Calling this genocide is like crying wolf, it merely provides cover for actual genocides by diluting the term until it's meaningless. Israel could certainly suffer fewer casualties if they were to fire bomb or nuke Gaza, but they won't because they're not fucking genocidal.
Yeah and some scientists deny that climate change is a thing, that doesn't mean all points of view are equally valid. What you are pretending is a mainstream point of view is actually quite contentious:
Your claim: "Overwhelmingly genocide experts agree the Israel-Palestine conflict is a genocide." Your Evidence: A quote by one historian. Not even a link, mind you, a screenshot. It was from the same source I provided, so if it was a normal link that same article would show other experts who disagree with him below his quote.
Do I need to explain to you why you are being intellectually dishonest here?
A screenshot to the wikipedia article you linked me. You did read it, didn't you? You didn't just link something and hoped to god it supported your claim, did you? Boy howdy that'd be embarrassing.
Uh oh, a second person who agrees it's genocidal.
Also, your link is over a month old. Let's find something more up to date.
Two whole people! Wow I guess that means that the entirety of experts must be <4. Also, that second person says they are "moving towards a 'genocidal campaign.'" Not that they have committed one.
And South Africa, too! lol. I bet you can find some Muslim states who agree as well.
I'm done here, you're clearly not willing to discuss this in good faith.
Sanford and Segal were two of more than a 100 scholars and organizations that signed a letter urging the ICC to take action given the “Israeli intention to commit genocide visibly materialising on the ground."
That article is like LITERALLY full of people saying it's a genocide, I have no idea why you posted it.
Reading the wiki, I like how a substantial portion of the discourse is about whether it's ethnic cleansing or genocide. You do see that both options paint an atrocious picture, right? No no don't worry guys it's just an ethnic cleansing, not a genocide, jeez, we have standards.
And then under that it describes how Israel was convicted of genocide and how they currently have two ongoing cases in which they're accused of genocide. Not at all concerning. Nothing to see here nope nope.
Now that you call it out, I agree! Bale gets a lot of praise for his ability to morph his body for different roles, but is otherwise only alright as an actor. But he happens to be in many great movies with other iconic figures which really elevates his cachet.
Affleck is pretty good. I also really liked Pattenson's emo sad-Bruce version quite a bit more than I expected to. For me, nothing will ever be as nostalgic and iconic as the Tim/Conroy animated portrayal.
I was a fan of the dark Knight trilogy and thought no one is topping this, but Pattenson nailed it. I honestly like his Batman better now, and hope they continue with it.
Hi, I see in the modlog that [email protected] 's post was removed for "violating rule 1," which is, "be civil and nice."
Israel is discriminating non-citizens like every other state while e. g. Arabic citizens have full civil rights. As much as you might hate Israel, this is not Apartheit.
What isn't nice or civil about this post? They shared their opinion, one I consider reasonable, in a way that was inoffensive. Can the mods please elaborate on your mod policy here, are only anti-Israel opinions allowed?
Disregarding acting ability, I don't think Pattinson had the physicality for it; he didn't look big enough to me to be believable. You could really tell the Batman costume had a lot of padding when you saw him as Bruce Wayne. I think he's just too lithe, for the lack of a better descriptor, for the character, you know?
Let's make one thing clear: This "country" that proclaims itself as Israel is not the same Israel as described in Bible but a Zionist State where its ideological pillars were forged, in a Europe still at the time submerged in colonialist ideology. This is just to say the basics
The Black Hands terrorist organization, the ones that killed Archduke Ferdinand, hoped that by doing so they would start a civil war that would result in a victory for Serbia, specifically creating a "Greater Serbia" from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire where they had dominance over their regional neighbors.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
Instead WW1 happened.
Which ended in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation of Yugoslavia, a constitutional monarchy with a Serbian royal family, capital in Serbia.
(And then they made everyone hate them because they were assholes both as a monarchy and a communist state)
Second, Bonus Fun History Fact:
Terroristic tactics have left Afghanistan as the only nation to have defeated occupations by the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and America, the three most powerful states since the collapse of the Mongol Empire.
