chilled_fluorine

And on top of that, morals are supported by SOME logic (otherwise why bother)

 

When you look into why it is considered immoral to kill puppies and drink their bloods in the USA, you won't find that the answer is "it doesn't feel right", you'll find that the answer lies into the fact we consider puppies (and dogs, and other animals) to have sentience, which means we value their lives above mere food sources.

You will get a different answer if you drink the blood of a goat, by the way, because we seem to consider a goat's life as valid food source - unlike dogs. Is this a valid claim? Maybe yes, maybe not, we can argue, but the way to argue on that one is to use EVIDENCE.

 

For instance, I may supply evidence to show that dogs have much higher capacity for intelligence than goats, and therefore make a logical argument of why dogs are above being eaten. Someone else may point out that life should be valued even without higher intelligence, and explain why they became vegetarians. We may disagree, then, on the analysis or interpretation of the evidence, or on what is MORE important (the value of all life without distinction, or the need to eat beef while not harming higher intelligence animals). That argument may truly depend on personal viewpoints -- but we wouldn't have GOTTEN there at ALL without at the very least supporting our claims with *some* logic that has SOMETHING to do with reality.

 

I'm still waiting for the logic that supports your claim, chilled_fluorine. So far, you are avoiding from even trying it by arguing it's not needed. Well, you're wrong because of the reasons above, and you're also wrong because we're a science forum and that's what our rules demand. There is nothing to argue with here. Either start working with us, or go.

 

I'm waiting.

 

~mooey

I knew you were lurking mooeypoo. I also knew that my umadbro would get you to start talking again. You amuse me. Most people would say that puppies are cute, not sentient. I don't find puppies to be sentient. Wish as you might, logic is not evidence. If you were raised in a society that used ground puppies as it's food source, you would find it highly logical, and morally correct. Logic and reason, or at least your ideas of logic and reason, seem to be very subject to cultural and personal bias. Why does intelligence make something above being eaten? That's not how nature works. Any natural species physically able to would gladly munch down a human baby or two, if it was hungry for meat.

You've said that last part so many times, and in so many different contexts, that I now have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats. Phi, why did you close my thread about potassium iodide? Where to buy it, the topic, is completely open for discussion, but I'm not allowed to keep anything private? I would like it of you reopened the topic.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that the issue is much more nuanced than "life begins at conception" could ever begin to cover.

 

This is a great reason why many folks don't want to impose their morals on other people at the federal level. It's also one of the conflicts of interest I have with the current GOP platform. You can't want smaller government AND let it deny women the right to deal with personal situations like this. Don't let the religious right force you into an untenable position just because they also claim to be Republicans.

 

My opinions aren't based on religious nonsense. They are based on what I find moral, and what I find reasonable. A situation isn't personal if it involves the life of another. Thank you for the appreciation. I finally have a "bad" reputation on this forum. It seems people are much more generous with their -1's than their +1's. I still find it unfair that there aren't any republicans here to back me up. It seems like I've made mooeypoo mad...

Then why do they do it so much?

 

 

 

So Mitt's lie about his health care plan didn't bother you? He had the chance to tell the truth on national television and he lied...

 

 

And you count Obama not being able to undo the mess he inherited as fast as he wanted to is a lie?

 

epic fail dude... you are indeed a staunch Republican...

 

I don't know why they do it so much, and I wouldn't, because I'm not that kind of republican.I really don't know why he did it, but regardless, he is still my preferred candidate. If you promise to do something in 4 years, but then you don't, then you are a liar. Isn't that obvious? He shouldn't have made promises if he didn't know for sure he could keep them. That is lying, and if you think it isn't, how is it better than lying?

