Hurin

So, the theory is that Jacob was bringing these folks to the island in an effort to rehabilitate his brother? Think about it, Smokey has almost no frame of reference for humanity. All he know is what his mother told him about how evil they are. . . along with the small community he lived with for a while before mom killed them all. And, if you'll recall, he hated those people. Though that begs the question, why does Jacob take the side of humanity being decent? He had even less interaction with people than Smokey. You'd think he'd be even more of a believer in his mom's warning about how evil they all are.

So. . . some have been hinting about it. . . Yeah, I guess that "mom" had made the mistake of going into the cave of light herself and was able to become a "smoke monster" too. . . hence her ability to wipe out an entire village by herself? So, if that's true, was she evil too? Did it make her evil or does it only intensify whatever is in your nature already (if indeed it alters your soul at all)? Can you get turned into a smoke monster and still be a good guardian of the light (as she apparently was)?

Gotta agree. When they've shown us Smokey killing people in the past, he's usually shown to beat them to a pulp or literally tearing them limb from limb. The fact that they only show us Richard being taken off screen probably means something. Though, I'm not saying that he can't kill Richard. I'm just saying that he probably didn't in this case.

I actually wonder how much they intend to explain. They might throw us a few bones and "aha!" moments. But at this point, I don't really think they need to in order to finish the story. They might just wrap up what happens and just leave us guessing as to the whys of everything. I wonder if they'll somehow rehabilitate Smokey. Like, maybe put him in Ben's body as fully human. . . so he won't be such a threat should he escape the island. And then maybe he also won't be such an a-hole. Edit: I realize this isn't news, and that we were told that not everything would be answered. But at this point, I'd be surprised if we learn much of anything more in the final episode (long as it is planned to be). They've established the villain, and what he wants to do. Maybe the rest of the story will just be stopping him, and leaving the rest of the "mysteries" out of it.

I think so. Not sure. That was so long ago. Guess it would be safe to assume that's MIB. Yet, I can't even remember at this point if Smokey can take the form of anyone who has died, or if their body actually has to be nearby (hence the need to bring Locke's body back to the island). Could have sworn that it was explicitly stated that the body had to be nearby. . . yet we've seen MIB impersonate Richard's wife (whose body isn't on the island). Also, and this is may be just my own odd theory, I think that Ben childhood flashback episode took place prior to the whole time-travel angle being introduced in a later season. So, I'm actually wondering if that is "in the same timeline/universe" as the timeline/universe that the "70s crew" inhabited. Part of me is still open to the possibility that when the "70s crew" went back in time, they also went back into a separate, alternate universe. Perhaps even separate altogether from any other we've seen (those others being the one where the island is destroyed and the original one where Oceanic flight crashed). But please don't anyone ask me to make any more sense than that. Because I can't. Because it confuses me just thinking about it.

I did not intend to imply any linkage between the childbearing issue and any relative influence/presence of MIB or Jacob. I intended them as separate questions/issues. I was merely wondering what happed to the former, and asking if anyone remembered any details of the latter. Because both seem odd to me. Especially Jacob and Smokie being completely MIA during the whole 70s period (though, again, I may be forgetting stuff). The only thing that appears to be vaguely supernatural about the island during the 70s is the "energy" they're searching for. . . but other than the fence, there's not even oblique references to other crazy/supernatural stuff. Personally, I would have liked to have seen why the Dharma folks started drawing maps on the back of retractable doors, etc. too. But that's probably not going to happen at this point.

Whoah. . . not saying you're wrong. . . but sure didn't seem "clearly explained". . . I wonder if you're having fun with us. The only explanation was: "It's just a line of chalk on a wall, Kate." Which, btw, was classic. One plot-line that seems to be wholly abandoned and seems unlikely to ever to be explained: The whole "women die if they conceive on the island." That was such a huge part of the first few seasons. Now. . . nothing. Also, was there any direct evidence of Jacob and/or MIB interacting with the people on the island during the whole 70s era? Other than the others and their assumed link to them (though it seems like the Others under Ben were perhaps under MIB's influence as well), do Jacob and/or MIB even seem to be present at all during that timeframe?

