[The Resister]

There are now 22 pages of this and most of this thread has been personal insults and banter that isn't educational, informative, or even entertaining to most of the people on this board. But, we can rest assured that a couple of megalomaniacs are trying to rattle my cage, too stupid to understand when they picked an argument and LOST. Isn't that why 90 percent of the people registered on this board aren't reading this?

I refuse to let the communists and socialists - along with low IQ types beat me down. As long as the gruesome twosome are contained to this thread, you can thank me for providing a community service.

There is no doubt about it. The race issue brings out all the crackpots. I thought this thread was safe as it got down to Irish slavery. I was wrong, but I've decided to contain the nutjobs to this thread. They can post all the meaningless B.S. they like and I won't read it. If those guys were for real, they'd meet me on a level playing field with NO censorship, make their points, take the ass whipping once, and then move along.

There is a war in this country and it is a battle for control. NOBODY is interested in discussing the issues. The left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican... Libertarian alike all want to win. The race issue intersects with all the top issues of the day - immigration, voting privileges, crime, trade, unemployment, etc., etc. all intersect with the race issue. The only way that all Americans will have an equal opportunity is when we demand that the government make good on the guarantee that we have a Republican Form of Government (as per the Constitution of the United States). The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man over at USResisters.com makes such a demand. Anybody who wanted to have any input on that document made suggestions. The guy making the most suggestions was a Korean man whose father was a medic in the Korean Conflict and whose family came here after that. The next guy who made the most suggestions was a white guy that was married to a Mexican for over a decade. On and on it goes, so it is impossible to call that a racist document. I mention it on this thread because NOTHING was discussed on this thread that relates to the OP. The OP abandoned the thread. So, this thread should serve some worthwhile purpose. I am containing people that are too stupid to be allowed to post anywhere (mostly for their own good) and since they want to attack me personally, they need to know what it is I'm about. The Charter that I alluded to is all they need to know. It damn sure wasn't a racist document unless my critics are going to argue that the nonwhite contributors are somehow white racists.... It was a good trade for the admin of this board.

[The Resister]

In the US, fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery.

Also, don't forget that in the armed US, given your threats, a history of intent to do serious bodily harm to @annatar1914, he would be legally justified if he blew your brains out when you tried.

Hands and fists can be considered deadly weapons under these circumstances.

Perry Mason you ain't. NOBODY has been threatened and the only thing that happened is that annatar laid down a challenge with fighting words. A response is never a threat. That illustrates your ignorance, but then you post just to get me to respond. It's the only way you feel validated.

Where I live (and it is in the United States) if someone calls you out and you respond, it is NOT illegal. If neither party wants to press charges, it is mutual combat and the cops only write up a report and go about their merry way. I can tell you that from personal experience during the last two months. Annatar is a an idiot who lets his posts over-ride his pea brain. He is definitely not the man he thinks he is. Where I live you simply don't talk to people the way Annatar does me unless you're calling them out. His level of disrespect for his fellow man is a testament to his stupidity and you brown - nosing to earn some brownie points only illustrates the low level of IQ you have. The two of you should get married. You deserve each other. OTOH, I know what a sockpuppet is, just like you do.

[ingliz]

annatar laid down a challenge with fighting words.

Are you a child?

fighting words

They do not meet the legal standard.

No reasonable person would find his words "so venomous and full of malice" as to incite violence or cause emotional distress.

a response is never a threat

Wrong!

In legal parlance, a true threat is "a threat that a reasonable person would interpret as a real and serious communication of an intent to inflict harm."

A statement that is meant to frighten or intimidate one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker’s behest is not protected speech and can be prosecuted under the law.

If neither party wants to press charges,

What makes you think @annatar1914 wouldn't want to press charges?

take the ass whipping once, and then move along.

The only one taking the ass whipping here is you.

people registered on this board aren't reading this

23,398 Views

[ckaihatsu]

(Nationalist economic meltdown and existential crisis.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ted_States

viewtopic.php?p=15180707#p15180707

viewtopic.php?p=15180627#p15180627

[annatar1914]

@ingliz , and @The Resister ;

You will both note that I do not respond much to the idle talk hinting at violence. There are many foolish people out in the world who talk a big game and have very much to say, but inside are generally soft and weak. In numbers they gather like ants, but disperse like birds. But it matters little anyway. Someone cuts the wood and the chips will fly in any case, as the saying goes.