"Terrorists might've done something good actually. In some foreseeable future we might see changes in the world that would actually benefit them in the result, making their terrorism not useless"
What I propose:
"No human can see the future. But hamas could perfectly see what would happen if they launched such a violent attack - invasion with the purpose of removing hamas as an entity. If I can't blame them for not surrendering by now, I will blame them for not making anything to defend their citizens."
Viet Cong's success in reuniting Vietnam says otherwise.
Attacking villages, taking hostages, and using guerilla tactics (like both Viet Cong did and Hamas are doing) are just the most effective ways of driving out an occupying force, and they wouldn’t be necessary if the oppressors weren’t there in the first place.
So you're telling that hamas didn't do anything wrong and they will succeed?
It's interesting how some people blame Israel for being oppressors while others blame it for establishing hamas.
It's also interesting how some people say terrorism is not useless because there is "some" history, but others are upset by how Israel is doing it too, apparently.
None of these are mutually exclusive statements. You can understand that Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as "terrorism" and use that against all Palestinians, while understanding that those "terrorist" tactics can indeed be effective.
The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups in Afganistan in the 80s to oppose their then secular Socialist gov and the supporting USSR, and we all know how that came back to bite them later. Just because a country props a group up doesn't mean it'll always keep doing things beneficial to them.
are upset by how Israel is doing it too
"Terrorist" tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn't that hard to understand.
Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as "terrorism"
Can't seem to identify the bad actor here. Would you help out?
The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups
You mean Taliban good, USA bad?
"Terrorist" tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn't that hard to understand.
I understand that you think hamas will succeed in driving Israel out. Since all the current events are the result of hamas' actions and the expected process of driving Israel out, I don't see why wouldn't we just sit and watch it till the end. Since terrorism is excusable, all the casualties are the price of Palestine getting real independence.
Seeing libs both-siding a genocide and colonialism in the present day honestly makes it much easier to understand how slavery was so prevalent for so long.
Decolonization is violent; if you don't like it, don't colonize in the first place.
Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt? I know the Gaza strip only borders Egypt as well but isn't Palestine kinda patchy? Islands in the north, Middle East, and Southwest of Israel?
It's funny how you claim Israel is "winning this war on terror," yet everything after that in your comment sounds like something a terrorist would say.
Palestinians are not All Arabic nor Muslim. (saying Arabic/Muslim shows how little people understand the difference. It's as dumb as saying Caucasian/Christian. You can be one, both, or none.) Palestinian genetically are a mix of all Mediterranean peoples. And that includes Greek, European, and Arabs. Also, the Palestinian people are more secular than the surrounding Muslim countries... Second, there is no winning a war on terror. Not in the way you are thinking anyways. Every innocent person killed by Israel spawns new terrorists. It's unwinnable through violence.
And sorry for the double response but what in the actual fuck is 99% Arabic? For starters, minus un-contacted tribes on islands and forests, there are no 99% ethnic people on earth! If someone is 33% Caucasian, 33% Arabic, and 33% Asian what are they to you? Because your words indicates it matters. Your words implies the 1% rule used by racist to justify atrocities. (1% rule is if someone has 1% of blood outside of "white" means they are the other race.) All I see is humans being killed in Gaza.
TLDR: there are no large population of people that are 99% of anything. Even more so in the fucking Mediterranean.
I just wanted to appreciate you for a moment, thank you for being an example of how one can be both critical, reasonable, and nuanced at the same time. The fediverse needs more of this. Glib hot takes miss the point when the conflict is as old and complicated as this one and I can tell you've thought about this from multiple perspectives.
The Israeli government could have vowed to end Hamas without a land war in Gaza
I'm not sure how they could have reasonably done that. Political pressures and many versions of incentives, including the blockade, have not historically worked. Hamas is popular, moreso after Oct 7, (74% approval among Palestinians.) Even if Hamas the organization went away, the public's desire for intifada has not. It rebrands itself as different organizations and its members join those. Another terrorist government like Islamic Jihad with the same people in charge wouldn't be much different. They needed to respond to violence with violence for their own safety and take out those responsible.
anyone with half a brain should realize would inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties due to the population density of Gaza and how Hamas operate by martyring their own people in the name of Jihad - as it indeed has.
