Hope I can decipher this, Plato

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Feb 5, 2007 at 03:34

Plato, it looks like your post got a formatting error. I hope I can figure out who's saying what. I think it works best to put the quotes of the person you're replying to in bold, and your reply in regular letters. Seems to work fine that way. You wrote:

"I am still a bit woozy with that one two punch, and I have slowed down on the keyboard. But I am still standing and waiting for the upper cut that will hopefully not be a knock out punch."

It's the left hook you gotta watch out for! :-D

"Individuals join to make movements, and trickles coalesce to make giant rivers.'

Where? When? Precisely where and when in Islamic history have these trickles coalesced into gant rivers? It's 1,400 years later, and we're still waiting for anything more than a trickle at best. Yes, the Grand Canyon was carved by a small river, but we don't have that sort of time frame to wait.

"About those 50,000. It is not an event I have read about but if you say it happened I believe it. "

I have to dig the link out, but it's in one of Dr. Pipes' articles here on his website. Here it is:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1775

"I do not know what the demographic statistic of that rally was but if even 5% of them were Muslim the optimist flame in me brightens."

Why? If every single one of them were Muslim, that's less than half a percent. That's a meaningless number. If only 5% of those who attended were Muslim, then that was between 13 and 20 people, or 0.026% to 0.04% of the Muslims. That's not even what I'd consider a '"real" number. That's an aberration. An anomaly. A statistical error. It's meaningless. Even if it was as high as one-half of one percent, that's still an anomaly, not a significant movement in the Muslim community.

"About your 'why is that', it could depend on who called the demo, the nature of the local imams etc. Also a couple of hundred out of 50,000 when the women and children are ruled out gives you f percentage of about 1%. I don't consider that bad for a rally of that type. I grant you that the ones who did not turn up are suspect in their loyalty to the nation but not necessarily potential terrorists."

Excuses. All excuses. But not reasons. Like I said, it was set up by a Muslim, it was marketed to Muslims, etc. Look, remember when we kicked those immams off the airplane for acting suspicious a few months back? Somehow, the Muslims in Arizona managed to gather between 100 and 200 members to protest that incident. Somehow, the Muslims managed to gather more members of their community to boycott and protest the cable -tv show "24" (a show that features Arabic Muslim terrorists) than they managed to gather to protest the terrorists committing the heinous and cowardly atrocities of Sept.11th! A Muslim was removed from the Phoenix Human Rights Commission due to his anti-Semitic nonsense (including publishing a Yellow Pages book that shows "Palestine" but no Israel on the map), and the Muslims managed to gather at least a few dozen people to protest that.

A second anti-terror rally was held for Muslims in Washington, DC in March of 2005. Estimated attendance...50 to 150 Muslims. I lnyl have one source for the number of Muslims living in Washignton DC and that number is 60,479 (in the year 2000). So once again, only 0.08% to 0.2% showed up. Note that Washington DC is the home of CAIR, the largest and most active Muslim group in America. Those numbers speak loud and clear.

About 37,500 managed to spare the time to turn out and vote for Ellison, the Muslim congressman who swore in on the Koran (75% of the 50,000 Muslims in that state). Funny how when it comes time to vote a Muslim (with radcal links) into a position of power in America, 75% of them turn out to vote. When it comes time to protest terror, 0.08% of them show up.

Bottom line, Muslims will come out of the woodwork in America to condemn a tv show that portrays Muslims realistically, they will come out in large numbers to protest the (well-justified) firing of a Muslim, they will turn out by the thousands to promote a Muslim candidate. But when it comes to denouncing terror, they're nowhere to be found. Can you explain that?

"You detest the fact that your liberals fear offending them in your countries but approve of shocking and awing Muslim nations. Which is why we see Muslim leaders jump when you say rise. A better bargain than having to wear a crufix at work."

I have no clue as to what you're trying to say here. Can you explain your point?

"I am no military tactician or strategist so whether the tactics/strategies of the West is causing their defeat, I am in no position to judge. I leave that your expert judgement."

There is no question...we didn't do it right. Anyone with a squirt of military training (or even a squirt of common sense) knows that you first secure the area you conquer before moving on and releasing the enemy combatants behind you.

