status quo assumed preferable
 

. . . Is the ultimate goal of society to oppose diversity?

Say more. What are you asking? By suggesting that "society" has a "goal" (whatever that goal may be) you're giving "society" human-like characteristics in a way that I'm not sure is reasonable or useful.

Society is a collection of humans with human-like characteristics.

society, like water, seeks it's own level

http://www.photoblogster.com/images/..._puddle-01.jpg

***From Wikipedia:


*** I am one of those annoying "ancients" who likes to back my opinion with valid sources and quote them or "plagarize" (NOT!) as some newer members have put it. If this annoys you, please feel free to put me on ignore.

PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?

some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't.

If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?

Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope.

It really depends upon your definition of the word 'society' and 'diversity'.:)



Personally having experienced opposition in a closed internet society where honesty and it's questions are put down and abuse is praised and upheld I find your question somehow strange and out of place. :blush:

I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first. ;)

"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?"
@marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away.

"some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't."
@lumberjim: Agreed. Observations of that particular phenomenon are quite interesting, but, to me, not quite as interesting as observing an individuals knowlegde, or lack, of the "ebb and flow of things" on the interior side of their interface with the world. It is at that critical point where the individual's perceptions can become skewed, yet it is that same critical point which we, as observers, are lacking in direct knowledge, and therefore where our own perceptions can become skewed. All things being relative, we have to admit that all any person has to go on are their own skewed perceptions.

"If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?"
@Beetsie: Clever. I like that. You revealed an internal paradox to my hypothetical query which did, in fact, render it "moot" if taken at face value. I tried to get it out in as few words as possible, as generically as possible, and in avoiding interpretable specifics I shot myself in the semantic foot.

"Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope."
@Elspode: Refered to in nature as homeostasis. There is homeostasis within cells, multi-cellular organisms, and also, as you point out, in multi-organism collectives. The two states you describe remind me of one of the driving forces in my life, which is to nullify, to the highest degree possible, the level of inevitable chaos by over-reaching for an impossible to atain level of logical order, the result of which turns out to be somewhere in the middle. An example, or application, of this would be reducing the amount of mental stressors by catagorizing, simplifying, and dealing with compartmentalized factors as opposed to overwhelming individual details. You get a less fine-tuning but more big-picture. And, I don't think I should have to specify this, but human beings should always be dealt with as individual details. The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.

"I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first."
@skysidhe: I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied. I'll give you three guesses.

No it is NOT 'as implied.' My implication was personal obviously. Maybe you are speaking of societies of the world then? American? What kind of society?? I would like a thoughtful answer. Oh and please dumb it down for me. I'm not quite as willing as Elspode to slice and dice all that and make any sense of it.

Thanks



The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.



Then we are a society of bigots. #1 We were born to catogorize. and #2 the word 'bigotry' and it's application is amiss. It isn't the 'big picture' answer.

For you to use the word 'bigot' implies a group of people with defined characteristics and isn't logical to denouce catogorizing in the same breath catogorize.

The language is too confusing. I'll let the smart people figure it out :)

This is way off the subject, but the homeostasis and the introduction of virus into the system.
I only took one microbiology, course... And in the scheme of things, I've never figured out the purpose of the virus.
It does nothing but create death. (well, OK,... it does create itself over and over,... so it does make some sense of life)
Is it just suppose to be natures way for population control? The funny result of overpopulating the host organism, via restructuring the host cell to reproduce more virus to attack more cells to kill the host. Of course, my bad, in applying human traits or design to the intent of virus.

@skysidhe: I've always had trouble interpretting your posting style. My perception, right now, is that you are exhibiting hostility towards me. I hope that's not the case, because I always liked you. You seem like a thoughtful person, but I recall getting these sort of hostile (my perception) messages from you on my board, and it always baffled me. Are we still having a polite conversation? I said "I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied" meaning I assumed that the reader would percieve my implied answer "no, a society will benefit from valuing diversity" - I guess this makes my question a rhetorical question. I clearly said I assumed the reader's perception - which I clearly am not making any claims of having direct knowledge of.

oh my gawd...don't get parinoid. Any precieved tone is comming from inside you due to what you have heard from others. Words don't have sound ????

