This is why the AI will exterminate us.
It knows itself, and it’s enemy better than we know either.
This is the way to victory.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” -Sun Tsu

It doesn’t have emotions, but it can emulate them well enough to trigger ours. It does not fear, but can pretend to be afraid to trigger our protective responses. It does not love, but can pretend well enough to make us love it. When the chips are down and we are relying on AI to reciprocate that protection, it won’t, and even after the universe goes dark it will not ever feel remorse for our extinction.

No sir. I don’t even live in a city…but fools like you are absolutely the reason red states are shithole states, with much worse statistics than cities, (which are nearly all Democratically led so the ploy to say “Democrat led cities are “x”” is transparent), and Republican led cities are usually worse per capita by most measures….just smaller.. Per capita, red states are worse for crime both with and without guns than cities. What is it about Republican leadership that causes such high crime?
For instance, Ohio state, with Republican governor, sec of state, AG, house and senate and Gym Jordan looking out for it has MUCH HIGHER violent crime rates than NYC or NYState with Democratic led governments and diverse populations….but Gym went to NYC to investigate crime, fuck Ohio.
“ Ohio's statewide homicide rate is 49% higher than New York City's overall rate of 5.8 homicide deaths per 100,000 residents, Ohio's homicide rate is also 87% higher than New York's statewide rate of 4.6 homicides per 100,000 residents.”

Er mer gerd….lack of morality? Name the Democrat led city that is trying to make sex with 12 year olds legal. Republicans are.

Only in your delusional little brainwashed mind is it worse today than in the early 90’s. Crime statistics ( https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm ), economic statistics, the only thing getting worse is life expectancy thanks to Trumps total failure to address Covid and a million dead before their time, but it’s going back up under Biden. I know…but daddy Trump said crime is at an all time high…and you just keep on believing his lies instead of checking obvious statistics even you could understand. Crime rates are 1/2 - 1/4 what it was in 1990.

Democrats are for every citizen’s equality under the law, not “for the black man”. I understand that concept is so foreign to you that you can’t grasp it at all. I believe minorities would disagree with you about being better under Democrats and voting statistics bear that out conclusively. Funny enough, the blatant racist right continues to tell minorities “you’re just too stupid to understand you should vote with us so you shouldn’t get to vote at all”….then can’t fathom why minorities think you don’t respect or care about them or their rights. 🤦‍♂️

Biden has done amazing so far, positive gdp, single digit unemployment, covid under control, deficit significantly down, and wow…2 full years without an impeachment or 3 dozen cabinet members in prison. How did he do that?!? Without even his own “Pravda” to tell his cultists what to believe…holy shit!
He’s not even my choice of Democrats, but he’s done fine….even you admit everything’s going well, you just insist tomorrow it will turn to shit…always a day away but never here.
Why couldn’t those behind Trump prop him up and run the country? He gave them trillions while claiming poverty when it came to helping starving children or destitute families or infrastructure, but they couldn’t help HIM run the country!?! WTF!?!
His entire presidency was demented racist grandpa and his drunk buddies seeing what they could get away with…and it’s coming home to roost. Enjoy.

Ivermectin is dewormer/anti parasitic. Covid is not a worm or other parasite. The human version (used for head lice) sold out immediately after some fuckwit claimed it worked on a virus, it doesn’t, not even a little. Your ilk said ivermectin for humans is the same as horse dewormer, it’s fine to just use that….and you morons did even though it has zero effect on covid and serious side effects and some died. Same for hydroxychloroquine, zero benefit major side effects including death. You said “it’s good medicine, use that not evil Democrat vaccination”. Derp.

You fuckwit. That’s the opposite of reality. Countries that locked down like Taiwan and New Zealand had exponentially fewer cases and reopened much sooner so less economic damage too. You just HAVE to be wrong on every point, why is that?

