Evil – A Primer

In my opinion there is really one species of evil and we may label it “moral turpitude” .exhibited by a morally conscious being such as a literate human. A tiger, for example, was created as part of an ecological niche whose very dentition allied to lack of advanced neo cortical development makes it an ideal indiscriminate flesh-eating predator. Man has a STRONG immanent instinct or awareness of embedded compassion (or sense of empathy) which makes him have knowledge of “good from evil”. Further the creation of literature of guidelines for moral/ethical behaviours given to humans by the elohim commonly known as RELIGION makes true violation of such base principles appropriately labelled as “sin”. EGW was correct in a sense, when she said that certain races of man was created from animals. She was wrong in the sense that the term “certain races” was used. Research of biologists and geneticists et al has shown that ALL humans are descended (created)from a mixture of Elohim genetics and the genes of a female near-man great ape (Homo erectus) which inhabited Central-East Africa (esp Ethopia) circa 300K to 250K years ago. The Bible only mentions the explicit INTENTION to create a new species not where or how per se in Gen. 1:26. The politics and the science of this massive project are not elaborated on but elsewhere (chapter 2) we are told man weas made to WORK(avod). ONLY WOMEN possess mtDNA which is unmixed during the mating process the idea sprang up That we could get to the root of human origins by btracing bach the origins of huma females. As a result bio materials from ALL know “races” of females were tested and it was found that they all descended from a female great ape ancestor living in Central Africa 300k-200k years ago. After creation man worked for our “GODS” firstly in the gold mines of Africa. Gold has monatomic elements which can be used to “BEND” tyime and when mixed with edible materials its monatomic particles can allegedly confer prolonged health benefits and long life etc. These claims have not been clinically proven. Man also has PROMINENT embedded instincts for aggression(savagery ) and these instincts are neccessary for the viable existence of ALL inte4lligent creatures. People with lobotomies who cannot react appropriately to threats to their existent cannot survive on their own. The danger is that such immanent aggression can and almost be used by humans to EVIL ends such as for eg SLAVERY. Even blacks carried out WIDESPREAD slavery in Europe starting in 711 A.D. when an Arab- African Y Senelagese) combine led by Tarik-Ben -Azid landed on trhe Iberian peninsula and wreaked have thereafter Roderick the German Visigoth king was killed and the Africans demanded war tribute of 100 white virgins per annum for their harems from the larger towns. As a result many Euros arose from mixtures… Handel , Beethoven, Goethe, etcEVIL thus is everpresent in Homo sapiens and the Elohim only suggest (MAINLY) better ways of conduct in the allowance of FREE WILL. We will be allowed to self destruct if we cannot learn. The Elohim were once (WAAAAY BACK IN THE MISTS OF TIME when others created them) with our problems to overcome EVIL. THEY SUCCEEDED , WILL WE???

Sorry I didn’t pick up on your point yesterday, but I’ll try to address it now.

I think the response argument would be something along these lines:

It’s not that human evil causes natural evil (I hope I didn’t mislead you about that in the article). It’s that when God allowed Satan dominion over Earth - pre-Eden, He also withdrew His “protection” from the planet. The protection, which otherwise would be present, involves stoppage of otherwise physically-determined events like plate pressures hitting the tipping point into earthquakes, etc. The argument would be that in an unfallen world, which Satan wasn’t allowed to have some sort of “dominion” over, God & His “troops” would be out there protecting the physical surroundings of His creatures - from Natural Evil. But because He is allowing this long experiment, this planet is an exception to the general protection found elsewhere in the universe - to shield his unfallen beings.

Now, we all realize this is speculation, but it is important also IMO to realize that an answer to the POE doesn’t have to come up with THE correct answer, since we humans are not in any position to be able to determine truth or falsity in such matters (the AFT/AFI). What matters is plausibility (van Inwagen emphasizes this over and over) - an answer that Might be true for all we know.

I know this sounds weaselly, but it is inappropriate for POE question askers to demand more than plausibility. Trouble is, the AFT & AFI found in 3b are hard to differentiate from weaseling, but a true agnostic jury is going to have to fairly judge whether a potential answer in the face of our gross ignorance is reasonable or not.