But I note that my questions still go unanswered, questions which directly relate to the thread. I figure that they never will, for moral reasons. As I said of the one I have been questioning;

''...All that aside, your ''contribution'' to this thread is fundamentally dishonest, because while white people definitely were often enslaved throughout history, they were made slaves not because of whiteness, but because of other factors. Black people being enslaved was given a racial justification by their enslavers; that blacks are an inferior race to which the best use for most they can be put to is slavery. And this was something new, this type of ex post facto justification. Now they aren't slaves, but still regarded by some as if the attitude which put them in chains in the first place was the correct one, a racial inferiority. Defend that if you dare, but drop the dishonesty. I know better, I've read George Fitzhugh, Robert Lewis Dabney, and the like, so I know the old position inside and out....''

All that has to be done is to agree that this is wrong, this ''justification'', or that it was right,by the one I questioned.

Likewise, when the one I questioned stated that ''Liberals'' were conning black people into believing that equality was true, it in my opinion necessarily followed that the one I question thinks that black people are not equal to non-blacks. He is more than welcome to deny this and correct me if I am wrong in drawing this conclusion, or in saying I am correct. Or,others could point out the truth of the matter, if I am correct or have read into these statements more than is there.

But instead, he talks a lot of bullshit and blathers on and on about his offended honor and how much I'm a liar and so forth. He is welcome to specifically address all of my specific questions in order to show that I am incorrect, which would put all my bad hurtful talk to rest, would it not?

If he does not do this, it will in fact damage his credibility even more, the more he engages in silly and abusive talk defensively instead of correcting any misunderstandings,if misunderstandings they are.

[ingliz]

engaging in idle talk hinting at violence

I see treating his childish threats faux-seriously as engaging in what the English call taking the piss.

* A shortening of the idiom taking the piss out of, an expression meaning to mock, tease, joke, ridicule, or scoff.

[The Resister]

Are you a child?


They do not meet the legal standard.

No reasonable person would find his words "so venomous and full of malice" as to incite violence or cause emotional distress.


Wrong!

In legal parlance, a true threat is "a threat that a reasonable person would interpret as a real and serious communication of an intent to inflict harm."

A statement that is meant to frighten or intimidate one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker’s behest is not protected speech and can be prosecuted under the law.


What makes you think @annatar1914 wouldn't want to press charges?


The only one taking the ass whipping here is you.


23,398 Views

FWIW, I don't read multi quotes any longer when they begin with off topic B.S. that has no bearing on the OP. Are you a child is as far as I got. What I'm not is so desperate that I need your validation every day. You need mine, however. If your bullshit had any substance, you would address the OP. Your mental midgetry suggests otherwise. It says you don't have a damn thing.

Son, I'm over 50 with more post secondary education than you have total education. You are on a board, claiming that I'm mentally inferior to you, but you can't help yourself. My words intimidate you; frighten you; make you continue checking this thread several times a day to make sure I didn't slide a sentence by. I live in your head rent free.

You've proven that you don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of history, law, or psychology. LMFAO.

[The Resister]

@ingliz , and @The Resister ;

You will both note that I do not respond much to the idle talk hinting at violence. There are many foolish people out in the world who talk a big game and have very much to say, but inside are generally soft and weak. In numbers they gather like ants, but disperse like birds. But it matters little anyway. Someone cuts the wood and the chips will fly in any case, as the saying goes.

But I note that my questions still go unanswered, questions which directly relate to the thread. I figure that they never will, for moral reasons. As I said of the one I have been questioning;



All that has to be done is to agree that this is wrong, this ''justification'', or that it was right,by the one I questioned.

Likewise, when the one I questioned stated that ''Liberals'' were conning black people into believing that equality was true, it in my opinion necessarily followed that the one I question thinks that black people are not equal to non-blacks. He is more than welcome to deny this and correct me if I am wrong in drawing this conclusion, or in saying I am correct. Or,others could point out the truth of the matter, if I am correct or have read into these statements more than is there.

