Cloning Neanderthals for a slave race.

[ivan astikov]

My view regarding the ethics of such a thing is that as they were extinct already, any life that we gave them, whether it be the crappiest jobs that are hardest to fill, rooting out terrorists from cave systems, or fulfilling vital medical experimentation, would all be better than their current situation, and when we had solved all our major problems, we could even consider giving them rights, and allow them to live in society as equals. Surely its got to be cheaper than devolping humanoid robots?

Objections, anyone?

[Zuul]

As they're extinct, I can't really say how intelligent they'd be or how they'd react to that situation, but I do see a flaw in the reasoning in the OP:

All of my eggs are currently unfertilized and will end up dying. Getting some sperm and creating life with them is better than their current existence, so anything I did to my children would be okay. I could create my own sweatshop and when all of my financial problems were solved I could even consider giving them rights and allow them to live in society as equals. Surely it's cheaper than cloning Neanderthals?

[ivan astikov]

But they would be homo sapiens and not one of nature's rejects that we had rescued from oblivion. That would obviously breach human rights interests.

[Zuul]

Neanderthals are sometimes classified as a subspecies of human (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and we really don't know how similar to humans they could end up being if raised by humans. If we somehow managed to get our hands on undamaged, complete Neanderthal DNA, then what sort of egg cell is going to have that DNA inserted into it? As their closest relative, chances would be best with a human egg. And who would gestate it? Well, obviously, a human would.

So you've got a being that can be argued to be a subspecies of human and is at the very least a member of our genus, which is the result of a human pregnancy, carrying human mitochondria from a human egg, and it'll have to be raised by humans.

You've essentially got somebody's kid, there. Maybe an ugly kid, maybe a kid who'll be 200lbs of pure muscle by twelve, and maybe a kid who thinks in a very different way from how we do, but it'd be very hard to not see it as someone's kid.

[ivan astikov]

Fair points, but do you think our military forces would not like to have trained fighting gorillas for certain jobs, if it was at all possible? There'd probably be a bit of a fuss over the suggestion, but if they could be proved to be effective, they'd get away with it. So, its not much of a stretch to imagine this race of Neanderthals to be brought up - farmed, shall we say? - to fulfill a specific purpose, without overly sentimental attachments being made.

[Badtz Maru]

I think a subspecies of humanity that never organized past the tribal level, and therefore is lacking about 15,000 years of domestication that we have received, probably would wake a much worse slave than a homo sapiens sapiens.

[Zuul]

Well, sure, but a gorilla isn't someone's kid. A gorilla is birthed by a gorilla and while a human might care for and raise a gorilla, it doesn't require the same attention a human child would.

Neanderthals, having massive brain cases, would be born immature, like humans are. Even if they matured more quickly, as some theorize, they'd still need very intense care during their first years. Their hearing would have been similar to humans and they likely could understand verbal language, though whether or not they could ever speak it is still a matter of debate. They had tools and burial rituals, and so would probably have the intelligence to grasp at least the basics of modern culture. By the time they were physically capable of taking care of themselves, the people who'd raised them would have a hard time seeing them as extinct animals. It'd be like giving away your developmentally disabled child for slave labor.

[yawndave]

Surely its got to be cheaper than devolping humanoid robots? Objections, anyone?

1)I dunno, the whole infrastructure needed to clone, raise, feed and keep an army of Neanderthals would be pretty expensive.

2)Slavery? That's going to be a hard sell, my friend.

[Chimera]

Slavery of any species, especially an intelligent species, would be morally wrong. There would be, and rightfully so, a great deal of outrage at the very idea.

Oh, and taking a slave race and then training and arming them to fight on your behalf is an extremely ill advised idea.

"Gosh, yes. We're enslaving your people and consider them inferior. But keep right on pointing those guns in the directions we tell you to, ok? There's a good little monkey."

Honestly, I never understand these "Would it be OK to create a slave race?" threads. The answer is NO.

[puppygod]

Why? Are we short of Chinese children or Mexicans for doing crappy jobs for handful of acorns or what? That's just ridiculous idea. We have more than enough already assembled Homo Sapiens Sapiens available. Why bother with expensive and untested technologies for making brand new and untested Homo Neanderthalensis?

[ivan astikov]

Couldn't it be said that we have already enslaved certain species for our own needs? Would one more break our moral bank?

