "RELIGION IS TEH EVIL!!!1one" guy. :rolleyes: I suggest you try the General forum. I'm sure you'll find a lot of buddies there.

I'm agnostic myself, but I'm sorry. This constant religion bashing I see on teh intarwebs gets old and tiresome -- really quickly. It's just someone's opinion. People need to get their knickers out of those wads over this particular topic.

Ah, well, while your effort to further unity in the UN is laudable, I believe that trying to prevent religion from factoring into the decisions of UN representatives is not only futile, but actually detrimental.

I view one's religion the same as I view one's opinion. I may not agree with it, but they have a right to it. Regardless of whether their argument is formed of personal principals or theological principals, it's what they truly believe. Despite my or your personal faith we, as the United Nations, have an obligation to take their opinion into account.

As an aside, I don't think it would garner much support from theocracies either.

This constant religion bashing I see on teh intarwebs gets old and tiresome -- really quickly. It's just someone's opinion. People need to get their knickers out of those wads over this particular topic.

This is not germane to my proposal. That's what we call a red herring.

Are you William Jennings Bryan? I am trying to foment peace. Personal authenticity is one thing--and that's the concern of the individual; an organisation per se cannot be authentic, nor an it properly BELIEVE things.

Therefore, religion, in view of the passion that necessarily concomitant therewith, is an insuperable obstacle to the proper functioning of the UN.

First of all, once again, get stuffed.

Second of all, no we are not going to make Atheism the international religion, no matter how you want to complain about antidisestablishmentarianism. (Yes, I try to fit that word in to every conversation I can, and i get so few opportunities.)

Third, your church of atheism, by failing to acknowledge any other higher authority is so Machiavellian in nature that morality based on anything but the sword is unthinkable. Therefore your insistence that you are trying to ferment peace is either hopelessly naive, or intellectually disingenuous.

OOC: Great...another "RELIGION IS TEH EVIL!!!1one" guy. :rolleyes: I suggest you try the General forum. I'm sure you'll find a lot of buddies there.

I'm agnostic myself, but I'm sorry. This constant religion bashing I see on teh intarwebs gets old and tiresome -- really quickly. It's just someone's opinion. People need to get their knickers out of those wads over this particular topic.

I'm actually Deist personally. For those of you who do not know what that means, it means I do not believe in organized religion, ignore the dictionary definition, some of us, a great many believe that God is active in everyday life, but religion is a personal thing with us.

That being said, I have no tolerance for the unwarranted bashing of other people's beliefs, including that of atheism, however, Atheists do have a really bad habit of making stupid claims of superiority over everyone else.

If you want to find something to blame for wars, look at self-centered pragmatism, it's rampant in the hierarchies of all religions that endorse wars, and it's rampant throughout the church of atheism.

While the representative of Seabear70 has as ever grasped not so much the wrong end of the stick as the wrong stick entirely, there is a valid point underlying his histrionics.


There always is...

I am what happens when a member of Mensa does not work and play well with others.

Hm, now who's being "intollerant (sic), reactionary, opressive (sic), offensive?"

To the OP, I think instead of "atheist", you should use "religiously and philosophically neutral" to prevent offending certain pricks.

Naah, I'm just being an asshole.

a member of Mensa
You probably get asked this a lot, but would you mind doing my taxes for me? Also, in your opinion, what is the correct plural form of Lexus? Lexuses or Lexii?

Gah! No! Never Lexii*! Though it could be Lexi...

There is only one way to get the plural form -ii. First off, you need a word ending in -ius. Genius and radius are the only ones that come to my mind that ever have that plural form, and the plural genii is archaic in any case [/grammar nerd]

You probably get asked this a lot, but would you mind doing my taxes for me? Also, in your opinion, what is the correct plural form of Lexus? Lexuses or Lexii?

1. I have my brother, the IRS auditor do my taxes. Trust me, having a specialist do work for you pays off.

2. Hondas, I own three of them. A Customized VTX1800, a Rincon, and the latest addition to the fleet, a 2007 Goldwing. (As for the term Lexus, by all accounts it is a manufactured word meant to refer to the Alexis Carrinton character in some soap or another. As it is not a real word, despite it's use by the database Lexus-Nexus it's plural form is in question. To avoid confusion and sounding bumber than I really am, I refer to to several Lexus as Lexus, just as I do the singular form of the word.)

First of all, once again, get stuffed.

Second of all, no we are not going to make Atheism the international religion, no matter how you want to complain about antidisestablishmentarianism. (Yes, I try to fit that word in to every conversation I can, and i get so few opportunities.)

Third, your church of atheism, by failing to acknowledge any other higher authority is so Machiavellian in nature that morality based on anything but the sword is unthinkable. Therefore your insistence that you are trying to ferment peace is either hopelessly naive, or intellectually disingenuous.

Your first point is juvenile abuse, your second point is unintelligible, and, as to your third...

I acknowledge a higher authority--the principles which, to the religious-minded, mediate the relationship between man and the devine, who again medaites the relationship of man back to those principles. The aim of the resolution is to expedite the process by assuming the UN is qualified in immediacy, that is, by establishing they relate directly to those principles.

And why don't you give me a lesson on Machiavelli, Dr. Seabear70? Maybe I can return you some hope to extirpate my naivete, when I take your most erudite wisdom to heart.

Either there's some communications barrier here, or you need to learn to read more perspicaciously.

Your first point is juvenile abuse, your second point is unintelligible, and, as to your third...

I acknowledge a higher authority--the principles which, to the religious-minded, mediate the relationship between man and the devine, who again medaites the relationship of man back to those principles. The aim of the resolution is to expedite the process by assuming the UN is qualified in immediacy, that is, by establishing they relate directly to those principles.