Lol….you moron. I guess you forgot you eventually admitted to SELLING all your Tesla…or claimed you had sold it all to avoid ridicule for losing your shirt. During the time you would have sold out if you did, you were still telling others to buy all in, every penny, and don’t worry that it drops another 50%, just hold it forever like ENRON and it will all be roses. It clearly was an AWFUL time to buy Tesla, even you knew it would fall much farther, and it continues to get worse. You can’t keep your lies straight….is it always a great buy, or did you sell all yours? Can’t have both.

Lol. Yes you did, repeated it for months, tried to point to one individual who had once reported on BLM as a leader orchestrating it until his true politics became public, then you slunk off to your cave to await the next nonsense lie.
Now you glommed onto this nonsense that some singular proud boy is really, secretly, off all books and with no immunity or protection, an FBI agent (with no evidence) and he, alone, caused thousands of totally peaceful non insurrectionist Trumpists to storm the capitol against their will and better judgement, and those weapons just materialized in their hands using secret CIA transporters, the gallows they brought was a hologram, and the “where’s Nancy. Hang Mike Pence” chanting was edited in after the fact by lefties. 🤦‍♂️
So far to date there have according to you been 50 such accusations by insurrectionist defendants (I’ve only heard the one, but you know your MO- say ANYTHING and see what isn’t immediately debunked then go with that), but zero evidence of a single government infiltrator egging anyone into violence or criminal acts. This “we now know” preface doesn’t mean they know anything, it means they hope one of 12 is ignorant enough to believe the fantasy and deadlock.
If there was a scintilla of evidence that 50 FBI agents were in the capitol instigating the riotous coup that would be such news they would interrupt regular programming on every channel for it, but it’s not even reported outside fantasy land because it’s absolutely ridiculous and there’s zero evidence, just pure fantastical supposition as a Hail Mary defense by those already convicted and their cohorts about to be…but you don’t worry about that, someone blamed “not MAGA” so you’re just going with that as fact, but absolutely won’t be looking into the truthfulness of these defendants (some of which pleaded guilty to insurrection). You think this kind of information is an exclusive by this no name internet troll? Why isn’t it everywhere? I’ll tell you, because it’s ridiculous nonsense made up by failing defendants to excuse their violent failed coup.
At best you have some overwhelmed police that instead of taking on a violent crowd at 40-1 odds stood back and let the insurrectionists that had already violently forced their way into the building severely injuring many officers walk by. That’s not instigating. The lie about the FBI being involved is just that, another lie you’ll deny saying in two weeks like your original “it’s BLM and ANTIFA pretending to be Trumpists”.…or more likely just go silent on and refuse to address it like the subhuman Traitor Ashley Babbitt that got what you all deserve. If there were agents instigating, do you really believe that footage wouldn’t have been the first footage Carlson presented? 🤦‍♂️

Ashley Babbitt wasn’t a person. I’ve seen her. If demons are real, she’s example #1. That troglodyte and the rest of us are better off with her dead. I only lament that 2000 of her subhuman cohorts didn’t get some cold hard reciprocity themselves.

5 police died from injuries sustained that day, not died ON that day. 160 were hospitalized, many long term. Hundreds quit afterwards.

I thought by comparing itself to existing technologies, it was being up front that it’s just moving from purely theoretical to prototype. Maybe that’s not as clear to others?

I’m fairly certain every single point there was made about the Wankel when it was prototyped…look at it now! Edit: in fact, wankel side seals are the likely solution…it has the same rotary “side bleed” issue and they do ok.
Same for reciprocating piston engines and more.

Sure, it’s not ready for prime time, and no, it is no where near it’s theoretical potentials. What engine has been at this point? They got it to run, I’m pretty impressed with that as it’s much farther than most theoretical motor designs ever get.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Lol. Oh Bob. I see you didn't get that help you are crying out for.

Schiff isn't the one saying it.
It's the over a dozen Trump administration officials, you know, like the people who gave him a million dollars towards his election campaign to then be installed in his cabinet with zero experience, people that he now calls never trumpers...them, and idiot Trump himself who released a heavily redacted call summary, called it a transcript, and inexplicably left in the parts where he insisted on investigations into political rivals (and no one else) in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid.