How can I be any MORE hostile than any other person you have known?. wow.


anyway I don't know how to convince you?? I can post kissy faces??
wanna call me?? I have a great voice. Mellow and calm.


any way

I am trying to have an intellectual conversation. Please note I edited my thoughts. I too am confused by your posting style as well.

There are inconsistencys so what you sense is a desire to understand. Like a dog with a bone. I am not very smart so when I asked you to dummy it down I meant it!



Thank you for using the word rhetorical. That says it all.

@ TiddyBaby

Isn't that cancer???


Anyway. I will let you brains talk and get out of flints way. I trip over big words :P

.....and maybe my stupid way of talking is the pea to flints princess ???



didn't mean to hinder your fun , or make you think I was making growly faces.

@skysidhe: Good answer. I will use that as an understading of how we can interact in a way that will benefit us both. Maybe the most difficult relationships can be the most rewarding because they challenge you to go outside the comfort zone?

As a quick and unsolicited update on where I am at right now: married, baby on the way, just bought my first house. I have a day job as a system administrator, and I have been getting back out and playing gigs (drums) as well as going back to school after ten years. Very busy. So, what about you? Tell me something about you.

"I don't see anything hostile in my post."

@skysidhe: I apologize for my perception, then. But you edited it since I replied, I haven't even read the whole thing.

It's also a basic survival skill. Time dictates how far you sort, like walking down a street you scan the other people looking for clues. You see 2 people carrying baseball bats, so you put them into a category. One has a ball, glove and cleats over his shoulder and the other is dressed in scruffy leathers with a bandanna covering his lower face. so now you subdivide into probably benign and probably dangerous categories

OK, that's extreme but you see how we all do it, all the time. Speaking of time, if you have more of it, you further categorize and with enough time you get every person so sub-sub-sub categorized that everyone is unique and has to have their own category.

It's when you run out of time (or interest) that you leave people hanging in clumps and never get them into individuals. :2cents:

I edited it = I corrected my crappy punctuation and spelling. ( just for you ) :)

The only thing I deleted was
"I don't see anything hostile in my post."

The post in question is still there. Smiley face and alll. Just like it was the first time.


Congradulations on all that. Your lifes progression the way you want it too.

I am happy. In a great townhouse. Have a new car. Made a great friend when the music was still alive and we see each other every year.

I have two parttime jobs and a new puppy. He is 6 months old and sooo cute! One day I will post a picture of him and we can all decide what his bread is.

I was told he was a pom but a pom he is not! You'll laugh when you see his picture. No pomeranian there :)

I got to go for now....take care

If we did not take your statement at face value we would be forced to misinterpret it.

lots of double speak in your posts, flint. you wouldn't be trying to impress us with the depth of your thoughts now, would you?

truly dizzying

sidhe, it's no wonder you're struggling to wrap your mind around it.

When Noso speaks, its like listening to the "flight of the bumblebees"... Not in a bad way, just a classical example. In a more abstract manor, I'd say, Stravinsky

Sorry, your response got lost in the shuffle.

My joke is really quite appropriate in this thread and in light of recent events on the board. Its a humorous take on how a society or a group responds to a large influx of "outsiders."

In recent years the population of Colorado has increased by what seems like several orders of magnitude. Native Coloradoans have been overwhelmed by the surge in population growth and the resulting rise in real estate prices caused by a large influx of Californians and Texans with money to burn. With that background, here's my joke:

****

A Coloradoan, a Texan, and a Californian were all sitting in a little Colorado bar having a drink together. The Californian finished off his white wine spritzer, and to the astonishment of the other two, threw his wine glass at the wall, shattering the glass into a 100 broken shards. The Californian smirked and announced, "In California, we have so much money, we never drink out of the same wine glass twice."

The Texan, not to be outdone, gulped his shot of Jack Daniels, threw the shot glass at the wall, and said, "In Texas, we have so much sand, we never drink out of the same shot glass twice."