"You can keep every last Muslim out of America? You sure have a detailed plan for that, and I am not asking you to reveal it."

How will they come in if we deny any foreign Muslims from arriving via airplane, boat, etc? Citizens of Muslim countries could easily be kept out. Muslims trying to come in from other countries would have to be screened a bit more diligently, but that's not hard to do. Yes, it can be done.

"What will you do about the many Afro-Americans and White ones who convert or wish to convert. Thought control?"

No thought control. But Muslims would be banned as an enemy force, and as an evil ideology, no different from how we suppress Nazis, skinheads, white supremists, etc. If Africans in America want to convert, they are free to move back to Africa or the Middle East and convert there. Islam will not be tolerated in America.

"Of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, not even one in a million of them will be able to gain access?"

I'm sure some will be able to sneak in. They won't be able to do much though. There would be no mosques, no madrassahs, no CAIR, and if found they would be sentenced to death.

"The other thing that strikes a non-military strategist like me is if a few hundred guards are required to guard a few hundred Gitmo prisoners how many will you need to pin down 1.2 billion. It will keep all of the Free World busy 24/7. End of progress. End of global warming too!"

It's not hard. America shares no border with any Islamic state. They are all overseas. So it's easy to keep them out. As for pinning them in over in the Middle East, security walls and zones can be built, visas denied, immigration denied, etc. If they come in illegally, we kill them. It's that simple. Remember, many Islamic countries share borders only with other Islamic countries. America, Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, Britain, Ireland, most of Europe, share no borders with any Muslim state. China and Russia have partial borders with Islamic states, but they've always been good at controlling their populations anyway. Most of Islam is pinned in already, surrounded by natural barriers and lacking borders with non-Muslim states. Check out a world map.

"You don't mind risking the fact that almost everyone you deport (two million?) will become an acolyte of Bin Laden. You see no danger to your well laid plan in that?"

Two million added to 1.2 billion is small change and insignificant. Put it this way...another 2 million violent Muslims confined to the Middle East who are outraged by being deported are far less a risk than having 2 million living in America and eroding our country while plotting atrocities (which are possible only because the dwell amongst us). So no, your concern is irrelevant. There is no danger from that aspect.

"All the best laid plans of men and mice... And the illegal aliens mention brings up the fact that you are all illegal alien in the sight of the natives there. I don't whine about it, even the Indians have stopped or were made to stop whining about it. "

Again, absolutely irrelevant. America exists, period. It is recognized by every country on earth and has been for about a quarter of a millenium. Even Native American tribes recognize it.

"You will have to imprison all Muslims including their supporters or imprison yourself in your continent. Probably shut out planes flying, ships sailing in from anywhere in the world. A blockade on that scale is as good as blockading yourself."

Not at all. Remember, there would be no ships or planes allowed to arrive from any Muslim country, and for all Muslim countries that means complete denial since none of them share borders with the USA and are half a world away. Flights from other countries would be screened. Many other countries would follow our lead and deport their Muslims, so there would be even less to worry about.

"My stomach churned when I read that. Sorry I had not paid attention to your plan before. But thanks for repeating it now.Well, well you seem to have your plan down pat. I wish you would give us an estimated number of "less deads". You do mention a few tens of millions. Could you put a figure on the 'few'. Or is that one of the secret parts of your plan."

Look at it this way. If the Muslims pull off their American Hiroshima plot, we're talking tens of millions. Something on the scale of 25 million. Those are just the immediate deaths from the bombings. God only knows how many would die after that from the after effects, starvation, predation, etc. If China or Russia decides to kick us when we're down and finish us off, we're talking over 50,000,000 to 200,000,000 dead in America, and of course there's the tens or hundreds of millions who will die from our retaliatory strikes. You're looking at the possibility of half a billion or more people dead, due to actions instigated by Muslims living in America.

In contrast, removing Islam and Muslims from America would result in far less than 2 million deaths, which is a hell of a lot better than HALF A BILLION! Most Muslims would probably leave once they realized we were banning/outlawing Islam and shutting down mosques, etc. They'd realize that if they left peacefully, they'd get to keep their money and their belongings. If they don't they die and lose everything. I'd guess (and this is just off the top of my head based on nothing), that perhaps 10% at most would react violently and have to be killed. That's 20,000. Again, far better than 500,000,000, and compare that to how many we lost in one attack on 9/11.