But instead, he talks a lot of bullshit and blathers on and on about his offended honor and how much I'm a liar and so forth. He is welcome to specifically address all of my specific questions in order to show that I am incorrect, which would put all my bad hurtful talk to rest, would it not?

If he does not do this, it will in fact damage his credibility even more, the more he engages in silly and abusive talk defensively instead of correcting any misunderstandings,if misunderstandings they are.

I've told you how many times that I'm not addressing the personal bullshit any longer??? How many??? Only a moron would keep doing what you're doing.

For those with any semblance of honesty and decency, they can understand that YOU initiated the personal attacks. In my world you don't spew that kind of name calling, badgering, and making misrepresentations. That is nothing more than fighting words. If I want to pick a fight with someone, I call them out in private if it can't be done publicly. YOU rattled my cage. I didn't rattle yours. The least you could do is have the common decency to take responsibility for your actions. FWIW - a couple of weeks ago, two men got in a fight in my house. I didn't give a rip who won so I let them go at it. The younger guy knocked the older's guy front tooth out. The younger guy was bleeding from his forehead and blood coming out of his ear. It was a genuine bloodbath.

I only called the cops to minimize damage to my property and to make sure that all the legalities were taken care of. The cops came and since neither of them wanted to press charges, the cops said it was mutual combat and they were free to go about their way. The words that set that off were FAR less than those you have used against me here. I can only conclude that you intended to be a bully. You have the backing of your boyfriend and now you want to follow his lead and make more misrepresentations. Does your boyfriend do your thinking for you? You are lying like a politician when you claim I'm worried about my honor. I simply answered your challenge.

What I believe about the liberals is my opinion. I don't have to justify a side remark to you that has nothing to do with the OP. HOWEVER, since you want to try your hand at discrediting everything I say, you get this once and we will NEVER revisit this again. I don't owe you a mother fucking thing, Chief.

In my view, the liberal, left wing, democratic, socialist, democratic socialist, communist, progressive combine are all shades of the same color, the differences being more about the way words are nuanced and semantics as opposed to any credible differences. In WWII a guy from North Carolina and a guy from New York were "Yanks" and that is as good an analogy as I can give you. I simply lump all the categories into one so that I don't have to waste multiple paragraphs of posting what they already know just to prove I'm aware of their pretend differences.

When the Ku Klux Klan came into being, they were all Democrats. The National States Rights Party and J.B. Stoner were around as recently as the 1970s - maybe 1980s. Stoner ran with the campaign promise "If you elect me governor "I promise to ship all the (expletive deleted) back to Africa." Stoner was a Democrat. When it was obvious to the big money elitists that Blacks were going to become the majority, the plan was to then make the Blacks the object of the same rhetoric. Today, the White guys are the (expletive deleted) . I don't give a rat's ass whether you believe it or not. When Clinton treated the Hispanics like shit, you guys were all warm and fuzzy about it:

Donald Trump comes along, says the same thing (and he was Clinton's buddy) and the liberals are all over the guy like he took advantage of their 13 year old daughter. Let me save you some time: I CONDEMNED BOTH MEN AND THEIR ASSAULT ON THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT LIBERTY IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT. For that reason I'm persona non grata at right wing functions and YOU illustrate why I'm not connected to lying ass liberals that can't even convince themselves that they're right. I'm not going to debate it with you here. I'm limited in my ability to express it. So, I'm not going to try. PM me if you really want an in depth conversation somewhere else that doesn't employ censorship. I'll suggest a place. Otherwise, you are just doing a lot of political jockeying that is going to go nowhere. And I won't be a part of it. I'll just keep returning to show that you are a coward that lies and doesn't have an ounce of humanity or decency within him.

You want to be right. You're not. You've misrepresented me and you are too cowardly to hold yourself accountable and say how many times YOU were proven wrong. If you and your boyfriend don't understand that, you should sue your brain (presuming you have one) for non-support. Now, I'm not interested in your assessment of what I said. I won't read it. You have been answered and if you don't like it, you can pound sand.

[ingliz]

Today, the White guys are the (expletive deleted)

So not content with playing a Jew who graduated from a Mormon Bible college, you're the White n****r now?