So you're a woman and something goes wrong with the method of birth control you're using and now you're pregnant. The father doesn't want to help with any of the expense or duties of raising a child and you feel unable to do it all by yourself. You want to wait until you're in a better position financially, and with a more reliable partner, before you decide to raise a child. You want to do what's in the best interests of everyone involved. You know you have to make a tough choice, not because it's fun, but because in the end, you know it is what is best. So you decide to have a safe medical procedure done by a qualified healthcare professional that stops the development of the embryo inside your body.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Well, birth control failure is one of the situations I'm not really sure of. Abortion is giving up a plan. I Still don't like it, but I guess it is better. If you couldn't give the child the quality of life it deserves, it should be done very early on, and with the intent of having another child when you are in a better opportunity to do so. Putting it up for adoption would be my preferred thing to do.

 

Ok, I'll go along with a difference of opinion. For me though I would never try to convey my feelings on choosing the lesser of two evils by saying it is something I want (or the synonyms: wish, desire, or like). I just can't get myself to say I wanted my colonoscopy.

 

Well, we clearly have different philosophies. I am a born pessimist. Pessimists are always being proven right, or being pleasantly surprised. Of course, I also have other philosophies.If you didn't "want" your colonoscopy, why did you have it done? Like it or not, you wanted a colonoscopy. Admittedly, that sounds messed up. So, Zapatos, I'm not naive? Gee, thanks, that comes as such a relief to me.

Chilled,

a simple question: if someone has to lie repeatedly to persuade others of the validity of their case, is their case valid?

 

If you agree with me that it is not then can you say why anyone votes for the right wing in US politics?

 

(There have been a few threads where it turns out that the right wing are the real liars and idiots: I'm not saying the left is perfect- just that the dragon believers and those talking about absurd ideas of human reproduction or even plane windows seem to all be on the right. I have repeatedly asked for instances of Lefty nut-jobs and, at best, they are thin on the ground )

 

You can have the most valid case in the world, but people might still not believe you. Right-wingers don't have to lie, but they do sometimes. Did Obama lower the deficit as he promised he would? Republicans don't have to lie, so their case can be valid. Did you see Romney pretty much shove his fist up Obama's *ss last night at the debate? And he only contradicted himself once... And he succeeded by telling the truth, if Obama's campaign promises weren't any indicator. Being completely open about it, yes, most all of the nut jobs are on the right, but that's what morphine does to people. Poor McCain, such a messed up old man.

Let's look at some examples.

 

Does the parent who tells the doctor to separate their conjoined twins, knowing one will die, do so because they want to?

Does the person who has to choose which of the two drowning victims he'll save, do so because they want to?

Did I tell the doctor I wanted him to stop treatment of my mother and instead ease her pain because I wanted to?

Did I punish my children because I wanted to?

Does a jury decide to be responsible for a man's death because they want to?

Does a soldier send his men into certain death because he wants to?

Does my brother still smoke after his heart attack because he wants to?

 

You seem to be incredibly naive.

 

The parent tells the doctor because they know it is in the twins' best interest, and they want to do what is in their childrens' best interest.

Yes, they would prefer one to be alive to the other. If they had no opinion on it, they would know it was in one's best interest, and they would want to do something to help that person. You knew your mother would suffer less, and you wanted her to suffer less.You punished your children because you knew they needed to learn they did something wrong, and you want your children to know right from wrong.Etc, etc.I must be thinking differently than you. People make tough choices not because they are fun, but because in the end, they know it is what is best. People want what is best, and they are often willing to do a little suffering to obtain it. Of course you didn't want your mother to die. But you knew it was best for her, as she would only die more painfully otherwise, and you definitely didn't want that. If given the choice, I would say I want to jump off a very tall building, as opposed to drowning. If I had to do one or the other, I would very willingly jump off, it would be much more comfortable.

A friend of mine worked at a hotel, some German guests were staying. There was a little earthquake, they ran down

to front desk and said 'Was that an earthquake? We didn't get any warning.' No response was needed, it's more

like a heads-up for anyone doing this.

 

If there had been a real earthquake in my state in the last 500 years, yeah, I might worry. When I used to do this stuff, I would string them up high in a sturdy oak for safe storage. Nice copper wool wrapping, to stop those pesky squirrels. Stay away from my HMTD, stupid squirrels! I can only imagine what the neighbors think of me.

Vote me down all you want for posting facts (as three of you did).