And why don't you give me a lesson on Machiavelli, Dr. Seabear70? Maybe I can return you some hope to extirpate my naivete, when I take your most erudite wisdom to heart.

Either there's some communications barrier here, or you need to learn to read more perspicaciously.

Response to the response of the first point : Yeah, so what's your point? :rolleyes:

Second Point : Exersize those big words and see if you can understand it now.

Third point : You just argued against your own resolution.

Also, Seabear should you be a Christian I suggest you re-read the way you communicated your views just now. Surely you must see that the aggressive nature with which you defended your religious convictions contradicts the tenets of your religion? Each to their own though...


As a deist that has a primarily Christian base to his personal philosophies, I see no problem whatsoever in dirrectly attacking both ignorance and arrogance.

Let me put it this way, paraphrasing from one of my books (thank God for Spell Check!)

Good isn't always pretty. Good isn't always nice. Good isn't obvious. Sometimes Good can be the most despicable thing you could possibly imagine.

Good isn't always about now, often it's about what happens tomarrow or a thousand years from now, because the actions you perform today will echo through time coloring and guiding the future actions of others.

Think about that before you act, speak, or question the actions of others. Because in the end your actions are larger than yourself.

If in defending yourself, will you allow a man to walk away unharmed because you wanted to be nice, is he going to use your pettiness and fear of responsibility to promote his agenda of hatred and intollerance? Will he be encouraged to assault another person that would be less able to defend himself?

It is better to deal with that assailant immediately, and leave a lasting impression of the consequences of his actions and ambitions on him and on any witnesses than to hope he learns his lesson from someone else in the future.

In the end, avoiding the hard decisions and hard actions yourself, is not a virtue, it's a plague upon humanity.

BTW : Machiavelli wrote a book that may have been intended as sarcasm or rebuke of policy, or even, by some accounts, as a means of getting a job.

Most educated people do not believe he actually believed anything he actually wrote in that book, or if he did, he did not personally advocate it.

However, the contents of that book have become one of the most revered and studied books in history, and have infact collored the politics of nations and the world since the time it was written.

So, inadvertantly, Machiavelli managed to create a manual for the enslavement of populations and the abuse of power.

There is an old saying...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you believe in God and Heaven and Hell, where does this leave Machiavelli?

This concludes the requested lecture on Machiavelli.

I'm a dyslexic. I believe in Dog

I'm a dyslexic. I believe in Dog

Then I trust you refrain dogdoming?

Welcome to the UN Thelyptum, it's been a bit of a baptism of fire for you, but I hope you stick around.

I'm going to tactfully ignore most of the discussion up to now, and focus on the proposal you drafted.

Whereas much of the world’s population can justifiably be called “religious-minded,”Fair enough.And whereas the loyalty of the religious-minded, by definition, lies first with their respective religions,I don't know if that is the case, but meh.
And whereas any international organization hoping to foster peace must be loyal first to those abstract principles from which peace is concretized (precluding the presence of multifarious the religious convictions within),I don't see how religious convictions especially help or hinder the promotion of international peace and security.
And whereas any international organization, for this, must furthermore unite philosophically under one common metaphysical system,I think that a unity in mutual respect and understanding of other faiths and seeking to find common purpose in those faiths is more constructive than asking for people to set aside their beliefs put into them from religion.Understanding fully that the United Nations, has been, is, and, justice withstanding, always will be an eclectic organization with respect to religion:Absolutely...Be it resolved that no bill considered by the United Nations shall vindicate its principles by virtue of any religious or otherwise sectarian, anti-philosophical system; the United Nations shall assume all entities qualified in immediacy, never positing the existence of a mediator between a value and the postulants of that value.However, the UN has legislated on areas which it's membership which could be seen as opposed to the religious beliefs of some - most obvious one is "Female Genital mutilation," Which passed by a strong majority, but could be argued infringed on certain religious beliefs. I argued in the past the same should be done for circumcision, albeit with little sincerity.The United Nations itself, as distinguished from the individuals who constitute it, shall remain forever religiously and philosophically neutral, for the sake of practical functioning.I agree with Ithy, that neutrality is not as effective as equality.

Thank you for submitting the draft on here and you get brownie points for having made a decent stab of it in terms of structure. I’m going to oppose this because I don’t think it’s the best way of going about this, but I recognise the intent.

I'm afraid I don't understand completely what you're proposing, but what I do get seems to me to pose a bit of a problem.

If you're asking the nations to put aside their religious views while they're at the UN, then you are, effectively, banning those views, even if only in a limited way.

And with some UN nations, "religion" and "ideology" are pretty much interchangeable.

But game mechanics say the UN can't ban an ideology.

Ergo ...

Is it legal?

Is it legal?

I'd say no.

* ooc: I don't know about this proposal but the author is probably well capable of making an amusing contribution to the repeal of Common Sense Act II. Such wondrous verbiage! *

Second of all, no we are not going to make Atheism the international religion,

Not what he was trying to do. You fail at reading.

morality based on anything but the sword is unthinkable.

Nowhere was that suggested.

Therefore your insistence that you are trying to ferment peace is either hopelessly naive, or intellectually disingenuous.

Peace doesn't ferment well. It comes out vinegar more often than not. Thankfully, he was attempting to forment peace, which is much more plausible.

That being said, I have no tolerance for the unwarranted bashing of other people's beliefs, including that of atheism,

And yet that is exactly what you are doing. Case in point:

however, Atheists do have a really bad habit of making stupid claims of superiority over everyone else.

Wonderful generalization.

