D H

No, it isn't. The way in which the Banach-Tarski theorem dissects a sphere involves disjoint points. There's a problem here: Matter is quantized. The best way to look at the Banach-Tarski theorem is that it is yet another demonstration of “The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?” Nerdy math joke: What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski?

navigator and rigney: Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said. You are correct. There are two or three such posters who fail to see the obvious and claim facts that have been debunked. You and rigney are amongst that lot. Hindsight and cherry picking are such handy devices. This is an invalid line of attack. For it to be valid, the authors would have had to have shown that: This one attack on the US consulate three months prior to 9/11 attack was somehow connected with the 9/11 attack. They didn't. This is guilt by association. The prior attacks on Benghazi were out of proportion to those on other installations. If the threats were merely on par with those elsewhere, this just becomes a matter of balancing resources. Shown that these out of the normal and actionable threats were known to and ignored by the highest levels. Otherwise this just becomes at worst a matter of bureaucratic bungling. Bureaucratic bungling is not an impeachable offense. Many Presidents have bungled their entire way through their terms. Properly marshaling a constrained budget is not an impeachable offense. Dealing with competing cries for a limited resource is what Presidents, good and bad, have to do. Once again, hindsight and cherry picking are such very nice devices. False reporting is even nicer. With regard to the first claim, your link is wrong. Secondly, the video from al-Zawhiri was vague and non-specific. al-Zawhiri has denied responsibility for the attack, and he has not been arrested. Which claim is right? This is why we have investigations rather than witch hunts. Finally, the report in The Independent is false. The administration and Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, dispute this report. It's false. Also false. From http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us-embassy-in-libya-sought-extension-of-essential-security-team/: The SST was enlisted to support the reopening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically. What did happen is that the Libyan team asked for additional security. They were indeed denied this request. Apparently this rejection came from a midlevel manager, and it apparently was not bubbled up the hierarchy. Should it have been? Possibly. Would the answer still have been no? Possibly. The administration was dealing with a constrained budget. Oh, please. We've been over this before. Stop being dense. (Yes, I am raising the ire of the moderators and I am probably going to get a warning. So be it.) You are being extremely dense here. Read up on the huge impacts of that video across the Muslim world. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims. Here's a map of some of the protests that that video caused: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0. At last? This has been the intent from day 1. It's downright disgusting, isn't it? I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

You are asking rigney to do something he apparently is incapable of doing. Press rigney too hard and you're going to get a response like this one in his Nothing from nothing leaves nothing thread: Did you get up on the "right side" of the bed for a change, or are you always this nasty? Nostradamus wrote in quatrain, yet people of character and wisdom, not necessarily intellect; understood him. While I am no Nostradamus, where does that leave you? See if you might find some meaning in the following: Into this life we are let First only asking, then to our fame Oh! So quickly do we leave Taking not, but as we came. I actually tried being succinct once with my wife and she slapped hell out of me. What I'm saying is, never tell a woman that a size 10 would fit her ass much better than a size 8. Actually, I've never known a "ginch" not to feel that way. Asking rigney to write clearly and succinctly will have about as much success as Herding cats. Nailing jello to a tree. Pushing a rope uphill. Asking the sun not to shine. Emptying the ocean with a bucket. Catching the wind in a net. Carrying water with a sieve. Selling tea to China. Taking coal to Newcastle. Bringing owls to Athens. Need I go on? In the thread at hand, I did try to read rigney's mind back in post #342. In that post I tried to answer rigney's original question ("Who really killed our ambassador to Libya?") and playing devil's advocate, I also tried to make the case against Obama as portrayed in Fox News and other right wing media outlets: There's an issue #0 that needs to be added to that list: The Obama administration completely bolluxed the negotiations with Iraq regarding a permanent US troop presence in Iraq, and as a result we now have a 15,000 member private army in Iraq. This private army is funded by and under the control of the State Department rather than the Department of Defense. This is a huge problem. It is, (personal opinion) the cause of the pressure that kept requests for enhanced security at the Benghazi consulate from bubbling up the chain of command, issue #1 in my devil's advocate list. It is (also personal opinion) a recipe for future disaster. Freelance soldiers are problematic even when they are under the command of people who know how to command militarily. Putting freelance soldiers under the command of people who do not understand the military mind and who disdain the military (i.e., the State Department) is just asking for trouble.

What does it lack? Anti-gravity (which doesn't exist). Balloons rise for the same reason boats float, which is buoyancy. Buoyancy is a consequence of gravity, not anti-gravity.

