1

What's the objection here? The foundation is giving money to PP for breast cancer detection & referral (for those women who may have tumors I assume)? Since the subject of PP's annual report came up last time (the top ten reasons to hate PP post), I looked it up and noted they do a lot more than just abortions...including cancer screening. So why object? Wouldn't you rather PP expand into fighting cancer which I assume you approve of?

The logic of the criticism is somewhat baffling. Because the head of the foundation has an 'affinity' for PP (whatever that means), it becomes impossible for the foundation to look at researching linking cancer to abortions???? Why? How about the thousands of corporations that sponsor Breast Cancer events? Many of them make chemicals that are known to cause cancer yet the foundation is somehow able to remain 'objective' about that.

2

Most Influencial Person Not In Politics:

Part of me wants to say Eminem. Here is a white guy who broke into a predominantly black subculture, opened it wide open to suburban white kids (others paved the way, but Eminem really opened the floodgates), gave a voice to the culture of abandonment present in all social strata, has pastors, politicians, writers, and philosophers talking about him and whole groups of people dedicated to trying to get rid of him. This guy definitely has influence!

I'll have to think some more...

3

Boonton:
"... I looked it up and noted they do a lot more than just abortions...including cancer screening. So why object? Wouldn't you rather PP expand into fighting cancer which I assume you approve of?"

Well, the problem with this line of thought is the same as saying "fascists aren't so bad, because they make sure the trains run on time!"

Planned Parenthood is one of the leading abortion-advocacy groups in the country, as well as being a leading provider of abortions themselves. While those two offenses are bad enough, they also promote sexualization of our children through Teenwire. Now, in light of all of these considerations, you expect us to approve of Planned Parenthood because they also do some breast-cancer detection? It just doesn't wash.

I'm not even going to get into the debate about the (highly controversial) link between abortion and breast cancer. Frankly, I just don't have enough facts to make that case, and the above reasoning is more-than-enough to satisfy me.

Far better to give to a breast-cancer-fighting charity that isn't stained with Planned Parenthood's bloody fingerprints.....

4

If "influential" is defined in terms of the person most likely to get people to cause "X" to happen today, then I think I have to go with Hugh on this. Warren is influential, but not in the "call your Congressman" way, like Dobson is.

In terms of who has had the most long-lasting impact on this country who is not in the government and is currently living, I think I'd have to go with Arthur Laffer.

5

The problem with the emergent church thing is that it's hard to imagine what a non-wildly heretical pomo church would look like. There are plenty of cosmetic things, but therein lies the problem - not much is going to be both unique and substantial. For example, we know emergents place a great emphasis on community, but every church does, or should (so that's substantial but not unique). Or, many place emphasis on different forms of communication (which is cosmetic: unique but not substantial).

Much of pomo is aimed at abstract issues (notably epistemology) that don't have necessary normative implications. For example, the adoption of an intersubjective social construction epistemology really shouldn't have any drastic normative or doctrinal ramifications (it may be accompanied by those, but that accompaniment is wholly contingent).

FWIW, I'm slowly working towards what I'd consider a bona fide pomo theology, and it is, in fact, wildly heretical. So most churches probably wouldn't touch that kind of theology with a 10-foot pole, leaving them in the position of the either unique or substantive.

6

I'm not even going to get into the debate about the (highly controversial) link between abortion and breast cancer. Frankly, I just don't have enough facts to make that case, and the above reasoning is more-than-enough to satisfy me.

Far better to give to a breast-cancer-fighting charity that isn't stained with Planned Parenthood's bloody fingerprints.....

Whether or not abortion and breast cancer are related (I suspect they are not, pro-lifers have too much incentive to shade the truth on the issue and 'what causes cancer' is one of those areas where clear answers are very elusive) is irrelevant. PP operates numerous clinics where women go, especially patients with limited funds.

If you want to spend money on breast cancer screening you can get the most bang for your buck at such a place. A cancer charity has a moral obligation to spend its dollars in such a way that most good is done with them.

7

Whether or not abortion and breast cancer are related (I suspect they are not, pro-lifers have too much incentive to shade the truth on the issue and 'what causes cancer' is one of those areas where clear answers are very elusive) is irrelevant.