There always is...

I am what happens when a member of Mensa does not work and play well with others.

1 - Then don't. Go back home, work on your interpersonal skills, and come back less of a hypocrite.

2 - Seems I've said something along these lines to you before. NS=/=RL. Mensa is an RL institution, and an overblown one at that. Nobody cares how much you can waggle your RL intellectual phallus. Welcome back to the game.

On a more general note, yes there are a few kinks to work out of what has been drafted, but nowhere in it is a condemnation of any form of religion. It strikes me as more of a mandate that the UN shall not officially endorse, espouse, or support one religion or ideology over others, instead restraining itself to morals and ethics without reference to greater powers, gods, higher force spirits, incarna, etc, etc, etc. That does not sound like a bad idea, nor would it run afoul of religious tolerance, nor does it ban any ideology. It simply declares that the UN as a whole won't base any decision making upon religion. Individual nations are free to choose as they please for whatever reason they want, but the UN can't pass a law that says

"This is the way it shall be because Allah wills it so"

If I've misread or misrepresented the authors intent, then take that previous paragraph as my suggestions for improvement upon what is there.

Scanning through, I didn't see anyone mention this yet but it's struck me that the first hurdle we must jump over before any good proposal is created is a correction of terms:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To work on a legislative level from the Atheist perspective is to work without God, NOT without religion. I believe its one sect of Buddists are technically Atheists - why? Because they believe there is no God.

I don't think you are looking for a UN declaration that God doesn't exist, so...

At the very least, you are looking for a R&R on UNR #19 Religious Tolerance. This, I think, is probably where you want to head.

You probably are looking for legislating within the UN or her member nations more local legislative bodies. To the former, I don't think it will pass the litmus test of legal proposal (most likely metagaming) unless you make it a requests (in which case, I think the body should be the aforementioned Replacement for Religious tolerance). To the latter, your chances of getting it through the UN full of NatSovs and Theocracies is about as good as Seabear being civil.

Now, mind you, I've had about 7 months off so I don't know how enforcement has evolved, but your current draft strikes me as an actual violation of the rules-set. Specifically, 2:

1) Does not make an actual effect upon the individual nations themselves. This is a requirement. I can't recall what rule this is

2) Be it resolved that no bill considered by the United Nations shall vindicate its principles by virtue of any religious or otherwise sectarian, anti-philosophical system;

The Moderators delete all spelling and grammar enforcing declarations. Trying to get the UN legislation to follow specific limitations is illegal. However, someone who's been around for the last few months might be able to say better whether this is accurate or not.

1. I have my brother, the IRS auditor do my taxes. Trust me, having a specialist do work for you pays off.
I usually have my sister, the nuclear physicist, do mine. This year she's vacationing with the British royal family though and can't be bothered to help me. I'll have my nephew, the astronaut, do them instead.

2. Hondas, I own three of them. A Customized VTX1800, a Rincon, and the latest addition to the fleet, a 2007 Goldwing. (As for the term Lexus, by all accounts it is a manufactured word meant to refer to the Alexis Carrinton character in some soap or another. As it is not a real word, despite it's use by the database Lexus-Nexus it's plural form is in question. To avoid confusion and sounding bumber than I really am, I refer to to several Lexus as Lexus, just as I do the singular form of the word.)
Hmm, I would have hoped you would have been more help than that. For one thing, it's LexisNexis. I don't suppose members of Mensa use it much though. For another, I'm almost certain that like Lexus, "bumber" is not a word either. Admittedly since I am not a member of Mensa I could be wrong about that.

What is your opinion on the plural of Jesus? Is it Jesuses, Jesii or Jesi?

Admittedly since I am not a member of Mensa I could be wrong about that.

OOC: I'm not a member either. I was invited to join, but I follow the great Groucho Marx: "I wouldn’t join any club that would have me for a member." ;)

OOC: I'm not a member either. I was invited to join, but I follow the great Groucho Marx: "I wouldn’t join any club that would have me for a member." ;)I'll repost from elsewhere...

OOC:My uncle put me off joining mensa when I was younger, mainly because he is a pompous twit and I didn't want to be associated with that kind of twitery.
Anyway...

<wank>I tend to get my father, the inventor of maths to do mine.</wank>

I have an old friend who does my taxes. I gave him some more memory this year for all the hard work he's been doing for me over the years. He's not getting old, WINDOWS is just getting fat. :p

(Yes my old friend is a DELL computer.) :D

It simply declares that the UN as a whole won't base any decision making upon religion. Individual nations are free to choose as they please for whatever reason they want, but the UN can't pass a law that says

"This is the way it shall be because Allah wills it so"

If I've misread or misrepresented the authors intent, then take that previous paragraph as my suggestions for improvement upon what is there.

Kivisto catches my meaning.

As to this resolution being metagaming, I never intended it to be that, though I can see how it could be interpreted as such.
The intent is to establish that no UN resolution officially vindicates itself by virture of religion (despite the laguage used therein), and to ensure that no specific religious beliefs are necessary for accepting the resolution (to preserve individual nations' rights to religious self-determination).

As much as it is humorous to see you hang Seabear by his toenails, there is a proposal being drafted and I don't thinks it's fair to the author to continue this hijack.

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Sorry, I must amend my earlier statement. IIRC, Game Mechanics violations are if you try to control what sort of proposals make it into the queue while Metagaming are if you try to control what sort of arguments are used in debate. I think that's right.

