It does seem odd that she would laugh at a pretend punch if she had recently been seriously punched

There's something many people need to start doing, and it's reserving judgment until there's evidence brought out.

Will never happen. Never. Even people whom some consider intelligent throw all objectivity to the winds in their willingness to side with the victim or believe the worst about someone they hate.

Look, for instance, as those on this very blog who quite stupidly and without a shred of evidence bought into the narrative which forced Al Franken's resignation. (Looking at you Conan and Crid. Embarrassed? You should be. Feel stupid? Justified. Think you'll live it down? Think again. Raddy will live down his submoronic assertion that "duuuuuh, children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution..." -- an assertion that the Supreme Court itself quite clearly contradicted -- before you live down your colossal stupidity in condemning someone evidence-free.)

Unlike Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-just-as-dumb, I refuse to even waste my time with evidence-free accusations. I didn't believe Roy Moore's accusers -- since pedophiles are incorrigible, there should have been an unbroken string of accusations leading up to the present day. Guess what? They don't.

I don't believe Christine Blasey-Ford. "Oh, but what does she have to gain?" Celebrity, book deals, speaking engagements. She's set for the rest of her life.

I don't believe Bill Cosby's accusers, either. At least not the ones I've looked at so far. I haven't reviewed all sixty of them, and have no interest in doing so. Sixty women, and not a single one of them felt any need to come forward in a timely manner, when evidence could have been collected, such as the presence of these drugs in their systems.

I think most, if not all of these women are out for their fifteen minutes of fame. I also think that the black community, especially black women, feel they have a little score to settle with Bill Cosby for the infamous Poundcake Speech.

I think there are a lot of us in the world who have been victims of crimes (myself included) who didn't come forward at the time (and when more evidence could have been gathered). Guess what we can do about it? Deal with it. Why should anyone waste even a nanosecond of their lives hearing you publicly drag someone's name through the mud when you don't have a shred of evidence to corroborate what you say?

You don't get to come forward, decades after the fact, and attempt to ruin someone's life because he did a naughty to you decades ago, just because he now happens to be in the public eye.

We've managed to move on from these experiences. We can continue to do so.

Look, for instance, as those on this very blog who quite stupidly and without a shred of evidence bought into the narrative which forced Al Franken's resignation. (Looking at you Conan and Crid. Embarrassed? You should be. Feel stupid? Justified. Think you'll live it down? Think again. Raddy will live down his submoronic assertion that "duuuuuh, children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution..." -- an assertion that the Supreme Court itself quite clearly contradicted -- before you live down your colossal stupidity in condemning someone evidence-free.) ~ Patrick at March 14, 2019 12:29 AM

Patrick,

Not embarassed at all - because you're lying.

Like Joseph Goebbels, you just keep repeating your little lies, hoping that if they're repeated often enough, someday they'll become truth.

To save time - mostly because I find you annoying and not worth writing a new response for each repeated lie - I'll just cut and paste what I wrote the last time you repeated your Franken fan-boy lie and accused Kristen Gillibrand of driving Franken from office after falling for a transparent Republican hit job:

I know we’ve clashed on the Franken/Tweeden situation before, Patrick, but if that oblique reference was to me, there’s no egg on my face. I didn’t call Franken a “handsy perv” — the sentence in question was: "Eight women so far have accused Franken of being a grabby-handed perv."

I, on the other hand, did outright call him a "sanctimonious prick," and I stand by that one.

Franken's accusers have not been discredited. His office logs show him at the events at which he was accused of misconduct. Even he did not deny them, stating that his actions were innocent and misinterpreted, that he's "just a sloppy hugger."

His accusers included a military veteran and a Democrat political aide. Tina Dupuy believed Tweeden because she alleges she was groped by Franken and, as she wrote in The Atlantic about Franken's alleged campaign of intimidation against Tweeden, "The detail in Tweeden’s story that keeps rolling over in my mind was after the forced kiss, while they were still on tour, Franken would toss out, 'petty insults, including drawing devil horns on at least one of the headshots I was autographing for the troops.' That report fits with the classic pattern of sexual harassment. Ribbing Tweeden to let her know she wasn’t being accommodating enough — nice enough — to him. Boundaries and rebuffing turn beautiful women into bitches."