That article is exemplary of the lying excrement that the right wing media is putting out on the Benghazi attack. There are two huge lies in this article, both in the title: Irrefutable Evidence That President Obama and Hillary Clinton Lied Not only did they lie – They Watched Them Die Politicians and partisans know that one of the best ways to lie is to tell a half-truth. Yes, the White House did receive an email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The article however does not say that Ansar al-Sharia has denied responsibility for the attack. So which is true? Were Ansar al-Sharia members involved, or was it someone else? Untangling this mess is why an investigation is needed. (Note: Both claims can be true. Members of a terrorist groups often act without approval of the leadership; sometimes terrorist cells act against the dicta of the leadership. Just because the leadership of Ansar al-Sharia did not plan or sanction the attack does not mean that individuals associated with the group didn't do it.) Omitting this other half of the equation is essentially a lie. Even worse of a lie is claiming that this email is "irrefutable evidence" is Obama and Clinton knew that the attack was an organized terrorist attack from the onset. Regarding the second part of the title, "they watched them die". The article doesn't discuss this at all. This is a bald assertion in the title of the article that is never bolstered by the body of the article. It's a lie.

No, you didn't. You apparently are completely unaware of the large number of US embassies that were indeed protested, and sometimes attacked, over this video, starting with the embassy at Cairo on September 11. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is impeachable here. Nothing. This is not only blatantly false, it is also amazingly ignorant of what transpired on 9/11/2012 and the days that followed. Violent protests broke out at the US embassies in Cairo (Egypt), Sana'a (Yemen), Khartoum (Sudan), Tunis (Tunisia), Islamabad (Pakistan), and at many other diplomatic missions. Non-violent protests occurred at even more US diplomatic missions. No, he did not. Not once. Early on, in concordance with the best intelligence available at the time, he did say that the attack might have been associated with mob protests. He also said early on, in concordance with the best intelligence available at the time, that it wasn’t just a mob action, that there people involved in the attack were looking to target Americans from the start.

What part of "we’re still investigating exactly what happened," "there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start", and "that it wasn’t just a mob action" don't you understand? To me, you just characterized the Republicans to a T. I was a Republican for 25 years. Not any more. As far as I'm concerned, the party has abandoned me and, much worse, it has abandoned the country for the sake of partisan gain. Thankfully, that ploy didn't work. Who are "they"? Nonsense. Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere you look. The correct answer is that on September 14, Petraeus was testifying as the head of an agency. People who do that don't (or shouldn't) give personal opinions. He did it right; he gave the best information that the agency had at that point in time. In his recent testimony, he was asked for his personal opinion on the matter. He did not change his testimony. He answered two very different questions, under two very different circumstances, and at very different times. More nonsense. Do you even know how many other US diplomatic facilities were attacked on 9/11/2012 or shortly thereafter in protest over that YouTube video? The protest over Innocence of Muslims was very severe and was worldwide. By the time of this speech, the intelligence had become very clear. Please cite exactly where in that speech Obama said the video caused the attack on Benghazi. Hint: He didn't. Read the article you yourself cited, emphasis mine: Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said. Or as the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html) put it, this "was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa." The yellowcake uranium that was removed from Iraq in 2008 was already known to exist at the time of that State of the Union address that presaged our war with Iraq. The yellowcake uranium claimed in that State of the Union address did not exist. The yellowcake uranium addressed in the article you cited wasn't even under Hussein's control. It was under UN control. Given the above, I'm not the one drinking kool-aid. More nonsense. Do you know how independent agencies work?

Perhaps you could, just for once, write clearly and succinctly instead of using bafflement-generation.

Moontanman, jdizz is spouting nonsense. There is no "IsoRedShift". Post #5 by swansont is the correct answer. Edit Post #5 in the original thread is the correct answer.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Here is what Obama actually said: September 12, Sixty Minutes: “As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.” September 18, David Letterman: “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” September 25, The View: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there.” September 25, UN: “The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.” I don't mind having a President who allows the intelligence agencies to take their time arriving at the right conclusion. I'd much rather have a President who allows the intelligence agencies time to get the facts straight than one who sends our sons and daughters off to war based on premature intelligence. With two sons in the military, the last thing I want is a President who calls things prematurely. If my sons are to give their lives for the country, I want their deaths to be for something that is real rather than erroneous, premature intelligence. Remember that yellowcake uranium? It started a war. It never existed. What is obvious after the fact is that the initial intelligence that led to the Iraqi war was faulty. Note well: I am not saying that Bush lied. He did however send our country into an extremely expensive war based on faulty intelligence. The key lesson-learned by the intelligence agencies with regard to the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was that the intelligence agencies need to be very, very certain of intelligence that is actionable. Two weeks to get the facts straight is not a long time.