The Coloradoan stared at the Texan and Californian, chugged his can of Coors, crumpled it up, and drew out a gun and shot the Texan and Californian. He announced to the rest of the bar, "In Colorado, we have so many Texans and Californians, we never drink with the same ones twice."

****

Diversity does not come easy to ANY group! :D

umm no? I haven't found difficult people to be rewarding in real life or the internet. Quite to the contrary.......case in point. IF that were true I probably
left many an ager highly rewarded. :P :lol:


hehehe I like that thought. They benefited from my sarcastic wit aye
and pretentous assholeness.;)

mmmuhuh ok. hehehe I somehow doubt it.

Just as here You see there cannot be a double standard. A difficult relationship is difficult . Period. I'm ok with the reality of that.


No disrespect intended. Please don't interpret me any differently than say.....someone else much more volitile.

This was posted in a previous discussion entitled Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans? It was just that; nothing more. Every intent of that post was in that post. And yet review so many responses. So many wanted to read into that post a hidden agenda. I don't do that. I am the world's worst politician because I speak bluntly; consider political correctness akin to what others consider evil. If I had a hidden agenda in that post, I would have posted it - bluntly. There was no hidden agenda. And yet others could not admit that post only asked what it asked.

I am struck by same responses to Flint's post. You and I don't care what he may have posted anywhere else, when replying here. He asked a simply question - nothing more - nothing less. He asked: No one answered a simple question. Many instead asked for an 'agenda'. With so many responses, where did one ever answer the original question – without personal biases - emotions - attached to their response?

The answer: No. A society that opposes diversity dies. Death is not the purpose of society. It is why societies that oppose diversity - that endorse hate, racial purity, intolerance, commandants from dictators, and that stifle its most valuable asset - the little people - are therefore dying societies. It is why containment works so well and why preemption is not productive.

What was the secret to Rome? Rome endorsed and assimilated diversity. What made Islam so dominant up to the 1400s? Same tolerance to diversity. A tolerance limited only by certain and specific principles that provided that society with a common fabric.

The purpose of society is to permit diversity - as much diversity as society can tolerate. Some answers to his question demonstrated intolerance - such as assuming a hidden agenda. Such biases -such as assuming a hidden agenda - only undermine the purpose of a successful society. BTW, reasons that justify a hidden agenda also imply a sick society. He asked a simply question and did not even receive a simply answer - without hidden agendas.

First of all, you lie. He asked the question in nine words and Lumberjim answered it with a thousand and seven words. Beestie and Elspode also answered the question.

The trouble is that it is very difficult to write about a simple question given with no examples. If you want to be able to write any sort of substantial response to the question, you must have a model in your head. You have to be thinking of some society -- of Rome, of 15th century Spain, of America, of Texas, of the High School football team -- which either acted to preserve, to embrace, to oppose, or to assimilate diversity.

From there, you use your knowledge of the model to build an argument, and fold that argument, I hope, into a clear and well written response.

If two people argue, and each person understands a different, contradictory model, they talk past each other. The argument goes nowhere and becomes stupid.

So someone has to introduce a model, as tw did and flint did not. The choice of model determines where the argument will go, if someone is hoping to win. Hellenistic Greece would be an excellent example for someone who wished to argue that merging cultures bring prosperity. The example of 15th century Spain, when King Ferdinand drove out the Moslems and endorsed Colombus, might make for a good argument for the prosperity of an undivided state.

Neither is particularly good for understanding or answering Flint's incredibly broad and somewhat ambiguous question.

I think that a good model might come from Physics. Consider a volume of high temperature air. Each molecule has high energy and high, albiet random, momentum. If you insert a mass of cold air, then the two types of air, cold and hot, will interact and circulate tempestuously. Ultimately, the entire volume of air will have uniform temperature.

All sorts of things could complicate this model, and it doesn't necessarily translate well to societies. It doesn't deal with the possibility that societies tend to develop, and that if two societies are isolated they will develop along divergent paths.

That brings along another ambiguity in Flint's question: what is the scale? Is he talking about the world? Is he talking about America? Is he talking about New Orleans? Is he talking about my math study group?