1 Like

RIch Hannon,

You state in your reply to efcee:

God is allowing this LONG EXPERIMENT. (emphasis mine)
This planet is an EXCEPTION to the general protection
found elsewhere in the “universe”

Edgar Drew, in his post said it best:
“We are players on a stage, pawns in some Star Trek movie,
until the “extraterrestrials” aka the “universe” give the thumbs up.
Our salvation is dependent on extraterrestrials who seem to love blood and guts”

Why does the "experiment " have to be so LONG???
SIx thousand years, and counting??
And by all modern science indications,
probably more like sixty thousand years??

I resent being an unwilling “guinea pig” in an “experiment” that should have ended eons ago.
The concept of “informed consent” apparently is non existent in God’s “experiment”.

A truly merciful God , seeing his "experiment " had FAILED, pre-flood, and regretting his creation,
would have translated Noah and his family to Heaven, then and there,
leaving a barren earth for Satan to occupy.

His “experiment” failed when Eve ate the apple,
and then again, pre-flood.
Will humanity finally be “third time lucky” when God’s indefatigable, interminable, endless, pursuit of his “vindication” is over?

EGW portrays a TOXIC, selfish, narcissistic God, more consumed with
his “image”, his "vindication " to use her words, than the well being of mankind.
Humanity wallows in misery while God pursues his own selfish ends!

Meanwhile God’s entourage of extraterrestrials, sits stony faced, sullen, silent,
unmoved, uncaring, and after six thousand years of “blood and guts” still amazingly UNCOMMITTED.
EGW informs us, that until the “universe” has voted for God, or against Satan, God’s “vindication” is in limbo.
Like an Agatha Christie crime novel, EGW’S Great Controversy leaves Adventists in agonized suspense, waiting for the dénouement,
in this case, a rescue by extraterrestrials, when the “universe” finally reaches a verdict!
As Edgar Drew so aptly posted, the Scientologists could not have written a more weird script!


Robin, if you don’t want your second comment on this 1-comment board to be lost when Spectrum deletes it, copy it and edit it in to your first comment. Just a thought.

[Cassie, since I have mod privilege I will insert to your comment: everyone should be aware that the one comment rule does not apply if the commenter is dialoging with the article’s author, and stays on topic. Thus the webed should not delete any such comments, including Robin’s (and I will suggest to them this one also as I’m trying to clarify policy). One of the unfortunate effects of the current policy is that it shuts down conversation. But the board has no issue if the conversation is with the author. That is one reason I am choosing to engage this time. The article authors rarely do, thus it appears that the 1-comment rule is absolute. - Rich H]

Good points!

EDIT: Thanks, Rich. Sorry for my mistake. I agree about the “unfortunate effects.” But well, that’s the POE for you. LOL


Robin: first, as an aside, my comments/clarifications here are an attempt to represent the POE argument’s “innings” as it has predominantly been expressed. Thus, one should differentiate between me doing that and expressing my own personal opinion. They may be the same, but my attempts at elaboration/clarification have mostly been to try to flesh out the classic components of the argument. A single Spectrum article can hardly provide enough space to do so - and as it is I ran way over the suggested word length.

Now to your comment. You have called attention to 3A, haven’t you? Duration & intensity. Recall that there is a 3B in the article - however briefly and thus dangerously incomplete it was expressed.

Since there IS a response to 3A perhaps you could critique it (i.e. make a 4A counter) rather than return to 3A.

So far, much of the discussion is circling around the very limited idea that the universe is waiting for human perfection and God is waiting for vindication. This adds two off-the-wall (albeit Adventist) elements to the problem, neither of which would have come up in a discussion with Epicurus - which is where we started. Leaving out the Adventist element we might possibly come up with different considerations. With that in mind, the Old Testament knows nothing about the Devil causing evil - except through the snake in Eden (which is an interpretation); and the book of Job, (which has a post-script addition from a later date). In the OT “God gives, and He takes away”, which makes the matter even more problematic, but perhaps more honest.

The attributes of God have been created by us. We give Him powers and abilities based on our human experiences and limitations and hopes. We never think them through to logical conclusions. If we expect God to take away our ills and micro-managed our lives we would be puppets at His/Her hands, and there would be no choices to make at all.

Personally, I do believe free choice is what it’s about - choice that results in both pleasure and pain - choice that gives us responsibilities and promotes growth. Maybe this grand experiment isn’t about “correct action being rewarded with eternal life.” Maybe it’s about values. Why, in the process, babies suffer; and the “good” people get trampled by the “bad”; and why the cancer wards are filled with both young and old, we can’t know. There just is no answer; but considering the issues they make our self-righteous victories seem trivial, and most of our religious obsessions meaningless.