Don't get so hung up on units. The International System (SI) of units is predominantly a classical (pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanics) set of units. That photons have zero mass but non-zero momentum doesn't make a bit of sense in Newtonian physics. It makes a whole lot of sense in relativistic mechanics.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film clip that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon. There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said. The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said. Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/ The CIA's talking points read as follows: The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated. The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens. Also see post #367. The intelligence services clearly had multiple sources that hinted at a connection between the protests elsewhere over that film clip and the violence in Benghazi. Oh, please. This is pure nonsense. Not true. First off, there were two separate attacks. The first was much more chaotic, less intense, and less advanced (e.g., no mortars) than the second. There was a four or five hour lull between those two attacks. Let's go over some basics. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Any attack on civilians is, by definition, a terrorist act. Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was Al Qaeda. Just because it was a terrorist attack does not mean that it was planned. Even if the second attack was planned (over that four or five hour lull), this does not mean that the first attack was planned. Those claims by Al Qaeda-associated organizations for responsibility had to be discounted to some extent. Terrorist organizations claim responsibility for things they do not do. You might be too young to remember the terrorism of the 1970s. Multiple groups claimed responsibility every time a plane was hijacked. Multiple groups claimed responsibility when planes crashed due to malfunctions rather than some terrorist act. There are different levels of planning. That four or five hour lull indicates to me that the terrorists used this time to plan that second attack. The first attack may well have been unplanned, with the terrorists taking advantage of the chaos of the day. This was one of the many issues that the intelligence agencies had to address. BS. Obama does have Al Qaeda on the run. This is not a lie. Al Qaeda have radically changed tactics because of the deaths of key personnel and destruction of key facilities. Even though Al Qaeda has been decimated, Al Qaeda, along with the viewpoints that it espouses, are not gone. A big problem with terrorism is that small groups can cause a lot of damage. By analogy, look at our own home-brewed terrorism. George Metesky, acting all by himself, planted 33 bombs and injured 15 people in the 1940s and 1950s. Sam Melville, acting with a small group of cohorts, was responsible for at least 8 bombings and 20 injuries in the late 1960s. Ted Kaczynski, acting all by himself, killed three and injured 23 others. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, with no support from others, killed 168 people. It doesn't take a lot of wherewithal to wreak a lot of havoc. Terrorist groups don't have to be big, involved conspiracies.

Suppose you're writing classes to represent vectors as defined mathematicians. (Note: *not* the ugly things in the C++ standard library.) For example, the product of a vector and a scalar is a vector. That's easy: Just overload operator* in your Vector class. However, the product of a scalar and a vector also is a vector. Now you've got a problem. The argument to operator* as a member function is a multiplier, not a multiplicand. You have but no choice but to make this overload a friend function rather than a member function.

1) That false rumor [i.e. "The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador."] has been refuted a number of times. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down. "We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades." You can find this exact statement at many sources. You can even find it at Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/ Note: This story at Fox News has been heavily edited. The transcript and the video no longer match. The original story (watch the video), for example, has Glen Doherty at the consulate. He was in fact part of the support sent from Tripoli. Fox added that bit in later on, but now they contradict themselves. That support from Tripoli falsifies Fox's claim that all requests for support were denied. The original story also does not include that denial by Jennifer Youngblood. How could it? She issued that statement after this mostly false story came out. There are plenty of other people, in and out of the administration, who deny this particularly nasty rumor. However, you won't find these on Fox News. It's an inconvenient truth. 2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing]. The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing. This was what David Petraeus' told Congress on September 14. See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/ 3) That the CIA later "refuted this initial intelligence". I already gave my source for this in post #367. Note that the DNI statement is September 28, 17 days after the attack: 4) The $330 million cut. After poking around a bit more, it looks my statement of 22% cut is not correct. There are apparently two line items in the State Department budget related to embassy defense; I only found the bigger line item. Also, the final cut was not quite $330 million; the Senate restored some of the administration's request. Here's what CNN had to say on this, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html: Statement: Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for." The facts: According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion). A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested. However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested. Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.

Oh, please. I don't rely on MSNBC any more than I do Fox News. Both are biased. That said, MSNBC did not win a lawsuit by saying that lying is within their rights. The courts found that lying and distorting the news is indeed within their rights, and Fox aggressively exercises their rights. That said, there are some absolute whoppers out their in the ultra right wing media with regard to Benghazi that even Fox won't touch. That's not what DH said. That is not what I said. Nobody thinks that now. It was terrorists, plain and simple. The issue at hand is how long it took the intelligence agencies to disentangle all of the hints that this attack on the Benghazi consulate was related to all of those other protests and lesser attacks on 9/11 that most definitely were related to that video. Getting the intelligence straight took a couple of weeks. That's not a long time. That is in fact an incredibly short period of time. Sources: Read the extract from the DNI statement I already posted in post #367 as a starter. Read the entire statement. The link is there.

Can you please, please stop with the false dilemmas? It's getting downright ridiculous. Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

This is purely nonsense. We are supposed to be helping ChrisDK. Nonsense speculation is not "helping".