"Your perfect plan says God forbid. You must plan for all contingencies. Suppose God does not forbid."

That's called a figure of speech, Plato. God has no say in the matter.

"How many tens of millions more would it add to the 'few'."

It would not add tens of millions.

"The Chinese and Russians and Pakistanis may not have clean killing bombs."

The Chinese and the Russians do. Pakistan could be taken out without harm to the surrounding countries.

And remember, in many cases we would not even need to use nuclear weapons. We have the capability of taking out cities with conventional weapons.

" think your plan instead of talking about a few tens of million dead must be revised to reflect the few millions that will survive. You now have a brand new shining glassy planet."

Now you're just being absurd.

"Minimizes that risk', very comforting indeed. "

Yes, it should be very comforting. My method reduces the chances of a global thermonuclear war to nearly zero. Allowing the Muslims to continue on their current global crusade virtually assures a nuclear war. In my scenario, a nuclear war is nearly impossible. In the scenario of doing nothing, a nuclear was is pretty much inevitable. Which do you prefer?

"Not just the logic of it but the logistics must also be considered. How are you going to guarantee that almost all Muslims will leave the land of the free and the brave."

Those who agree to leave peacefully would be processed and deported in a civilized manner. They would realize that peacefully leaving would result in being able to keep their money and their belongings (they would of course have to sell their homes). Most will "get out while the getting is good", to use an American idiom. The rest would have to be forceably rounded up and deported, or killed if they resist.

"Does your plan guarantee that the Muslim world can be sanitised of WMD's."

Yes, because only Pakistan has them, and we'd pre-emptively take them out along with Iran. Any nation selling nuclear material to an Islamic country would be targetted as an enemy.

"The logistics of ensuring every Muslim is evacuated from the free world and the logistics of intrusive surveillance of all Muslims nations don't seem to faze you. I am sure your war game plan has all that locked up. So had Rumsfeld and his team of master strategists."

As I said, it's probably inevitable that some will still exist, be overlooked, or manage to sneak in. That's not much of a threat at all...insignificant compared to the threat of keeping them here. And remember, the Islamic world would keep a tight leash on their terrorists, since it would be made crystal clear that any mass terror attack on America by Muslims would result in thermonuclear annihilation of Islam and all Islamic population centers and "holy sites". I'm sure Saudi Arabia will not be funding terrorists or allowing them to plot atrocities once they see what we do to Iran. Without state backing, Muslims pose very little threat.

"Now for the detailed plan to you are demanding to solve the problem. A brainwave from the foolish anti-semitic wishy-washy dishonest Plato. Your scientists and engineers have come upwith clean killing equipment but the Chinese, Russians and Pakistanis are still worrisome elements. Why don't your scientists work helter skelter somewhat like the Manhattan project and come up with a virus, a chemical that targets only Muslims, maybe target people with Muslim-like thoughts and viola you will manage to sanitise the planet of the vermin bothering you. No glassy regions to the planet. The Russians, Chinese will have no objection, they will be rid of their own Muslims too. The Pakistanis will not know what hit them. I got the idea when I once entered the virtual world of Alice in Wonderland. This method of mine is an iron-clad guarantee which not only minimises free world collateral casualties but completely eliminates it.Only people without Muslim-type thoughts will be devoured. Let's call it Weapons for Muslim Death, WMD.Isn't it a nice thought. "

Typical. I challenge you to come up with a detailed and realistic plan, and you can only spew nonsense. You wonder why we don't respect your opinion, Plato? It's because of posts like this. Snotty, absurd, irrelevant responses is all we get from you. Face it, your side is clueless about what to do. You have no idea at all, outside of pronouncing insane, unrealistic half-baked ideas and New Age platitudes.

"Er.. a bit of psychobabble. You may not agree but what powers the Islamic sword, is the Book. The Book of Islam must be defeated with another book otherwise it will continue to haunt you into the indefinite future unless you the scour the planet for every one of the Book's followers and pen them up in Arabia better than in Guantanamo."