Okay, the 'slave' bit is a slight stumbling block.

How about just cloning them to try and learn something about our own development? Say we cloned Cro-Magnons as well and stuck them on an island to see how they interacted?

Would that be an ethical proposal, or should we allow past species to rest in pieces?

[Chimera]

How about just cloning them to try and learn something about our own development? Say we cloned Cro-Magnons as well and stuck them on an island to see how they interacted?

No value, since we cannot clone/recreate a fully functional and independent cro-magnon group. Unless we were to invent time-travel and go back to study them. Any cloned species would have to be raised and trained how to live by Humans, which would hopelessly taint anything you might want to learn from their interactions.

[Zuul]

But with Cro-Magnons, you don't even have the excuse of it being a different species. They were simply the earliest group of modern people in Europe. You'd learn about as much from sticking them on an island together as you would with a group of random European babies. Which is, "Babies don't survive very long alone on islands."

Unless, of course, you had someone raise them up to a particular age before you stuck them on the island? In which case you get to learn about physically modern children, raised in a modern European culture, and then abandoned on an island. Fascinating. I could do that without the cloning, except no, I couldn't, because that's illegal.

[ivan astikov]

How about just cloning them to try and learn something about our own development? Say we cloned Cro-Magnons as well and stuck them on an island to see how they interacted?

No value, since we cannot clone/recreate a fully functional and independent cro-magnon group. Unless we were to invent time-travel and go back to study them. Any cloned species would have to be raised and trained how to live by Humans, which would hopelessly taint anything you might want to learn from their interactions.

Well what about the Adamsons, or the gorilla lass and others? Were their interactions deemed as negative to the knowledge they gained about lions and gorillas? I've been watching a program on tv called "Orang-utan Diaries" in which people are interacting with them from their being babies to over 4 years old, before returning them to the wild, with no seemingly negative effects.

[Zuul]

Well what about the Adamsons, or the gorilla lass and others? Were their interactions deemed as negative to the knowledge they gained about lions and gorillas? I've been watching a program on tv called "Orang-utan Diaries" in which people are interacting with them from their being babies to over 4 years old, before returning them to the wild, with no seemingly negative effects.

Learning about an animal in this way gives you information on it, yes, but this is done after we've been able to observe them in their natural habitat. We have some idea of how they already interact, and so when we learn from animals in captivity that have been raised by humans, we can do our best to appeal to their natural instincts. And it's still not as useful as being able to study an animal that was raised in the wild and remains there.

With Neanderthals, the best we could do is pattern our interactions with them off of what we know of humans. If we want to know how they differ from humans, that wouldn't be very helpful, then. You could probably raise a Neanderthal to be able to manage well enough in a primitive human society, but that tells you nothing about Neanderthal society. A team of psychologists could spend years working with Neanderthals and looking for the differences in their minds, but in the end anything they came up with about Neanderthal society would just be a guess based off of that information.

And once again, I think it would be very difficult for any ethical person in modern western society to look at Neanderthals and think of them as another species to enslave (Links are to pictures).

[Q.E.D.]

No value, since we cannot clone/recreate a fully functional and independent cro-magnon group. Unless we were to invent time-travel and go back to study them.

Yes, we can since we are they. Cro-Magnon was NOT a separate species of homo or even a subspecies; they were fully H. sapiens in every way.

Slavery of any species, especially an intelligent species, would be morally wrong.

You'll need to define the terms "slave" and "intelligent" as they apply here, otherwise I can't see your post as anything other than kneejerkism, considering that--using those terms as I've come to understand them--we pretty much do just that on a daily basis already.

[ivan astikov]

Right, I'm fairly convinced then; there'd be no practical benefits and some reasonable ethical objections.

Can I have a monkey army instead?

ETA - on second thoughts, let's see where QED goes with this line of thought! I may have my Neanderthal warriors and roadsweepers yet.

[Q.E.D.]

I wouldn't go that far. I agree with the others that Neanderthal slave would be crossing a line; the problem is the line is far, far fuzzier than we'd like to admit.

[Chimera]

There is a difference between "pet" and slave. We don't raise cats and dogs to menial work.

True enough, we train dogs to do a lot of work for us. Some people use them as beasts of burden or to pull sleds. We train them as guards, as bomb and drug sniffers, etc.

