The question is if they were stupid before or after Moore.

Your website is hateful and one-sided. Michael Moore’s willingness to pay for your wife’s medical care then encourage you to continue the website really shows who has the superior moral character and who is taking the high road. I hope you enjoy wallowing in evil & hatred--obviously it suits you.

J. England, MD Tucson, AZ

I did a little Googling and, sure enough, there is a doctor named Jasmine England in Tucson. Her CV is online. Here’s my response to her.

For someone who went to Tufts and BU you sure are a clueless dunce. Come on, you’re a doctor. Make a logical refuation of what we write, rather than lowering yourself to the overemotional drivel that is the best most Moore fans can hope to achieve.

Assuming Jasmine is indeed a doctor, then it’s clear she knows evil well because she IS evil . . . according to Michael Moore, that is.

I mean, really, Jasmine is a doctor and thus very much a part of the EVIL for-profit medical industry that puts profits far ahead of people. If Jasmine can’t pad her pocket off the misery and suffering of the masses, then what’s the point of being in the medical profession? Why, I bet Jasmine wouldn’t loose a minute’s sleep if she denied her services to the most innocent of small children whose parents couldn’t pay. How EVIL is that?

Meanwhile, I wonder if we took up a collection and paid Jasmine $12,000, would she just shut the hell up and quit criticizing JimK even if JimK told her to keep on exercising her freedom to do so? Some would say that just might show a lack of character, but in Jasmine’s world of greed and evil where the almighty dollar is king, cash for silence is perfectly moral, and there’s nothing wrong with manipulating people for the sole purpose of creating a publicity stunt designed to enhance your persona—not to mention your wallet—even at the expense of two individuals who get trashed in the doing.

Jasmine might want to THINK before she pens another didactic sermon for people she considers morally inferior to the likes of Michael Moore.

I mean, seriously. What is it about being a Michael Moore fan that makes someone so inherently fucking stupid?

Same question JimK has . . . same question many of us have. I wish I had a simple answer . . . hell, I wish I had a complex answer, but I can only speculate.

I do know that there is one common trait almost always present with these folks, that being their simplistic idealism. Maybe it’s just that. If a system isn’t the very essence of perfection, then it must be evil. There’s no other choice when you live in the world of idealism.

Posted by Buzz on 11/12/2007 at 03:34 AM (Link to this comment | )

I do know that there is one common trait almost always present with these folks, that being their simplistic idealism. Maybe it’s just that. If a system isn’t the very essence of perfection, then it must be evil. There’s no other choice when you live in the world of idealism.

I can’t give you the idealism point. Everyone is suspect who is part of ‘the system’ to them. You take money from say Exxon say 8 years ago for an old unrelated study, your current study on global warming is now suspect. Cuo Bono and stuff.

Well, a lot of the people pushing for public universal healthcare are slacker types. People who have jobs… but low paying jobs because they don’t tend to apply themselves (or want to go in the directions that the hidden hand / economy is pushing them). The poor are already covered by the public so that’s a non starter… they want to be covered.. at our expense… so they can be musicians, blacksmiths, or whatever and not deal with paying for their insurance. They want it for selfish reasons (re: they want to personally benefit)… in the name of the poor.

These types are an [selfish] interest group… and Moore caters to them. Nothing more.

If liberals were smart, they’d be conservatives. How simple is that?

I can’t give you the idealism point. Everyone is suspect who is part of ‘the system’ to them. You take money from say Exxon say 8 years ago for an old unrelated study, your current study on global warming is now suspect. Cuo Bono and stuff.

Well, it’s entirely possible I could be wrong on this one, but I tend to think their over-developed suspicious nature is just a symptom of their paranoia which is yet another trait of the common Moore-on.  So, I tend to agree with your point.

Moore continuely plays on this.  In Sicko he took it to the limit planting the idea that there are a massive number of insurance denials which prove the corruptive influence of corporate greed.  Cuba, on the other hand, has the ideal health care system since it is free of evil profit incentives.

But remember, the task of the idealist is to forever tweak the universe until they achieve perfection.  Their task is never done.  If they can find just one single fault with a system—and that ain’t at all difficult for the idealist—that means the entire system is broken.

That they tend to ignore certain faults of kindred spirits like Moore is yet another trait they have . . . that of denial.  This may come in the form of the “yes - but” denial.  Yes, Moore isn’t always right, BUT he always right on principle.