Your obsessive need to be a victim can't be good for your mental health. Have you ever thought of seeking professional help?

[what kid marley]

black vs white

[annatar1914]

@The Resister , it's real simple,despite your obfuscations;

1. Is the justification used for slavery of blacks correct or incorrect, as opposed to the absence of racial justifications for other kinds of peoples enslaved, yes or no?

2. Are the justifications used for racialist thinking about blacks correct or not,yes or no?

3. If ''Liberals'' are ''conning'' black people into thinking that ''Equality'' is some thing to aspire to, is it correct then to say that you do not believe in the equality of black people in comparison with other peoples?

These questions are not ''lies'', they aren't used to hurt your feelings or some kind of silly ass ''fighting words'' or whatever. They do not assume some kind of a priori moral judgement either way. They are just questions, questions which have bearing on this thread and which you have avoided answering. They do not have anything to do with anyone's intelligence or moral standing or even ideology, they're just questions for getting at the truth.

I have been called all kinds of things on PoFo over the years; ''bigot'', ''God-botherer'', ''Fascist'', ''Nazi'',many other things. I have a thick skin. If you get banned or I get banned, so what?

What I have a problem with isn't even your ideology,although I have a special detestation for Anarchists of whatever kind, Near-Anarchists...But fact is, I have no particular modern ideology, the closest to one would be a ethno-nationalist socialism that isn't racist and is grounded in traditional values and teachings. As such, a racism that keeps an ethnos down by dehumanization, keeps an Ethnos from peaceful development, these are things that concern me.

[The Resister]

@The Resister , it's real simple,despite your obfuscations;

1. Is the justification used for slavery of blacks correct or incorrect, as opposed to the absence of racial justifications for other kinds of peoples enslaved, yes or no?

2. Are the justifications used for racialist thinking about blacks correct or not,yes or no?

3. If ''Liberals'' are ''conning'' black people into thinking that ''Equality'' is some thing to aspire to, is it correct then to say that you do not believe in the equality of black people in comparison with other peoples?

These questions are not ''lies'', they aren't used to hurt your feelings or some kind of silly ass ''fighting words'' or whatever. They do not assume some kind of a priori moral judgement either way. They are just questions, questions which have bearing on this thread and which you have avoided answering. They do not have anything to do with anyone's intelligence or moral standing or even ideology, they're just questions for getting at the truth.

I have been called all kinds of things on PoFo over the years; ''bigot'', ''God-botherer'', ''Fascist'', ''Nazi'',many other things. I have a thick skin. If you get banned or I get banned, so what?

What I have a problem with isn't even your ideology,although I have a special detestation for Anarchists of whatever kind, Near-Anarchists...But fact is, I have no particular modern ideology, the closest to one would be a ethno-nationalist socialism that isn't racist and is grounded in traditional values and teachings. As such, a racism that keeps an ethnos down by dehumanization, keeps an Ethnos from peaceful development, these are things that concern me.

Your questions have NOTHING to do with your accusations. They are separate and distinct issues. For chits and giggles I'll humor you

1) You will have to rephrase that one. I don't understand what it is you're after

2) How in the Hell am I supposed to know about "racialist" thinking? Have you not read a damn thing I've posted?

3) I don't know if I understand # 3 either. It's as if you want a pseudo intellectual discussion and you've not set the stage for any conversation. The bottom line dude is that free men are not equal and equal men are not free. Having an equal opportunity and equal access does not guarantee success. When people have been given not only equal opportunity and equal access, but greater considerations and they still can't succeed, the politicians have promised them even more for their votes.

This has led to Blacks (more than anyone else) wanting to keep punishing Whites for their lack of ability to be successful. In recent years the Blacks have gone after Confederate flags, monuments, memorials, plaques, and statues. They were "racist" or so we're told. But, wait. The Blacks went after the statues of singers like Kate Smith. Then statues of Lewis and Clark along with a statue of Sacagawea were taken down. Black extremists are advocating for changing the American flag (without talking about the historical meaning about the current one); they are advocating changing the National Anthem. IF we maintain our currency, there are plans to put their faces on our money. Blacks have had generations of preferential hiring schemes, affirmative action, racial quotas, etc. They've been more equal than whites for the last 50 years. They can't succeed.