Again, you are not listening. Once they are confined to their own hellish corner of the world, they will be too busy fighting one another (Sunni vs. Shia) to give us any thought. While they will be unable to attack most Western countries, they will have easy access to one another. And their orgy of death will continue, only against one another. Like others have mentioned, sell both sides weapons, pass the popcorn, and watch them extinct one another.

"You have developed a master plan because you have concluded an all consuming Islamic night is descending on the world. You could be right and I wrong, I concede. But again history can be a guide. The world came out stronger and better from the dark days of the Middle Ages. I am not aware of any organised purification or domination drive in the Muslim world as was the case with the Vatican."

Read your history. It took the Crusades to finally exhaust Islam and stop it from dominating the world. Sure, we could come out stronger after another battle of civilizations, but at what cost? Nuclear war? The last war between Islam and the civilized world involved only swords, horses, and bows and arrows. Now we have nuclear weapons, and they are also close to having them (indeed in the case of Pakistan do have them).

"Their only central command is their Book. The masses know nothing of what it contains. Show them what is really in it and the sane ones, who unlike you I believe are the vast majority (the Jordan survey notwithstanding), among them will reprogramme themselves with a defanged interpretation."

Again, New Age psychobabble. It sounds good, it sounds peaceful, it sounds oh-so-simple and kind and gentle. Show me how you hope to accomplish that! In detail. How are you going to manage to convert Saudi Arabia, which hosts Wahabism and is one of the main sources of Islamic terror on the planet. What, Plato, do you think you're going to be able to go to Saudi Arabia and start denouncing Wahabism and preaching "Peaceful Islam"? Get real!

Once again, you present a half-baked idea that hasno basis in reality and no historical precendence.

"You say there are no peaceful Muslims."

You are a liar. I never said there are no peaceful Muslims. I said there are no significant aggregations of moderate Muslims and that the peaceful ones are aberrations, exceptions to the rule, an insigificant number in the big picture.

"I say there are enough to save the world."

And yet you cannot locate them. You cannot find them existing anywhere in large numbers. You concede that we have no evidence of significant numbers Muslims in America or elsewhere working for peace. We have proven that Muslims even in America will turn out to protest tv shows, to support elected Muslims, and to protest legal detainment of suspicious Muslim terror suspects, but refuse to turn out to denounce terror. Where is your evidence that there is a significant portion of Islam that is peaceful? Can you name one single peaceful Islamic country on earth? One that is not barbaric and that does not supress freedoms and rights? One that does not engage in religious intolerance, rape, barbarity, genocide, etc?

Come on Plato! Time to put your money where your mouth is. Show me proof of your mythological moderate Muslims. In any given country, you would need more than 50% of the Muslims to be working for reform in order for it to change. Good luck finding even a single community where even 1% is doing so.

Bottom line, you're engaging in a delusion that is not backed by reality and that is refuted by 1,400 years of human history. Why is it that people who are delusional cling so vociferously to their inaccurate beliefs, and why does reality have no effect on their delusions?

"You are probably not willing to wait for the process to work."

We don't have time to wait, and we cannot afford to take stupid, high-risk gambles that both reality and history have proven to be non-workable. Plato, when in all of history did the mythological moderates of Islam reform their religion? Where in the world has Islam immigrated to and not caused problems, but instead peacefully assimilated while working to reform their religion? You may be stupid enough to gamble away the lives of our children, our country, our way of life, and the future of the entire free, civilized world on a delusion that has the backing of neither reality nor history, but the intelligent people among us do not.

"We take opposite ends when it comes to the solution to this aggressive Muslim attitude, but we seek the same end. "

Wrong. We do not seek the same end. Your thinking leads to suicide on a national or even global level, and I have shown you how and why that is true. I, on the other hand, am seeking the elimination of a virulent, deranged belief system that threatens the free world. I acknowledge reality and history, you live in denial of it.
"The hardest question here is one of ethics. The ethics of having decimated a whole race. Remember the Holocaust is also in the past, why is everyone obsessing about it today in the twentyfirst century."