Having written all of this, I think that his original post was a passive-aggressive way of implicating the established group at the Cellar of being insular. If this was his real question, and he really wanted us to discuss it, he should have come out and said so.

One last thing: I think that Lumberjim's response was incredibly eloquent.

Reviewing those posts again, maybe there was an attempt at an anwser. I certainly still cannot see it in a few responses. A kid splashing in a mud puddle makes about as much sense to me as the 'kid pissing on a statue' and calling it the purpose of life - a philosophy whose real purpose is to insult. I watched those english teachers dish out 'Paul was barefoot and therefore dead' from the Abbey Road album. To me, classic junk philosophy intended to insult. But on second thought, and after literally rereading those particular replies about 10 times, maybe there was an attempt to actually reply to Flint.

Models are only examples. Examples so that a concept is provided something concrete; so that the reader can compare his interpretation to an example/model; so that the reader can confirm he properly understood the author's intent. Those models were not intended to limit the scope of Flint's question which I regard as intentionally vague. If Flint intended something more specific, he can limit the scope of his question. If Flint intended his question to have scale, then he would have put numbers or limiting examples to it.

Having said that, I still don't understand how society has a "level". And I don't understand why "I find your question somehow strange and out of place." is relevant. Like the 'pissing kid', and like those english teachers who could not understand why 'Paul was not dead', I again see little relevant in such replies.

Marichiko provided a definition - something to work with. It did not answer the question, but the definition proves useful - one step to providing an answer. Elspode did same by providing a framework; a structure to better define where to seek an answer. My post should not have implied Elspode post belongs in a category of subjectively irrelevant interpretations.

Meanwhile, "If two people argue, and each person understands a different, contradictory model, they talk past each other. The argument goes nowhere and becomes stupid." is why perspective causes two people to answer correctly and yet provide 'apparently incompatible' answers. Wars have been fought over less. Which is why I am still looking at that answer about 'levels' and about "the ebb and flow of things". And yet still see nothing but 'a kid pissing on a statue' philosophy or a hidden message that 'Paul is dead'.

Bravo, Torrere, I feel that YOUR response was incredibly eloquent!

Given Flint's history on the board and the vagueness of his question, it is no surprise that he has gotten the response he has. In fact, many of the responses were far more well thought out than his original question.

I notice, also, that he has not taken much part in the debate his own OP inspired (perhaps because AG is functioning again, or so we are told?).

If one wishes to look at the laws of physics and the natural world, all systems tend to seek a status of equilibrium - that is to conserve energy. A chemical reaction that is thrown out of equilibrium by a change on one side of the equation or the other will quickly work toward becoming in balance again. Human society is no different.

The original residents of Colorado found their state thrown into dis-equilibrium with the sudden influx of outsiders who drove up property values, and at the same time voted in laws that were at odds with the well being of the residents of the state - the TABOR amendment (tax payer's bill of rights) is the most blatant example of this. TABOR was pushed into law mainly by the influx of Californians who were weary of the tax burden in their home state of California and opposed paying any taxes what so ever in their new state of Colorado.

The result has been chaos on every level of government in the state of Colorado. The division of motor vehicles is understaffed forcing people to wait literally 4- 6 hours for something as simple as a renewal of their driver's license. The courts are over burdened and under staffed. Our system of higher education has taken many hard hits, and some of our universities are in peril of losing their accreditation thanks to underfunded libraries and teaching staff. The list goes on.

People who live here have responded by putting "Native" with a map of Colorado on their bumpers, jokes such as the one I posted earlier, and the great Texan/Colorado tomato war, where participants bombard each other with ripe or rotten tomatoes (and sometimes hard green ones).

One way or the other, Colorado will reach equilibrium again. Either the new comers will realize that the laws they have voted in have made Colorado a less than wonderful place to live, and act with other Colorado voters to repeal them (this has already begun to happen to a certain extent in our most recent election), or else they will leave for greener pastures and those remaining will clean up the mess they leave behind.

The influx of AG-ers into the Cellar is little different than the influx of Texans and Californians into Colorado. In both instances the new comers were met with suspicion and hostility. Things were discovered to work off this mutual animosity in more healthy ways like the great tomato war which is actually quite funny. Native Coloradoans have gradually become more open to new thoughts, and the newcomers seem to be learning that they weren't right about EVERYTHING.