 

The director (Joel Gilbert) of that dvd would have you believe that the pictures were taken in 1960, but the fact remains that those pictures first appeared in a magazine in 1958. Gilbert knows this, because he would not have had those pictures without the magazine. So if these pictures are real pictures of Ann Dunham, it would make her 15 years old when the pictures were taken. So its either child porn...or complete and utter, slanderous, fictitious bullshit. It screams of racism. Either way, its disgusting to the core.

 

I'm sure I will get voted down again. That's fine. But instead of pressing the red button, maybe back up your disagreement. Or at least post your disagreement instead of hiding behind the red button.

 

Are you a republican, akh? :hopes desperately:

 

Perhaps, in the interest of balance, you would like to cite a few of the opposition's examples.

 

Of course, if it is representative of just one side, you might find that difficult.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know there are arses on both sides, it's just that one side seems to have more than its fair share.

 

Can't find any democratic granny porn references, sorry John. Guess you've won this round.

Instead of starting a new insane political thread I'm going to post this here, I genuinely hope it is bullshit but if true the campaign has hit new low this election cycle...

 

DVD Claims Obama's Mom Was Porn Star

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tXcDj5J39kM

 

 

 

Wow, that's just sad. Please, don't find this representative of the party as a whole. There will always be a few assholes out there willing to call their preferred candidate's opponents mother a porn star, but those are just assholes.

Very dangerous. Even just in ordinary handling. The least bit of contamination can set of fires and explosions.

 

You're going to need to be more specific if you actually want a response. Is bleach dangerous? Is 55% h2o2 dangerous? Are explosives dangerous? I've never made explosives with bleach. If, in a purely hypothetical scenario, I were to make the same type, I would use very pure KClO3.

You're moving the goal post now. "Her best interest" wasn't the issue previously, was it. "WANTS TO" is different than "in her best interest".

 

A woman with advanced breast cancer might have it on "her best interest" to have a masectomy. I don't see many women who "want to". Difference clear now? Please stop moving the goal post.

 

 

Now, if you want a reminder about why it may be for women's best interests', read people's posts. There were quite a number of examples given (SUPPORTED by real cases, surprise).

 

That said, you're making claims to support your position that are either turning out to be an exaggerated falsehood, or they turn out not to support your position. When that happens (more than once now) you turn around and Red Herring your way through the debate by pointing a finger at others.

 

Let me make it simple: Even if I cannot support *my* position, that doesn't remove the responsibility you have from supporting yours.

 

 

Not so, clearly, since your attempt to support your position are clearly untrue (READ the actual papers!) which means that there's nothing to support your position. If you can come up with real actual supported claims, we can argue on opinions.

 

Check this bit of logic:

"It's my opinion that all men are grumpy because shaving is scary. Who in their right mind would put a knife next to their necks!"

 

How about this:

"It's my opinion that all american people all murderers because they kill children in iraq."

 

.... would you truly argue that "you can't argue on opinions" ? Really? When all evidence show these are absolutely ridiculous claims?

 

 

Let me make this clear: Preaching is against the forums' rules. While the staff has been patient in trying to let you know in more than one moderation note, gentle nudge and hint, this gentleness will not continue.

 

Stop preaching. Start debating. Can you?

 

 

 

If you could show how your opinion is supported by facts -- that is, how your interpretation of the situation results in the opinion you hold -- then you'd be right. In fact, I know quite a number of arguments on "your side" that would do just that, while still being well grounded in actual reality. Instead, you choose to guess and be condescending to a situation you clearly have not a half a clue about, and even more clearly from your writing, that you don't care to check.

 

I suggest you read my and John's posts again, and look up ACTUAL statistics and papers about abortions and the reasons for them. You're guessing, and while guessing might be fun, it's by far not an evidence. We're not in a guessing forum, we're in a science forum, which requires substantiation of claims. Even the politics and religion forums.

 

I'm getting tired repeating myself.