The administration's FY2012 budget request for the Department of State included "$1.5 billion in security for diplomatic personnel, information and facilities in the face of terrorist and other threats." That $330 million represents a 22% cut. A 22% cut is not "chump change." What the government spends on other items doesn't matter one bit. The administration cannot move monies from one pot to another.

No. Mass-energy is the source of gravity. A bucketful of rocks gravitates, but so does a bucketful of photons. (Good luck, however, keeping the photons from being absorbed by the bucket's walls.)

What does that have to do with this thread, or with my post? I can't read your mind, rigney. That false rumor has been refuted a number of times. Uh, no. It was terrorists who killed off all these men. Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate. There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be. You are forgetting the House Republicans, who cut 330 million dollars from the administration's request for embassy defense. You are also forgetting those terrorists. The fault for all of this is largely theirs.

No, I'm not surprised when political partisans put partisan gains ahead of country. It is completely irrelevant that Democrats too have been guilty of this in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, the ugliest partisanship in the past several years has come from the Republicans. I've been around for a long time, and I haven't seen anything approaching the partisanship coming from today's Republican party. To see something similar, one has to go way, way back to the Democratic machine politics. That was a long time ago. The Republicans lost the Presidency, lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, and lost their hold in several state legislatures. This is despite the fact that the Republicans by all rights should have cleaned clock this last election cycle. The people tend to punish the President's party in extended tough economic times. Compared to what they should have done, the Republicans lost this election big time. This extreme partisanship is one of the many reasons the Republicans lost this last election. That's not going to happen because that isn't what happened. What happened is that prior to the election, the Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this ant hill. It didn't work. They made that mountain by digging themselves in a hole. Sometimes the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging. A proper investigation would focus on determining whether the country's intelligence agencies are pursuing the people who really killed our ambassador to Libya. (Hint: It was terrorists, not Obama.) A proper investigation would focus on how we can improve things for the next time something similar happens, and do so without casting blame or aspersion. This isn't the kind of investigation that the right wing media or the Republicans want. They want a Soviet-style mock trial.

No, it's sad. You are once again constructing a false dilemma. Nobody has said that this incident shouldn't be investigated. An attack on American soil (a US consulate is American soil) is worthy of investigation, as is the murder of a US ambassador. The problem is that the phony ways in which some of the Republicans are hoping to conduct this investigation is as a witch hunt. The portrayal in the right wing media is even worse. They want Soviet-style justice: Give them a fair trial, then hang them (i.e., the outcome of the trial is preordained).

The attack started at 9:42 per the Pentagon timeline, 9:40 per the CIA timeline. The first drone arrived at the consulate at 11:11 per the Pentagon timeline, 11:10 per the CIA timeline. The last survivors were evacuated by 11:30. It was essentially all over by the time the drones arrived. That's a false dilemma. Just because the feed wasn't watched in the White House Situation Room or by the State Department doesn't mean it was ignored. Those civilians probably wouldn't even know what to watch for in the visuals from a nighttime surveillance drone. That takes trained eyes, and those trained eyes work for the DoD or CIA. Obama said from day one that this was an act of terror. I don't understand what outcome you expect from these witch hunts. Did the President do something untoward? IMO, this is just a witch hunt, a serious waste of Republican political coin when the Republicans should be saving every political penny for the inevitable fight over the fiscal cliff. Yes, there lessons learned that need to be garnered, but those lessons learned are with regard to what was done / what wasn't done prior to the attacks. The more sensible Republicans (e.g., Marco Rubio) are starting to realize this. Focusing on what the administration did after the attacks is playing politics at the expense of the country. Focusing on what it did during the attacks is even worse political pandering.

The Newtonian view: - Mass results in the gravitational force. - The gravitational force makes masses move. What makes this happen? Newtonian mechanics doesn't say. It just says what happens. The relativistic view: - Mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve. - The curvature of spacetime tells mass-energy how to move. What makes this happen? Relativistic mechanics doesn't say. It just says what happens. That's all that physics has for now. Some physicists are working on moving beyond relativity. The two main fronts of attack are string theory and quantum gravity. Essentially, string theory attempts to extend quantum mechanics to cover gravitation while quantum gravity attempts to quantize gravitation. Neither approach is fully developed, and both still face significant challenges. Suppose one or the other approach (or maybe some third alternative) did come to fruition. It's not as if this new theory will truly be the theory of everything, leaving nothing unspecified. This new theory will inevitably still have axiomatic statements, things plucked out of the clear blue sky because it works. Or, as your parents probably told you, "because we said so".

It is a blathering rant, rigney. The title has nothing to do with the post, and the post is so full of hyperbolic excess that it's hard to tell what you are writing about. Why don't you for once try to write clearly and succinctly so that we can read what you wrote rather than having to try to read your mind?