Yes, and what Israel considers acceptable collateral damage seems to have changed, probably because of the consideration their own civilians were shown, and because they didn't want to make human shield tactics effective. Rockets fired from a hospital are just as deadly as those fired from military bases. Israel built an AI to select targets en masse and it appears they will attack many structures if it has a connection to Hamas and they can legally justify it.
It's worth noting that conflicts in densely populated areas with explosives typically have a much higher civilian body count (90%) than Israel's (61%,) so they are still being more selective with targets than the average in this type of war, although I suspect that is of little comfort to Gazans.
Conflict continued to cause widespread civilian death last year, notably in densely populated areas, where civilians accounted for 90 per cent of the casualties when explosive weapons were used
civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes
Properly evacuate everyone who wishes to leave and encourage Egypt to do their part to take in refugees, and any other Arab states. Create a safe, well defended evacuation route for refugees to flee, and keep it open, while you tightly secure the blockade around Gaza, and block/flood/raid the tunnels.
These are all good ideas, unfortunately while they are happy to complain about Palestine being an, "open air prison," and condemn Israel at the UN, none of their neighbors are willing to take them in. Probably in part because Palestinian refugees destabilized many of the countries they historically have a presence in, and in part because it makes Israel look bad and keeps international pressure on them.
most importantly, for all Palestinian refugees, promise a “right of return” back to Gaza/West-Bank, or Israel proper to be a citizen of “Israeli-Palestine” which covers the whole area, after the war.
I suspect the former is totally viable with a meaningful peace, the latter probably not, as it would mean Israeli leaders would be elected by their historical enemy whose majority wants a one state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, according to polling. There are many Arabic/Muslim majority countries in the region but only one Jewish one in the world.
Two states working together to help each other. Over time, work hard to find or build homes for refugees and all displaced Palestinian diaspora as close to where they came from as possible.
This might be possible when the generational hatred and willingness for violence subsides. I like the idea, anyway.
there are plenty of good reasons to despise Netanyahu and his government.
Yes, indeed! In fact he propped up Hamas in a bid to weaken the PA.
Awesome push back, many thanks. The pragmatic side of things is almost always more complicated than the theory. Happy some of my ideas were week received. That tells me I'll not be the only one thinking of them!
Edit: My post was removed by automod. Rule 1. No idea why. Silly algorithm.
A genocidal state.
Calling this genocide is like crying wolf, it merely provides cover for actual genocides by diluting the term until it's meaningless. Israel could certainly suffer fewer casualties if they were to fire bomb or nuke Gaza, but they won't because they're not fucking genocidal.
People who study genocides call it a genocide. Please stop being retarded.
Yeah and some scientists deny that climate change is a thing, that doesn't mean all points of view are equally valid. What you are pretending is a mainstream point of view is actually quite contentious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Discourse
Overwhelmingly scientists agree climate change is a thing. Overwhelmingly genocide experts agree the Israel-Palestine conflict is a genocide.
I am begging you to stop being retarded.
Your claim: "Overwhelmingly genocide experts agree the Israel-Palestine conflict is a genocide."
Your Evidence: A quote by one historian. Not even a link, mind you, a screenshot. It was from the same source I provided, so if it was a normal link that same article would show other experts who disagree with him below his quote.
Do I need to explain to you why you are being intellectually dishonest here?
Here's yet another source that shows there isn't a consensus among experts:
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
A screenshot to the wikipedia article you linked me. You did read it, didn't you? You didn't just link something and hoped to god it supported your claim, did you? Boy howdy that'd be embarrassing.
Uh oh, a second person who agrees it's genocidal.
Also, your link is over a month old. Let's find something more up to date.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/middleeast/south-africa-icj-israel-genocide-intl/index.html
Oops, looks like the South African government agrees too.