In the first count, I agree. Any side issues of abortion--the safety of the procedure, whether or not it causes cancer--has absolutely nothing to do with the ethical issue at hand. It is annoying when the pro-life movement veers from the main subject to attach peripheral issues. In the end it hurts our credibility. On the second count, you hurt your own crediblity by inter-weaving such subjective comment in to an otherwise agreeable statement.

And the reason why this cancer charity shouldn't bother with PP is that PP is so dominated by (speaking from a hypothetically neutral standpoint) a moral problematic issue. Their primary service is considered murder by many people. Excuse the hyperbole, but Nazi Germany gave us the Autobahn and the Volkswagen. That doesn't soften the blow of the concentration camps.

8

The most influential non-government person? Michael Eisner is at the top of my personal list.

Under his leadership Walt Disney Studios has been teaching the phrase "What does your heart tell you?" to millions of impressionable children and unsuspecting adults with every movie release for YEARS. "What does your heart tell you?" is the core idea of postmodernism—the theory that belief is more important than truth.

Eisner is also responsible for Disney's ownership and support of Touchstone Films, Miramax and Dimension Films. These three labels are responsible for a huge percentage of the filthiest movies made in America today. Miramax Films is also the largest source of blatant propaganda films such as "The Cider House Rules" (pro-abortion), "Chocolat" (anti-morality), "Fahrenheit 9/11" (anti-Bush/War), and "The English Patient" (pro-suicide).

Fortunately, his influence seems to be waning.

As for Planned Parenthood, they do have a cure for cancer. People who are never born don't every get cancer. Of course, I would say this "cure" is worse than the disease.

9

And the reason why this cancer charity shouldn't bother with PP is that PP is so dominated by (speaking from a hypothetically neutral standpoint) a moral problematic issue. Their primary service is considered murder by many people. Excuse the hyperbole, but Nazi Germany gave us the Autobahn and the Volkswagen. That doesn't soften the blow of the concentration camps.

Murder by some people and not-murder by very many people. Even before Roe.v.Wade you would be hard pressed to find a case where a doctor who performed an abortion was treated like a doctor who purposefully killed someone. You'd be hard pressed to find a woman tried for murder for hire after getting an illegal abortion but women who killed their children after birth were usually prosecuted up to the max. panalty.

Since a consensus is not here how many people should die of cancer in order to hurt an organization that pro-lifers hate because it disagrees with them?

In the first count, I agree. Any side issues of abortion--the safety of the procedure, whether or not it causes cancer--has absolutely nothing to do with the ethical issue at hand. It is annoying when the pro-life movement veers from the main subject to attach peripheral issues. In the end it hurts our credibility. On the second count, you hurt your own crediblity by inter-weaving such subjective comment in to an otherwise agreeable statement.

Just because I'm not citing lots of studies doesn't mean my observation should be dismissed as 'subjective'. Do you deny that pro-lifers have a powerful incentive to distort the facts in regards to cancer? If you seriously think its murder isn't there a powerful temptation to stop it by 'any means necessary'....even if that means trumped up 'safety concerns'????

10

Boonton:
A cancer charity has a moral obligation to spend its dollars in such a way that most good is done with them.

Ah, then you agree that charity dollars should not go to an organization whose main "service" has been the extermination of countless children?

You're probably referring to efficiency in the above statement, not moral good. If so, please refer to my earlier point about fascists and train schedules. Efficient evil is still evil.

Since a consensus is not here how many people should die of cancer in order to hurt an organization that pro-lifers hate because it disagrees with them?

This is a straw-man argument. Nobody has suggested that pro-lifers should suspend all charitable giving toward preventing, detecting, and curing breast cancer. We're simply suggesting that the dollars would be better spent on a charity that is not tainted by a close relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, your argument can be easily inverted: "How many children should we sacrifice to abortionists so that we can help women suffering from breast cancer?" Answer: none. Find a way to advance public health and practice medicine without sacrificing innocent lives. This is also the essential argument against embryonic stem-cell research.

If you could guarantee a long, healthy life for yourself by ripping the living heart out of your next-door neighbor ... would you? No, because some prices are too high to pay.

11

Murder by some people and not-murder by very many people. Even before Roe.v.Wade you would be hard pressed to find a case where a doctor who performed an abortion was treated like a doctor who purposefully killed someone. You'd be hard pressed to find a woman tried for murder for hire after getting an illegal abortion but women who killed their children after birth were usually prosecuted up to the max. panalty.