In a 25-year career as a hard-bitten and jaded criminal defense attorney, I had some hard-won personal experiences dealing with the POE. I’ve earned my stripes, looking into that abyss. I’ve earned them, the hard way. For awhile, I was cocky and arrogant. None of the capital cases I had represented ended up with a client on Death Row. Not one in 25 years. That is still true. Only I am not cocky about it any more. This is what happened.

One day, I was a visiting with a potential new client on Death Row. He preached a rambling, rant of a “sermon.” He preached it through the greasy, battered plexiglass, separating us, as we spoke on the phones. He cut right to the core of my battered, jaded cynicism. I had seen and heard horrible and horrific things on a daily basis, for 25 years. It was starting to get to me. I listened to his words, almost in a reverie. He was telling the truth. The daily train of grotesque human suffering had become more than I could bear. So I had a motto. I repeated it a lot. I repeated it because it kept me sane. I wasn’t interested in plumbing the depths of the POE. I was more interested in a practical outcome. I wanted to get even:

“If there is a God, the son of a bitch should be given a fair trial, then taken out and shot.”

I meant it, too. My client knew the same thing. It was the philosophy that kept me mildly sane. It had kept him sane for years, too. This client on Death Row told me in blood-curdling measured tones how he survived in that human-made hell. He was a tough guy in a tough world. Here’s what happened to him. A “shank” is a crude homemade stabbing tool that inmates make. He spent almost a year on his, by patiently-sawing through his plastic dinner tray with dental floss. And then he garroted another inmate almost to death with that sharp piece of plastic, splaying out the guts, hanging out of the abdomen. Then He was hopeless and at the end of his rope. Revenge was no relief from the human condition. Revenge is not the tonic for the POE. Seeing those guts made him realize that he was the cause of so much immense human suffering. He had no right to be cynical about it. Some people tolerate tragedy, poverty, and brutality as hard facts of life. Other people cause those things.

He had an amazing light in his eyes, when he looked into my vacant, dead-killer eyes. His eyes verified his sermon. His world was transformed when he had inadvertently-discovered something after 10 years on “the row.” He discovered and worshiped a God, “man-enough to take a shank.”

I had to look away.

In his eyes I saw something rare and powerful that I did not have, and I never had: Hope. A burning, powerful hope. I walked away from his “home” behind the razor-wire at the Maximum Security Prison that day, feeling very strange. Something felt lighter. Something was different. I had encountered the God that keeps desperate condemned killers sane, in hellish places named anodyne names like “J-Block.” “C-Seg.” And Death Row. “The Row.” Places where desperate people are “doing all day and all night.” I was a tragedy junkie. I loved and wallowed in the “sepia tones” of tragedy. This prison-macho God “man-enough to take a shank” made sense.

I had encountered the bad-assed God of J-Block and C-seg.

Several attorneys and law professors have written an analysis of the Gospels, using the ordinary Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Two of them started out as diehard atheists. Professor Greenleaf - one of the founders of Harvard Law school - wrote my favorite one. These former- atheists realized that the Gospels and the Resurrection were events that would be admissible evidence in an ordinary court of law, and were more probably true than not. The Gospel’s depiction of the Resurrection exceed the ordinary burden of proof that is the gold standard in any courtroom dispute. Believing in those events only required the same epistemology that every person uses to survive their ordinary day-to-day lives. I read those things and they made sense.

It was the “Reasonable Person” standard that all law is founded on.

God was admissible evidence, in a court of law.

I had set the burden of proof too high. I had been unreasonable. Some cracks started to emerge in my addiction to tragedy.

And then, I saw and heard horrific, shocking, unspeakable things with the last two capital murder cases. For six months, I would get up in the middle of the night, and sit on the shower floor with the water going, so that my poor wife could not hear my wracking sobs. I had to wear sunglasses in restaurants, because when little kids saw my disfigured, soul-less, shark-like eyes, they would burst out crying. It forced me to look for the truth about my addiction to tragedy. Where did I go wrong? How did I end up like this?

Then a “left hook” came out of nowhere…

The Resurrection jumped up and bit me in the face. The God “man-enough to take a shank” revealed himself.