Nor was Franken's resignation the tragedy he and others (namely you, Patrick) have made it out to be. Franken’s was not the indispensable voice. He was a party hack who never strayed from party talking points or broke from the party on any issue. He was easily replaced by a generic Democrat with no loss in continuity for the party.

In reality, although I believed his accusers, I defended Franken, saying he should not be forced to resign nor have his career and life ruined based on unsubstantiated charges. As for the photograph of him mock-grabbing Tweeden’s breasts, tasteless as it was, I held that it was not an actual sexual assault and he was a comedian at the time — tasteless was his stock-in-trade.

In discussing Franken, I maintained it was up to the voters of Minnesota to accept or reject him; to judge his personal immaturity against his effectiveness as a senator. If it's accepted that the people of Massachusetts have the right to re-elect a womanizing drunkard who actually killed someone, Ted Kennedy, surely the people of Minnesota deserve similar consideration.

Nonetheless, I have little sympathy for Franken, and even less for those who insist he was the victim of a "transparent Republican hit job," some sort of Christ-like sacrificial lamb for modern-day Pharisees. Franken was hoist by his own petard, brought down by a prevailing intolerance that he had a big hand in creating.

Was it really wrong to chase Franken out of office? Vox asserts it was not, "There is a difference between the actions of Harvey Weinstein (accused of rape) and Franken (accused of forced kissing and groping women). But that doesn’t mean women should have to choose between the two. The ideal is none of the above."

Personally, I'm a believer in due process and hold that ruining anyone’s life or career on unsubstantiated charges is wrong. But that does not diminish the schadenfreude of watching a hypocrite going down for failing to live up to the standards he insisted upon for others.

Keep in mind that Franken resigned of his own choice. He was not forced out. Gillibrand may have called upon him to resign, but she had no power to compel him to resign. The Ethics Committee was about to begin the investigation of his conduct, an investigation that he personally requested, that he assured us would exonerate him. Yet, he resigned.

Even Leann Tweeden, the "lying, hypocritical tramp" whose accusations against Franken got the ball rolling, said, "I'm not celebrating his resignation. It's a lose-lose situation.”

You know, you've got a really out-sized butt-hurt going about Franken's resignation, like someone ran over your dog.

> Embarrassed? You should be.
> Feel stupid? Justified.

Nope. My comments on the matter were spotless... Polished, reflective, proportionate, forward-looking, inclusive, sustainable, and enriching to all clear thinkers who read them.

The dreary people at the Nobel office called again last week, imploring AGAIN that I might permit some ceremony to acknowledge the brilliance of my work, with their only stipulation being that I must allow and dinner + audience of at least three hundred: Apparently dignitaries around the globe have demanded reservations for an event that can never, ever happen. I just don't have time!

Five years ago they sent a team of senior women to my office to talk about their families, and how reading my words to succeeding generations has brought clarity, enthusiasm and a sense of well-being as young lives were accelerated. But still I said no.

Three years ago they sent two dozen of the cutest little girls you've ever seen, dressed in colorful, charming gowns and costumes to serenade me from the lawn outside my office. Again, the answer was no.

Last summer, it was a squadron of athletic, eager coeds from the world's most elite academic institutions, making the request in terms that every man yearns to hear.

Some stuff happened, but still, the answer was no.

I don't do this for awards, for the attention of the elegant and the accomplished.

I do it for the readers of Amy's blog... Especially for the confused and confounded souls such as yourself... Overwhelmed spirits who so desperately need guidance and principle in their hearts.

YW.

Meanwhile, instead of covering Johnny Depp's lawsuit, the mainstream media is using the Kevin Spacey defense:

https://twitter.com/enews/status/1105535979606208512

Also, the "career" of a national politician is not something I'll ever care about in any context. We don't sustain a representative government because we want these little darlings to build attractive resumes and stalwart reputations. These people are working for us. When we lose interest in them for whatever reason, they're done, and that's that... No tears, just go away. A preponderance of accusations is a perfectly good reason for such a person to move on to the next project. Legal standards of evidence simply don't apply.

Also, there was that picture of him smiling while he grabbed her tits when she was asleep.

Conan:

I know we’ve clashed on the Franken/Tweeden situation before, Patrick, but if that oblique reference was to me, there’s no egg on my face.

