Removal of rights

[Vex]

I have a simple question I would like to get some depth on. Namely the erosion of rights and liberties under a governed people (this is beyond the TSA screenings in application and purpose so please do not reference those here).

Take for instance two individual cases (micro and macro): A single ruler of a small group has been given all authority and power over the group which he rules. Is this individual ruler more or less likely (or dependent on the individual ruler) to remove long held rights and liberties of his people? In my mind I liken this to Captain Moroni.

He was a lone ruler placed in absolute charge. He did not coerce his people into joining his cause by the point of the sword, but rallied them under their own dictates. In my mind the micro case has evidence to support a positive retention of rights and liberties to the people.

On the other hand there is no means whereby to ensure such retention as he would be in charge of a military right. Thereby eventually leading to a coercion of the loss of rights by force.

For the macro case an absolute/limited monarchy or democracy, a group of people are placed in charge of a much larger group of people. Would the rights and liberties remain intact? In my mind this reminds me of the counter group to Moroni's. The Laminites were coerced to fight against the Nephites; dictating that their rights and liberties were no longer their own but dominated by their rulers.

It is my thought that individuals rights and liberties are maintained easier under a micro case, but are subject to abrupt changes in leadership resulting in a quick decline in rights and liberties of the individual, whereas the macro case; rights and liberties are more easily usurped from the individuals, but are not subject to abrupt changes in leadership and therefore are not subject to rapid declines in rights and liberties.

What are your thoughts?

[LeSellers]

Rights exist because men own (or hold an inviolable stewardship over) themselves. However, might, unfortunately, makes right, and there will always be people who want to make others subject to their will, whether it be through slavery (outright theft of freedom) or government (fraud).

A micro case, as you point out, is subject to swift oscillations between rights and slavery; rights once lost are difficult to regain, but under a one-man, small cell situation, they can be regained with less force than in the other case. The macro case is slower, but more likely to remain stuck in slavery for the masses because the same inertia that prevented the rapid destruction of rights works against regaining them, and any recapture will require both time and violence.

The answer, if people really want to be free (and many do not, their protestations to the contrary

[Vex]

Rights exist because men own (or hold an inviolable stewardship over) themselves. However, might, unfortunately, makes right, and there will always be people who want to make others subject to their will, whether it be through slavery (outright theft of freedom) or government (fraud).

A micro case, as you point out, is subject to swift oscillations between rights and slavery; rights once lost are difficult to regain, but under a one-man, small cell situation, they can be regained with less force than in the other case. The macro case is slower, but more likely to remain stuck in slavery for the masses because the same inertia that prevented the rapid destruction of rights works against regaining them, and any recapture will require both time and violence.

Those are my thoughts precisely, though perhaps not nearly as worded as well.

The answer, if people really want to be free (and many do not, their protestations to the contrary

[TAO]

The word "rights" is a word for nothing more than an opinion.

Men do not have a guaranteed "right", rather they have "rights" granted to them by other people. For example, God gives us the "right" to choose between good or evil - he grants it, it isn't inherent.

Saying a minority or a majority will always be correct isn't correct - both impose on each other in different circumstances.

When we are trying to determine what "rights" people have, we are really just trying to figure out which abilities are most important to humans. Neither is correct, nor can either be called a right before it is guaranteed by those in power.

So rights are a really empty thing tbh. Granted by those in power...

[LeSellers]

The word "rights" is a word for nothing more than an opinion.

It has come to mean this in many situations, but it is not true in the ultimate sense.

Rights stem from the fact that people own themselves. If they do, which I believe is indisputable, then it follows logically that they have the right to self determination, as long as that does not conflict with anyone else's rights. (When I say "they own themselves", I mean no one else has a higher claim on their time, their efforts, and their ideas; we Saints may speak correctly that we do not "own" ourselves, but we do have an indisputable, God-given stewardship over our lives, which, in this case, is the same thing.)

Given, then, that no one else has a higher claim, we justly say that even a large group of people cannot legitimately make a higher claim, i.e.., they cannot justly require that we do anything and enforce that requirement by force.

We also, with this ownership, can take anything to which no one else has a previous claim and create new, more useful, products. For example, if I were to pick up a tree limb and fashion a pole suitable for picking apples, that pole is mine. No one can say that I have no right to the pole: the limb was mine by right of first claim, and the work that went into making it into the pole was mine by the right to my own efforts and ideas, originating from the right to my own life.