Do you deny that the Holocaust happened? Is that what you're getting at? Why is everyone obsessing about it in the 21s century? Well, Plato, maybe you've been living in a cave somewhere but in 2006 Iran threatened publicly to create another Holocaust and to wipe Israel off the map. They also spoke of a world without America (ie "let's also annihilate America"). And once again, I am not advocating decimating an entire race. Islam is not a race, in case you weren't aware of that fact. I am advocating the decimation of a psychotic death cult, a depraved belief system that brings genocide, slavery, and misery everywhere it is allowed to take root.

"Why is the Indian case any different and does it not count as a holocaust?"

Why are you so obsessed with events from hundreds of years ago? No one is arguing that it was not a holocaust. No one is arguing that it was a good thing. However, there is nothing we can do about that, unless you can invent a time machine. We do have the power to prevent another genocide, another holocaust, though. That is where we need to focus our attention. You, Plato, appear to be more concerned with crying over the injustices dealt to the Native Americans hundreds of years ago than you are with preventing a repeat of such an atrocity in the future. What does that tell us about you?

"And the ethics of deporting millions of Muslims,the good and the ugly along with the bad .Don't tell me. You don't care, their ethics are deplorable"

It's justified. Muslims have had 1,400 years to reform their death cult, and they've had 6 years since 9/11 to do so in America. Nothing has been accomplished. They get what they deserve.

"I have to agree that the evidence is a bit thin but the fact that there is a multiplicity of sects among them argues for reformation."

A bit thin? Get real. The Sunnis hate us as much as the Shiites do. Again, you are utterly incapable of presenting evidence of a peaceful Islamic nation anywhere on earth. You are utterly incapable of presenting us with a picture of Islam being reformed in its 1,400 year history. But you hold out hope for the impossible, like a man dreaming of winning the Lottery but who never buys tickets.

"We are not suggesting that you allow them to engage in genocide etc, just hit back with double the force when that happens as you always do, as in Afghanistan"

If you think that tactic works, you're insane. Israel has been playing that absurd and useless game with the Muslims for decades and has gotten nowhere except closer to enduring another Holocaust.

"And not as in Iraq where you only suspected they were cooking up a nuclear broth."

You mean where the intelligence agencies of most countries and the UN itself had proof of such programs? You mean where we have footage of trucks moving all that equipment into Syria during the ridiclous charade of the UN leading up to the war?

"What you now have there is a Shia-Sunni blood soup coming to the boil, with Western blood as flavouring"

Like I said, let the Sunnies and Shiites extinct one another for all I care. Just let them do it in their own backyard.

"I see the making of another detailed plan for sealing the borders of Arabia. How many thousands of kilometers is that?"

I see your ignorance of reality extends into the subject of geography as well. Saudi Arabia is bordered on all sides by fellow Islamic countries and water. All we need to do to cut off access to the west by Saudi Arabia is deny them the right to fly into or boat over to America or the West. We don't need to seal off one single inch of Saudi border.

"Sure like MOAB you have some super-secret technology to tag all Arabs (not impossible) and track their movements and anyone makes a move to go beyond that line in the sand you zap them with your space weapons. Or more realistically you build watch towers every 100 metres and raise another army to man them. Enthusiam for these 'water-tight' plans is fine but where are the resources."

Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabic.

"A thought experiment for you. What if the surviving Red Indians demand the new occupants go back to where they came from a la your demand that the Muslims go back to Arabia or wherever. The Indians were also taken over by migratory as well as armed attacks."

A thought experiment for you in return. What if you just shut up about the Native Americans since there is nothing we can do about that and since it is irrelevant to this discussion? Oh, but then you would have to focus on the issue and actually present a well-reasoned and detailed plan that actually acknowledges history and reality. Never mind, you're clearly not capable of that. Just keep whining about the Native Americans. And join your buddy Michel in exile. But don't exect the rest of us to address your goofy attempts at evasion.

"Yes freedoms needs to be defended with all you have got, except the freedom to repeat another version of the atrocity committed on the Indians."

Plato, this is precisely why you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter. No one is suggesting another version of that atrocity, nor a re-enactment of the Holocaust (well, ok, Iran certainly is, but I'm talking about people on this forum). It's only in your own delusional mind that anyone is trying to repeat past atrocities. You cannot admit that fact, because it denies you the ability to condemn and to judge and to obscure the issue. You are dishonest and delusional, Plato. Your own words prove that beyond any shadow of doubt.

