>Now, it's not my intention to be impolite, but I really can't be bothered >to >pursue this discussion any further. It is an interesting discussion, to be >sure, but not one I'm keen on clogging up the bananafish list with. >Can't we all agree to keep this forum focused on more pressing matters, >such >as the sudden swooning of young bourgoise girls? > >/Sam Poor Sam, I’m not blaming you for wanting out of this discussion. I always congratulate myself when refraining from joining discussion like these, “how to end wold hunger on the bananafish mailing list”, and instead put on my biggest (and most hideous) laughing man smile and read only mode. And pretty soon – yes! – someone is showing signs of fatigue. You could have fooled us, Sam, but The Sherlock Man can smell distress like a fart in a car: “can't we all agree…” – when you KNOW an agreement among fishes just won’t happen! Seriously, Sam, if it is any comfort I really don’t see where Jim’s answer to your one sentence came from (is the word “largely” really enough proof of assuming what Jim does about Sam’s opinions? Isn’t it quite obvious what Sam meant?) Is “ Today, the world's resources could be used to feed the hungry and aid the sick, but instead it's used largely for luxury consumption” in any way a stand-alone statement more naive than ” Most geographical countries have the means to feed their people, most geographical areas can sustain the people living on it. It's a matter of the people in charge THERE doing their job.” So much for not joining, /TLM ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com