 

~mooey

There is no "evidence" to support morality. It's just what feels right. Opinions are opinions. I could say "it is morally correct to put puppies in industrial blenders then drink the resultant juice while laughing", and you couldn't prove me wrong. Of course, some opinions sound more reasonable than others, but reason itself is a matter of opinion. I have no problem with abortion if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Because the woman has to go into the abortion clinic willingly, and people only do things willingly when they want to do them, the woman must want to have an abortion. If not she wouldn't be there. Surely the woman would know that it wouldn't be enjoyable, but she would think it was in her best interest, which is what made her willingly go to the clinic. The example you provided isn't really an opinion. Millions of Americans have indirectly conspired to murder Iraqi children, but not all have actually killed an Iraqi child. If you haven't killed, you aren't a murderer. Opinions, by definition can not be proven right or wrong. They can, however, be considered right or wrong in the opinions of most everybody. It is not a fact that nazi policy is wrong, it is just a very widespread opinion, and one I strongly agree with. I honestly don't think that opinions belong on a science forum. What we are discussing is not science. Unless this post gets much more interesting, I'll go back to the chemistry section. And to believe all this started from "you might have guessed I'm a republican".

 

 

 

Evidence? "They think" ... who? How many women thinks that?

 

You ignore evidence that's given to you and then you use unsupported bunk-claims to state you're right. You're not in a preaching forum, chilled_fluorine, you're in a science forum, and we require you do not needlessly generalize and that you substantiate your claim *even in the politics forum*. Read our rules.

 

And now try to do better, please. None of these claims above has even the most remote hold on what actually goes on with women who consider (and go through) having an abortion. There is research out there, there are statistics out there, there are tests out there. You can find them if you care to. Then again, that would require you give in to the SLIGHTEST most TINIEST possibility you MAY find out you MIGHT have something a LITTTTTTLE bit on the (shriek) wrong here.

 

Not much to debate if you just decided what you want to decide and came over here to preach regardless of evidence, though. If tht's the case, I suggest we end the thread right here.

 

Which is it?

Remind me again, why would a woman have an abortion if it wasn't in her best interest? Remember, there really isn't any way to prove an ethical stance right or wrong. We can provide a compelling argument, but that is just about all. The "evidence" you were referring to can't prove my opinions about abortion's ethics to be right or wrong. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I preach because I am given so many opportunities to. If we had a factual conversation, which I am completely open to, then we couldn't get anywhere on a matter of opinion.

Holy flying spaghetti monster. If you keep digging, chilld_fluorine, you'll reach the Earth's core and melt.

 

Can we PLEASE stop with the condescending mysogynistic cr*p and continue ON TOPIC?

 

It starts to look like you have nothing material to say about the topic. Do you?

 

~mooey

 

I think most of me would boil or carbolyse. Well, if it stops you from using such terrible words, sure, we can get back on topic. Do you want to talk about Romney's windows or abortion? If the latter, please go to the thread hyper seperated from this one.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

It would be much appreciated if everyone could get back on topic.

 

And chilled_fluorine, just...stop.

 

Sure. So long as everyone else does too.

Did you try Amazon?

So, what's the iron iodide for? I've never made or seen this compound before.

 

I'll repeat myself; nonna yo bidness.Anyways, I guess I'll just order it off the Internet.

 

Read up. The point about women merrily going around to get abortions is a strawman, and quite honestly it's a seriously offensive one. How many women do you think WANT to get an abortion? Do you seriously think this is part of a pregnancy prevention plan a woman sits and considers? Do you imagine women scheduling an abortion and then a meeting at a pub for drinks?

The fact is, abortion is a humiliating painful procedure very very few women want (if at ALL). The question most of the time is whether the woman NEEDS an abortion, not whether she merrily wants one.

 

And if that's your condition, then how about you go and ask the people who actually WORK around women who have abortions and see what the leading reasons are? Did you ever research this, or are you just spitting out what you were fed by other people in "authority" since any abortion is sinful?

 

Most reasons for abortion are medical. Would you prevent a woman from having an abortion on a pregnancy that might be extremely dangerous for her health and/or the baby's? Really?