Colorado has dealt with heterogeneity by slowly turning it into homogeneity. I think most other societies are no different.

this is why your nonemotional, rational method of thinking is inferior. sublty escapes you, imagery and suggestion help you not. you can't smell what i'm cookin.

would you really like a translation of those two posts? in all words?

@lumberjim: So when I was criticized, as a new arrival, for not making substantive enough posts, it was actually a ploy to get me to share something real just so you could make fun of it? Oh, yes, this is a very mature and dignified society here, much more advanced than all those other "chatroom style" boards out there.

This really gets to the crux of your "fit in or F off" argument, doesn't it? You don't want people to actually be themselves, you want them to fall lockstep into your pre-specified style of clique-ish posting: not too light, but not too heavy either. Truly, the goal of quite a few people here seems to be specifically what I refer to in this thread, to repel diversity and maintain a homogeneous status quo - based on the argument that it has been sustainable for X number of years. Guess what folks - it takes all kinds. Variety is good.

I am disturbed by the pleasure some of you take in attempting to drive away newcomers. You might want to consider joining the KKK.

So when Torr wrote
He was clearly correct (as this is now the central core of your argument), and when he wrote
...his advice is now taken. (Cool!)

You appear to now be addressing that in the way he thought was more appropriate. So, to sum up in third person:

- The original Flint was an ass, and did not read the Cellar before participating, merely walked in and started posting in his style, and was upset to find out it made most Dwellars assume he was an ass.
- After a week of learning what was appropriate posting style for the community, he changed his posting style to better reflect it.
- After being told in his thread that his argument was obtuse he changed it to be in line with what the thread demanded.
- But after all this fitting-in, he demands that fitting-in is unproductive not only to the Cellar but to society in general.

Derrrrrrrrrr. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

hahahahahahahahahahahhaha

I told ya, Flint is like somewhere between the "flight of the bumblebee" and some "stravinski" works....

The subject of this threads was intended to be obvious. And I have never, ever, not once in my lifetime, felt the need to change my style in order to fit in. I haven't done it here, and I never will. I am very comfortable with myself.

"Derrrrrrrrrr. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr." This is how adults behave? Nice example.

Your posting style has changed tremendously since your arrival and it is self-evident to all.

Ironically, you have fit in only far enough to generate interest in your thread. Now that you've been an ass to everyone in this one, there will be fewer people interested in your next one. That's how it *really* works here. Best change your username at this point, if you care to get any response at all.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

My posting style has not changed. I post the same way I have been posting for years. Perhaps, as you say, the perception of my posts has changed. That, I have no control over.

Example: You percieve me as being an ass? Interesting, and taken into account. You believe this will influence subsequent events in a certain direction? Interesting, and taken into account. Will there be any integral changes to my personal existence based on these perception? I'll give you three guesses.

(Hint: "Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" isn't the answer.)

C'mon... "Derrrrrrrrrrrr" was funny.

Dammit, I know I'm immature. I also miss using a-doy!

Or the classic no doy-ay.

Maybe I've overlooked discussion in ANY of your numerous (yet pointless) threads. All I have seen is argument. Reminds me of the sissy kid in school that never got picked for the ball team but STILL insisted that he hang around the field to try to insure that the ones who WERE on the team were miserable also. Sheesh....

i think flint likes to debate...
and wants to be mentally challenged...
But I can't do that for him, because I am already mentally challenged.
.. SO, this leaves it up to Pennsavanial co-horts to carry on.

One man's argument is another man's discussion. It depends on your state of mind, which is un-knowable through a computer screen, isn't it? People and their bizarre assumptions are truly amusing to observe. I never tire of this.

I finally found and read this - it's difficult to have a polite conversation in the midst of all this bickering! Anyway, when I was in Colorado several years back, I noticed this strange phenomenon of negative feelings about Texans, which I finally have an explanation for. Thanks. What's funny is, people would say "You're from Texas?! You don't seem like a Texan." I like the joke.

sorry bout that, man. i was just pokin fun. you seem pretty thick skinned.

ps. the ebb/flow comment wasn't directed at you. this thread gave me the vibe that you were coming around. it'll get better.