Interesting. I don't remember this. Little wonder, given how long and tedious it is.

Conan:

Tina Dupuy believed Tweeden...

Is this somehow relevant? Am I supposed to care what she believes?

Conan:

"The detail in Tweeden’s story that keeps rolling over in my mind was after the forced kiss, while they were still on tour, Franken would toss out, 'petty insults, including drawing devil horns on at least one of the headshots I was autographing for the troops.' That report fits with the classic pattern of sexual harassment. Ribbing Tweeden to let her know she wasn’t being accommodating enough — nice enough — to him. Boundaries and rebuffing turn beautiful women into bitches."

Has a single one of these pictures surfaced? No?

Gee, I'm so shocked.

Any witnesses come forward that heard these "petty insults"? No?

Ditto.

Tweeden's conduct when seen with Franken following that USO show is all the proof I need that the lying hypocritical tramp is a lying hypocritical tramp.

We do, on the other hand, have photos and videos of her committing acts of sexual assault on both soldiers and fellow performers.

Still wondering if the soldier she lip-locked without consent had a girlfriend or fiance back home who was upset by that. LHT is the beneficiary of a double standard that dictates she's allowed to put her slattern hands on men without permission but men aren't allowed to do the same to women. Personally, I would prefer a society in which everyone, including women, were expected to keep their hands to themselves.

That needs to change. LHT needs to be warned once to keep her goddamned hands to herself. If she fails to do so, well, force is legally justified when defending oneself from sexual assault.

Conan:

Nor was Franken's resignation the tragedy he and others (namely you, Patrick) have made it out to be.

Your capacity to miss the point is absolutely mind-blowing. I swear, sometimes I get a visual of you trying to leave your house in the morning and forgetting to open the door first, then wondering why you didn't make it outside and how you got the bump on your head.

It doesn't matter if Franken was the best or the worst Senator ever to live. The tragedy lies in the fact that his resignation was forced over something that cannot be proven.

Gillibraindead's presidential aspirations have apparently finally been silenced, at least on Twitter. Too many people remember what she did to Franken.

And again (since you bring cluelessness to levels never seen by humanity -- and I'm sure you'll do something really clever and original, like sign your next response "Conan the Clueless," or something), yes, some people do bemoan the loss of Franken because they have unrealistic ideas about his value, but the bulk of comments giving Gillibraindead the hell she deserves are faulting her because she called for it without the hearing.

Say it with me: "Gillibraindead is a lawyer who doesn't believe in due process."

See the problem?

Although if you chose to follow Gillibraindead on Twitter, you'll quickly see that her default is that women always tell the truth and the man is guilty until proven otherwise; then he's still guilty.

When she's not being called out for her decidedly un-liberal position of supporting big tobacco.

And yes, he was a victim of his own idiotic standards. By failing to resign, he would have effectively said that we must believe these women who come forward...except those women who accuse him.

I suspect that's why he resigned before his hearing, because someone reminded -- or perhaps he realized this on his own -- that he was violating his own standards that he insisted we all must follow.

Frankly, his paternalistic attitude toward women makes me glad he's gone. I don't think women are delicate little crystalline snowflakes who can't handle being held to the standards of evidence in this country. They can shoulder the burden of proof the same as anyone else.

Having a vagina does not mean that your accusations have to come with training wheels. You can bring your accusations forward with the corroborative evidence would be expected in a court of law. Otherwise, you're throwing yourself at the court of public opinion, and the hoi-polloi is free to disbelief and deride you to their heart's content.

(As LHT found out. Her Twitter account hasn't been used once since her accusations came out.)

Conan:

Even Leann Tweeden, the "lying, hypocritical tramp" whose accusations against Franken got the ball rolling, said, "I'm not celebrating his resignation. It's a lose-lose situation.”

Yes, Tweeden was very well coached. You're terribly naive.

Wow, Patrick, you really are tedious and bitter little man.

Hmmm...hasty reply, "Consn"?

Also, was that intended to be "...you really are a tedious and bitter little man"? Or perhaps you intended, "...you really are tedious and bitter, little man"?

"Raddy will live down his submoronic assertion that "duuuuuh, children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution...""

Still waiting for you to show me the rights of a ten-year-old.

Perhaps you can enumerate them?