Anyways, obviously there is a loophole to every rule and in the case of this one, we see stuff like blocker proposals which make other proposals illegal by contradiction. However, it is an implicit rather than explicit contradiction that is in these blockers (read: we have already legislated upon that area, so you can't legislate on it rather than "BANS proposals on issue X"). I honestly don't know how you'd bypass that issue, but it is a good exercise for someone who hasn't been on break for a while.

Reading more closely, I noticed the question of ideological bans came up, but I actually don't think that's at issue. This is a ban of a proposal format rather than a legislative style. So long as it isn't forced upon nations' legislative bodies, it shouldn't be an ideological ban.

Finally, we do have the matter of the "needs to do something" which I found is not actually spelt out in the rules set - though I have seen proposals deleted for it. I think, however, that this is an issue that can be remedied if you do a religious tolerance proposal OR you try and "recommend" nations develope religious tolerance and religious awareness educational programs and then stuck it in the Education Category.

Hmmm. I didn't think adopting a proposal affecting the interpretation of other past and future proposals would constitue a violation of the rules, but this appears to be in question. It seems I need to pose this question to a mod.

The intent is to establish that no UN resolution officially vindicates itself by virture of religion (despite the laguage used therein), and to ensure that no specific religious beliefs are necessary for accepting the resolution (to preserve individual nations' rights to religious self-determination).

Thank you; now I understand more clearly what you are trying to do. I am afraid that this

the United Nations shall assume all entities qualified in immediacy, never positing the existence of a mediator between a value and the postulants of that value.

rather threw me -- the individual words are understandable, but it's plainly conveying a specialist meaning in the dialect of a particular discipline (theology?), and it wasn't phrasing I'd come across before.

As Thelyptum is so open to drafting suggestions, it occurs to me that this could be an opportunity to do what the mods are always recommending we do: start with the category and write the proposal around that. Any suggestions?

Hmmm. I didn't think adopting a proposal affecting the interpretation of other past and future proposals would constitue a violation of the rules, but this appears to be in question. It seems I need to pose this question to a mod.

Wait.....you're trying to change the applicability of a resolution? That's an optionality breach. The resolution goes in as it is worded, not as it is worded when a filter is applied.

I am afraid that this rather threw me -- the individual words are understandable, but it's plainly conveying a specialist meaning in the dialect of a particular discipline (theology?), and it wasn't phrasing I'd come across before.

I appropriated the phrase "qualified in immediacy" from Kierkegaard. If it's too nebulous to define policy (as Kierkegaard characteristically is), then we can certainly re-word that. The point is, as a prerequisite for enacting any policy, the UN must have some relation to the ideals it is seeking through that policy. As positing any mediator is tantamount to legislating religion, it would deny religious self-determination to the nations in the UN. The only recourse is assuming a direct relation (which, as I see it, necessitates operational atheism, but this is apparently debatable).

What is your opinion on the plural of Jesus? Is it Jesuses, Jesii or Jesi?

i think it's Jesi cuz thats how all words ending in -us are pluralized. Maybe?

I glanced over all the previous UN resolutions and found something to this effect to be necessary, yet lacking:

Whereas much of the world’s population can justifiably be called “religious-minded,”
*1-And whereas the loyalty of the religious-minded, by definition, lies first with their respective religions,
*2-And whereas any international organization hoping to foster peace must be loyal first to those abstract principles from which peace is concretized (precluding the presence of multifarious the religious convictions within),
And whereas any international organization, for this, must furthermore unite philosophically under one common metaphysical system,

Understanding fully that the United Nations, has been, is, and, justice withstanding, always will be an eclectic organization with respect to religion:

*3-Be it resolved that no bill considered by the United Nations shall vindicate its principles by virtue of any religious or otherwise sectarian, anti-philosophical system; the United Nations shall assume all entities qualified in immediacy, never positing the existence of a mediator between a value and the postulants of that value.



The United States of Cookesland objects on the following points:

1-is that not everyone is always loyal to their religion above all and its not right to believe that about everyone who is religious.

2 -"metaphysical system?" we shouldn't have to all believe in the same thing, different religons work for different people.

3-The Beatitudes are a wonderful example of morality and a good basis for human rights, so are many other writings in the Koran, Torah, and Bible so i disagree with he complete absense of reigious virtue.


David Swansea
Cookeslandic UN Ambassador

In this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12414956#post12414956) thread, Hack said this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12414956&postcount=35):
Hm. Then the vulnerability isn't limited to new legislation, but old as well, which raises legality issues.

It was a proposal that would have suspended rights previously guaranteed, unless the guarantees had included a phrase saying these rights could never be suspended, even during a state of emergency (which, if included, would possibly have made those proposals illegal, by attempting to restrict future legislation).

Thinking about this timewarped stuff reduces my brain to jelly, but I think it means that you can't reinterpret what the UN has done or bind what it might do.

Not what he was trying to do. You fail at reading.



Nowhere was that suggested.



Peace doesn't ferment well. It comes out vinegar more often than not. Thankfully, he was attempting to forment peace, which is much more plausible.



And yet that is exactly what you are doing. Case in point:



Wonderful generalization.



1 - Then don't. Go back home, work on your interpersonal skills, and come back less of a hypocrite.

2 - Seems I've said something along these lines to you before. NS=/=RL. Mensa is an RL institution, and an overblown one at that. Nobody cares how much you can waggle your RL intellectual phallus. Welcome back to the game.

On a more general note, yes there are a few kinks to work out of what has been drafted, but nowhere in it is a condemnation of any form of religion. It strikes me as more of a mandate that the UN shall not officially endorse, espouse, or support one religion or ideology over others, instead restraining itself to morals and ethics without reference to greater powers, gods, higher force spirits, incarna, etc, etc, etc. That does not sound like a bad idea, nor would it run afoul of religious tolerance, nor does it ban any ideology. It simply declares that the UN as a whole won't base any decision making upon religion. Individual nations are free to choose as they please for whatever reason they want, but the UN can't pass a law that says

"This is the way it shall be because Allah wills it so"

If I've misread or misrepresented the authors intent, then take that previous paragraph as my suggestions for improvement upon what is there.