Yeah, I don't really know what he would have done had Desmond not pummeled him either. The thing with Ben, the thing that cracks me up, is that they constantly give you reason to think he may not be all bad. And just when you think there might be some good in him, he goes and does something completely evil yet again. Rinse, repeat. Last night, when my wife saying how Ben seemed to be less evil, I had to remind her of the whole: "Ben! You just killed everyone on that freighter!" Ben: "So?" That's a classic Ben moment that pretty much sums him up. (the freighter was filled with "innocents" at the time too, not just Widmore flunkies.) BTW, it seemed a bit silly for Widmore to be there, with only one escort. What was he looking for that he needed to be there himself?

Though, remember that Ben did hesitate and looked like he might spare Penny once he realized that Penny had a kid.

I actually got the impression he was trying to separate himself from as many people as possible and go out to meet Smokey because he wanted exactly what happened to happen (join up with Smokey again). Don't get me wrong. I've been sucked in by the manipulation just as much as anyone else in that the "distance" they've put between Ben and his earlier evil shenanigans (by way of the alternate timeline) has caused me to (despite myself) become somewhat fond of the character. I was sorta disappointed, though not surprised, when he immediately sold out Widmore. BTW, if Smokey wants the island destroyed, he must be happy with how the alternate timeline went, since the island is underwater. Which begs the question: Did he somehow manipulate that into happening? I can't recall any way in which he did so. But it's somewhat ironic (assuming that the nuclear blast is what somehow sunk the island -- which doesn't seem possible unless the island isn't really an island), that Jack is now both the one responsible for destroying/sinking the island in one timeline and yet its protector in the other. Edit: Do we really need the spoiler tags? Presumably, whoever is reading this thread knows that we're going to be discussing plot points. Sorry to anyone I've screwed by neglecting them!

Locke/MIB did something strange at the very end of tonight's episode. If he "bought off" Ben by (again) promising Ben the island after he leaves, it's pretty stupid of him to tell Ben that he's now going to try to destroy the island altogether. That is, if he still wants Ben's enthusiastic help. He might think Ben would continue to serve him out of fear. But wouldn't it have made more sense for Locke to just refuse to tell Ben what he intends to do in order to keep Ben motivated to help him? If he destroys the island, he destroys Ben's reward. I wonder if Locke/MIB therefore has some ulterior motive for telling Ben he's going to destroy the island. Does he have something to gain by doing so (even if it isn't actually his intention) that is more valuable to him than Ben's enthusiastic, motivated help? Edit: I can't imagine it's a loyalty test. Since I don't think MIB/Locke is suffering under any illusions about Ben's loyalty. He knows that Ben is only helping him for his own selfish reasons (even if that's only survival).

I could split a few hairs there. But for the sake of just getting us past this, I won't. Let's never discuss this again.

Jenius, for the love f'ing all that is holy. . . I said that some people had the wrong idea. They did. I said that we know they have the wrong idea because the writers pretty clearly put in some dialog to lead us in a certain direction. They did. I then said what that direction was. It has turned out to be correct and nobody seriously doubts it. Some people even posted to express gratitude for the clarification. You even agree with it now. Yet you f'ing fought with me about it for three f'ing pages. And continue to do so. Just STFU about it already. Nobody gives a poo what you think constitutes semantics. Especially as you unknowingly post evidence that you were engaging in it from the get-go. I actually tried to "make nice" a tiny bit there in my last post. But seriously. . . just STFU already. I'll stop if you will. Best, H

Jenius, I hadn't read that spoiler tag (missed it before). I do acknowledge that I'm coming off as a bit of an ungracious ass considering the bone you just threw me. H

Well, if Jacob is anything like our current family court system, motherhood is valued far above fatherhood.

Ding ding ding! Hehe, it's not like I was the only one thinking that. But it was pretty much word for word what Jacob said tonight.