This is exactly why you’ll hardly ever find an idealist who can handle the complexities of running a small business (less than $20 million in revenues).  The practical compromises that must be made in the real world of business are unacceptable to the idealist.  Some idealist can’t get pass the idea that while a customer isn’t always right, they are still a customer and must be treated as such.  To them everything is a simplistic black and white, right-or-wrong issue which leads them to make some very STUPID decisions.  In effect, that is stupidity.

It’s also interesting to note that idealism is sometimes associated with certain personality disorders . . . narcissism for example.

Of course, these are just my thoughts on the matter.  It is an interesting topic.  I would enjoy reading other comments you or other might have on the matter.

Well, I think they’re just projecting their own greed in this case.. because again, the poor are already covered…

They want to be slackers… and have our money to buy them insurance… Their greed is for what we have (more money from working harder)…

They wrap it all in false concern for the poor… and [yes, narcissistic] rage at us for not giving them our money (and/or complying with their demands).

They want to be slackers… and have our money to buy them insurance… Their greed is for what we have (more money from working harder)…

Yeah, I thought about that, and in the case of health care, I don’t doubt some Mooreons are just looking for a health care sugar daddy.

Well, it’s great that Moorewatch has changed at least one viewpoint, judging from that first e-mail. Hats off to JimK and Lee for their efforts. You actually got through to someone!

But that leads us to another question...is being a Moore-on something you’re born with, or is it a lifestyle choice?

But that leads us to another question...is being a Moore-on something you’re born with, or is it a lifestyle choice?

Good question. Maybe it’s genetic . . . maybe it’s developed via learned behavior or peer pressure . . . or maybe it’s a combination of both.

When denial or narcissism are considered, that’s clinical behavior. Denial can be conquered—especially in the case of alcoholism for example—but there is no remedy or cure for narcissism . . . no pills, no nothing.  In that regard, it’s not like having depression or being bi-polar. In other words, Moore has an incurable hopeless case of narcissism.

As for idealism, most of us were idealistic to some degree or another in our youth. Some of us outgrew it. Some didn’t. Moore falls in the latter group . . . a case of arrested development. And so it goes with his die-hard uncritical fans.

It takes a certain amount of maturity to accept harsh realities. That quality is severely lacking in Mooreons. That same maturity is often absent when critical thinking is required. Funny, but many of the very same folks with “Question Authority” bumper stickers on the back of their VW Microbus are the same folks who wouldn’t dare question Michael Moore. Go figure.

So what do you think, Belcatar? Is it choice or destiny?

Posted by Buzz on 11/12/2007 at 03:32 PM (Link to this comment | )

Yeah, I thought about that, and in the case of health care, I don’t doubt some Mooreons are just looking for a health care sugar daddy.

Yeah, I had a run in with one the other day (big personal med bills since they didn’t sign up for insurance when self employed… now blaming the system instead of themselves). So, I don’t know the numbers or the breakdown… but at least some of them are pushing it just for self interest / themselves…

Posted by Buzz on 11/12/2007 at 07:33 PM (Link to this comment | )

When denial or narcissism are considered, that’s clinical behavior.

I think its also cultural… and not all for ‘bad’ reasons. Some seemly innocuous viewpoints can breed [bad] traits in a culture.. As in more introversion among a population can lead to more narcissism as people spend more and more time in their thoughts vs. interacting with others… after awhile, the introvert can see interaction with others as simply another internal thought process… it can also lead to great science and discovery…

But anyway, the modern era seems to have spawned a lot of nasty new stuff (along with the good). New forms of conspiracy theory, scapegoating ideologies like Nazism and socialism, French thinkers, serial killers, moore fans, et cetera…

I think its much simpler than that - and ironiaclly much closer to the overall point that Moore is trying to make.

Gun Control. The middle East. The US Healthcare System.

All very complex problems. All problems that the finest minds in the world have been debating for the last 60 years, and still no consensus has been found. Millions of dollars are spent on stuying these situations (I hesitate to use the word problems!) in order to gain a better perspective of whats going on, and how best to deal with the situations to make the USA a better place. These issues are debated by academics who have studied these things their entire lives.