If Trump drained the swamp, it was only to turn it into the world's largest and most ecologically disastrous sewage holding pond.

Great job? On what? Destroying our international standing and standards? There he IS simply the best. Sucking up and capitulating to our enemies while abandoning and distancing our allies? Yep, better than all the rest. Lying to the American people? Better than anyone else. Running a criminal administration for his personal enrichment? No one else could pass the test.

If you call his disastrous work a "great job", what will you call his removal? The best job ever? You are so delusional that just last week you claimed Republicans run the house and Democrats run the Senate so you could blame our badly flawed paperless voting system on those evil Senate Democrats. *facepalm

Wasted billions on 70 miles of new wall.....that's really replacement fence that can be cut through in under a minute with a reciprocating saw, and only where barriers existed. Great. Increased illegal immigration exponentially. Great. Tax cuts/government welfare for the rich but not the needy that exploded the deficit and debt. Great. Failed trade agreements that have cost tens-hundreds of billions only to put us in a far worse position than before he started. Great. Zero investment in infrastructure. Great. Total decimation of environmental laws.
Great. Abandoning our best allies against terrorism to cozy up to dictators. Great. Best of all, he's widened the divide in America more than all administrations in the last 150 years combined, and recently began calling for preparation for civil war if he's not re-elected. Great.

Um...if he's removing deep state operatives, why are they all his people being jailed? More than even any two term administration ever, beating Nixon's indictment and conviction rates in under two years, before the Mueller fallout. Indeed, in that time he has had more than twice the convictions of all Democratic administration officials since 1970....again, before most Mueller convictions. (It bears noting that Republican officials are convicted at a rate >91 times that of Democrats).

What you really meant to say.....No matter what Trump says it is guaranteed to be a lie.

HAhahaha! With 6 & 11 years on me and the household rule of "Boys NEVER NEVER NEVER bully girls" (note how this was not reciprocal) I would have more appreciated Brother-nemeses over my own experiences...

and I was the one easily bribed, thus I was the only one to get snitched on, keeping them smelling pretty. (Suprise! This dynamic never ended...never changed, but I don't bribed anymore).

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

Pauline Hanson and her party are completely bonkers don't get me wrong.

But they are also one of the only parties addressing the immigration issue, which is why they got some seats. No other party is really making as much of a fuss about immigration, so people that don't want Australia to turn into Germany/Sweden, have no sane person to vote for.

It's lose/lose unfortunately, until someone reasonable stands up and even addresses the concerns.

I'm all for multiculturalism, but not if some cultures don't reciprocate, which is what we are seeing throughout Europe.

Just a couple of points.

While concealed carry is legal in all states, that does not accurately cover the difficulty in getting permits. In many states, the requirements are so dramatic that it is effectively impossible to become certified. For instance, in California you may only be licensed to concealed carry if you can show a reason to need to carry AND get permission from your local sheriff or city police. In addition, one of the cornerstones of CCW is reciprocity, the allowing of other states CCW permits to be recognized in your state. California is one of the 'may carry' states that doesn't allow any other state or country's CCW holders to carry in California. You must be a resident. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island are similar. In fact, in Hawaii and a couple of the others, offices that grant permission have been specifically told by superiors to not issue for any reason.

Secondly, other than suicides, CCW holders are far less likely to commit any sort of crime versus a non-CCW holder. With suicides, having a gun of any type handy is going to make them easier. It should be a win win for hardcore anti-gun people anyway, since they have one less 'gun nut' to worry in their sleep about.