Murder by some people and not-murder by very many people.

I suggest you look at some recent national polls. They don't support that statement.

Even before Roe.v.Wade you would be hard pressed to find a case where a doctor who performed an abortion was treated like a doctor who purposefully killed someone.

You go from the ethical discussion to making a generality about court cases. Besides the fact that your statement is generally unprovable in this medium--unless you're willing to actually make a systemtic study of all State and Federal cases up to 1973--you erroneously equate the legal activity of the courts to what is right. Hate to bring up this worn subject, but violence against blacks during the Jim Crow era was ignored by the courts to. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

And there are several unaccounted for variables to your statement. Such as: How many resoruces were devoted to enforcement? How aware was the public and the law enforcement community to the extent to which abortions were being preformed? Was the overall opinion on how common they were? The number of cases brought to trial depends on questions such as these.

Not much is still known by the general public about sex slavery, despite the fact it is common abroad and becoming increasingly common here. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many sex slavery cases that come trial here, despite the fact that we find it repugnant and we have alws against it.

Since a consensus is not here how many people should die of cancer in order to hurt an organization that pro-lifers hate because it disagrees with them?

Thank for lowering yourself and sliding in the ad hominem attack. But to answer the question with another question, why don't they just use the money to open their own cancer clinics?

Just because I'm not citing lots of studies doesn't mean my observation should be dismissed as 'subjective'.

Until you cite a source of two, that is precisely what the statement is.

Do you deny that pro-lifers have a powerful incentive to distort the facts in regards to cancer?

You're errecting a straw-man. Anyone who strongly holds any position on any side of any issue has incentive to shade the truth. That doesn't mean that they will. That doesn't mean that they won't either.

In every movement you could find people who shade the truth. And in those same movements you may find people battling people who shade the truth.

If you seriously think its murder isn't there a powerful temptation to stop it by 'any means necessary'....even if that means trumped up 'safety concerns'????

Yes, there is. But in the long run, how does that help their/our position? The one way you stop it is to change people's minds on the issue itself. And you have to maintain credibility in order to do that. Thus, there is a greater incentive not to take the low road.

12

David Marcoe:
Any side issues of abortion--the safety of the procedure, whether or not it causes cancer--has absolutely nothing to do with the ethical issue at hand. It is annoying when the pro-life movement veers from the main subject to attach peripheral issues. In the end it hurts our credibility.

Your argument has a lot of merit from a purely-logical point of view. There are only two problems with it....

1. For some reason, there seem to be a lot of people who recognize the humanity of unborn children, yet still feel that it is acceptable to kill them. Peter Singer is the best-known, but he's not the only one. When arguing the issue with those folks, it could be helpful to also mention that abortion isn't very good for women either. Besides the highly-contentious link with breast cancer, there are also links to infertility and premature births (in later pregnancies). Then there's the cold reality of Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS), which can be linked to all sorts of other psychological/emotional problems.
2. Ignoring the harmful effects of abortion on women is a disservice to the many, many women who have suffered those effects and/or are still suffering them. Their pain is real, in spite of the pro-aborts best efforts to ignore it. Listening to their testimony is the least we can do.

One excellent place to learn more about the damage that abortion causes is the After Abortion blog.

13

"Since Carter cannot fulfill that role, Gleek is out for Carter. What should Carter be? Great blogging minds want to know."

I'm thinking it's that balloon alien guy from the episode in season 1 where the little balloon alien family shows up in a flying saucer in Marvin's backyard.

Why? Whenever they talked it sounded like they were huffing helium. And the moral of that episode was that air pollution is bad. You don't smoke, do you? Or maybe because sometimes after having read the posts and a zillion comments I start hearing a high pitched whiny noise in my ear. Or maybe it's just my PC case fan losing a ball bearing.

Cartoon Network has a cool remix of the Superfriends theme with a beat that they play occasionally.

14

You're probably referring to efficiency in the above statement, not moral good. If so, please refer to my earlier point about fascists and train schedules. Efficient evil is still evil.

Should a doctor in Nazi Germany refuse to screen women for breast cancer as a way to attack the gov't?