In Chicago where virtually every political office holder representing them (from city to the federal level) is black and democrat, they cannot assimilate and they cannot govern their own. Chicago would put the old west stereotype Dodge City on a Friday night to shame. By contrast, in Kennesaw, Georgia people are required, by law, (granted it's largely symbolic) to have a firearm in the home and Kennesaw is one of the safest cities in the United States.

This thread was limited to the Irish and American slavery, but on a world wide scale slavery was normal. I don't get what you don't understand about that. Whites all over the world have been held in slavery. The rest of the world's population has had ancestors that were slaves. Yet, at some point, those people assimilated and rebuilt. If America were really that freaking bad for black people, you'd see Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, etc., etc. investing in African countries and building a country so that they could be happy. Instead, the liberals are programming blacks to believe horse manure. Their suffering was somehow special in world history. BULLSHIT. Blacks didn't corner the market on human suffering.

Liberals have the blacks engaged in a war of genocide against whites. At the same time the liberals are telling black people how bad slavery is, they are teaching that taking the hard earned money from those who produce and giving it to those who don't work is a good thing. Oh, I understand that I have the illusion of Freedom and Liberty. I have those things IF I agree to let the government to take half the amount of the fruits of my labors to fund the rich and the lazy. Socialized medicine is a piece of the slavery pie. Do we need a government god to tell us what surgeries and procedures we need and those we don't? Do we need to rely on those who work to get what we want instead of earning it ourselves?

You can hate those people you call names, but I don't know what in the Hell that has to do with me. If you're calling me names again, you're just showing the people here what a coward you are. I'm none of the above. I don't owe any organization OR any ideology anything; I don't represent them. If there were some objective I believed in OTHER THAN THE CHARTER AND PROCLAMATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN, I would post it on this board. What I demand from the government is that they make good on the guarantees pursuant to the Constitution. That doesn't make me an anarchist, socialist, etc., etc. If you want to have a conversation with me, you will have to accept the facts or get fucked. I'm not your boy and like I keep saying. YOU made the challenge. I only accepted it. Keep up with the name calling. It only illustrates your mental midgetry. It also proves you are a coward. If you want a conversation, you're done with the name calling. Otherwise, we're done. Your choice.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems clear that chattel slavery was targeted almost exclusively at black people, and that even if some Irish or Indigenous people also suffered, it was not nearly at the same level of frequency and permanence.

[ingliz]

If there were some objective I believed in OTHER THAN...

This?

Freemen: Armageddon’s Prophets of Hate and Terror

[late]

It seems clear that chattel slavery was targeted almost exclusively at black people, and that even if some Irish or Indigenous people also suffered, it was not nearly at the same level of frequency and permanence.

You've made an invalid assumption, that he's on this planet..

[Pants-of-dog]

You've made an invalid assumption, that he's on this planet..

@The Resister does not concern me. He has made no verifiable arguments in the last few pages.

But I did do some looking into early US slavery.

The first slaves were Africans in St. Augustine, Florida, in the 1500s but since they were slaves of Spaniards (it was a Spanish colony at the time), it does not count.

Some of the Powhatan may have also been enslaved during the war between the Powhatan confederacy and the English settlers, but they may simply have been prisoners of war.

But then I realised it does not matter who was first.

What matters is how it affects the current social conditions. In that respect, the enslavement of black people is easily the most significant event, when looking at how slavery impacted North American society.

And this is true even if we imagine that a few Irish kids were sold into chattel slavery in 1619.

[The Resister]

@The Resister does not concern me. He has made no verifiable arguments in the last few pages.

But I did do some looking into early US slavery.

The first slaves were Africans in St. Augustine, Florida, in the 1500s but since they were slaves of Spaniards (it was a Spanish colony at the time), it does not count.

Some of the Powhatan may have also been enslaved during the war between the Powhatan confederacy and the English settlers, but they may simply have been prisoners of war.

But then I realised it does not matter who was first.

What matters is how it affects the current social conditions. In that respect, the enslavement of black people is easily the most significant event, when looking at how slavery impacted North American society.