I actually meant to mention this a long time ago. But it has always seemed funny to me how you seem(ed) to think that the next episode would pick up where the last one left off (back in distant non-main character flashback land). That's generally not how Lost works. exactly how many episodes did you expect them to spend following Jacob and his "family" and the immediate aftermath of his brother's transformation? Were you also expecting the episode after Richard's flashback episode to deal with his first few weeks as Jacob's spokesman? I had a longer post. . . but it all comes down to this. . . It was crystal clear to everyone but you the moment I made my post. Which, to address another one of your "points" above, is why I never quoted or addressed anyone else directly regarding this topic. But because you decided to start arguing semantics rather than acknowledge the substantive point of the post (writers say thing explicitly like that, multiple times, for a reason. . . . to "rule out" conclusions to which they don't want you to come) you ended up wasting our time for two or three pages with nonsensical arguments until, exhausted, you finally try to just agree with me without noticing the irony of doing so while just using different words that allow you to pretend that you weren't really wrong in the first place (again, semantics). Nobody ever said you were claiming to be a Lost guru. You were just confused, and then unwilling to admit that someone you disliked had a valid point. So you engaged in semantics and ridiculous argumentativeness for three pages for no other reason than stubbornness. Only to then try to claim that we've been saying the same thing all along. Edit: Oh, and enough of this innocent act about how I'm misreading your tone or intent. Stop pretending like the last time I poked some mild, civil fun at one of your posts in this very thread, you didn't flip the f' out and fire a full (personal) broadside. Which, by the way, I happily ignored.

Hmmmmm, you know what, looking back on that first post. . . okay, yeah. I'm now just convinced. You were actually more confused at the outset than you were willing to let on. Apparently, you didn't actually believe, at that point, that the MIB had been transformed into Smokie. Seeing his body, and Jacob mourning him, you did actually think he was dead. Why? Because you clearly state that you're looking forward to seeing MIB "reborn in some fashion" in the next episode. Are we to think that you were both thinking of him as "reborn as the smoke monster" (as you now put it) and yet still waiting for him to be "reborn in some other fashion" in the next episode? Why look forward to an event that has already happened (as you now admit)? So, wow, I guess this whole thread so far really has just been you being defensive about being confused and corrected (though not by name!) by someone you don't like. Man. . . what a long way to go, watching you careen about and bounce around all of these bizarre assertions and theory. . . all because you couldn't have just read my post to yourself and said: "Ah, I see what he's getting at. They make it pretty inescapable to conclude --at least at this point-- that the MIB isn't dead and that he was immediately transformed into the smoke monster. They don't want us thinking that the Smoke Monster is just using his appearance or that there's some other entity other than the MIB behind all this." That is, after all, the conclusion you now have reached. But, looking at your initial post, it's hard to see how that could possibly have been your initial understanding. So, we got page after page of you grasping at every possible straw (while producing them from your nether regions) because you just didn't want to admit (to yourself) that someone you happen to loathe had explained to you how you were confused. Normally, I'd consider it unseemly to assert such things and not take someone's denial at face value. But the problem is, I've seen you play coy too many times in the past. So, well, I don't trust you. And looking at your first few posts, the gradual "dawning upon you" that you were fundamentally confused from the outset (and just hiding it via attacks on me for engaging in "semantics") seems pretty inescapable. Though I'm sure you'll have something that is at once both illogical and yet deviously confusing to say in order to once again distract anyone from what seems readily apparent. The End