Two whole people! Wow I guess that means that the entirety of experts must be <4. Also, that second person says they are "moving towards a 'genocidal campaign.'" Not that they have committed one.
And South Africa, too! lol. I bet you can find some Muslim states who agree as well.
I'm done here, you're clearly not willing to discuss this in good faith.
That article is like LITERALLY full of people saying it's a genocide, I have no idea why you posted it.
Reading the wiki, I like how a substantial portion of the discourse is about whether it's ethnic cleansing or genocide. You do see that both options paint an atrocious picture, right? No no don't worry guys it's just an ethnic cleansing, not a genocide, jeez, we have standards.
And then under that it describes how Israel was convicted of genocide and how they currently have two ongoing cases in which they're accused of genocide. Not at all concerning. Nothing to see here nope nope.
It IS a Genocide.
It's Michael Keaton for me
Can't beat that Burton Batmobile and Elfman theme
I mean, Patterson was good but bail is iconic. The dark knight trilogy were so big, it made most movies gritty.
Unpopular opinion: Bale happened to be the Batman of the best Batman movie, his Batman is kinda meh. And I wish Afflect was in better Batman movies.
Now that you call it out, I agree! Bale gets a lot of praise for his ability to morph his body for different roles, but is otherwise only alright as an actor. But he happens to be in many great movies with other iconic figures which really elevates his cachet.
Affleck is pretty good. I also really liked Pattenson's emo sad-Bruce version quite a bit more than I expected to. For me, nothing will ever be as nostalgic and iconic as the Tim/Conroy animated portrayal.
I was a fan of the dark Knight trilogy and thought no one is topping this, but Pattenson nailed it. I honestly like his Batman better now, and hope they continue with it.
Batfleck definitely has the look and is more comic “accurate”. I’m sure he would’ve killed it in a better film and not directed by Snyder.
Shame they aren't still using him. He makes a good, grizzled Batman that just doesn't play around anymore.
Petterson is iconic but he would be nothing without Findus.
Ahaha! I see what you did there.
^(It's just unfortunate that his name is actually Pettson.)
I only know the German translation where the name is Petterson.
Jimmy Patterson!
Kevin Conroy was the best Batman
/thread
Adam West was the best! And it even rhymes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oc9OQw_nn0
And he was also the best mayor.
Israel was born in Nazism, molded by it. Palestinians merely adopted being oppressed.
Hi, I see in the modlog that [email protected] 's post was removed for "violating rule 1," which is, "be civil and nice."
What isn't nice or civil about this post? They shared their opinion, one I consider reasonable, in a way that was inoffensive. Can the mods please elaborate on your mod policy here, are only anti-Israel opinions allowed?
(original comments still visible on kbin, though site is unstable atm)
@[email protected]
WTH?! Israel is by all metrics an apartheid state. Whether you accept it or not.
Have you ever been there?
I've never been to America but I know the Empire State Building is pretty tall.
Until I was 14 y/o
The end line was so unexpected that I had a good laugh. That a truth was snuck in unexpectedly was excellent.
Michael Keaton will always be my Batman
Ben's version of batman was best batman. Not much who was playing him, but how batman acted and handled himself.
Horrible script but great acting. If Affleck was younger I'd want to see him take the mantle properly
Compromise time: he's a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?
Then we get into who would make the perfect combination and that's a whole other argument.
i side mostly with mental outlaw
Disregarding acting ability, I don't think Pattinson had the physicality for it; he didn't look big enough to me to be believable. You could really tell the Batman costume had a lot of padding when you saw him as Bruce Wayne. I think he's just too lithe, for the lack of a better descriptor, for the character, you know?
I've heard that the Batman was supposed to show a younger, less-experienced Batman. So maybe he'll bulk up more for the next one, idk
For me it's Alfredo Casero, and i will die on that hill
Link
How have I never heard of the first one.
Let's make one thing clear: This "country" that proclaims itself as Israel is not the same Israel as described in Bible but a Zionist State where its ideological pillars were forged, in a Europe still at the time submerged in colonialist ideology. This is just to say the basics
Deep down we know that doing terrorism will not solve any problems.