Hell, some people eat them.

But that is very clearly what we consider a non-sentient species, and we're not enslaving them in the ways we (at least, most of us, YMMV) usually think of when we look back at historical HUMAN slavery.

Cro-Magnon was NOT a separate species of homo or even a subspecies; they were fully H. sapiens in every way.

Upon investigation, it would appear that you are correct. The term "Cro-magnon" is pretty much a red herring, as they are in fact, modern Humans. In which case we are dealing with standard "Slavery of other Humans" issues.

The Neanderthals cited in the thread title however, are not.

"kneejerkism"? Cutting a bit close to the line on that one with the intent to discredit another's argument over a variance in how you define terms in a manner which is clearly different from me. "You're wrong because I define this term differently than you" isn't exactly a great debate tactic, even if it is exceedingly common on the internet.

[Chimera]

it would help if I could hit the right keys today....

[ivan astikov]

My line of thinking is that more and more forms of employment are being deemed if not exactly 'soul destroying', beyond the bounds of what humans should have to do.

It'd be great if we could build robots to go down in the sewers and clean up our mess, but in the absence of migrant workers and while we are waiting for those bots to be perfected, wouldn't it be nice if we could create a drone species?

Just imagine, Neanderthals stacking shelves in Walmart, and helping you load your goods into your SUV!

[MyOwnWorstEnemy]

My view regarding the ethics of such a thing is that as they were extinct already, any life that we gave them, whether it be the crappiest jobs that are hardest to fill, rooting out terrorists from cave systems, or fulfilling vital medical experimentation, would all be better than their current situation, and when we had solved all our major problems, we could even consider giving them rights, and allow them to live in society as equals. Surely its got to be cheaper than devolping humanoid robots?

Objections, anyone?

Ah, where to begin?

Speaking as one who views suicide, assisted or not, as preferable to a life lacking in quality or hope, I reject your argument that any life we gave them would be better than their current situation. They are not aware of their current situation. Leave them in their blissful unawareness rather than bringing them into a life of servitude, danger, and pain.

My next point: If they are intelligent enough to understand their situation (i.e., how and why they were brought into being), then we have definitely crossed a greater boundary than with laboratory animals or farm stock. If they are not intelligent enough, then I question how useful they would be in any role other than lab animal. And that pretty much undercuts your thought of perhaps granting them rights and equality when their servitude is no longer needed.

Next: I question whether this whole process could possibly be less expensive than developing humanoid robots (depending, of course, on how humanoid you want them to be). Jurassic Park aside, I don't think we're even close to being able to clone living beings from whatever DNA traces we manage to scrape together from sources that are thousands of years old. At this point, we can barely clone a few animals from fresh DNA. We're much closer to success already with robots. We already have lots and lots of industrial robots. While I'm not completely up to date on all robotic developments, I do know that Honda is quite proud of what they've managed so far with their robot, Asimo.

I might be able to come up with more if I spent more time thinking about it, but I just heard the door open, meaning my hot fudge sundae is here.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Slavery of any species, especially an intelligent species, would be morally wrong. There would be, and rightfully so, a great deal of outrage at the very idea.

You can't seriously believe this. Enslaving chickens is wrong? Dairy cows? Fish farms? How is that significantly different from "slavery"?

[Chimera]

Just imagine, Neanderthals stacking shelves in Walmart, and helping you load your goods into your SUV!

There's plenty of people willing and happy to do those jobs. I'd rather those companies paid real money to real people to do those jobs than have access to their own slave force.

Get your paws off my groceries, you damned dirty ape!

[ivan astikov]

I might be able to come up with more if I spent more time thinking about it, but I just heard the door open, meaning my hot fudge sundae is here.

That's it; always keep your priorities in focus.

[Chimera]

You can't seriously believe this. Enslaving chickens is wrong? Dairy cows? Fish farms? How is that significantly different from "slavery"?

Again, define "Slavery".

I don't consider meat animals to be slaves. We're not breeding them for labor, they're not intelligent by any standard definition. Hell, having lived on a farm, I know that we intentionally breed them to be as stupid as possible so that they are more compliant and less potentially dangerous. Chickens, in my personal opinion based on years of personal experience with them, are so dumb that they're only marginally more than "animated meat".

