rolling: What’s “tangential” about referring, directly, to the issue at hand? To wit: Public, neighborhood protests at the homes of prominent Construction Company Execs who are attempting to perpetuate child-killing. I believe I made my argument cogently and succinctly; judging by your aggravation, you apprehended the crux of it. If the nazis were to ask you to build gas chambers to kill Jews, would you contract with them to accomplish their project? If I “weren’t interested in anything that casts doubt on” my “mindset”, as you claimed previously, then I’d not make the effort to engage in a dialogue with you as I’ve done for at least two posts! Further, who are the “neutral people” to whom you refer? On moral issues it’s my contention that it’s impossible for one to be “neutral”; either one supports or opposes things within the moral realm. One hasn’t the luxury of ‘straddling the fence’. For example, you might say you oppose stealing. But your stated opposition to stealing would be meaningless if you, yourself, were a bank robber! Gary Meggison, One of the Senior Execs with Weitz Corp. (the fiends building the death camp for kids in Denver) claims to be a “strong Christian”. Is his claim credible in light of his defiance of God’s moral law which says, “You shall not murder”—Exodus 20:13? [The question is rhetorical]. Additionally, there are no evil “means” as you alluded in your previous post. It’s all legal and above board. As to your advice that I “conduct a poll”, polls are for ‘dumocrats’ who believe that the vox populi trumps the Law of God. Man has no moral authority to ‘outvote’ the Creator of the Universe. By the way, your last post tended to drift quite a bit; you were ‘all over the map’! Let’s stay focused! Andare con Dio, Amici! Buona Serra! Chris ><>