And yet the Israelis keep at it.
Why stop when there's no consequences
You think they will still be at it if they are given every hamas member?
Fun History Fact:
The Black Hands terrorist organization, the ones that killed Archduke Ferdinand, hoped that by doing so they would start a civil war that would result in a victory for Serbia, specifically creating a "Greater Serbia" from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire where they had dominance over their regional neighbors.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
Instead WW1 happened.
Which ended in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation of Yugoslavia, a constitutional monarchy with a Serbian royal family, capital in Serbia.
(And then they made everyone hate them because they were assholes both as a monarchy and a communist state)
Second, Bonus Fun History Fact:
Terroristic tactics have left Afghanistan as the only nation to have defeated occupations by the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and America, the three most powerful states since the collapse of the Mongol Empire.
What you propose:
"Terrorists might've done something good actually. In some foreseeable future we might see changes in the world that would actually benefit them in the result, making their terrorism not useless"
What I propose:
"No human can see the future. But hamas could perfectly see what would happen if they launched such a violent attack - invasion with the purpose of removing hamas as an entity. If I can't blame them for not surrendering by now, I will blame them for not making anything to defend their citizens."
Viet Cong's success in reuniting Vietnam says otherwise.
Attacking villages, taking hostages, and using guerilla tactics (like both Viet Cong did and Hamas are doing) are just the most effective ways of driving out an occupying force, and they wouldn’t be necessary if the oppressors weren’t there in the first place.
So you're telling that hamas didn't do anything wrong and they will succeed?
It's interesting how some people blame Israel for being oppressors while others blame it for establishing hamas.
It's also interesting how some people say terrorism is not useless because there is "some" history, but others are upset by how Israel is doing it too, apparently.
None of these are mutually exclusive statements. You can understand that Israel propped up Hamas to label their aggressive tactics as "terrorism" and use that against all Palestinians, while understanding that those "terrorist" tactics can indeed be effective.
The US propped up the Taliban and other right-wing terrorist groups in Afganistan in the 80s to oppose their then secular Socialist gov and the supporting USSR, and we all know how that came back to bite them later. Just because a country props a group up doesn't mean it'll always keep doing things beneficial to them.
"Terrorist" tactics (or anything really) used for the sake of driving out a settler colonial ethnostate (a good thing) - like Hamas are doing and Viet Cong did - is good, while those tactics when used to oppress and commit genocide on a native population (a bad thing) - like Israel is doing - is bad. This isn't that hard to understand.
Can't seem to identify the bad actor here. Would you help out?
You mean Taliban good, USA bad?
I understand that you think hamas will succeed in driving Israel out. Since all the current events are the result of hamas' actions and the expected process of driving Israel out, I don't see why wouldn't we just sit and watch it till the end. Since terrorism is excusable, all the casualties are the price of Palestine getting real independence.
What the fuck are you even saying
Are you actually braindead or is this a bit?
What did you not understand in my comments?
Seeing libs both-siding a genocide and colonialism in the present day honestly makes it much easier to understand how slavery was so prevalent for so long.
Decolonization is violent; if you don't like it, don't colonize in the first place.
This is like saying nuclear bomb kills a lot of people. I agree. But is it happening in current reality?
Strawman
That's genocide.
No it’s just a map.
That’s rather aggressive.
I wish all the blessings of the New Year with peace and prosperity to you and your family.
they totally control all the borders of the Palestinian people. excluding them from citizenship is part of the apartheid.
Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt? I know the Gaza strip only borders Egypt as well but isn't Palestine kinda patchy? Islands in the north, Middle East, and Southwest of Israel?
When I think Palestine usually think of this map.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png/440px-Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
Israel blockades humanitarian aid from reaching Palestinians. they control all the borders.
Got it. So all four of those nations are contributing to it by not wanting to piss off Israel?
Yes because Egypt and Jordan have peace treaty. Lebanon and Syria do not but they don't border either Gaza or West bank.
which of them have nukes and a us-funded airforce, navy, and cyber command?
yes, israel rattles its sabers at all its neighbors to protect its apartheid.