 

But fine, let's move to other questions and considerations. If live begins at conception, what happens to twins? Do their soul splits (they don't start off at twins, they start off as 1 fetus and then split after a couple of weeks) -- are we lacking souls or does it miraculously manifest itself when the split happens?

 

Would you sue women who have natural abortions for manslaughter?

 

And if you're for using birth control, how does that fit with thinking life starts at conception? Pills or chemical birth control literally "kills" the eggs. Is that not murder?

 

Women don't want to have abortions, but they think it's in their best interest, so they do it. Not all abortion is "sinful". I'm not religious. There are morally wrong things, but no sins to me. I have seen the figures. If it was likely the woman would die, no, I wouldn't stop it. Most reasons for abortion are not medical. You know I don't think souls exist, right? I'm not a Christian. Or anything, really. An egg is different than a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg has no potential for life. Not for manslaughter. Too many people would end up in jail for the rest of their lives.

No you said you "post subjects only men could possibly be interested in". Since you post mainly in chemistry it would imply women couldn't be interested in chemistry, or perhaps science in general. According to AAUW ~52% of chemistry bachelor degrees were earned by women in 2006. Compare that to the 6% of republicans in science, according to Pew Research Center, and I would say my statement is far and away more accurate than the one you seemed to be making.

 

Making charcoal? Would the average woman be interested in that? I wasn't referring to all of my posts, but I do occasionally post something 98% of women wouldn't be interested in. Do you seriously think I was implying that women can't be interested in science? Of course your statement is more accurate than the one I "seem" to be making. You got from me posting subjects only men could be interested in to me thinking women can't like science. I was not referring to all of my posts, or even the majority.

 

I know you respect women, a man as good looking as you would have to...

 

Seriously? I could go on all day about how tall and blond I am, but that isn't at all relevant. Let's try to keep things relevant, mkay? Now that you know I'm blond, surely everyone must want to hate on me even more, right? Let's see some hate. If anyone here knows a republican on this forum, would you please invite them here? You can't get any good hate going without a few republicans to back me up... Democrats, of course, are also needed. But we have enough.

I could just as easily make a blanket statement saying that since scientists are more likely to be democrats you only post things that democrats are interested in.

 

I didn't use the conservative example as the main point, it just implied I have a 60-ish % chance of being a man. It would be ridiculous to assume all conservatives are men. It was not a blanket statement.

We generally prefer more substance in our discussions.

 

Ooh, phi, you've reached 10,000 posts. Congrats. Well, the facts he gave were sort of random, and didn't really express one idea or another. The post is titled ethics of abortion, not factual and opinionless discussion of abortion. No one goes into the politics section not expecting bickering and strongly biased opinions. Nowadays, politics involve very few facts, so I find it fitting. Factual discussion about factual things, biased discussion of biased things.

Some info:

 

http://www.guttmache...d_abortion.html

 

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6]

 

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

 

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

 

• Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks' gestation, in 2008.[2]

 

• The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[11]

• In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women's mental health.[13]

 

You know, when people are talking about something controversial, most people add their own strongly biased ideas. How about some strongly biased ideas? Facts are fun, but arguments more so. There is no one right or wrong answer.

Did you look on eBay?

 

I have seen it on eBay, but eBay sellers sometimes "cut" their chemicals. Do you know where I could buy it at a physical store? I really do prefer it to the Internet. It once took 3 months for the post office to deliver my CS2, and not because of hazmat/customs. I already got the forms filled out. The post office here sucks. Thanks for your help, John.

Well, I'm all out of KI after a recent nuclear war. Not seriously, I just used the last in an experiment. Does anyone know where I could get some more, and for a good price? I prefer to buy things at actual stores, but I'm willing enough to get it off the Internet. It doesn't have to be too pure, 98% would be very good. I've seen potassium bromide at pool stores, might they have it there? Any help would be very appreciated. And mods, yes, I know, anything involving iodine reeks of meth, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm making iron iodide for nonna yo bidness.

electrolysis of NaCl soln will liberate Chlorine gas, and leave you with Sodium Chlorate (NaClO3)

on further electrolysis you`ll get sodium PERchlorate (NaClO4)

Carbon electrodes are the most commonly used for this.