People do not have the right to force others to work for their (the first people's) maintenance. A person may freely give his labor to others, but these others do not have the right to that labor. That is slavery. It does not matter how many people get together and determine that person "A" must give person "B" the fruits of "A's" labors; "A" owns "A", "B" does not. "A" owns "A", the collective does not.

There are minor alterations we make as a matter of necessity, but these arise from explicit or implicit contract. Parents own their children as long as the children are incapable (or unwilling) to make their own decisions and take the responsibility for those decisions. Some incapable people must either perish or cede ownership of their lives to others. But these are rare cases.

Most people could (if not acculturated to waste much of their lives in "adolescence") become fully functioning, responsible adults at age 14 or so, some younger, a few later. But the self-anointed elite among us create dependency so they can maintain power over them. We are seeing more and more people who don't reach mental maturity until age 30 or 35, some not even then. Why? Because they never learn to take care of themselves nor to take responsibility for their decisions and actions and that due to the lack of training in those areas.

Rights are far from an opinion, rights arise from our very existence, whether one takes the view of God's granting them (either by ownership or stewardship), or because all men same from the muck as equals.

Lehi

[TAO]

It has come to mean this in many situations, but it is not true in the ultimate sense.

Let me see where you are coming from here...

Rights stem from the fact that people own themselves. If they do, which I believe is indisputable, then it follows logically that they have the right to self determination, as long as that does not conflict with anyone else's rights. (When I say "they own themselves", I mean no one else has a higher claim on their time, their efforts, and their ideas; we Saints may speak correctly that we do not "own" ourselves, but we do have an indisputable, God-given stewardship over our lives, which, in this case, is the same thing.)

Yah, but for example, in North Korea, I would say it is safe to say people do not own themselves. The right has been taken away by the people in power (the government of North Korea). Of course, I, like you, think North Korea gets rather ridiculous at times, and this be one of the cases. But that right, the ability to have it, is still granted by the person in power. If me or you was the NK leader, we'd obviously grant the people this ability. But it isn't 'inherent'. It is granted. By people, and in a larger perspective, by God.

Part of the reason why I don't believe that 'as long as that does not conflict with anyone else's rights' isn't a good enough definition, Lehi, is because, everything effects other people. People have the ability to own guns. Yet people also have the ability to not let guns to be distributed so that murderers cannot have them. Their both ideas. Which one gains 'dominance' over the other becomes a right. But it is not 'inherently' a right.

Now let's take this analogy to an even more extreme level. People have the ability to eat blue ketchup. Yet others, have the ability to restrict blue ketchup so they never ever have to think about it. Neither is an 'inherent' right. The blue ketchup user is still effecting others, even for something that small. For the slightest of things - even for facial emotions - we effect others. That is why there is no 'inherent' rights'. There is simply the battle of ideas for temporary 'rights'.... which are nothing more than opinions.

The ability to control our own lives, to some extent, is given by those in power over this territory. If a military coup occurred in this country, we might not be guaranteed that 'right', that 'idea'. We may view one in our minds as 'higher' or lower', but it is important to realize that it is our own judgments that make one 'idea' higher than another. It is not inherent. It is chosen.

Given, then, that no one else has a higher claim, we justly say that even a large group of people cannot legitimately make a higher claim, i.e.., they cannot justly require that we do anything and enforce that requirement by force.

But again, not all people live this value, and people will naturally want different things at different times. Two kids want a piece of candy which was set on the table by the teacher. Which one is more deserving of it? Which one has the right to it? This is what our courts try to decide, an ultimately impossible task. Like Solomon, you can divide the candy in half, but you must realize, if both are seeking the full thing, and will not settle for less, you will ultimately be faced with both of their wraths.

We also, with this ownership, can take anything to which no one else has a previous claim and create new, more useful, products. For example, if I were to pick up a tree limb and fashion a pole suitable for picking apples, that pole is mine. No one can say that I have no right to the pole: the limb was mine by right of first claim, and the work that went into making it into the pole was mine by the right to my own efforts and ideas, originating from the right to my own life.