"My firm belief, maybe foolish but not a dishonest one, if you do what you propose to do all that you defend will turn to ashes in your hands."

And as usual, you have no evidence to back your claim. Typical. You just arbitrarily decide to believe in random thoughts and require no measure of reality or history to back them. Must be nice to live on a permanent acid trip.

" yes only a belief but just as you are willing to die for freedom I am willing to do the same for this belief"

The difference is that your belief system is absurd and delusional, it denies all reality and historical precedence, and it condemns those of us who know better to the same fate as you and Michel...dhimmitude, conversion, or death.

"The idea for me here is not about having a debate or about winning or losing the debate but bring some sanity to it."

The perhaps you should start by acknowledging reality instead of being in denial of it. By denying both reality and history, you are enacting the very opposite of what you propose...you are injecting insanity into the argument.

"I don't mind losing it as long as among the hundreds here who agreed with you at the beginning just a handful see a wee bit of merit in what I am saying. In that case you have won the debate but it would be a personal victory for me and not in the triumphalist sense"

The defeated always feel the need to derive some warped sense of victory from the ashes of defeat. Yet another symptom of the denial of reality.

"Sure I will stop that if it irritates you so Poor Native Americans, one cannot even whine for them. YOU have nothing to whine about seeing you are now the masters of all you survey there"

If you want to whine about the poor Native Americans, go do it on a Native American site or debate. Our discussion has nothing to do with the subject of Native Americans, it is nothing more than an attempt at evasion and obfuscation which you repeatedly bring up and which is repeatedly shot down. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. I guess that tells us something, doesn't it?

"It took Christendom some 1800 years, give the muslims another 400 years."

First, Christianity was not violent for 1,800 years. Second, I'm willing to give the Muslims not just another 400 years, but up to another 1,400 years. As long as they work out their psychosis in their own backyard. In that case, I don't care if it takes them 4,000 years!

"I am dumb on nuclear and global war issues."

In which case you have no business discussing those issues, now do you?

"But God forbid, others also can enter the fray, like China, Russia, Pakistan as you said and they don't have such clean bombs unless you care to sell them some."

They have neutron bombs. We covered this all in detail. Try a good reading comprehension course.

"Yes, Yes the US has been known to laugh away collateral damage. I can't argue with what is a national given"

I see that you're one of those strange people who believe that you can fight a war without collateral damage. Once again, you're not dealing with reality. Nor do we laugh away such issues. We try to minimize it.

"Not my theory. Evolution works its wonders a bit slowly for us to notice, generally, but it seems to be an iron law, and the mathematics just models that law."

Evolution has nothing to do with this. And even if it did, we cannot afford to wait for "evolution" to work its wonders. By then it will be too late.

"If even the small number of hawks decide to let fly (free worlders or Islamists is immaterial) the theory will go up in smoke with not many hawks or doves left to come up with a new theory. What the "absurd" theory is telling us is that one must defend freedom to the death but not go out and kill for it."

Like I said, this proves that you are totally disconnected from reality and thus not entitleed to an opinion on the matter. You live in denial of the realities of survival.

"Killing involves ending the right to life, the greatest freedom of all, even of someone who does not allow that right to another such as Muslims who kill for blasphemy and apostacy."

The right to life is not a right to destroy another's life. There is also the law of answering for one's actions. In other words, the right to life does not absolve one of the karma that comes from taking another's life. If you go out and murder a child, your "right to life" is forfeit. Same idea on a larger scale. Muslims share the inherent right to life, however they also share the karmic repercussions of starting a war against freedom and life itself. That is inescapable, and the "right to life" is subordinate to the law of karma.

"I have now seen your detailed plan. Mass deportation, Shia-Sunni armageddon, MOAB, neutron bomb, real nukes, and God to forbidding the Russians and Chinese from chipping in any away"

The Russians and Chinese play no role in the matter unless we do nothing. In other words, my plan prevents China and Russia from becoming involved. The Sunni-Shia armageddon is up to them, that is their decision and their karma.

"Seriously Noah, I am with you in that we have a serious problem on our hands but I most definitely am not with you on the solution you propose."

You are also not with me when it comes to common sense or acknowledgement of reality and history.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".