What he wrote was a general condemnation of faith, traditonal values (reguardless of their origin), and a condemnation of every religon but the Church of Athiesim.

Apparently I am not the only person who sucks at reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

By the way, I agree with you about Mensa. THat may be why I haven't been to a meeting in... Oh, going on 20 years now. They're boring and tend to be elitists, kinda like some of the people in here.

The Mensa reference was intended as a joke.

Get a life and a sense of humor.

Seabear, let me give you a piece of advice.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

To work on a legislative level from the Atheist perspective is to work without God, NOT without religion. I believe its one sect of Buddists are technically Atheists - why? Because they believe there is no God.


First the Buddhists...

In my ongoing study of faith and religon and the human condition I have visited several temples and many Buddhist Monks and Nuns.

In my experience and education, you are incorrect. There are several forms of Buddhism, and both decend from two basic schools of thought.

In one school of thought, the one you are refering to, Buddhism is a philosophy, and Siddhārtha Gautama is not believed to be a God. Furthermore, refering to a Buddha is refering to the enlightened being in each of us.

However, that is not the end of the story.

While there are Christian and Islamic, and even Athiest practicioners of this form of Buddhism, most follow the Tao, though it is hardly uncommon for them to follow shintoism, both of which are religons.

And you are correct in that you can work without God, but with Religon, that is called athiesm.

Seabear, let me give you a piece of advice.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


I'm having fun here.

It's amazing how many people are clueless when it comes to religon.

I usually have my sister, the nuclear physicist, do mine. This year she's vacationing with the British royal family though and can't be bothered to help me. I'll have my nephew, the astronaut, do them instead.


Hmm, I would have hoped you would have been more help than that. For one thing, it's LexisNexis. I don't suppose members of Mensa use it much though. For another, I'm almost certain that like Lexus, "bumber" is not a word either. Admittedly since I am not a member of Mensa I could be wrong about that.

What is your opinion on the plural of Jesus? Is it Jesuses, Jesii or Jesi?


You are correct, it is LexisNexis, I didn't care to look up the spelling. And given their prices, generally only Lawyers, Politicians, and Journalists can pay for their usage.

I certainly never could justify the cost.

First the Buddhists...

In my ongoing study of faith and religon and the human condition I have visited several temples and many Buddhist Monks and Nuns.

In my experience and education, you are incorrect. There are several forms of Buddhism, and both decend from two basic schools of thought.

In one school of thought, the one you are refering to, Buddhism is a philosophy, and Siddhārtha Gautama is not believed to be a God. Furthermore, refering to a Buddha is refering to the enlightened being in each of us.

Which means they are a religion that believes God does not exist and therefore, by the definition of Atheism that I was so kind to quote in my post, they are Atheists. Therefore, I am not correct to say that a sect of Buddism is actually Atheists. Just because you ignore terms doesn't change facts

However, that is not the end of the story.

While there are Christian and Islamic, and even Athiest practicioners of this form of Buddhism, most follow the Tao, though it is hardly uncommon for them to follow shintoism, both of which are religons.

Ok....which doesn't disprove what I said

And you are correct in that you can work without God, but with Religon, that is called athiesm.

Atheism has nothing to do with whether you have religion or not. Check a dictionary. Too many people assume that "Godless" = "No religion" and that is why "Atheism" = "no religion" became an unfortunate bastard son of stupid one-word bullet points. It is linguistically false and annoys the crap out of those who aren't Atheist but aren't religious either.

Atheism has nothing to do with whether you have religion or not. Check a dictionary. Too many people assume that "Godless" = "No religion" and that is why "Atheism" = "no religion" became an unfortunate bastard son of stupid one-word bullet points. It is linguistically false and annoys the crap out of those who aren't Atheist but aren't religious either.

OOC: Those people are called agnostics. I'm one of 'em.

OOC: Me = temporal agnostic. No religion, unsure of the existence of a god or gods, but open to future evidence.

OOC: Those people are called agnostics. I'm one of 'em.

OOC: Actually, not all of them.

My ex-gf, for example, was not religious, did not subscribe to any religious doctrine, but was fully convinced that there was a God. By definition, not Agnostic, but also not Atheist.

(I am also Agnostic, BTW)

May I urge one and all to become Apatheists (if you can be bothered to get around to it).

I guess the current debate isn't a hijack, since it's to do with defining terms that might be used, but please take pity on my literal-mindedness and tell me, given its purpose, would this (embryonic) proposal be Human Rights?


Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Or does Thelyptum propose to take Forgottenlands' earlier advice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12453467&postcount=39) and shape it into one of these?

Education and Creativity
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

BTW, Seabear70, on the subject of journalists being able to afford posh cars -- this is a complete furphy. In many years of padding my expense acc-- of submitting detailed, accurate claims for legitimate work expenses -- I have never had Accounting question bus, train or taxi fares. But they always query petrol consumption. Thus, a shrewd journo doesn't drive at all, but cadges lifts from those who do.


.

OOC: Actually, not all of them.

My ex-gf, for example, was not religious, did not subscribe to any religious doctrine, but was fully convinced that there was a God. By definition, not Agnostic, but also not Atheist.