Furthermore, your argument can be easily inverted: "How many children should we sacrifice to abortionists so that we can help women suffering from breast cancer?" Answer: none. Find a way to advance public health and practice medicine without sacrificing innocent lives. This is also the essential argument against embryonic stem-cell research.

Which is a perfect argument for not donating to PP. A donation to PP would be used for both cancer screening and abortions. What we are talking about, however, is a donation that is used exclusively for cancer screenings.

I suggest you look at some recent national polls. They don't support that statement.

Really? There are national polls showing the majority not only opposes legalized abortion but feels it should be punished by death or life in prison? Or do you mean there are polls that show a great many people might agree to make abortion somewhat more criminalized than it is now but somewhat less than...say...smoking pot?

You're errecting a straw-man. Anyone who strongly holds any position on any side of any issue has incentive to shade the truth. That doesn't mean that they will. That doesn't mean that they won't either.

In every movement you could find people who shade the truth. And in those same movements you may find people battling people who shade the truth.

Actually I've read a lot that indicates that there is not sufficient evidence to say there's a link. If we really want to argue about that I'll research it a bit and provide you with hard data.

Yes, there is. But in the long run, how does that help their/our position? The one way you stop it is to change people's minds on the issue itself. And you have to maintain credibility in order to do that. Thus, there is a greater incentive not to take the low road.

Deception often is a two way street. If you despise X then you are more likely to notice evidence that X is bad and overlook evidence that it is not. In my clinical terms this is called selective perception. The more passionately you feel about something the bigger the danger of falling prey to it. If pro-lifers are really serious then their passion on the issue should literally be life or death!

15

Listening to their testimony is the least we can do.

I can do a lot less than that, like not listening to it. Which is just what I'm gonna do.

16

When arguing the issue with those folks, it could be helpful to also mention that abortion isn't very good for women either.

But in all fairness to your pro-life critic, isn't this sort of like arguing against Nazi concentration camps by saying the gas chambers don't meet the Clean Air Act regulations on emissions?

17

Should a doctor in Nazi Germany refuse to screen women for breast cancer as a way to attack the gov't?

False premise. The woman, I assume, has nothing to do with the Nazi government, therefore doing or not doing anything won't have any effect on the government.

Which is a perfect argument for not donating to PP. A donation to PP would be used for both cancer screening and abortions. What we are talking about, however, is a donation that is used exclusively for cancer screenings.

Let us not beat around the bush. The main reason for going to PP is to have an abortion or find out about it. The majority of women are not going to be thinking about PP when for breast cancer screenings. So, in that sense, the two are not easily divided.

Second, the money is not just going to go for breast cancer, but is also likely to go toward general administrative costs, which then indirectly support abortion activities.

Third, you didn't answer my question: Why don't they use the money to build their own cancer screening centers? There are also other organizations who are not entnagled by the same issues as PP.

Really? There are national polls showing the majority not only opposes legalized abortion...

Yes. Didn't I state this?

...but feels it should be punished by death or life in prison?

I don't believe the poll(s) ever asked that.

Or do you mean there are polls that show a great many people might agree to make abortion somewhat more criminalized than it is now but somewhat less than...say...smoking pot?

I don't believe that the poll(s) ever asked that either, but then again, I am only remembering that there was/were poll(s). That, admittedly, may have actually been a question.

What is interesting is that, if memory serves, there was an increase over a number of years as to the percentage of people who opposed it.

Actually I've read a lot that indicates that there is not sufficient evidence to say there's a link.

A link between what. I made two statements there. Could you clarify?

Deception often is a two way street. If you despise X then you are more likely to notice evidence that X is bad and overlook evidence that it is not. In my clinical terms this is called selective perception. The more passionately you feel about something the bigger the danger of falling prey to it. If pro-lifers are really serious then their passion on the issue should literally be life or death!

First, you avoided my first point, which was that selective perception can effect anyone with a strongly held position. This is true of pro-life and pro-choice.

Two, people are capable of mitigating the effects. Being cognizant of it and responsible for your statements and actions might not grant absolute immunity, but an ability to correct it when it does arise.

18

False premise. The woman, I assume, has nothing to do with the Nazi government, therefore doing or not doing anything won't have any effect on the government.