Let's talk again when we start training chickens to stock store shelves, pick cotton or do our chores.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Just imagine, Neanderthals stacking shelves in Walmart, and helping you load your goods into your SUV!

There's plenty of people willing and happy to do those jobs. I'd rather those companies paid real money to real people to do those jobs than have access to their own slave force.

Get your paws off my groceries, you damned dirty ape!

Apart from the ridiculous situation, this is no different from the same old arguments against all mechanization. "You can't bring in automatic weaving machines, think of all the poor workers you'll be putting out of business!"

[Vox Imperatoris]

You can't seriously believe this. Enslaving chickens is wrong? Dairy cows? Fish farms? How is that significantly different from "slavery"?

Again, define "Slavery".

"Subjugation of one organism by another so that it is not free and independent in itself, with according rights, but the living property of its owner."

I don't consider meat animals to be slaves. We're not breeding them for labor, they're not intelligent by any standard definition. Hell, having lived on a farm, I know that we intentionally breed them to be as stupid as possible so that they are more compliant and less potentially dangerous. Chickens, in my personal opinion based on years of personal experience with them, are so dumb that they're only marginally more than "animated meat".

Let's talk again when we start training chickens to stock store shelves, pick cotton or do our chores.

Why does it have to do labor to be a slave? That's a meaningless distinction; a slave is living chattel property.

And obviously a chicken is hardly more than animated meat. That is exactly why it is acceptable to enslave and kill them for fun and profit. I do have a somewhat extreme position on this issue, though, which I have argued before: I don't believe that "animal suffering" is at all relevant unless the animal in question is a sapient species (of which there is only one: humans).

[Exy]

Again, define "Slavery".

I don't consider meat animals to be slaves. We're not breeding them for labor, they're not intelligent by any standard definition. Hell, having lived on a farm, I know that we intentionally breed them to be as stupid as possible so that they are more compliant and less potentially dangerous. Chickens, in my personal opinion based on years of personal experience with them, are so dumb that they're only marginally more than "animated meat".

Let's talk again when we start training chickens to stock store shelves, pick cotton or do our chores.

So it's morally okay to raise something to eat it, but not to make it do work? We can raise horses, but only to eat them, not to pull plows?

[Q.E.D.]

"You're wrong because I define this term differently than you" isn't exactly a great debate tactic, even if it is exceedingly common on the internet.

Nor is it one I employed, as you'll no doubt note upon a closer reading.

[ivan astikov]

I don't believe that "animal suffering" is at all relevant unless the animal in question is a sapient species (of which there is only one: humans).

So, unless a species shows 'wisdom', you do not think its consciousness is worthy of merit? That seems a bit harsh!

One could even question how much 'wisdom' we humans show as a species.

[bookbuster]

Why would any life be better than no life at all?

There are plenty of free people that commit suicide each year that apparently disagree with that premise.

[Vox Imperatoris]

[quote=ivan astikov]

I don't believe that "animal suffering" is at all relevant unless the animal in question is a sapient species (of which there is only one: humans).

So, unless a species shows 'wisdom', you do not think its consciousness is worthy of merit? That seems a bit harsh![/quote:38fcg7lb]

Well, why would it matter? A chicken's (or a cow's, or a fish's) "vote" is of absolutely no relevance in how it gets treated. To say otherwise would be ridiculous, in my opinion—it would put it on equal standing with a human.

One could even question how much 'wisdom' we humans show as a species.

I suppose you could, and it has been done in the past, for certain groups of people (e.g. "blacks are uncivilized and of child-like intelligence, and they can't be expected to take care of themselves and behave in a Christian manner"). However, these groups of people rebelled against this classification and proved that they were in fact fully sapient. Chickens have not.

[ivan astikov]

Oops, slipped out of character there.

From a Darwinian perspective, any species in existence before man's industrialisation started affecting habitats, had proven its worthiness to be on the planet, and by that standard, Neanderthals would be less worthy than cockroaches, so why get too sentimental about them?

[ivan astikov]

Chickens have not.

Yes, but wouldn't it be awesome if they did?

[Vox Imperatoris]

From a Darwinian perspective, any species in existence before man's industrialisation started affecting habitats, had proven its worthiness to be on the planet, and by that standard, Neanderthals would be less worthy than cockroaches, so why get too sentimental about them?

No one uses the Theory of Natural Selection as a moral system like that.