No contracts, not of majority age. No gun possession unless in the presence of a guardian, which is my entire point.

You can claim all sorts of things are "rights": food, not to be attacked, air, water, not to be insulted, not to see offensive material ("porn", not OK, two gay people kissing must be OK, we often hear). Two parents. Three if you're from California, right?

Health care.

None of these can be guaranteed by the Constitution for minors alone in the absence of a guardian, most of the time because government is not in any position to do so.

Keep flailing. Don't get spittle on you.

But answer this honestly: If you, Patrick, are judged incompetent, such that you cannot exercise the rights you have now in the absence of a guardian who can KEEP YOU from exercising them - do you have those rights?

Well, let's look at your statement, Raddy. Which was about as idiotic as a statement, because you committed the egregious error of speaking in absolutes. You said "no rights." In other words, if I could prove to you a single right that children have, as enumerated by the Constitution, you've lost the argument.

Free speech. Ever hear of a child being prosecuted for speech? You won't. Why? Because the child has right to free speech.

Can parents decide that their child isn't allowed to say certain things? Yes, of course. But please don't make an ass out of yourself by claiming, "Duuuuuuuh...if da parent kin say dat the child cant say sumthin', den da child dont have rite to free speech."

Doesn't matter what the parent says. The law still cannot prosecute a child for exercising speech. Just because a parent can legally impose their own consequences upon their children for saying certain things, that doesn't mean the child doesn't have free speech.

Employers have the legally protected right to fire you for the things you say, even away from the job. It's one of the left's favorite games to get people fired from their jobs for things they post on social media. Doesn't mean they don't have free speech. It just means that the employer decided that they didn't want someone on their payroll who says such things.

The child doesn't need the parent to exercise his right to free speech. Whether the parent's present or not, the law cannot prosecute a child for pure speech. Nor can the parent renounce free speech on behalf of their child. The parent cannot say, "Well my child isn't allowed to say this, so the law can prosecute him for it."

The law won't do it. Why? Because the child's right of free speech doesn't belong to the parent. Therefore they cannot take it away.

There it is. A right that a ten-year-old has that doesn't need his parent's permission. In fact, the parent couldn't take that right away if they wanted to. Yes, they can punish a child for what they say, just like your employer can punish you for what you say, even off the clock. But they have no right to prevent a child from exercising it.

Game, set and match to me. You lose.

Mary Beth Tinker, at age 13, was one of the plaintiffs in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. In fact, all litigants were under age.

From the Supreme Court: "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Notice, it says the students don't leave their constitutional rights of free speech at the schoolhouse gate.

It doesn't say "the parents' right to allow their children free speech." It says the children's constitutional right of free speech.

And the parents weren't physically present in the school, either. So, the kids didn't need their parents on hand to protect their rights. The law did it for them. So, even by your own fake standards, you lose. The children do not need their parents on hand to protect them from legal prosecution for exercising free speech. In fact, the parents can't take away their child's right to free speech, even if they wanted to.

I could rest my case now.

Here's another one. Suppose a couple decides to leave the U.S. with the intention of never returning. And they take their child with them.

That's perfectly fine. That's their right.

Now suppose they acquire citizenship in another country where they plan on staying for rest of their lives. If the country says okay, that's fine.

If their new country says it's okay, they can even acquire citizenship for their kid. All well and good.

Now suppose they're absolutely certain they don't want to come back to the U.S., ever again, and they renounce their citizenship. They can absolutely do that.

Now, suppose they want to renounce citizenship on behalf of their kid.

Not so fast...

Parents cannot renounce citizenship on behalf of their children, whether the child is a newborn or one day before his eighteenth birthday, the right of citizenship is specific to the individual. Parents can divest themselves of their own citizenship, but they cannot take their child's away.

In the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court hinted at this. When establishing that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the U.S., the Court ruled that whether the parents could have, even if they wanted to, deprive their child of citizenship during his minority was "at least doubtful."

The Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg examined this question even more closely and determined that a parent, even if they choose to remove a child from the U.S. and acquire citizenship for their own child in another country, they cannot remove their child's U.S. citizenship. Not even by renouncing their own. The child retains his U.S. citizenship and there's not a damned thing the parents can do about it.