Now the general populace of the US (and the world in general) work for a living. They spend ten hours a day fixing things, bagging groceries, keeping the streets safe or putting out fires. They are of average intelligence, and don’t have a college degree. Or if they do it’s in Maths or History of Art. They don’t know squat about middle eastern history, or the market economy as it pertains to healthcare.

But we all like to have something to talk about at dinner parties. We all like to have an opinion. Honestly, when was the last time you heard someone say “I don’t really know enough about that issue to have an opinion.” Saying that would make you look stupid.

So what people need is an opinion.

So what you could do is read economics papers, medical journals, history books. You could temper Chomsky with Nolte. You can ponder Greenspans musings and predict the impact of the credit crisis on the price of gold. You can read the 1000’s of op ed peices that are now available. You can speak to constitutional scholars, and conduct your own reseach at hospitals around the country.

But who has time to do that, right? I’ve got a job to do, Scrubs is on in a minute, and I’m still a little hungover from that party last night.

So what I need is : An Opinion in a Box.

Enter Michael Moore (or here you could subsitute Coulter, Limbaugh, Air America etc). What he does is makes sure that for the price of £15 and 90 minutes of your time, you will leave the movie theatre with a ready made opinion with which to impress your friends. With one simple donation to Moores growing stockpile, he will arm you with ‘facts’ and ‘stats’ and ‘prrof’. Your friends will be aghast and agog at how widely read you are. Except, you won’t have to actually read anything! Moore shows you the important bits to remember so you can make it seem like you have read the whole thing. The rest of the book isn’t important.

Not only this - the opinion you will have is sexy!!! You won’t have to be the guy in the grey suit lauding fiscal responsibility, rationally sized government institutions and common sense! You can be the talk of the party because you will be the only one who knows the truth! That the Man is keeping us down! Its all a conspiracy! they’ve fooled you! Open your eyes! Why can’t everyone be as enlightened as me?!etc etc.

You can just imagine the hot chicks talking in the cab on their way home : “Wow, that Bill really knows his stuff about American Healthcare! He’s a rebel, he knows the truth. He’s like Che in that movie and he was good looking. Maybe we could fuck him!”

Buy it now. Opinion in a box. guarunteed to make most people think you are smart.

Now the ironic thing with this, is that Moores message is “Don’t trust what they tell you. They are fooling you. Trust me. Beleive me.” He’s always preching ‘find the truth’ but telling people it lies within his web of mistruths.

Now I don’t see this as being liberal per se. I see it as the logical next step in consumerism and globalisation. Fast food, manufactured pop music, American Gladiator, Tivo, Paris Hilton, celebrity magazines, ready made political opinions. It’s part of the instantaneousness we demand as consumers now. And thats what we are, consumers of the political process. Brand loyalty. In the 90’s it was pepsi versus coke. Now its liberals versus conservatives. It doesn’t matter what you really beleive, just which side you’re on.

And thats why what you guys do is so important. It’s not just about exposing a liar. It’s about helping people to make actual choices about the way their country is run.

Hats off to you.

Now I don’t see this as being liberal per se. I see it as the logical next step in consumerism and globalisation. Fast food, manufactured pop music, American Gladiator, Tivo, Paris Hilton, celebrity magazines, ready made political opinions.

Ok, ilovecress, let’s leave Paris Hilton out of this. I see no point in comparing one of the great minds of the 21st century to Taco Bell.

Aside from that, I think you hit on one of the reason people are at first attracted to Moore.  But I see same people as the ones who are capable of eventually coming to their senses. (I think Lee’s first example is evidence of that.) They get duped for a while, perhaps out of laziness, perhaps because they lack the time, resources, etc. to dig into the matter. Or maybe they are subject to peer pressure which is a form of insecurity (they lack confidence in their ability to analyze facts). Whatever the reason, they ARE capable of changing their mind. So, some Moore fans come and go.

Others, however, are true Mooreons, and I think those are the folks that suffer from extreme idealism, denial, paranoia, etc. These are the same type of people who think 9/11 was an inside job. Remember, some of these folks hold PhDs, so education and/or intelligence isn’t necessarily a limiting factor. I see these people as making up Moore’s fan base.

Now, admittedly, Moore probably has fewer fans than he did 5 years ago. Apparently, word eventually got out to some of the masses that he was a disingenuous propagandist. But I don’t think many die-hard Mooreons have the capacity to be anything else but a Moore fan, no matter the evidence. That’s why I think they appear to be so darn stupid, but I just have a hard time believing any “normal” person is actually that stupid, so the only way I can explain why some folks are Mooreons is it must be some sort of disorder.