(I am also Agnostic, BTW)

OOC: Point. *bows head*

Which means they are a religion that believes God does not exist and therefore, by the definition of Atheism that I was so kind to quote in my post, they are Atheists. Therefore, I am not correct to say that a sect of Buddism is actually Atheists. Just because you ignore terms doesn't change facts



Ok....which doesn't disprove what I said



Atheism has nothing to do with whether you have religion or not. Check a dictionary. Too many people assume that "Godless" = "No religion" and that is why "Atheism" = "no religion" became an unfortunate bastard son of stupid one-word bullet points. It is linguistically false and annoys the crap out of those who aren't Atheist but aren't religious either.


Please read the rest of what I wrote. before making comments. You are desperatly hanging on to an assumption that is proving your ignorance.

Better yet, find a Buddhist temple near you and ask them, they are almost always willing to make time to talk to people who are willing to learn.

And some of the Nuns are really hot! :cool:

BTW, Seabear70, on the subject of journalists being able to afford posh cars -- this is a complete furphy. In many years of padding my expense acc-- of submitting detailed, accurate claims for legitimate work expenses -- I have never had Accounting question bus, train or taxi fares. But they always query petrol consumption. Thus, a shrewd journo doesn't drive at all, but cadges lifts from those who do.


.



Ummm....

Never mind...

:headbang:

Please read the rest of what I wrote. before making comments. You are desperatly hanging on to an assumption that is proving your ignorance.

Better yet, find a Buddhist temple near you and ask them, they are almost always willing to make time to talk to people who are willing to learn.

And some of the Nuns are really hot! :cool:

If you want to show off your oh so impressive knowledge of RL religions, take it to General and stop hijacking this debate.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

If you want to show off your oh so impressive knowledge of RL religions, take it to General and stop hijacking this debate.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

OOC : I did not bring RL religons into this debate. I responded to a remark from another delegate that thought he was clever.

This resolution regards human rights, because it's purpose is to preserve individual UN nations' right to religious self-determination. That is to say, its purpose is to prevent the Un from legislating religion.

As to the phrase "qualified in immediacy," I appropriated that little bit from Kierkegaard, although unlike Kierkegaard I interpreted the divine as a second mediator between the individual and the principles sought by the individual (justice etc.). I do this also to ensure that no UN resolution aims at the appeasement of a particular diety, but at a universally beneficial principle (i.e., to prevent the implicit legislation of religion, since a particular religion would be prerequisite for adopting that legislation and that is a violation of religious self-determination). If the phrase is too nebulous for policy, we can explicate it in more detail.

The problem is, the UN needs to establish a relationship between itself en bloc and its goals, which is tantamount to legislating a metaphysical system.

This resolution regards human rights, because it's purpose is to preserve individual UN nations' right to religious self-determination. That is to say, its purpose is to prevent the Un from legislating religion.

As to the phrase "qualified in immediacy," I appropriated that little bit from Kierkegaard, although unlike Kierkegaard I interpreted the divine as a second mediator between the individual and the principles sought by the individual (justice etc.). I do this also to ensure that no UN resolution aims at the appeasement of a particular diety, but at a universally beneficial principle (i.e., to prevent the implicit legislation of religion, since a particular religion would be prerequisite for adopting that legislation and that is a violation of religious self-determination). If the phrase is too nebulous for policy, we can explicate it in more detail.

The problem is, the UN needs to establish a relationship between itself en bloc and its goals, which is tantamount to legislating a metaphysical system.


If the goal of the resolution is meerly to prevent legislation of theology, then it's kinda pointless...

There are about 10,000 active members or so, they come from all walks of life, and all belief systems. Some of the faiths of some of the nations and peoples represented and the dictates of those faiths are physically impossible for many of the peoples in other nations to partake in.

Reguardless, the canceling effect of thousands of different faiths is that none of them are capable of gaining dominance outside the borders of the nations that subscribe to them.

Furthermore, the nature of the UN resolution and voting system can be seen and described as the development of a universal morality that is dependent on the belief systems of the members, and expressive of their faiths reguardless of the origins of those faiths.

As for the original bill, and it's effect on faith. The UN, given it's all encompasing potential, and it's intrusion on the daily lives and beliefs of nations is unto itself, a form of universal religon. Where once again, the common morality and faith of thousands of nations is expressed in it's dogma.

So, philisophically, banning religon in the UN would have the effect of banning the UN itself because the UN is in the end a religon to those that subscribe to it.

OOC: Actually, not all of them.

My ex-gf, for example, was not religious, did not subscribe to any religious doctrine, but was fully convinced that there was a God. By definition, not Agnostic, but also not Atheist.

(I am also Agnostic, BTW)

Technically, she was Deist. I was that way for years before someone introduced me to the term.

Please note that Modern Deists generally share one common concept among them, and that is the regection of organized religon. Beyond that everything is optional and individual.

I, for example, believe in a concept that I refer to as "God before Man", or simply put, No man has the right to speak the mind of God. Yet I do not, out of hand, dismiss the beliefs of other religons, and choose to study them in depth when possible to further understand the human condition.

If anyone wants t odiscuss real world religons further, start a general thread and send me the link.

If you want to show off your oh so impressive knowledge of RL religions, take it to General and stop hijacking this debate.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Ok, I've gotta ask, here. There have been somewhere on the order of 4 or 5 hijackings on this thread, all of them, IIRC, involving Seabear but starting because people are extremely jumpy and ready to string him up. However, of all the hijacks that have happened here, this one on Buddism is the most prevelant towards the debate on this current resolution because it started when I was discussing the question of what is Atheism - a definition rather important from the starting point of the discussion. 3 (and ONLY 3) posts later, there is a minor disagreement on what constitutes Atheism and whether a certain sect of Buddists would be classified as Atheists - a foundation of my aforementioned argument.