I was blinded by the Son.

It shocked me to the core and shocked me out of 25 years of hard-bitten, jaded, cynical agnosticism. It was time to leave that dear old friend behind. It had served me well. It had been necessary to survival, but only mere survival. I said goodbye to my old friend, and was baptized 6 months later. I began to heal very quickly from a lifetime of fear and terror. It is almost all gone. Those bitter dark nights of the soul are over.

Res judicata is a Latin term that means “the judgment is final, and not subject to appeal.” How could any God worth serving be any less noble than this wonderful human-made concept? At some point, the struggle and litigation has to end. There has to be a final answer for all of the horrible suffering that I witnessed for 25 years.

The POE has to have an “end-game.” God owes suffering humanity that much.

There has to be a final judgment, and one that we can trust. We have to have rest. And it has to be final. And so, I have adopted “Resjudicata” as my avatar.

My final judgment took place 2,000 years ago. I was found “Not Guilty,” even though my guilt could not be any clearer. As the Greeks recall it, in first century Judea in AD 31 a half-man half-God creature killed itself and Resurrected itself in front of 500 eyewitnesses. My Death Row client had prophesied that this creature, “was man-enough to take the shank.” He was man-enough to take it for ME. This God that is willing to suffer with us, is also worth worshiping. The Judgment that took place was once and forever:

“The Lamb was Worthy.”

Nobody can dispute my verdict or question the fact that I was found “Not Guilty.” I am 100 percent sure of that, more sure than anything that has ever happened in any other event in my life.

What started out as a mind-game toying with Rules of Evidence and dorm-room debates about the POE has morphed into something living and glowing inside of me. It feels like a tiny vibrant nuclear reactor has taken over my insides. I can feel it all the time. The light from that 2,000 year-old judgment keeps growing and growing and growing. The finality - and sheer animal magnitism of it - is something that simply annihilates the POE. It is final and certain. I know that beyond all reasonable doubt.

I am Resjudicata. My judgment took place 2,000 years ago. It is the most final event in all of human history. The God “man-enough to take a shank” took the punishment I deserved. He took it like a man.

I am Resjudicata.

I am one of the Redeemed ones


I had an experience with a neighbor who is a farmer. He tells the story like this.
An over educated irrigation specialist put in sensors that recorded data every foot to a depth of 5 feet around a farmers fields. They recorded every 15 minutes what the soil Ec was, what the water levels where, the oxygen levels, the soil temperatures, nitrogen levels, etc etc. He showed the farmer all the data that he was capturing every 15 minutes on all of the sensors.
Now, he said, we can tell what we need to do to optimize every foot of the soil profile.

The farmer said, the water comes from a ditch on the top of the ground that comes from a siphon tube out of that ditch over there. He goes on to explain that no matter how much we wants to get more water at 5 feet deep he isnt going to over irrigate the first 2 feet to make it happen. All the roots will rot. He further explains that he would have to put in 5 seperate subsoil drip lines on every foot of the soil profile in order to manipulate the optimum conditions in every foot of the soil profile.

It seems like you have the same thing going on here. You assume that if you contemplate the deepest aspects you will “get to the bottom of the problem”.
I suggest you dont have to tools to do the job.


Perhaps some lessons from parenting could give us insight to the “POE.”

Claiming “a perfect God” is only as good as a pie in the sky. In reality it does more harm than good as in having perfect parents do. The concept of a “good enough parent” was formulated to keep the focus of parenting to the best interest of the child in an effort to develop resilience in a safe and reassuring environment. As the child grows and matures with increasing complex needs, the parents are held helpless to continue to provide and satisfy their needs so the goal at this stage shifts to providing a safe, nurturing, and predictable environment where they can learn to manage their frustrations. As a consequence, the child learns how to live in an imperfect world.

The same is true in projecting “a perfect God.” Just imagine how stilted we would be if we believe in “a perfect God” who can satisfy our needs predictably. The problem in this picture in not “a perfect God” but the image of “a perfect God” depends on the believer. So the gem here is exactly what you said, “We need to grow up and get realistic,” and discard the “limiting” infantile need for an “omnipotent, omniscient and an omnipresent” God. And I fully agree with you.

Quite simply because the FWD is manifestly inadequate. As you’ve ably demonstrated in the innings 2 and 3 arguments and rebuttals, each subsequent argument is stronger, and the defense thereof, more desperate looking. At least, that’s as I see it.