Damn, this is embarrassing
Educate yourself on the matter before you continue spouting nonsense: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q_MDC2Gty4I&si=x4COLgcQIaEaWIE7
It's funny how you claim Israel is "winning this war on terror," yet everything after that in your comment sounds like something a terrorist would say.
Nevermind mind the fact the war on terror was something the US came up with and then badly fucked that up. Dude's not even a competent troll.
From the POV of the US, I'd argue that the war on terror was a rousing success. They got the surveillance state they wanted.
War on Drugs caused drugs to become more available, more potent, and cheaper.
War on Terror has created entirely new terrorist organizations.
Could we have a War on Wealth?
What they meant to say is: "Israel is winning the war on terror on the side of terror"
Palestinians are not All Arabic nor Muslim. (saying Arabic/Muslim shows how little people understand the difference. It's as dumb as saying Caucasian/Christian. You can be one, both, or none.) Palestinian genetically are a mix of all Mediterranean peoples. And that includes Greek, European, and Arabs. Also, the Palestinian people are more secular than the surrounding Muslim countries... Second, there is no winning a war on terror. Not in the way you are thinking anyways. Every innocent person killed by Israel spawns new terrorists. It's unwinnable through violence.
And sorry for the double response but what in the actual fuck is 99% Arabic? For starters, minus un-contacted tribes on islands and forests, there are no 99% ethnic people on earth! If someone is 33% Caucasian, 33% Arabic, and 33% Asian what are they to you? Because your words indicates it matters. Your words implies the 1% rule used by racist to justify atrocities. (1% rule is if someone has 1% of blood outside of "white" means they are the other race.) All I see is humans being killed in Gaza.
TLDR: there are no large population of people that are 99% of anything. Even more so in the fucking Mediterranean.
Israel are terrorists, and invaders in the West Bank deserve to be shot
I just wanted to appreciate you for a moment, thank you for being an example of how one can be both critical, reasonable, and nuanced at the same time. The fediverse needs more of this. Glib hot takes miss the point when the conflict is as old and complicated as this one and I can tell you've thought about this from multiple perspectives.
I'm not sure how they could have reasonably done that. Political pressures and many versions of incentives, including the blockade, have not historically worked. Hamas is popular, moreso after Oct 7, (74% approval among Palestinians.) Even if Hamas the organization went away, the public's desire for intifada has not. It rebrands itself as different organizations and its members join those. Another terrorist government like Islamic Jihad with the same people in charge wouldn't be much different. They needed to respond to violence with violence for their own safety and take out those responsible.
Yes, and what Israel considers acceptable collateral damage seems to have changed, probably because of the consideration their own civilians were shown, and because they didn't want to make human shield tactics effective. Rockets fired from a hospital are just as deadly as those fired from military bases. Israel built an AI to select targets en masse and it appears they will attack many structures if it has a connection to Hamas and they can legally justify it.
It's worth noting that conflicts in densely populated areas with explosives typically have a much higher civilian body count (90%) than Israel's (61%,) so they are still being more selective with targets than the average in this type of war, although I suspect that is of little comfort to Gazans.
These are all good ideas, unfortunately while they are happy to complain about Palestine being an, "open air prison," and condemn Israel at the UN, none of their neighbors are willing to take them in. Probably in part because Palestinian refugees destabilized many of the countries they historically have a presence in, and in part because it makes Israel look bad and keeps international pressure on them.
I suspect the former is totally viable with a meaningful peace, the latter probably not, as it would mean Israeli leaders would be elected by their historical enemy whose majority wants a one state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, according to polling. There are many Arabic/Muslim majority countries in the region but only one Jewish one in the world.
This might be possible when the generational hatred and willingness for violence subsides. I like the idea, anyway.
Yes, indeed! In fact he propped up Hamas in a bid to weaken the PA.
Awesome push back, many thanks. The pragmatic side of things is almost always more complicated than the theory. Happy some of my ideas were week received. That tells me I'll not be the only one thinking of them!
Edit: My post was removed by automod. Rule 1. No idea why. Silly algorithm.