That’s why I think they appear to be so darn stupid, but I just have a hard time believing any “normal” person is actually that stupid, so the only way I can explain why some folks are Mooreons is it must be some sort of disorder.

Well you could be right, but I also think it has a lot to do with group social psychology, and the concept of picking a side and sticking to it. Much like supporting a sports team, it is really tough to be objective about that team that you have pledged your alleigance to. I guess if you took it to it’s conclusion you could apply this sort of group psychology to patriotism too.

But I see same people as the ones who are capable of eventually coming to their senses.

Ah but here you’re assuming that people actually want to gain knowledge. What I am saying is that having a point of view or an opinion is what matters, and whether it’s right or not is irrelevant. Or rather that belief is held, and you actively avoid having it challenged. Because if the view is challenged then your nice easy to explain world view ("Bush did it") is useless, and you might have to start thinking for yourself.

How many hate mailers actually stay around to discuss things. How else can you explain NO ONE clicking on the link at the top of the pag before tey send of the email? Becasue if they don’t send off that email, then they won’t have done their good thing for the day. And anything that stops them from sending that email (even the truth) should be ignored.

It’s much easier to do that than to actually ask the question “What do I actually beleive in?”

Well, I think you’re correct in thinking that some Moore fans just take “fashionable” positions. Being politically correct in certain circles, peer pressure, the need to appear “cerebrally inclined” are surely part of the picture. But I still think there is a difference between those that have the ability to think for themselves, but don’t, and those who simply lack the capacity for whatever reason.

Remember, Moore is not only an idealist, he’s also a conspiracy theorist. For example, F911 was partly a conspiracy theory as is “Sicko”, and true Mooreons NEED to believe. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there will be always be the Mooreons who just can’t accept anything but the conspiracy. I mean, everyone ”KNOWS” capitalism is an evil system, so Moore must be correct in saying insurance corporations routinely deny payments for treatment to enhance their bottom line . . . the greedy bastards. No hard proof is necessary, and any contrary proof just has to be bogus. It’s denial by necessity.

The difference here is this, ilovecress: I think Moore fans and Mooreons are two distinct classes of ignoramuses with the latter having some type of personality disorder. It may not be a severe disorder, but in my mind it has to be real. Both classes may defend their position, but only the Mooreons will defend it at all costs.

In Lee’s first example, that person finally—after years of believing—lost friends because he/she could no longer rationalize the contradictions. Perhaps that’s why we see a decline in MooreWatch traffic. On the other hand, a true Mooreon wouldn’t even consider deviating to sense. Being a true Mooreon an incurable condition.

Of course, this is all speculation, but it is interesting to see all the different opinions. My bet is there’s a little truth in everyone’s ideas.

. . . I also think it has a lot to do with group social psychology, and the concept of picking a side and sticking to it.

I forgot this excellent point you made.  What you’re really saying is that collectivism is a real phenomenon.  I totally agree.  I bet sl0re does, too. :)

Posted by Buzz on 11/13/2007 at 06:18 AM (Link to this comment | )

I forgot this excellent point you made. What you’re really saying is that collectivism is a real phenomenon. I totally agree. I bet sl0re does, too. :)

Group psyche / dynamics, poserism, et cetera … are contributing factors (and also hold more power over narcissists than non narcissists)… but different than what I’m getting at. Those have always been around. I think we have ‘new’ personality types in the modern era… or I should say, as certain concepts have really spread in the general population we’re getting many many more of them than we did.. say 2000 years ago.. some are really basic simple concepts (awareness of time, being able to read, et cetera)… some are more complex (such as the problem of the empirical and transcendental doublet) but they’re still generally new for the general pop… and they have the effect of turning people inward.... which then has effects on their personality… which then, like any good meme / virus, perpetuates. Inward people create art and inventions which creates more people like themselves… viruses that can’t reproduce, die out… of course.

I think these ‘new’ personality types are attracted to extremes in ideology… hence, we get mooreons today. and yes, the ideologies are often (but not always) collectivist. The people with no sense of self build a [false] self image on slavish devotion to a political movement. Its why your evil for not agreeing. Your threatening to destroy their sense of self.