Yet, the problem is, that ownership doesn't exist inherently. It is given us. Satan sought to take away the agency of man, right? He sought to take away our ability to own ourselves. If we make an apple pole, but other people have more power than us, they can take it away. It is also important to know, that though it is a great gift, there is also a consequence involved: people ability to own themselves can conflict. A person's pursuit for happiness may contradict another's. That is why 'rights' aren't so straightforward.

People do not have the right to force others to work for their (the first people's) maintenance. A person may freely give his labor to others, but these others do not have the right to that labor. That is slavery. It does not matter how many people get together and determine that person "A" must give person "B" the fruits of "A's" labors; "A" owns "A", "B" does not. "A" owns "A", the collective does not.

In this country, yes, but that is because that right is not granted to Person A in this country. His right to do so is not given. In other places, it's whoever has the biggest stick wins. And as you and I know, God doesn't like such - it's the spawn of slavery.

There are minor alterations we make as a matter of necessity, but these arise from explicit or implicit contract. Parents own their children as long as the children are incapable (or unwilling) to make their own decisions and take the responsibility for those decisions. Some incapable people must either perish or cede ownership of their lives to others. But these are rare cases.

But this is no different. This is the 'big stick' scenario. Threatened with the consequences of having to live on their own, children stay with their parents, and are subject to their guidelines. Sometimes, parent's don't have fair judgment, and that's when we feel the pain most. Luckily for us, God is a perfectly just parent, one, who will sometimes let us stray from the nest a bit to see why the nest is such a wonderful place. I sometimes wonder how he has the patience and guts to do that. It makes me love him more.

Most people could (if not acculturated to waste much of their lives in "adolescence") become fully functioning, responsible adults at age 14 or so, some younger, a few later. But the self-anointed elite among us create dependency so they can maintain power over them. We are seeing more and more people who don't reach mental maturity until age 30 or 35, some not even then. Why? Because they never learn to take care of themselves nor to take responsibility for their decisions and actions and that due to the lack of training in those areas.

Correct, most people can. But in accepting some rights, some ideas, you lose others. It is a trade scenario, really. One option, or the other. And people exert their power, despite how 'unfair' it might be in our views, because it is justified in theirs.

Rights are far from an opinion, rights arise from our very existence, whether one takes the view of God's granting them (either by ownership or stewardship), or because all men same from the muck as equals.

The only right we have, Lehi, that I see as a guarantee, is the ability to choose between good or evil. That is the one right I see, and that is one that is given to us by God. It's not inherent, but it's the closest we will get to an inherent, that it is.

[Tribunal]

I have this personal definition of a Right. "A Right is an act a Person may choose to exercise without causing another Person to provide for the act."

With that being said much of what we believe to be Rights are actually Contracts we establish with other people. It has helped me in my career and in my life when dealing with other people. I have another saying that "Those who do not know their Rights, have no Rights". I've seen this as well in my career when agents of government take advantage of ignorant people. Some people do bad things because they can get away with it. Who's going to complain when you are unaware that what's happening to you is wrong?

What I see happening in our society is the meaning of a Right has become twisted, much like the meaning of 'good' has become twisted to mean something that is 'bad', and the meaning of 'bad' has become twisted to mean something that is 'good'. Words matter!

Our Rights have been violated on a micro and macro scale, both by personal ignorance and by bad (really bad) people.

[Vex]

Let me see where you are coming from here...

Yah, but for example, in North Korea, I would say it is safe to say people do not own themselves. The right has been taken away by the people in power (the government of North Korea). Of course, I, like you, think North Korea gets rather ridiculous at times, and this be one of the cases. But that right, the ability to have it, is still granted by the person in power. If me or you was the NK leader, we'd obviously grant the people this ability. But it isn't 'inherent'. It is granted. By people, and in a larger perspective, by God.

I think you're looking at it through a negative filter (think photography). If a right is an ability for a person to do as they please without forcing their will on to others in the process; Government, by definition cannot grant such a right (aka, it's not the Governments to give). A Government can curtail rights (deny the ability to exercise the right), or limit the ability to practice the rights (deny specific individuals, persons, groups, etc the ability to exercise the right). Government cannot by definition secure rights to individuals (if the right was not there before; it cannot arbitrarily expand such rights without effecting other peoples rights).

Part of the reason why I don't believe that 'as long as that does not conflict with anyone else's rights' isn't a good enough definition, Lehi, is because, everything effects other people. People have the ability to own guns. Yet people also have the ability to not let guns to be distributed so that murderers cannot have them. Their both ideas. Which one gains 'dominance' over the other becomes a right. But it is not 'inherently' a right.