When did Birder say to suck it up?

Quane, while I hesitate to reduce the force of your moving story I would note that it exemplifies what is sometimes labeled the Problem Of Goodness. That is, if the POE takes aim at the existence of God, does the perhaps otherwise surprising existence of goodness contribute toward the opposite case?

1 Like

You write:

“You assume that if you contemplate the deepest aspects you will “get to the bottom of the problem”. I suggest you dont have to tools to do the job.”

I’m not sure how you validly inferred that conclusion from what I have written. Neither position is going to have much success in “get[ting] to the bottom”. I used the words “plausible” and “for all we know” in an earlier comment.

1 Like

Elmer, you misunderstood me. I was not expressing an opinion but rather trying to comprehend what you wrote. The phraseology I used was therefore an attempt toward that end and you have confirmed that I did understand your position. However, I was not saying anything regarding my own views thus there would be nothing for you to agree with.

Now, however, I would propose that your view on God is in conflict with a traditional definition which, I think, is quite Anselmian. You say this is unrealistic and I guess the reason would be that you think the POE is unanswerable. Is that right? Or is there any wiggle room for you because of the AFI? If not, I would point out, a human perspective is one that is hard-pressed to defend the assertion that any of us is in possession of a “full deck” - i.e. God’s-Eye View. So it seems to me that you are a bit over-confident that you have adequate data to close on any full conclusion. The best I personally would say is that one side or the other appears to be winning, based on what I know.


My use of quotation marks around “suck it up” was not intended to infer I was quoting Birder, rather that I was using the term in an unusual fashion. But I shouldn’t have either used the marks (as it was obviously confusing) nor used the phrase itself as it was excessive and dismissive. I go back a long way with many of the frequent commenters on this site and, in hindsight, my regrettable phraseology was partly a consequence of frustration at Birder who far too often states things more categorically and confidently than he supports them. Then when one pushes back - as I did - I get crickets chirping. Still, I will apologize for my lapse in judgment.


Why is this such a powerful insight?

  1. It is written by a man who has passed through hell, so to speak. One, in a way, who has been to the other side. looked the devil in the face, and comes with good news.
  2. It seems utterly transparent and humble
  3. It answers the question that God asked of Job: "Where were you when I did this and that…? Jesus on the cross is what God had in mind all along.
  4. It shows that God is everywhere, in the darkest sinful wicked event, he is there being abused with those who are abused, or crushed, or swindled. He is among us in all the evil we experience, experiencing it himself… As the psalm says, “Dark and light are alike to you.” Ps 139

I could go on, but it shows how Christ and him crucified is the answer to all of our questions. Not a pleasant answer to our pride, but an answer nonetheless. Hallelujah what a Savior!


I’m familiar with Birder ’ s comments and I agree with you that her or his comments are often categorical. However, most comments here are the same. We just give more leeway to the less traditional thinkers and are tougher on the legalistic and EGWhiters.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to treat the comments, especially those in disagreement with yours, seriously.

Before you grapple with the Problem of Evil, you must first understand what it is.

In the structure of langue, the meaning of a particular word is not fixed or stable but is derived from that word’s relations with other words, which themselves have meanings that are not fixed or stable. In addition, the meaning of words is not of divine origin but conventional, not natural but arbitrary. The organizing principle of the structure of langue is binary opposition. Good and evil are binary opposites. A binary opposite’s meaning is not based upon substantive or positive qualities that can be attributed to that word; instead, a binary opposite’s meaning is determined “negatively.” Accordingly, the meaning of good is all that is not evil and the meaning of evil is all that is not good. You should begin to see that the meanings of the words “good” and “evil” are unfixed, unstable, conventional, arbitrary, and the subject of a linguistic hermeneutical circle, which may be either a vicious circle or a spiral.