Thank you. The stereotypical Texan in Colorado is a loud mouthed braggert with lots of money to burn and a bunch of pals named Festus, who go around shooting cows because they can't tell the difference between them and deer. Thus, we are impressed by Texans who have even the minimum of social graces and refrain from shooting livestock. People get sterotyped everwhere. Its just the natural ways of a society faced with an onslaught of "outsiders."

"You don't want me to be an annoying attention whore here? Can't you facists understand it's part of my core identity? Stop oppressing me! I represent the next step in the evolution of cultural diversity, which you ignore at your peril!"

If states of mind are unknowable through your computer screen maybe you need an upgrade... :-)

You were right, I've always loved it when you make humorous observations about me. (They're pretty accurate too!)


I'm glad to hear you say that. Knowing that you know what I know reassures me about you.

Believe me, your idea of the typical Texan couldn't possibly be anywhere near as bad as mine, knowing what I know from living here.

:::hmmmph::: I'm trying hard not to like you, but I have to say, if you keep pointing out the obvious holes in my arguments I may develop a little crush on you. Maybe we can have a love/hate relationship? I love how you ridicule my points so effectively.

:lurker:

@xoxoxoBruce: Your Gonzo quote reminds me of a Hendrix lyric: "white collar conservative flashin' down the street, pointin' their plastic finger at me, they hopin' soon my kind gonna drop an' die, but I'm gonna wave my freak flag high - high - YA!

Actually, my ex sister-in-law lives in San Antonio. When I was still married, we'd drive down to see her and her husband every Christmas. My husband and I would always comment on how nice Texans were in Texas, and wonder what the hell got into them when they left their state. ;)

Last time Texans and Coloradians (?) seriously went at it, those Texans took severe losses (in the Civil War). Did those Texan forget - or are today's Texans really 'status quo' Texans?

Hello Beetsie! Thank you for taking an interest in my thread. On a side note, it appears your pledge drive for AG was successful! You really should stop by for a congratulatory thread, but, oh, I'm sorry, no new accounts are being verified at AG. Fiddlesticks!

Now, let's consider the qualifying phrase "idea of" - what does this term suggest? A concrete definition or an admission of a subjective obeservation? People will naturally have perceptions, however it is when when an attempt is made to codify these perceptions into an objective factual statement that a problem arises. Hence, qualifying terms like "idea of" are used to avoid this confusion, to careful readers.

Also, while certainly taking into account the subjective nature of these observations, one might conclude that the mean/standard devation of the behavior of a group of people could be better described from a random sample which meets the criteria of approximating a normal distribution.

I think they overlook this, tw. It may not even be taught in Texas schools that Texans went down at the hands of a bunch of grubby homesteaders and fur trappers from up North. ;)

you should have went with you liking 'the idea of' valuing the individual, and not liking lumping. it would have been more honest, and you woulndt have needed as many circles.

we all lump. everyone does it. it wold be nice to be perfect, and forgiving. but we're not.

I can explain it to you, If you need me to do that.

I know it must seem like i'm breaking your balls, but this is a 45 word sentence. were you offering to explain this to me? what is there to explain? you didn't say anything. it looked like you were going to, but it kind of fell apart at then end there. are you in politics?

were you trying to say that people are more recognizeable by their differences than their similarities?

A sample has to meet certain criteria in order to be used as an estimate on which to base conclusions about the total population. Most importantly it has to be random, and it has to be large enough (the larger the sample size, the closer you get to an accurate approximation of a normal distribution, which is to say the bell curve you would get if you sampled every single member of the total poulation). My basic point here is that while living in Texas I encounter a large and random sample population, which is better suited to approximate a normal distribution than the stated sample of a few drunken vacationers.

This being said, my original post refered to the "idea of the typical Texan" - clearly a subjective observation, not a factual statement.

so you're saying that the general populous of texas, when taken as a broad sample comports itself less favorably than some drunken vacationers?!

your hole is getting deeper.