And here in lies the crux of the matter TAO. Under which circumstances does one justify curtailing the rights of others? For instance: Should rights ever be able to be voided through the action of another (top-down), or should rights only be surrendered by individuals (EX: a criminal forfeits his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and trades those rights for incarceration; Or a person relinquishes their right to the 4th amendment and submits to a non-warranted search).

Now let's take this analogy to an even more extreme level. People have the ability to eat blue ketchup. Yet others, have the ability to restrict blue ketchup so they never ever have to think about it. Neither is an 'inherent' right. The blue ketchup user is still effecting others, even for something that small. For the slightest of things - even for facial emotions - we effect others. That is why there is no 'inherent' rights'. There is simply the battle of ideas for temporary 'rights'.... which are nothing more than opinions.

I think this runs aground however on founding documents, which if we hold the church leaders as authoritative means they are inspired documents worthy of study. That is every individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (known as the pursuit of property). Given that information one must decide how inalienable those inalienable rights are. Should one deny the pursuit of happiness of another (in this instance the blue ketchup) because an individuals facial expressions 'effect' others. This becomes more obvious the more we look into the subject matter. Every person is endowed with inalienable rights at their birth (as per the constitution) from their creator. Would you deny a person their life because their existence effects yours because of a slight deviation in gravity? That is tantamount to what you have just described. Obviously the decision would be no. So it would be with the other inalienable rights. In a society where rights are things which cannot be removed but by willing obedience to another (or by coercion), inalienable rights remain intact until one surrenders them whether by voice, action, or some other form of self anti-aggrandizement.

The ability to control our own lives, to some extent, is given by those in power over this territory. If a military coup occurred in this country, we might not be guaranteed that 'right', that 'idea'. We may view one in our minds as 'higher' or lower', but it is important to realize that it is our own judgments that make one 'idea' higher than another. It is not inherent. It is chosen.

As has been shown the right is with the people, not the government. Surrender of rights is done through coercion or voluntarily through our own actions or inactions. A military coup and the removal of rights would result in what you describe only through coercive action (whether in denial of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property or some other amendments to the constitution), or through willing surrendering of those rights by the people.

But again, not all people live this value, and people will naturally want different things at different times. Two kids want a piece of candy which was set on the table by the teacher. Which one is more deserving of it? Which one has the right to it? This is what our courts try to decide, an ultimately impossible task. Like Solomon, you can divide the candy in half, but you must realize, if both are seeking the full thing, and will not settle for less, you will ultimately be faced with both of their wraths.

There in is the issue; the right of the children to desire the candy is unimpeded by the other. However the teacher is free to give to either student or eat the candy herself based on her own right of ownership. Transfer of property results in the extension of rights and the removal of the right. For instance; if both students desire the candy, that is their right. If one student desires to purchase the candy through hard work and determination, while the other student does not; the end result can be seen as a legal transaction of the transfer of goods and the rights of ownership. The rights exercised do not directly affect the individuals who are present for that candy.

Yet, the problem is, that ownership doesn't exist inherently. It is given us. Satan sought to take away the agency of man, right? He sought to take away our ability to own ourselves. If we make an apple pole, but other people have more power than us, they can take it away. It is also important to know, that though it is a great gift, there is also a consequence involved: people ability to own themselves can conflict. A person's pursuit for happiness may contradict another's. That is why 'rights' aren't so straightforward.

And this is responded to in the previous posts. The agency of man is a right which can not be taken away unless through coercion or through surrender. God himself cannot take our rights unless through use of those two routes.

[LeSellers]

for example, in North Korea, I would say it is safe to say people do not own themselves. The right has been taken away by the people in power (the government of North Korea). Of course, I, like you, think North Korea gets rather ridiculous at times, and this be one of the cases. But that right, the ability to have it, is still granted by the person in power. If me or you was the NK leader, we'd obviously grant the people this ability. But it isn't 'inherent'. It is granted. By people, and in a larger perspective, by God.

The grant by God is the whole issue. Because granted, unreservedly, by Him, the right is inherent in each person.

You are correct that a government may use its monopoly on lethal force to restrict one's rights (on pain of, ultimately, death

[LeSellers]

The ability to control our own lives, to some extent, is given by those in power over this territory.