You should also come to an understanding that linguistically the concept of good does not exist unless the concept of evil exists and the concept of evil does not exist unless the concept of good exists. The meaning of the word “good” contains a trace of the meaning of the word “evil” and the meaning of the word “evil” contains a trace of the meaning of the word “good.” Linguistically, we can not presuppose that God is good from beginning to end. We can only presuppose linguistically that God becomes good after Lucifer becomes evil. Notice that God’s eradication of evil will not necessitate, linguistically, His eradication of good, because our cognitive understanding of evil will never go away. Accordingly, in the New Earth, we can and will say that God is good even though the binary opposite of good is not a present reality but a faint memory. In contrast, no angel existing before Lucifer’s fall would have ever described God as good. Realize that I am just talking about linguistics; I am not proposing dualism or making a comment about the essence of God, but you should begin to see that the binary opposites of good and evil are linguistically dependent upon each other.

We struggle with logocentrism; we invariably privilege one binary opposite over the other. For example, for the binary opposites male/female and white/black, we tend to privilege male over female and white over black. Privileging is done primarily for purposes of power and social control. Privileging can be deconstructed; we can show that female should be privileged over male and black should be privileged over white. And then that privileging can be deconstructed, and so on ad infinitum. To deconstruct the privileging of good over evil, we might begin by saying that the “evil” conduct of Rosa Parks, who broke the law, should be privileged over the existing “good” order. We can continue by saying that what is thought to be "evil’ in Saudi Arabia is to be preferred over what is thought to be “good.” What makes deconstruction of the good/evil binary opposites difficult is that we will invariably redefine our terms to negate the purpose for deconstruction. We will now say that Rosa Parks’ conduct was good, whereas decades before we might not have said that. We will say as Americans that the laws of Saudi Arabia are evil, whereas if we were part of that culture we might not say that. Accordingly, our understanding of what is good and evil is necessarily historically conditioned. And notice that the Problem of Evil focuses on only one binary pair of terms. Why not grapple with the Problem of Female, the Problem of Darkness, the Problem of Black, the Problem of Short People, etc.?

This brings us to the crux about what the Problem of Evil is. The Problem of Evil necessarily presupposes that God be reduced to a linguistic construct, to a synonym of good. God is not a linguistic construct; He is a thing, an entity, a person. Obviously, once you make God a synonym of good, no binary opposite of good is tolerable. And once you make God the synonym of good, then all that is not God is evil. Once God becomes synonymous with a binary opposite, the binary opposition becomes totalizing. We are not in reality talking about the Problem of Evil; we are talking about the Problem of All That Is Not God. We are obsessed not with why God allows evil to exist but with why God allows anything but Himself to exist. In sum, you have fallen into a scholastical and silly word game that is akin to the question whether God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift. I can barely contain my laughter.

Fifty years after James Barr shook biblical exegesis down to its knees with his The Semantics of Biblical Language, most Seventh-day Adventists remain ignorant about linguistics and hermeneutics. Our theologians would not know Ferdinand de Saussure from the man on the moon. As previously stated, part of me wants to laugh but a large part of me wants to cry.


I don’t know anything of Barr, but if he is like the paragraphs that preceded the above quote, I don’t see that knowing much of him is necessary. Just MHO… Don’t cry for me Argentina…

Our own understanding is overvalued but we cling to it as if we really think it will solve problems.
Respect for the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Of course, if you don’t truly trust Him, them it becomes difficult.
It takes a lot for someone who mistrusts Him to realize that he or she doesn’t really trust Him. For some, it actually takes having evil tear down their lives and trusting God to rebuild them.

On another note, I just have to slip this into my repsonse: usually, any discussion about the discussion gets deleted (especially when it doesn’t favor the flavor of Spectrum’s slant) which is disrespectful of the time it takes someone to write a comment here.

[ 1) You seem to believe Spectrum is biased in it’s handling of commenters - in favor of liberals. This is a strong charge and one accusing the Spectrum webeds of bad ethics. Strong charges need strong documentation, else you are suspect of your own bias in leveling the charge. 2) You complain that deletion is disrespectful but all that is happening is that the deleted comment violated the rules of 1-comment per person unless the dialog is with the article’s author. The rule is posted at the tail of every article. Now, whether the rule is a good one or not - that’s a separate topic. But the deletion is because of the rule breaking. Why isn’t it disrespectful of a commenter to think they can violate house rules and not have consequences? Finally, this comment is probably subject to deletion because it is not directed at the article, but I will hereby request the webed-du-jour to leave it as my addition is a policy clarification. But please, no follow-up. Go to the Lounge for that. - Rich H]

It would be nice to see Spectrum edit its articles for grammar and flow before they’re published as diligently as it does its comments section for the comments not falling in lockstep with those of others.