Jenius, well, first, I'll note that you ignore the actual substance of what I said. Note how you say Jacob's mourning means x. . . I demonstrate that it does not necessarily mean x and that it could mean y or z. . . and your response is to come back with a bunch of unrelated nonsense and unfair generalizations. Also, quickly, you keep dishonestly saying that your first post in this conversation acknowledged a transformation in lieu of actual death (the butterfly). This is just not true. This is not the first time you've tried to somehow make it "out of bounds" to consider the post predating mine which played some part (along with others outright saying that the MIB was dead and Smokie had taken his form) in me feeling that some clarification was necessary (to which you then took so much offense). Why are you so hell-bent on pretending that you were saying something from the beginning when you weren't and were, as a matter of fact, actually one of those folks who were sorta contributing to the confusion (though not outright saying that you thought Smokie wasn't MIB). I'd note there, too, only for my own amusement, that you were at that point "looking forward" to seeing "MIB reborn" in the next episode. Apparently, contrary to what you're claiming now, you didn't then see the MIB's transformation into smokie as that rebirth (or didn't interpret that as a transformation?) and were continuing to wait to see how the MIB would "come back" from being dead. Now, oddly, you apparently do accept that the MIB turned into Smokie and that this does indeed constitute a "rebirth", since you just wrote: "I’m assuming you’ll give me that he was reborn as the Smoke Monster." But, back to the point. . . as usual, you are incapable of recognizing nuance and/or meaning behind carefully chosen words. You seem to just think they mean what you want them to mean. I never said that people can't talk about death and rebirth at all. I merely said that those who are claiming that the MIB died (and remained dead) and that Smokie was then able to take his form are mistaken and not paying attention to the (repeated) dialog about the cave not killing anyone and instead transforming them (into Smokie). Your personal distaste for me, together with your peripheral involvement in the discussion to that point caused you to then pick a fight and make the lame assertion that my point was merely about semantics. This has never been about semantics since the result of such a clarification results in a fundamental change (on the part of some) in the perception of the nature of the chief antagonist of the series. The dialog I cited (along with so much else!) rules out the erroneous conclusion to which some were arriving. In other words, I was making the argument that they're being careful so that we don't think the MIB has died. You then made it about semantics by coming back and wanting to debate the meaning of those words and asserting that you can use those words according to how you understand them if you want (even though they were clearly leading to confusion). So, guess what, buddy, that's you getting hung up on semantics, not me. I was hung up on people coming to a conclusion (that the MIB was dead and that he wasn't Smokie) that was pretty effectively ruled out via the writing. You were hung up on trying to prove to me that you could say "die" or "dead" if you wanted to. . . that is being hung up on semantics. So just STFU about "semantics" already. The only one obsessed with semantics here is you. Likewise with the part about how somehow I am saying that Jacob and MIB can't kill each other. You seem to think I'm basing that off of one line in just the last show. Nope. Sorry. Moving on. . . though, again, if they can kill each other, then this is indeed a very strange show and pretty much nothing we've been told over the last season or two seems valid. So are you seriously making that argument? And if so, do you have any reason to believe it other than your need for it to be true so that things you've said in the past (some of which you've already backed away from) will seem less silly? Oh, finally, some dialog is clear. . . and some dialog isn't. And some dialog is more directly applicable to simple concepts than others. And some complex concepts aren't well-served by simple dialog. In other words, as usual, you want to paint a very simple (even simplistic) dichotomy about how I can't say x if I once said y. Such arguments are asinine and, as you've done so many times before, demonstrate a total lack of regard for context. It's pretty silly to say that all dialog is equally clear and that I can't therefore put more emphasis on one line over another. In other words, taking a description of something and then asserting that it fits into your theory in x way is very different than gleaning facts from directly delivered dialog. Again, everything is always painfully black and white with you. You're always trying to lock people into these binary arguments (if there's a body, then he's dead!). . . things aren't that simple. Let me spell it out for you: There's a world of difference between saying that it's unlikely that the MIB would be dead because two different characters said the cave of light would not kill him (together with the fact that the character is apparently immediately transformed and very active in the show!). . . and saying that the cave was described as containing "life, death, rebirth". . . and then going on to say that this necessarily means x, y, or z. If you want to argue that there's a larger significance to MIB taking Locke's form, fine. Have at it. So, what's the significance? It just seems that you've finally just come to rest, exhausted, on this one bit of safe ground without any real point to make. And of course, you only stumbled upon this position while trying to find (retroactively) some basis for other things you had said that had been called into question. So, congratulations, in all that rhetorical careening about, you've finally stumbled upon the statement that "maybe" there's more to the MIB taking Locke's form than we currently know. Thanks for that!

I'm definitely a bit confused by that Ben stuff. But maybe here's a possible solution: Perhaps the timeline where the island is not destroyed does not actually include the Oceanics shenanigans in the 70s. Maybe the Dharma initiative did it all on their own, initiated the incident, paved it over, and then Ben was still around to gas them all later. The Oceanics then crash on the island, but there's no other "tie" between this timeline/universe and the one where they affect its past. Then the other timeline where the island is destroyed does include the Oceanic shenanigans. . . and Ben is evacuated due to the gunshot delivered by Sayid? I can't remember though, did the Others keep Ben after Kate brought him to them to be saved? The recent scene between Ben and his aged father probably contains something that causes this theory to crumble. . . I don't remember much about it. But, I'm probably missing something. So, yeah, probably just writer's error (or writers assuming we won't notice). . . Best, H