If that is, still, something that wanders away from the topic too much, I have no problem dropping it (it probably is moving into the realm of irrelevancy right about now since the author is moving away to more important issues on his resolution....such as effect which we could use some mod assistance on), I must ask why you targetted that actual thread of debate?

OOC : I did not bring RL religons into this debate. I responded to a remark from another delegate that thought he was clever.

Actually, no. I was trying to provide evidence to my point using definitions and an example of Buddism. I don't see how that would be classified as clever. You could have used the word "wrong", you could have used the words "in error", you could have said that you felt that I was espousing half-truths, so why you would choose clever baffles me somewhat.

Speaking of which, could you learn how Quote tags work and start answering multiple posts in the same post rather than doing the 50 post string of replies? It is getting annoying

This resolution regards human rights, because it's purpose is to preserve individual UN nations' right to religious self-determination. That is to say, its purpose is to prevent the Un from legislating religion.

You cannot bar the UN from legislating on a particular topic. This is a rule that went in to try and put a limitation and requirement on the various blocker resolutions that have sprung up in the two years. Blocker resolutions are required to have a clause that explicitly affects nations at some level or another.

to prevent the implicit legislation of religion, since a particular religion would be prerequisite for adopting that legislation and that is a violation of religious self-determination

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's simply impossible without violating Optionality rules. Legislating in favor of Abortion implicitly violates several religions, but Optionality says that they must accept it even their religion violates that belief. I can equally assure you that the UN Secretariat will not allow a resolution that implicitly prevents it from legislating on Abortion because it might violate a religion - I can't remember what rule that is called, but that is definitely in the rules set.

OOC : I did not bring RL religons into this debate. I responded to a remark from another delegate that thought he was clever.

Ah, I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

First the Buddhists...

In my ongoing study of faith and religon and the human condition I have visited several temples and many Buddhist Monks and Nuns.

In my experience and education, you are incorrect. There are several forms of Buddhism, and both decend from two basic schools of thought.

In one school of thought, the one you are refering to, Buddhism is a philosophy, and Siddhārtha Gautama is not believed to be a God. Furthermore, refering to a Buddha is refering to the enlightened being in each of us.

However, that is not the end of the story.

While there are Christian and Islamic, and even Athiest practicioners of this form of Buddhism, most follow the Tao, though it is hardly uncommon for them to follow shintoism, both of which are religons.

And you are correct in that you can work without God, but with Religon, that is called athiesm.

I know that it might seem strange that I would think that a person who mentioned Mensa and discussed LexisNexis in this same thread would be talking about RL matters, but I'm going to go out on a giant limb here and say that in several posts you've been referring to RL religions and attempting to give an accurate account of the nature of Buddhism in particular.

Which is fine, if you're in the General forum. So do it there, or not at all.

Are you clear on that?

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Ah, I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.



I know that it might seem strange that I would think that a person who mentioned Mensa and discussed LexisNexis in this same thread would be talking about RL matters, but I'm going to go out on a giant limb here and say that in several posts you've been referring to RL religions and attempting to give an accurate account of the nature of Buddhism in particular.

Which is fine, if you're in the General forum. So do it there, or not at all.

Are you clear on that?

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Forgottenrealms did actually admit to the starting of the Buddist hijack.

I will admit that I brought Athiesm directly into focus here, not to hijack the thread, but because I believe this resolution directly promotes Athism at the cost of other religons. The Church of Athiesm, while it is a RL organization, seems to be a universal concept.

Deism as well, I believe to be a universal concept, but it was brought on in the discussion of religon.

As for the Mensa joke. I have about the same opinion of the organization as most of the people who attacked me for the joke. I went to one meeting and walked out shaking my head and never looked back.

And LexisNexis was in response to someone asking for the Plural of Lexus, of which there really isn't one.

If you want to believe that that is all bullshit, fine. Throw me out.

Ok, I've gotta ask, here. There have been somewhere on the order of 4 or 5 hijackings on this thread, all of them, IIRC, involving Seabear but starting because people are extremely jumpy and ready to string him up. However, of all the hijacks that have happened here, this one on Buddism is the most prevelant towards the debate on this current resolution because it started when I was discussing the question of what is Atheism - a definition rather important from the starting point of the discussion. 3 (and ONLY 3) posts later, there is a minor disagreement on what constitutes Atheism and whether a certain sect of Buddists would be classified as Atheists - a foundation of my aforementioned argument.

If that is, still, something that wanders away from the topic too much, I have no problem dropping it (it probably is moving into the realm of irrelevancy right about now since the author is moving away to more important issues on his resolution....such as effect which we could use some mod assistance on), I must ask why you targetted that actual thread of debate?

I picked that post because it was the most recent one at the time I was posting, and because Seabear70 seems to be doing most of the hijacking. No grand reason, just a practical one.

And if you want to make the argument that some Buddhists are religious atheists, you can always point to many NS nations in which it is the case, including HotRodia. Debating RL religion is just not what this forum is for, generally speaking.

As to others helping with the hijacking, I did notice, and if I see it becoming a pattern I'll certainly address it.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Religions, in all sense of the term, are worldviews. There is no way to seperate politics from worldviews, as politics govern their people based on how they see the world. An atheist UN would be like muslim or christian UN - biased and singular to one worldview. Intellectualism and reason don't necessitate the non-existance of a god or diety.

Besides, only 2.36% of the world's population are atheist.

This resolution regards human rights, because it's purpose is to preserve individual UN nations' right to religious self-determination. That is to say, its purpose is to prevent the Un from legislating religion.