And this is true even if we imagine that a few Irish kids were sold into chattel slavery in 1619.

When my verifiable points were made many pages back nobody could refute them. The little child with a knowledge of how to use Google didn't refute anything. It merely said someone disagreed and Googled it to prove it.

It really doesn't matter who was first. On that point we agree. If Spaniards were the first to hold slaves, then maybe some anger ought to be directed toward them. It's simply idiotic to give one race of people advantages over a period of 50 years to the point that their real agenda comes out: destroy the white people. On that point, NOBODY here can refute the facts.

The political propaganda prostitutes using the blacks are white liberals that con the black leadership into accepting globalism and government controlled slavery whilst the black leadership is lulled into believing that they need white peoples validation in order to be something. The race issue, immigration issue, LBGTQP issue... virtually all the social issues are where social engineers are programming blacks to think their suffering is above that of other races.

Your argument seems to suggest that all the slave owners in history are white. That being the case, it only strengthens the argument that the black people are waging a war of genocide against whites. Now, you are welcome to listen to the gruesome twosome dumbasses misrepresent what I say, but we need to focus on what YOU said. If, throughout history, only whites enslaved people and it was ONLY whites wherein it had some degree of permanence, then why in the Hell would a rational individual want to live in a society founded by white people and their customs and their laws? You're only admitting the core argument I've been making. Given your narrative a race war would be inevitable. Given mine, not so much.

[late]

@The Resister does not concern me. He has made no verifiable arguments in the last few pages.

But I did do some looking into early US slavery.

The first slaves were Africans in St. Augustine, Florida, in the 1500s but since they were slaves of Spaniards (it was a Spanish colony at the time), it does not count.

Some of the Powhatan may have also been enslaved during the war between the Powhatan confederacy and the English settlers, but they may simply have been prisoners of war.

But then I realised it does not matter who was first.

What matters is how it affects the current social conditions. In that respect, the enslavement of black people is easily the most significant event, when looking at how slavery impacted North American society.

And this is true even if we imagine that a few Irish kids were sold into chattel slavery in 1619.

Get Woodard's excellent American Nations. After you read it, look at the bibliography for Ch 7, The Founding of the South:

"Which brings us to that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

It was a near-carbon copy of the West Indian slave state these Barbadians had left behind, a place notorious even then for its inhumanity....From the outset, Deep Southern culture was based on radical disparities in wealth and power, with a tiny elite commanding total obedience and enforcing it with state-sponsored terror. Its expansionist ambitions would put it on a collision course with its Yankee rivals, triggering military, social, and political conflicts that continue to plague the United States to this day."

https://web.archive.org/web/20121127085323/http://www.alternet.org/story/156071/conservative_southern_values_revived%3A_how_a_brutal_strain_of_american_aristocrats_have_come_to_rule_america/?page=entire

[late]

It's simply idiotic to give one race of people advantages over a period of 50 years to the point that their real agenda comes out: destroy the white people.

That's White Supremacist talk, and batsh*t crazy.

[ingliz]

On that point, NOBODY here can refute the facts.

Quack, quack, quack.

For a not a White supremacist, you sure like pushing Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda.

A favorite of both The Order* and the Aryan Republican Army - two of the most significant US neo-Nazi groups - the term White Genocide first appears in the modern era in White Power, the official newspaper of the American Nazi Party.

* Written by a White separatist, neo-Nazi ideologue, and convicted felon, a member of the terror organization The Order, David Lane's White Genocide Manifesto circulates widely in far-right communities.

Guess what. If you were to read the link given, it would be like looking in a mirror...

You could have written it yourself.





Reasons for edits: For the most part, finding the full text of your/his manifesto.

1. Removed mention of the NSWPP - Rockwell's ANP under another name.

2&3. Added and removed a link to Stormfront as you would need to follow 3 steps to find Lane's manifesto.

4&5. Added and removed a link to Scrib'd as you only got half the bollocks unless you subscribed.

6. Added a direct link to the manifesto after navigating the 3 steps from Stormfront.

7. After farting around adding and removing links, I found I had messed up the formatting; edited to correct that.

8. 1 thought it best to tell you why there are so many edits; another edit.