Okay, here's a question/theory not tied to any agenda. The island was nuked in the 70s, correct? Which created a new timeline. . . and gradually, we've seen that all the Oceanic survivors have different lives. Some very differnt. Some only subtly so. Not because they didn't crash on the island. . . but apparently because Jacob wasn't visiting them during pivotal moments in their lives and influencing their lives. Yet, here's the inexplicable part. . . they all still ended up on that Oceanic flight even in the "non-Jacob-influenced" timeline. This time, the plane didn't go down, and the island was shown to be blown up and underwater as they flew over it. But the question remains. . . If Jacob wasn't the force that brought them all together on that Oceanic flight in the first place (the original timeline), who was? Because that force still seems to be at play in the "no island" timeline. or If Jacob was the force that brought them all together on the first timeline's flight. . . who is responsible for bringing them all together on that "island is gone" timeline's Oceanic flight. For what purpose if not to crash on the island? Star Trek (and other sci-fi) would say that a timeline is like a river, with currents, eddies, backwash (etc.). You might paddle your way out of the current/stream for a little while, but it will eventually grab you and pull you back into "where it's supposed to go." Hence, Locke manages to be a paraplegic in both universes, but via very different means. Yet. . . this isn't Star Trek. If those questions have any merit, I wonder if the latter one will tie into the "consciousness transferance" theory I posited a few pages back. Like, maybe the people in both timelines needed to be in close proximity (though in different timelines/universes) for the consciousness transferrance to take place? Heh. . . or something.

Hopefully that lays to rest any claims that the MIB is dead (as normally understood) and that the smoke monster is a separate entity that has taken his form. Though I'm sure we'll still hear about how "becoming incorporal" must (somehow) entail dying (for some reason) and how it was therefore perfectly fine to call him "dead" even though doing so could (and apparently did) mislead casual viewers. People can use their own terminology as much as they want. But it's a shame when it can lead to confusion. . . like people believing that the MIB is not the smoke monster. To be fair though, actors aren't always the most informed about the underlying plot of a project. Some of them are just collecting a paycheck.

Well, I guess EXO is going to have to ban me because there's just too much here to leave alone. . . though I'll remain civil. Arguing that they can kill/hurt each other for short-term gain (winning this argument) at the expense of one of the prime "rules" of the plot that makes the entire thing make sense seems a bit odd. If they can kill each other, it renders about 80% of the last two seasons pointless. If not the whole show. There's no show if Jacob could have just pushed MIB off a cliff a thousand years ago (or vice-versa). Further, the ability to give each other "boo boos" via fisticuffs may not actually fall within the confines of "harming" or "killing" each other. This contradicts your argument that the MIB is repeatedly dying and being reborn whenever he takes someone's shape. Is he a tortured soul in purgatory? If so, how can he "keep coming back" from death? He's already dead. More to the point, you can't say someone is dead or killed if they are immediatly revived. And there were people saying MIB was dead and that Smokey had taken his form (more on this after the next paragraph). It should also be pointed out that saying something is filled with "life, death, and rebirth" doesn't mean that it's a mechanism that will kill, revive, and give you the body of someone else. Hell, people describe compost heaps as being about "life, death, and rebirth". . . or the serengeti plain. Neither of which will kill and then ressurect you as your dead uncle. You seem to be tying this in with your argument (which you made from necessity rather than because that's where the "facts" lead) that the MIB has died repeatedly because that's what he needs to do to take the shape of others. Again, this is based on nothing (so far) that we've actually seen or been told. But again, this all obscures the point. Before this all got started when you made yet another (unfortunately, this time, successful) attempt to make this a personal fight between the two of us, there were folks saying that the MIB died altogether. . . and that Smokey was a separate entity that was then able to take MIB's form. What I wrote, which you dismissed as semantics (others did not) attempted to clarify that the MIB was not dead and that the MIB is Smokey (whether you want to get hung up on whether he was killed first, then revived, whatever. . . that's your hang-up). So when I say that the cave didn't kill MIB, that's because it didn't. Because he's still alive, and can now turn himself into the smoke monster, and take the shape of others. The rest of this was just a result of your (repeatedly demonstrated) need to makes things personal whenever I post anything you don't like. Note that my initial post was addressing the posts of several people (not just you), didn't call anyone out by name, and that nobody else had a problem with it (some even acknowledged and were pleasant about the added/clarifying information). I wonder why you responded so differently. You (knowingly?) neglect to take into account that, at that point, Jacob doesn't actually know what happened to his brother. For all he knows, his mother lied, and he did kill his brother (finding MIB's body may have misled him to this conclusion). Or, he knows that he has done something terrible to his brother and is expressing remorse/regret now that he has calmed down. Either way, what you describe above doesn't necessarily mean what you assert. Jack does actually ask directly "Why Locke?" The MIB (who, admittedly, we trust at our peril) says: "Because he was stupid enough to believe." But think about who told Locke to go and bring everyone back to the island. It was Christian (who at this point, we should probably believe was the MIB in disguise). But this all just brings us further "off the rails". . . the issue was that someone (who could that be?) had argued that the "loophole" was constitued by Locke changing form, which "somehow" changed the rules and allowed the MIB to leave the island. I'm still not seeing anything above to validate that claim. Instead, I'm just seeing new, diversionary arguments that the "loophole" being only about (Ben) killing Jacob is "bad writing." All I can tell you is that a "loophole" was only ever mentioned in one episode. That episode began with them talking about killing Jacob, and the need for a "loophole" to allow it. It ends with Jacob dying moments after Jacob saying that the MIB had "found his loophole". . . and the loophole has not been mentioned before or since. So, well, again, feel free to spin more theories that contradict what we've been told and is commonly accepted. Thanks to the twisting nature of the show's plot and its penchant for "gotcha" twists, you may in fact end up falling ass-backwards into being right in some fashion (as I've said before). But I'm always struck how these theories take on a "retroactive" feel to them. Like you work your way backwards into them only after you say something based on a faulty memory (perfect example: You had to go looking for ways to say that the MIB had died repeatedly only because you had said the writers weren't following their own rules and that the MIB "kept coming back" from death. . . and this shape-shifting was the only straw you could grasp when it was pointed out that the MIB hadn't died other times --if ever--). Eventually, you find far-fetched interpretations or minutia with which you go back and buttress whatever you've said. But pretty much, this just leads you to then ask why all these square pegs aren't fitting into the round hole. . . the answer is that you're starting off assuming/asserting that the hole must be round in the first place. And the only reason you're doing that is because you're unwilling to admit that you might have been mistaken when you off-handedly mentioned that the hole was round at the outset. Okay, >EXO<, you can ban me now. Clearly I can't help myself. And I've broken my own promise.