I forgot this excellent point you made.  What you’re really saying is that collectivism is a real phenomenon.  I totally agree.  I bet sl0re does, too. :)

Of course collectivism isn’t bad in and of itself.  Unless you’re a hermit you are in some social group and want to be in a social group.  This isn’t really a new thing that has come into existence.  The problem is you are not getting a collective consisting of free-thinking like-minded individuals coming together.  You are getting the Borg.

Posted by Buzzion on 11/13/2007 at 09:00 PM (Link to this comment | )

The problem is you are not getting a collective consisting of free-thinking like-minded individuals coming together.  You are getting the Borg.

The problem (with collectivists) is everyone wants to be the Borg queen and hardly anyone wants to be the drones. They imagine socialism being a liberation from the restraints of ‘the system’ and or capitalism… but then they get ‘dear leader’…

With insects they somehow worked that out… I suspect because they didn’t start with individuality. With humans, I’d image no matter how much of this type of competition was put into play, it would simply creates more cunning individuals… rather than breeding drones…

I think these ‘new’ personality types are attracted to extremes in ideology… hence, we get mooreons today. and yes, the ideologies are often (but not always) collectivist. The people with no sense of self build a [false] self image on slavish devotion to a political movement. Its why your evil for not agreeing. Your threatening to destroy their sense of self.

Well, doesn’t a slavish devotion to a political system stem from an idealistic leaning?  And doesn’t this “new” personality type tend to lean toward idealism? 

The reason I ask is that it seems to me the lack of objectivity inherent in all Mooreons is due in part to a slavish devotion to one of Moore’s idealistic causes which always have anti-capitalist roots.  IMO, that lack of objectivity is a necessary component of idealism.  Being objective would indeed discredit/destroy their sense of self.

Or maybe we aren’t considering the obvious . . . that some Mooreons—not all, but some—are actually genuine, certifiable dolts. :)

Posted by Buzz on 11/14/2007 at 03:17 AM (Link to this comment | )

Well, doesn’t a slavish devotion to a political system stem from an idealistic leaning?

I’m arguing its stemming from a sense of emptiness that travels through alienation to grow into aggression towards the group playing the shadow role (re: us, conservatives, capitalism, and or mainstream society). Idealism is simply tacked on as a self justification posture / argument after the fact.

And doesn’t this “new” personality type tend to lean towad idealism?

It leans towards totalitarianism (or in left speak, holistic solutions). In its more malignant forms, these people want all of society to dance to their tune and or all ores to move in sync to their vision. Total narcissism, not idealism.  But back to the point I mentioned above, they’ll call it idealism. They’ll claim to be everything good… as leftists always do. While they’ll claim their shadow, the conservatives, are everything bad.

Then, what you’re saying is that Mooreons may be part of a “new” (and/or growing) personality type that feels alienated from mainstream society, thus their tendency toward extreme ideology to fill a void. 

Making the assumption that moonbats and Mooreons are the same species, why do you think these folks readily accept and cling to conspiracy theories even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?

I should note here that when I use the term “idealism”, I don’t mean in the philosophic sense of “idea”. I mean it in the popular usage associated with “ideal” . . . in the sense of a goal or a behavior, for example.

As I said before many of us were more “idealistic” in our youth than we are today. Both education and life experience often have the effect of clouding the idealistic visions of our youth. At least some of us temper our personal philosophy with healthy doses of practicality. I see that as maturity . . . the ability to recognize certain realities in life. And that is how I use the term “idealism”.

Simply put, by the 80’s some hippies got real.

Interesting discussion, sl0re.  I’m learning.

Posted by Buzz on 11/14/2007 at 10:48 AM (Link to this comment | )

Making the assumption that moonbats and Mooreons are the same species, why do you think these folks readily accept and cling to conspiracy theories even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?

A: Because they derive their self identity from the politics and/or “the movement”. On a deep level, a challenge to their politics is a challenge to their self’s notion of existence… ergo, challenges to their politics provoke all the denial mechanisms identified in psychiatry…
A1: Listen to their critiques on religion, patriotism, and conservatives… assume projection and use for more answers to your question.
B: Conspiracies theory has relations to paranoia… Paranoia is the seeing of false connections. Its more prominent in overly cerebral people… even intelligent people as intelligence is the ability to find [abet, legitimate] connections… As in paranoid schizophrenics, schizoid personality, and narcissists..
B1: Listen to the post modernists. Truth matters not. As least to some of these types. The others use denial to dodge the issue of facts and truth.