Nor does the woman who goes to a clinic for a breast exam have anything to do with abortion. I could rework the question a bit. Should a doctor refuse to do a breast cancer screening at an all women college in Nazi Germany? The college supports the German gov't but a place where woman are all together would be ideal to do the screening.

Let us not beat around the bush. The main reason for going to PP is to have an abortion or find out about it. The majority of women are not going to be thinking about PP when for breast cancer screenings. So, in that sense, the two are not easily divided.

Actually PP does a lot of non-abortion related stuff. That's just selective perception creeping up on you. But so what, whether or not there's a breast cancer screening happening at the PP clinic will not cause people to go there for an abortion.

Yes. Didn't I state this?

...but feels it should be punished by death or life in prison?

I don't believe the poll(s) ever asked that.

So you ignored my point. That's fine but why waste time trying to question me about it if you aren't even going to read it.

"A link between what. I made two statements there. Could you clarify?"

A link between abortion and cancer.

"First, you avoided my first point, which was that selective perception can effect anyone with a strongly held position. This is true of pro-life and pro-choice."

Indeed it can, however if you believe the pro-choice position then abortion is about a civil right. While "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" is a good thought death itself often causes more stress than a loss of liberty. This means pro-lifers, if we take everyone at their word, should feel more passionately about their cause. If that is the case then the danger of selective perception should be higher.

"Two, people are capable of mitigating the effects. Being cognizant of it and responsible for your statements and actions might not grant absolute immunity, but an ability to correct it when it does arise."

Agreed, being aware of it can help one to counter it.

19

Should a doctor refuse to do a breast cancer screening at an all women college in Nazi Germany? The college supports the German gov't but a place where woman are all together would be ideal to do the screening.

But if you, as the doctor, had to pay the Nazi's to do the screening, thereby supporting their activities, is it ethical? If you didn't have to pay them and could set up the screening just off-campus, isn't that a better choice?

The problem with the money going to PP is that money is fungible. Therefore, no matter how you work it, supporting a legitimate activity lends support to other activities you may not support.

20

Actually PP does a lot of non-abortion related stuff. That's just selective perception creeping up on you. But so what, whether or not there's a breast cancer screening happening at the PP clinic will not cause people to go there for an abortion.

Their main service is abortion. This mitigates any other service they preform. Those who go to PP for related services, at minimum, are not opposed to PP's main pursuit and their situation is probably in some way related to it.

In the public mind, PP is synonymous for abortion. Their other services are not their primary function, nor do they provide the majority of services in those related fields. PP provides adoption services as well, but I don't see them commonly used for that service. It is usualy other private agencies who handled those.

Or, let me state it this way: There other services are satelite functions to its primary service of abortion. The fact is that might go there to get a breast cancer screening and then be introduce to the idea of abortion as a legitiamte option. Or they may be introduced to the idea of supporting the cause. Or they may recieve a breast cancer screening in addition to an abortion as part of a medical package.

Ultimately, their services could be seen as acting public relations function for the cuase of abortion. That seems to be what they spend most of their energy on.

Thus my original statement still stands.

So you ignored my point. That's fine but why waste time trying to question me about it if you aren't even going to read it.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking if there were polls asking both. I see that you conceding the first point, but asking the latter. My mistake.

No, there are not polls showing an advocation of the death penalty or life in prison, but it would hard to have polls that say that, if, as I said before, they didn't ask that question to begin with.

To go a step further. I don't believe the general public would support such a measure either. The the sympathy for the women who undergo abortion procedures means that an instant connection between them and, say, a gang-banger who shoots a person in the street is not going to be formed, despite the fact that those punishments are the logical end of popular opinion.

Now you seem to be displaying selective perception... I'm not going to take this any further. Let's leave the accusations at the door from now on.

Indeed it can, however if you believe the pro-choice position then abortion is about a civil right. While "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" is a good thought death itself often causes more stress than a loss of liberty. This means pro-lifers, if we take everyone at their word, should feel more passionately about their cause. If that is the case then the danger of selective perception should be higher.

And yet what should be in theory is not in poractice. I'm pro-life and I've already admitted the flaws of the pro-life movement. On the pro-choice side, there are equal or greater examples of the selective perception, and even worse cases of bias.

As to the cancer/abortion link. I never actually argued about that, so I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.

Lastly, I understand that you are trying to to take a less-biased approach than this argument taking. I respect that and thank for your cordiality thus far.