I've been remiss in not actually directly responding to a very nice post! You're very welcome. I'm glad, given the circumstances, that you found my post to be substantive and helpful in clearing up misunderstandings rather than just engaging in "semantics." As I think you'll find, you really only need to watch each episode once. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist or "study" the show just to ask yourself, "I wonder why they're being so careful to have the characters say these things so directly, and repeatedly." Which, of course, was my only point before things went horribly awry. Take Care, H

Actually, I never "went away" to my own site, but was here and there simultaneously. But was then asked to come here and be the admin for this site. At which point, my partner and I (who was also co-opted by MW) decided to just shut down MN as we always promised to do if we lost enthusiasm for it. But, as usual you distort and dishonestly frame information in order to take a silly cheap shot. Bravo. You must be so proud of yourself. Why am I not an admin anymore? Because I resigned and stopped visiting hardly at all when I noticed that there were more and more people like you (and Jenius) around and fewer jsarclights, ewilens, or even bsu legatos (who pretty much disagreed with anything I ever wrote). At that point, it's time to go. And I actually regret even making the limited number of posts that I've made recently. There's no point. And discussions like this, with folks like you (and your petty little vendettas) are a waste of time. I had that time to spare in my mid-twenties. Not so much any more in my thirties. That aside, though, you know I can't possibly take anything you say seriously given what I've seen you actually claim/write in the past. So I see no reason to start doing so now. I mean, with everything you write, you either intentionally get things wrong (see a page or two back), or are actually incapable of comprehending what you read (see immediately above where you claim I spent three days straight writing a post and then oh-so-smugly roll your eyes at something I clearly didn't mean literally. . . since I was careful to say "off-and-on". . . which, guess what, means something). Anways, feel free to say whatever you want without fear of "wall of text" replies. . . I can't claim that I won't see it since we both know I'll probably be checking in a few more times. But I can assure you that I won't be responding. Because before I decided Jenius wasn't worth an ounce of effort, I had already perfected that calculation while reading what you laughably pass off as reasoned opinion. I mean, I can't seriously read your opinion on something without thinking that the only truly reasonable explanation for why you think these things is that you must be things that I can't actually say here. I've had patience and argued (at length, some would say ad nausedum) with plenty of reasonable, honest people here. . . but with you, there's just no recourse but to surrender to. . . well, I can't really finish that sentence. So, there you have it. You win. Enjoy MW.