No, not "given", merely recognized. You are correct, below, when you say these rights could be crushed, but the rights do not emanate from the powerful, they come from God. That's why Doc&Cov 134 says that governments were instituted by Him: to protect the rights of individuals, and why the Declaration of Independence makes the unlimited statement that whenever governments fail to protect these rights, it is the duty of the people to overthrow the state.

If a military coup occurred in this country, we might not be guaranteed that 'right', that 'idea'. We may view one in our minds as 'higher' or lower', but it is important to realize that it is our own judgments that make one 'idea' higher than another. It is not inherent. It is chosen.

Sorry: once again I am not following this at all. What is "chosen"?

Keep in ind that there is legitimate power (which enhances individual rights) and illegitimate power (which destroys or weakens them).

But again, not all people live this value, and people will naturally want different things at different times.

Does what they want restrict others' rights? If so, the person to whom you refer are exercising illegitimate power.

Two kids want a piece of candy which was set on the table by the teacher. Which one is more deserving of it? Which one has the right to it?

Neither one has the right to it, unless he owns it. (Ownership determined by legitimate acquiring of the candy through first claim

[TAO]

I think you're looking at it through a negative filter (think photography). If a right is an ability for a person to do as they please without forcing their will on to others in the process; Government, by definition cannot grant such a right (aka, it's not the Governments to give).

However, this is not the correct definition for a right. If it were, people's "rights" would conflict with each other. That's why it's important to search for a more complete definition of the word. And that's why I think rights as people see them are not really what they are.

A Government can curtail rights (deny the ability to exercise the right), or limit the ability to practice the rights (deny specific individuals, persons, groups, etc the ability to exercise the right). Government cannot by definition secure rights to individuals (if the right was not there before; it cannot arbitrarily expand such rights without effecting other peoples rights).

A government that doesn't give people control of their own bodies performs slavery, which is still existent in some forms of some governments today. Very wrong, but still existent.

And here in lies the crux of the matter TAO. Under which circumstances does one justify curtailing the rights of others? For instance: Should rights ever be able to be voided through the action of another (top-down), or should rights only be surrendered by individuals (EX: a criminal forfeits his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and trades those rights for incarceration; Or a person relinquishes their right to the 4th amendment and submits to a non-warranted search).

That is my point; if "inherent rights" were really "inherent rights", they wouldn't conflict with each other. But they do. That's why I prefer not to call them "rights" and to instead call them "ideas". It is a battle over ideas, not a battle over rights, so to say. What is a right is what is granted later, after the battle is over.

Another thing, while I agree life can be considered a "right" in the sense that it is endowed by God (and there's nobody else who can make the decision in existence), Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not "inherent rights". Liberty is granted by this country. It does not exist in all countries. "The Pursuit of Happiness" between different people conflicts. For example, a person who would be happy if the color orange was removed from the world, is in conflict with a person who wants to spread the color orange around the world. I am using a weird example, because I don't want to get into the more violent ones.

I think this runs aground however on founding documents, which if we hold the church leaders as authoritative means they are inspired documents worthy of study. That is every individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (known as the pursuit of property).

As said, the first one is about as inalienable as you can get (but still granted by someone)

The second one is limited (granted by your gov)

The third one contradicts itself.

Given that information one must decide how inalienable those inalienable rights are.

If a right has a degree of inalienability, it is, in my eyes, not inalienable anymore. Inalienable rights are right that are 100% correct, 100% of the time.

Should one deny the pursuit of happiness of another (in this instance the blue ketchup) because an individuals facial expressions 'effect' others. This becomes more obvious the more we look into the subject matter.

Nevertheless, this is my point, we are not saying "this is a right, and this isn't, and that's why it's that way", we are merely saying "this idea is better than the other" when deciding. Because there are situations where either side might be correct. It is based on details. It is based on opinions. It is not inherent.

Every person is endowed with inalienable rights at their birth (as per the constitution) from their creator. Would you deny a person their life because their existence effects yours because of a slight deviation in gravity? That is tantamount to what you have just described. Obviously the decision would be no. So it would be with the other inalienable rights. In a society where rights are things which cannot be removed but by willing obedience to another (or by coercion), inalienable rights remain intact until one surrenders them whether by voice, action, or some other form of self anti-aggrandizement.