Now, can a child renounce his own U.S. citizenship? Yes. Yes, he can. He can go before the consulate and persuade them that he understands what he's doing and that he's not being pressured to do this. And he can renounce his own U.S. citizenship.

Now if a child can renounce his citizenship on his own behalf, but the parents can't do it for him, how is it not a right?

And yes, it's enumerated by the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment, although the right existed before that. As the Supreme Court stated in Wong Kim Ark, the 14th Amendment was "declaratory in form." It existed only to extend the rights that already existed to the emancipated slaves. It did not create new rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not state that all persons born in the U.S. become U.S. citizens upon attaining the age of majority. It says that they are citizens the moment they are born in the U.S.

Game over. You lose. I've just proven to you that children have a right without their parents present. And even rights that their parents cannot take away from them.

But, you know, keep right on lying. Like Bill O'Lielly. Whenever he gets proven wrong, he just pretends it never happened, and keeps right on promoting the same bullshit.

Which is precisely what you will do. Your bullshit definition of rights (which is not supported by any dictionary, legal or scholastic) doesn't change that.

Can the law prosecute children for exercising their right to free speech? Nope. Therefore, it's a right. Like the left likes to say, "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."

The fact that there are consequences doesn't change rights into non-rights.

Lie more, Rad. Come on. Lie some more.

So these two Popes go in to a bar.

And by the way, parents can be judged incompetent, too. And the children have the right to petition the court to become emancipated adults and there's not a damned thing the parents can do to prevent the child from doing this.

So, again, even by your fake definition, you still lose, Raddy.

You can't even change the rules to your own bullshit standards and win an argument.

Sad.

Correction: they actually went into a bar.

They didn't go in to perform the action "a bar", whatever that imaginary action "a bar" might be.

God only knows why two Popes would go into a bar, let alone together, but there it is.

Since Amy mentioned Jussie Smollett. . .

Also, there was that picture of him smiling while he grabbed her tits when she was asleep. ~ Crid at March 14, 2019 6:26 AM

Doesn't matter. Patrick's hero has fallen and he cannot process it, so he must lash out.

He'll blame the people on this forum before he'll recognize Franken's own hypocrisy; that Al's sanctimonious insistence we believe the women who are accusing men without proof came back to bite him in the ass. That, in grandstanding for political points, Franken himself threw truth and due process under the bus.

So, like Joey calling after Shane, Patrick cannot understand that his hero was brought down by the very forces his hero helped create.

Conan:

He'll blame the people on this forum before he'll recognize Franken's own hypocrisy; that Al's sanctimonious insistence we believe the women who are accusing men without proof came back to bite him in the ass. That, in grandstanding for political points, Franken himself threw truth and due process under the bus.

I had already words to that effect, dumbass. Many times, in previous threads on this topic. In fact, I've said it in this very thread, "Csnan."

But, you know, keep right on lying.

For a taste:

And yes, he was a victim of his own idiotic standards. By failing to resign, he would have effectively said that we must believe these women who come forward...except those women who accuse him.

I suspect that's why he resigned before his hearing, because someone reminded -- or perhaps he realized this on his own -- that he was violating his own standards that he insisted we all must follow.

Frankly, his paternalistic attitude toward women makes me glad he's gone. I don't think women are delicate little crystalline snowflakes who can't handle being held to the standards of evidence in this country. They can shoulder the burden of proof the same as anyone else.

And there is no picture of Franken grabbing Tweeden's tits, Crid. The picture I've seen shows him pantomiming doing so, which his hands several inches away from her.

So, both Crid and Conan are liars. Big surprise.

I had already words to that effect, dumbass. Many times, in previous threads on this topic. In fact, I've said it in this very thread, "Csnan." ~ Patrick at March 15, 2019 10:31 AM

Yet it is the "very well coached" "lying, hypocritical tramp" along with "Gillibraindead," the Democrat Senator who "fell for a transparent Republican hit job" that you repeatedly choose to castigate on this forum whenever you bring up Franken's downfall (which is freakishly often) and not Franken himself.

Tell me again how even-handed you've been on the subject of Franken's resignation. We all could use a good laugh.

Lie more, Rad. Come on. Lie some more. ~ Patrick at March 14, 2019 4:02 PM

You seem to sling accusations of lying around pretty readily; and pretty sloppily, too. Your modus operandi is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying? When that fails to dissuade them, you start calling them names and impugning their intelligence or character.