 

As pure molten NaCl, further heating is`nt often required as the current generates quite a bit of heat too.

 

to get just the Sodium metal out, NaOH and mercury can be used too, it forms a sodium mercury amalgam (nasty stuff!!!!).

 

oh yeah and also chlorates and perchlorates can be treated with sulphuric acid to give the appropriate acid (perchloric acid etc...)

NEVER DO THIS!, as perchloric acid is amongst the top 10 of strongest acids known, and WILL instantly set fire to ANY organic material with a high risk of explosion! leave that one to the experts in Industry.

Well, I find perchloric acid to be very fun stuff. I don't, however, have quite enough nerve to make chloric acid. Are you sure it's in the top 10? It is a superacid, but only just. I would think there are 10 stronger than it. When I want to make a ridiculous amount of chlorine, I just mix hydrochloric and pool chlorine (essentially strong bleach). Too bad it won't help him. You might also try kmno4 and pool chlorine, or just regular bleach. I prefer not to waste my kmno4, and hcl is cheaper, so I don't ever do this. Mno2 from batteries with hcl also works, but wear a face shield and gloves if you're going to open one. If I recall correctly, dissolving chlorine in water also makes hypochlorous acid. That could ne dangerous if you thought it was pure hcl. Mixing sulphuric and salt raises the question of removing the sodium sulphate from the hcl.

It was shown once (in LA I seem to remember) for legal reasons to demonstrate creative ownership etc - as the creator has been re-arrested and refused bail for breach of probation conditions after a conviction for computer fraud crimes (he couldn't go near an internet enabled pc for 5 years) not withstanding the political and security issued entailed I think it is unlikely that it will be released soon.

 

Whether it should be released on wider distribution is a question for the Ethics or the Politics forum. The discussion about the freedom of speech and expression in the face of religious intolerance also does not belong in the Lounge. Nor should the argument about deliberate provocation under an assumed identity be discussed here.

 

At the risk of an ad hom - I am curious as to your reasons to ask. No filmlover is gonna care about a heap of rubbish like that - and so I ask myself why anyone would ask the question you have asked. The only reasons that spring to mind are those of a rabid and unyielding freedom of speech activist or those of someone wishing to re-ignite a smouldering fury. And your post does not ring with the cast-iron self-righteous tones of the civil-rights advocate; thus I am forced to conclude that you ask merely to be contrary and to kick the hornet's nest.

Wow, where to start? I'm not kicking the hornets nest. The film looked funny to me. I'm not hateful towards Muslims. Well, maybe the radical ones, but not 99% of Muslims. Isn't it somewhere on the Internet? I do believe the people who made the film had every right to do so, but I don't think it was very respectful. I'm not here on the lounge to debate the legality of it, I already know the answer to that, I'm just casually asking where I can watch a movie. Care to provide an answer? Btw, the maker was on probation for check fraud, and he was allowed to post things on the Internet with his probation officer's permission. But he didn't get permission...

Still no. Learn your Latin roots!

 

Edit: This may help. http://en.wikipedia....anate#Etymology

 

I think that's a little unfair. I only took classical Latin, and you should know why.

 

Etymology is fun! Most information is in the consonants, and their order is also important.

 

So the disparity between p-m-g-r-n-... and p-r-m-n-g-... is a pretty good clue that they're probably not related.

 

It's like Spoonerisms: well-boiled icicle and well-oiled bicycle seem so close together, and yet are so far apart.

 

And other such things:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=nJv_YXIXBsE

I would agree, if they were shorter words. It seems too much of a coincidence to me. Etemology is fun. Do you know the etymology of the word etymology? Too few people do...

Which of your questions did I not answer?

 

 

 

By "want", I meant that they think it would be in their best interest, and decide to do it. Who would actually "want" that? I'm so tired, I accidentally slipped back into my native language for a second. I really should get to bed. Somehow, I know it won't happen.

Ah. I'm going to bed. Tired to type.