Yet let's say that slight deviation in gravity causes your lungs to collapse, and limit you to another 2 days to live. We wouldn't be so quick to judge then. Things aren't as clear-cut as they seem. But as I said, life is about as close you can get to inherent... although people are challenging that with abortion to this day.

As has been shown the right is with the people, not the government. Surrender of rights is done through coercion or voluntarily through our own actions or inactions. A military coup and the removal of rights would result in what you describe only through coercive action (whether in denial of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property or some other amendments to the constitution), or through willing surrendering of those rights by the people.

The right may be with the people here most of the time, but it is not always. And in other countries, sometimes worse. And with the military coup, it doesn't matter if its through coercive action or not, you are still 'denying rights', which makes them not 'inherent'. If they can be denied, they are not 'inherent'.... perhaps that's why we don't see the same... do I have a different view of the word 'inherent', than you do?

There in is the issue; the right of the children to desire the candy is unimpeded by the other. However the teacher is free to give to either student or eat the candy herself based on her own right of ownership. Transfer of property results in the extension of rights and the removal of the right. For instance; if both students desire the candy, that is their right. If one student desires to purchase the candy through hard work and determination, while the other student does not; the end result can be seen as a legal transaction of the transfer of goods and the rights of ownership. The rights exercised do not directly affect the individuals who are present for that candy.

Ok let me give you a more extreme example. The candy was made by an ape in a factory, who died, and whose relatives are unknown (0.o weird way of making it). In other words, nobody has a claim on the candy. Who has the right if they both notice it at the same time? Not everything in the world is owned, or possessed (except by God, but he doesn't sell stuff).

And this is responded to in the previous posts. The agency of man is a right which can not be taken away unless through coercion or through surrender. God himself cannot take our rights unless through use of those two routes.

But this is my point. Is it really any different than coercion or surrender if the man who eats blue ketchup is protected eating it in the law, while the other man flinches in pain every time he has a spoonful? Is it really any different than coercion or surrender if the man who ate blue ketchup isn't allowed to any more because it causes harm to others, even if that be a single person in the entire universe?

[TAO]

The grant by God is the whole issue. Because granted, unreservedly, by Him, the right is inherent in each person.

Yes, the rights God gives you are about as close as you can get, I agree. But my point was, he grants them; he is the world's government (luckily for us, a very very perfect and loving government =D).

You are correct that a government may use its monopoly on lethal force to restrict one's rights (on pain of, ultimately, death

[TAO]

Ok, this is alot of text, so yah, Lehi, you don't have to respond to everything if you don't want to, it's alot of repeat information, and the such, so don't feel obligated. Sorry, just wanted to let you know you were not pressured =).

No, not "given", merely recognized. You are correct, below, when you say these rights could be crushed, but the rights do not emanate from the powerful, they come from God. That's why Doc&Cov 134 says that governments were instituted by Him: to protect the rights of individuals, and why the Declaration of Independence makes the unlimited statement that whenever governments fail to protect these rights, it is the duty of the people to overthrow the state.

Yeah, you are right there... I should called it recognized, it's more accurate.

Sorry: once again I am not following this at all. What is "chosen"?

Chosen... in this case it means your ability to decide between options, which one is better.

Keep in ind that there is legitimate power (which enhances individual rights) and illegitimate power (which destroys or weakens them).

But what enhances and what destroys individual rights is a matter of opinion, a matter of point of view.

Does what they want restrict others' rights? If so, the person to whom you refer are exercising illegitimate power.

In the example up above, the people eating blue ketchup restrict the rights of Bob to life. Bob cannot stand people eating blue ketchup.

If it were the other way around, Bob would be restricting the other people's rights to eat blue ketchup. And the people would achingly long for it.

Neither one has the right to it, unless he owns it. (Ownership determined by legitimate acquiring of the candy through first claim

[Vex]

I'll respond in awhile TAO I have a few things that require my attention at the moment and may keep it for some time yet (Elders are coming over tonight and need to write a few reports/what not... sigh)

[TAO]

I'll respond in awhile TAO I have a few things that require my attention at the moment and may keep it for some time yet (Elders are coming over tonight and need to write a few reports/what not... sigh)

No problem. Also, don't feel obliged to answer everything, cuz there is a huge amount of text and all. If you want to, work on the other threads, and you can come back to this one later if you'd like.