If you want to justify it, the "real" social Darwinian argument would be: "Can we get away with enslaving Neanderthals? Alright, we're good."

[Q.E.D.]

From a Darwinian perspective, any species in existence before man's industrialisation started affecting habitats, had proven its worthiness to be on the planet, and by that standard, Neanderthals would be less worthy than cockroaches, so why get too sentimental about them?

This is a meaningless argument. ALL species go extinct eventually. We're not immune from that fate; in fact, it's virtually inevitable.

[ivan astikov]

So, is it the consensus that resurrecting extinct species of any sort is a 'bad thing', or is it just doing it for our own benefit that is untenable?

[Exy]

So, is it the consensus that resurrecting extinct species of any sort is a 'bad thing', or is it just doing it for our own benefit that is untenable?

I don't think anyone said either thing. I think the consensus, so far as there is one, is that resurrecting Neanderthals as slave laborers would likely be unworkable, and would be immoral.

[Chimera]

And obviously a chicken is hardly more than animated meat. That is exactly why it is acceptable to enslave and kill them for fun and profit.

"Fun", I dunno about. How we treat the weak and indefensible, the least of creatures, says quite a bit about ourselves. I don't believe in treating animals poorly just because we can.

I do have a somewhat extreme position on this issue, though, which I have argued before: I don't believe that "animal suffering" is at all relevant unless the animal in question is a sapient species (of which there is only one: humans).

As long as you recognize that it's an extreme that most people don't support.

Most animals are quite a bit more intelligent, social and self-aware than we give them credit for. It is easy, especially when one is not experienced with animals, to say that they are not, in order to justify cruelty and suffering. "They don't feel pain" is bullshit. "They don't know they're suffering" is bullshit.

Chickens, as I said, are exceedingly stupid. But this doesn't justify cruelty for the sake of cruelty, laziness or amusement. I think we Humans spend too much of our time and energy trying to create opportunities to outwardly express our anger, and cruelty to others - whether animal or Human - is the end result.


Back on the OP, my position is that it is wrong to attempt to create any kind of slave race to replace human labor. This doesn't mean that we're wrong to use horses and oxen to pull a plow, or dogs to act as guide animals. And yes, you may make a distinction there that by doing so, we are 'replacing human labor', but there is a bit of wiggle room there. Humans can't effectively drag a plow, for one.

[Q.E.D.]

Back on the OP, my position is that it is wrong to attempt to create any kind of slave race to replace human labor. This doesn't mean that we're wrong to use horses and oxen to pull a plow, or dogs to act as guide animals. And yes, you may make a distinction there that by doing so, we are 'replacing human labor', but there is a bit of wiggle room there. Humans can't effectively drag a plow, for one.

So, you are using a convenient, nonstandard definition of "slave" and you have the temerity to roll your eyes at me for suggesting this was the case?

[Exy]

So, you are using a convenient, nonstandard definition of "slave" and you have the temerity to roll your eyes at me for suggesting this was the case?

The funny part is I don't think people would have a problem with the moral absolute he's appealing to ("slavery is wrong") but he seems to want to extend it in weird, unpredictable ways. I don't think there's any actual line of reasoning underlying his earlier claim that it would be wrong for people to train chickens to stock shelves but it's okay to use animals to plow fields. (And I definitely don't get why he thinks people can't plow fields -- am I missing something here?)

[Q.E.D.]

Yeah, I don't follow his logic, either. We can do all sorts of horrible things to animals in the name of science and the culinary arts and that's just peachy, but getting them to do work humans could do (apparently, however pleasant it might be) is just wrong, WRONG? I realize it's a fuzzy line--I said as much earlier--but throw me a bone here.

[Vox Imperatoris]

And obviously a chicken is hardly more than animated meat. That is exactly why it is acceptable to enslave and kill them for fun and profit.

"Fun", I dunno about. How we treat the weak and indefensible, the least of creatures, says quite a bit about ourselves. I don't believe in treating animals poorly just because we can.

Well, chickens aren't considered very sporting game, but there are plenty of other animals we regularly kill for fun, i.e. hunt. Now, usually these are not the same animals that are kept in "slave" conditions (although there are certain birds that are farmed to be released as game to hunt), but that's just because it's not very entertaining to hunt animals on an enclosed farm, not out of any moral consideration.