21

*than this argument could be taking.

22

"Listen to what your heart says" is, indeed, the message of Disney--but it always has been, whether old Uncle Walt was at the helm or someone else. Disney has always been an arch-modern proponent of classical liberalism, the belief that abstract values are our bridge away from traditionalism into a brighter, better future, and that teaching the children to have faith in themselves is the way to bring that future about.

It is not a particularly post-modern message, except insofar as all "messages" which come through the postmodern cultural milieu are the "messages" already present in modernity; the typical post-structuralist response to the Disney text would be to interrogate the language, seek out the system of metaphysical oppositions implicit in the text, counterexample and invert key terms of that opposition, and thus allow the mirrors-in-mirrors to show us, not an imaginary hallway to the future, but mirrors, only mirrors, and us wondering where the light came from.

Now, were a Christian to do that, and then ask the reader to consider the light that the modern liberal (like Walt Disney) tried to deflect with the mirrors . . . what might happen?

Cheers,
PGE

23

--apologies for any unclarity, the last post was in reference to Ed "What the" Heckman's post.

24

But if you, as the doctor, had to pay the Nazi's to do the screening, thereby supporting their activities, is it ethical? If you didn't have to pay them and could set up the screening just off-campus, isn't that a better choice?

The problem with the money going to PP is that money is fungible. Therefore, no matter how you work it, supporting a legitimate activity lends support to other activities you may not support.

There's a little field called accounting that both allows money to be fungible but also allows it to be dedicated. A person managing a cancer charity has a duty to distribute the money in a way that fights cancer. So let's imagine he proposes to spend money at a university doing biological research. While there are many worthy things being researched at the university (let's say diabetes are also a prime subject), he has a duty to only spend the money on cancer research because that is what those who donated entrusted him to do with their money. Hence he has an obligation to make sure proper controls are in place to ensure that 'fungible money' doesn't leak into the diabetes research...no matter how worthy that is in itself.

So let us assume for the sake of the argument that the Foundation has the proper controls in place to ensure that money only goes towards cancer. If they don't then you shouldn't donate to them regardless of what they do with PP.

In your counter example, screening 'just off-campus' would raise the cost of the screening and result in fewer people utilizing the screening. This action will result in two negative outcomes. The first is that some people will end up not getting screened which could cost them their lives. The second is that every $1 spent on screening will be less effective than it could have been which is a violation of the duty entrusted to you by the person who donated that $1. Is the Nazi gov't denied any power by your actions? Taking your argument a step beyond, how about college campuses that have clinics that do abortion referals? Or prescribe birth control pills that some believe act as an abortion agent? If you were in charge of the Foundation you would quite quickly turn it into a pretty effective pro-life lobby.

Except you would be doing it with other people's money that they donated to you to fight cancer, not to lead a pro-life cause (even if some of them are also pro-lifers). I'll close by saying the Foundation head should keep in mind Jesus's saying about what to render onto Ceasar.

25

To go a step further. I don't believe the general public would support such a measure either. The the sympathy for the women who undergo abortion procedures means that an instant connection between them and, say, a gang-banger who shoots a person in the street is not going to be formed, despite the fact that those punishments are the logical end of popular opinion.

In other words you have some polls that appear to say that many think abortion should be illegal. This hardly translates into the public equating abortion to murder. It is only logical to support murder punishments for abortion if you equate abortion to murder but if you equate abortion to something like smoking pot then it is logical for you to support a lesser punishment. Which brings me back to my original statement, which you attempted to dispute, there is no consensus that abortion is equal to murder nor was there even pre-Roe.v.Wade.

"Lastly, I understand that you are trying to to take a less-biased approach than this argument taking. I respect that and thank for your cordiality thus far."

I return your thanks greatly.

26

I'd be hard pressed to boil it down to one person who is "most influential" in America or the world. Among best-sellers and books, it'd easily be Rick Warren, and not likely to be superceded in our era. It might be better to say who are some of the top 10 influencers, and those who've been mentioned could certainly vie for top spots.

27

Thanks for the link! I'm getting lots of hits =)

28

pgepps,

I've gone into my reasoning more in depth over at The Greatest Pursuits. Maybe we could discuss it there without getting buried by all the PP arguments. :-)