Thank you for your Kierkegaard explanation (and if anybody needed explanation, it's Kierkegaard [/feeble joke]).

So, it's to be a Human Rights resolution. Okay, that's

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Right: what does it actually do to give people in all the nations greater civil rights? I'm not asking that to be smarty-pants or aggressive, I'm trying to get specific. Once we've got that we can build up from it.

Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? (My bold)

If it's more control, or decreases civil rights, it's Moral Decency.

It seems to me that the discussion has been going two ways, one of which is to actively stop religious folk from applying their religion to UN resolutions -- "UN member states shall not propose laws based on ... " -- (in which case it sounds like limiting their rights, and it also sounds as if it would be illegal).

The other trend seems to be towards getting the UN to make a statement of principle ... "The UN DECLARES that ..." -- in which case I don't know what to call it and I'd welcome comment from somebody who does.

Besides, only 2.36% of the world's population are atheist.

I'd venture to say that it's a considerably higher percentage in NationStates.

I'd venture to say that it's a considerably higher percentage in NationStates.

That's true, considering the satirical nations I find when I search the term "christian", but my point still stands, even if it was 33%.

You cannot bar the UN from legislating on a particular topic. This is a rule that went in to try and put a limitation and requirement on the various blocker resolutions that have sprung up in the two years. Blocker resolutions are required to have a clause that explicitly affects nations at some level or another.

Ok, this is a serious problem with the resolution. Regardless of the various red herrings employed by Seabear70 et al., if this is in fact the case, then the resolution in essence violates the rules of the game and, thus, might as well be dropped. That is to say, we should continue putting our faith in ambition countering ambition, as far as preventing legeslation of religion (which is a good point I hadn't considered). Actually, I'm beginning to think that writing a resolution applying to the UN itself, as divorced from the nations that constitute it, is actually not feasible anyway for that reason.

It seems more appropriate to write a resolution addressing religious self-determination directly, but ignoring the need for metaphysical justification. But then, that may already be implied in resolution #19.

Ok, this is a serious problem with the resolution. Regardless of the various red herrings employed by Seabear70 et al., if this is in fact the case, then the resolution in essence violates the rules of the game and, thus, might as well be dropped. That is to say, we should continue putting our faith in ambition countering ambition, as far as preventing legeslation of religion (which is a good point I hadn't considered). Actually, I'm beginning to think that writing a resolution applying to the UN itself, as divorced from the nations that constitute it, is actually not feasible anyway for that reason.

It seems more appropriate to write a resolution addressing religious self-determination directly, but ignoring the need for metaphysical justification. But then, that may already be implied in resolution #19.

OOC : Forget red herrings, we're supposed to be delegates debating resolutions and potential resolutions, not geeks debating game mechanics and trying to be rules lawyers.

As delegates, we're supposed to defend our nations, it's beliefs, and it's powers, and that is exactly what I am doing.

This resolution would be pointles if it were not dangerous in that it advances one idology above all others seeking to bypass the mechanisms of the UN.

I'll fight tooth and nail to stop it.

Religions, in all sense of the term, are worldviews. There is no way to seperate politics from worldviews, as politics govern their people based on how they see the world. An atheist UN would be like muslim or christian UN - biased and singular to one worldview.

You're confusing secularism and atheism. The UN can be secular without being atheist.


Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

You're confusing secularism and atheism. The UN can be secular without being atheist.


Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...


The Short form of what I said about the UN is that it is by it's very nature secular due to the variety of faiths and creeds represented. However, it will develop and reflect the morality and faith of the multiverse. So, even if religon is itself banned, a preposterous wate of time, faith itself cannot be denied to it's members or delegates.

OOC : Forget red herrings, we're supposed to be delegates debating resolutions and potential resolutions, not geeks debating game mechanics and trying to be rules lawyers.

As delegates, we're supposed to defend our nations, it's beliefs, and it's powers, and that is exactly what I am doing.

This resolution would be pointles if it were not dangerous in that it advances one idology above all others seeking to bypass the mechanisms of the UN.

I'll fight tooth and nail to stop it.

As a delegate you should be debating for what you believe

As a member of this community, as a player of this game, you should be looking for ways to better this community, and that INCLUDES assisting newbies in the area of proposal legalities and improvements. I would rather have a well written proposal I disagree with pass than a piece of garbage fail at vote because no one here put in the time to help improve it. Apparently, this is a lesson thus far lost upon you.

Thelyptum, I believe I was so interested in trying to work out exactly what your proposal was about, I forgot to welcome you to the UN.

Let me make up for that now. *gestures*

(Doors burst open, allowing entry of 100 pipers, followed by marching band, massed choir of Ardchoillean schoolchildren, gymnasts constantly re-forming to spell out "THELYPTUM!" in huge letters, brass band, decorated floats, jazz band, people in giant animal costumes, maharachi band ...)

In case you don't realise what a stellar first thread yours was, look at what you did:
Came up with an idea and asked for advice
Explained idea further without complaining about being persecuted
Listened to advice
Acted on advice
Continued explaining without vilifying those who asked for explanation
Listened to, and acted further on, advice
Accepted that the NS UN is not the real world
Accepted that it operates by its own rules, however illogical
Accepted that your idea couldn't be shoehorned into those rules
Said so graciously
Failed to attribute setback to the existence of a privileged clique.

Oh, and you didn't use a single smiley!

Most of us take a much longer time to achieve all that. Some of us never do.

I hope I've made clear why I'm saying ...

WELCOME! x 1000

(... some of us never get over the fascination of playing with type, either.)

:gundge:

OOC: C'mon...I had to... :p