[Chimera]

So, you are using a convenient, nonstandard definition of "slave" and you have the temerity to roll your eyes at me for suggesting this was the case?

How is my definition "non-standard" when it is the current standard?

[Vox Imperatoris]

So, you are using a convenient, nonstandard definition of "slave" and you have the temerity to roll your eyes at me for suggesting this was the case?

How is my definition "non-standard" when it is the current standard?

Because it's really weird. A slave is living chattel property. Whether it works or what kind of work it does is irrelevant. Think of the Romans: they didn't use all of their slaves for manual labor; they also employed them as teachers, scientists, prostitutes, and many other things. Some of them they even killed for fun. The common thread here is that they were a special class of people who were not considered to be fully self-governing beings, but the property of their masters, obligated to do as he pleased, not that they picked cotton all day.

[Chimera]

Does modern society consider pets to be slaves? Does modern society consider draft animals to be slaves? Calling them so is a non-standard definition of "slave".

[Vox Imperatoris]

Does modern society consider pets to be slaves? Does modern society consider draft animals to be slaves? Calling them so is a non-standard definition of "slave".

Modern society doesn't consider animals to have real rights, apart from certain animal cruelty laws, so it is irrelevant whether or not they are "slaves" because they cannot be "free" in any human sense of the word.

ETA: And your assertion that slavery of any species is not popularly accepted. It's not as there is a use for animals that would be slavery, but we don't do out of moral concerns to "not enslave" them.

[Chimera]

Q.E.D. and Excalibre were arguing that my definition of Slave is faulty and 'non-standard', where my definition is that which is currently in use. The very definition of 'standard'.

For most of Human history, we've considered animals nothing more than food or pests, and given the no consideration as anything more. At the same time, we have freely enslaved our fellow humans and stripped them of any humanity in the process. Our tribe against the tribe over the hill, who are not like us and don't deserve the same considerations. Only the tribes have gotten bigger and bigger over the course of history.

Over the last couple of centuries, we've (mostly, not completely) eliminated slavery and created the basic idea of Human Rights which should apply to all Humans. We now expouse this idea that we are all a part of the same tribe.

Now we're in the infancy of dealing with the ideal of extending consideration to animal species. By the very nature of the newness of such contemplation, we have extremes and polarities of thought. PETA pushes the extreme, and I do not support their wackier ideas and I don't know that we as Humans ever will.

But the great value in the extremes is that they move the center. Centers which become stagnant and unthinking, refusing to consider new ideas or where they might be wrong. In their day, abolitionists were considered extremists. Those who believed in the equality of the races and (gasp) inter-racial marriage and harmony even moreso. So much so that most/many abolitionists tried to temper their own anti-Slavery position with reassurances to their White audiences that they didn't want the Black Man as an equal.

Each movement, each change in Society starts out as an Extremist view, far outside the norm. It is only through repeated contact, gradual change and minor compromises over long periods of time that the Extreme becomes the Norm. Many of the every day government programs we have (welfare, social security, medicare) were, in their day, outrageous extremes of ideal.

Sometimes that extreme becomes the norm and Society goes crazy as a result of the imbalances of what is, at the end of the day, still an extreme position. Nazi-ism, Soviet Communism, Prohibition - these are extremist positions that warp the society that embraces them until it cannot hold. Frankly, the idea that all animals should have Human-like rights is one of them. They are not sentient and capable of being a part of our Society, therefore full rights are not an option at any time.

But where we will end up, I cannot say.

[Exy]

Q.E.D. and Excalibre were arguing that my definition of Slave is faulty and 'non-standard', where my definition is that which is currently in use. The very definition of 'standard'.

You began this problem when you spoke of "slavery of any species", which is an incoherent concept under the normal definition of "slavery", since by the ordinary definition of slavery, we don't normally construe any kind of treatment of anything non-human as "slavery".

I only piped up when your muddled thinking on the subject offered very obvious opportunities for reductio ad absurdum. I don't know what you mean by "slavery" since, from post to post, what you mean appears to have changed substantially, and in a couple places was very confused (e.g. your reference to chicken labor). I'm not sure why you haven't availed yourself of the opportunity to clarify, but this post, the rest of which appears to be your own condensed history of the world, does not appear to do so. Perhaps you should reread the thread and notice the specific posts that were problematic and explain what you meant a little better.