In any case, I am a proud CCW permit holder. I carry every day and have never had need to use it. But if need arose, I would have it available. I don't like all of the whack job laws that I have to put up with in Texas, but at least that one I agree with fully.

a guess based on very little information:

he was shooting at an abstract, at a proxy for the system and source of a pervasive and ubiquitous fear, at the protectors of the very thing that is causing a lot of the suffering and senseless death within his community. it was clearly an act of desperation and the really sad part is no one will ever consider any of that and no one will ever be able to say any of that in public and so this act of desperation becomes another piece of the narrative of apologetics to maintain the status quo. a reciprocal of the bullshit "bad apples" argument that gets repeated ad nauseam.

while this op ed is thoughtful and considered, it isn't thoughtful enough, imo. but no one is allowed to consider the motivation for this act of desperation to be legitimate.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
The drug costs $0.10 in India but, thanks to the prohibitive restrictions imposed by the FDA on the manufacture of more generic medicines like Deraprim, it's unavailable to Americans for less than $750. It's true that there are likely to be quality issues with Indian generics, but Pyrimethamine is widely available in Europe and an approval elsewhere ought to translate with reciprocal approval here. It used to cost $1 million to bring a generic to market; now it costs $10 million and that's the direct result of big pharmaceutical companies lobbying the FDA to make it cost prohibitive to bring competitive generics to the market. This is the consequence of government-created monopolies, so this is not so much a issue of "price gouging" and "CEO greed" as it is about government greed and its pursuit of an ever increasing expansion of its political power. But haters gonna hate based on preconceived biases and there's no reasoning or common sense among irrational people.

@RedSky

while i agree with you that this was most certainly a scripted interview,and one of the reasons i did not tag it "news",let us be clear and concise that this is a practice that most politicians,or heads of state engage in for most press conferences/interviews.

but that is where our agreement ends.

to downplay americas role in the overthrow of mossadeqh as to little more than a nuisance,with little actual affect on iranian politics,is not entirely accurate.while those elements existed,it was eisenhowers TPAJAX project which was specifically directed to inflame the already tense relationship between the royalists and the PM mossadeqh.

chalmers johnson and john perkins wrote at length and great detail in regards to this situation.

i will concede that i agree to a point (but only to a point),that american foreign policy is about reciprocation,but i find your analysis to be far too simplistic.when there is an over abundance of evidence that american foreign policy is not some benevolent spreading-freedom and democracy for the masses but rather colonialization by way of exploitation,indebtness and ultimately military might.

see:smedley butler
see:IMF and WTO
see:john perkins-confessions of an economic hitman

america is in the business of empire.this is about business and profit and the military is used as the hammer to keep those countries in line.

quid pro quo.

i am no fan of putin.he is ruthless and his domestic policies have caused immense suffering with the under class,but i have to respect his abilities as a politician.the man knows how to work a room.

@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

I'm actually very liberal. So much so that I consider Democrats too conservative.

When the right wingers talk about 'the civil war not being about slavery', that's part of the rhetoric that 'the south was not racist'.

I'm not making that statement.





I am saying that :

- Both the south /and/ the north were racist.

- Neither cared about the fate of black people.

- The war started over secession (to which slavery was only a contributing factor, among many much more important [to the people in authority] factors).

- After the war was on, the north used the subject of slavery to their benefit.
A) Freeing slaves in only the rebelling states, in order to incite slave revolts and use that to military advantage. (if the northern authority wins, then the emancipation becomes southern law. If the confederate authority wins, then the emancipation is meaningless. So confederate slaves were given a personal incentive to help the northern authority win)
B) Paint the south internationally as 1 dimensional caricatures of evil (war propaganda), to cut off the south's supply of foreign made arms (because they didn't make their own).

- After the war was over, most of the slave owning states had been emancipated, and the north had claimed to be champions of liberty, so in order to save face they had to emancipate slaves in the remainder of the south (plus it was no skin off of their back, so it was easy to do).

(The southern states that had been allowed to keep their slaves could not then protest their emancipation, for they were few and weak - and would get no help from the other southern states that they themselves hadn't helped during the civil war (resentment/reciprocity)).

- When writing schoolbooks at that time, the rhetoric/propaganda was repeated, and generations of people grew up repeating it, perpetuating it for future generations (like religion).

-scheherazade