As to conspiracy theory itself. I’d note, all this illuminati, Jewish, and mason cr*p (which later went through the King/Queen of England phase on the way to the US / ‘Capitalism’)… I can’t find any similar example of conspiracy theory thought (a theory about an all powerful group conspiring to take over the world) anywhere in history outside of the modern western era… specifically it started around the time of the French revolution....

. . . challenges to their politics provoke all the denial mechanisms identified in psychiatry…

Yep, and denial is definitely present in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracies theory has relations to paranoia… Paranoia is the seeing of false connections.

Yep, and paranoia is definitely present in a conspiracy theory.

And once formulated the theory is reinforced with confirmation bias.

Then there’s the modern Media Induced Post-traumatic Stress Disorder which gives us Mean World Syndrome which wasn’t around 2,000 years ago . . . or maybe even 100 years ago.

As to conspiracy theory itself. I’d note, all this illuminati, Jewish, and mason cr*p (which later went through the King/Queen of England phase on the way to the US / ‘Capitalism’)… I can’t find any similar example of conspiracy theory thought (a theory about an all powerful group conspiring to take over the world) anywhere in history outside of the modern western era… specifically it started around the time of the French revolution....

I can’t recall a CT outside the modern western era either, but I do know the Illuminati (the Bavarian Illuminati) were a real secret society that got banned in some countries back in the late 1700s.  Some folks thought their goal was to overthrow the governments of Europe.  Of course, today, the idea of the Illuminati has morphed into the CT of the New World Order taking over the planet.

But back to Moore . . . on a somewhat limited scale, old Mikey is indeed a conspiracy theorist, especially when it comes to the evils of capitalism.  I think you might agree he’s definitely a narcissist.  So, does this mean that Moore is one of the “new” personality types who feels alienated from society and therefore has to demonize his tormenters?

But back to Moore . . . on a somewhat limited scale, old Mikey is indeed a conspiracy theorist, especially when it comes to the evils of capitalism. I think you might agree he’s definitely a narcissist. So, does this mean that Moore is one of the “new” personality types who feels alienated from society and therefore has to demonize his tormenters?

Yup, I agree.

I’d also argue, the way to finally undo moonbats and mooreons might have more to do with fixing [non political] errors in western thought (and getting the fixes popularized) rather than engaging / fighting ‘the left’....

Fewer damaged personalities, fewer alienated political types…

I’d also argue, the way to finally undo moonbats and mooreons might have more to do with fixing [non political] errors in western thought (and getting the fixes popularized) rather than engaging / fighting ‘the left’....

Fewer damaged personalities, fewer alienated political types…

I’m listening, so please continue.

Posted by Buzz on 11/15/2007 at 03:15 AM (Link to this comment | )

I’m listening, so please continue.

We’re hardly just now identifying the problems (such as seeing life as nothing but a point of view has negative effects on not only society, but the individual… even what we consider their sanity as I think it has relations to schizoid and narcissistic personality disorders). Worth noting, the guy who sort of identified this western trend, Nietzsche, suffred from extreme schizoid personality disorder and was considered insane when he died....

I don’t have the answers. Also, there will be down sides to a course change (we did invent the microchip, robots, and other cool stuff on this current path). It’s sort of a CM type problem over the free market. I see some of the problems with the current episteme, but I don’t have an alternative… (although, at least I can own up to that).

Also, in sort of a pod people type quandry… many highly educated professional people (professors included) who should be thinking about this… are beholden to the problem themselves / on the other side (projecting their / the problems onto ‘conservatives’). :)

Also, in sort of a pod people type quandry… many highly educated professional people (professors included) who should be thinking about this… are beholden to the problem themselves / on the other side (projecting their / the problems onto ‘conservatives’). :)

Which means we’re stuck with Mooreons . . . like it or not.

I can’t tell you how depressing this converstation has just become. :)

Posted by Buzz on 11/15/2007 at 04:47 PM (Link to this comment | )

Which means we’re stuck with Mooreons . . . like it or not.

Ummm.. yes.. but, whoever figures out a good answer… might get his name shouted in, a future, thread like the one three up… :)