You really are a bitter and petty little man, Patrick. Tedious, too.

Hmmm...hasty reply, "Consn"? ~ Patrick at March 14, 2019 10:15 AM

Yes, actually. I was at a convention and about to go into a breakout session. That was fat-fingered on my phone.

I'm so glad you found my hasty mistype to be amusing. I simply live to bring you joy.

And Conan lies again...sigh. Is that your tactic? This Gishgallop-like tactic of hurling of lie after lie after lie after lie, hoping to wear your opponent down with exposing your lies?

Conan:

Tell me again how even-handed you've been on the subject of Franken's resignation.

Show me where I ever claimed to be even-handed. I'm waiting.

Unless you'd rather simply continue to smother your opponents in lies, ensuring that I'm too busy exposing your numerous lies to address the point.

I said that I had previously stated words to the effect that Al Franken was hoisted by his own petard. At no point did I make any claim that I was "even-handed."

I'd accuse you of being intellectually dishonest, but you're not an intellectual. (Unless the standards of intellectualism radically dropped and no one bothered to tell me.) So, you'll just have to settle for being dishonest.

You can't even keep your points straight when the post is literally right in front of you.

As for Raddy's lying, well, it seems that the poor child has his own personal definition of what constitutes a legal right, and is going by that.

The Supreme Court says children have rights. As the final arbiter of the law of the land in the U.S., they have the authority to define what constitutes a right.

Raddy, as far as I know, is an expert on nothing (much like you). He is not entitled to his own personal definition of a right. At least not one that is binding on anyone else. He doesn't get to redefine legally-recognized terms that the Supreme Court has defined.

And if Crid is not lying, then perhaps he'd care to show us all this photo of Al Franken grabbing LeeAnn Tweeden's tits. I'm certain I've never seen such a thing.

I've seen one of him pantomiming doing so, with his hands several inches from her. But actually grabbing her? Nope never saw that.

Hi Pattycakes

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-franken-embarassed-groping-claims-rebuild-trust/story?id=51394106

Whatever, Patrick. /rolled eyes

Oooh, what a witty rejoinder! Take you long to come up with that?

(Wouldn't surprise me in the least if it did take you a long time to come up with that.)

You gonna accuse me of lying if I say no?

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm just throwing things onto this thread to see how long you'll respond; to see just how much having the last word means to you.

You're a child, Patrick.

Trolling? The last resort of a defeated child.

I say you're lying, so you call me a liar. I say you're a child, so you call me a child.

Patrick, do you have anything original to say?

Let me explain this to you as clearly as I can: If you don't like being called a liar, don't tell lies.

So, that's a "no" on you having anything original to say. Got it.

You just ape and mimic your intellectual betters. That's all you've got.

Patrick, if you keep lying about what I said concerning Al Franken, I'll keep calling you a liar. And then you'll call me a liar. And then I'll call you a child. And then you'll call me a child. And so on. Whatever I call you, you'll call me right back - a child's tactic.

By the way, Patrick, your fan boy adulation of Al Franken is kinda creepy; Norman Bates creepy. You should probably get that checked.

Nine.

Conan, how do you manage to be so tiresome in such a short post? I barely made it halfway before the yawns set in.

There you go again - I say you're tedious and the best you can do in response is to call me tiresome. At least you used a different word this time. I suppose, for you, that counts as originality.

I tell you what Patrick. You can have the last word. I just don't care enough to keep toying with you anymore. It was mildly amusing at first, but having the last word seems to mean so much to you. Besides, you bore me.

See you in another thread where, hopefully, you can stick to the truth.

Oh, Heavens to Betsy! Conan's been toying with me this whole time.

I feel so toyed with.

If only I felt sufficiently motivated to read the rest of your tiresome post.

For all your construction-paper-and-Elmer's squealing in exasperation and your transparent, Pee-Wee's Playhouse expressions of theatrical valediction, have you ever persuaded anyone of anything, at all, at any time?

Because no such occasion comes to mind, and it would be fun to go back and see how you made it work. Coney will enjoy this too. Post a link.

Maybe you're just such a game-changing thinker that no one visiting this site has ever been able to appreciate your brilliance... Over the last fifteen years.