Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Why mass produced electric cars ain't gonna happen any time soon. - Page 7

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Robert Copcutt on September 20, 2009, 1:20 am
 


YouDontOwnMe wrote:

Tax is supposed to be an exchange of money for common services that
everyone can use. It is also supposed to be a way of levelling out the
playing field. Those who are lucky enough to be fit and strong have a
duty to help those who are not so lucky. The alternative is to go and
live alone in the wilderness but that is tough, even for the fit. I have
explained this more on my webpage http://www.copcutt.me.uk/carbontax.htm


 From your vote. Read my other page which has more to say on this.
http://www.copcutt.me.uk/Blakely.htm


Your first 2 points are wrong so it makes all the others wrong where
they rely on the first 2. Otherwise points 3 to 7 are OK.

Does a murderer have the same rights as a doctor? Defining what rights
we have is also an endless debate.

Posted by Bruce Richmond on September 20, 2009, 4:38 am
 



No, that is just your opinion.

[snip]

Posted by YouDontOwnMe on September 22, 2009, 7:25 pm
 

Mr. Copcutt,
I read, but did not reply to your previous post where you posted your
carbon tax page link. This post opens the door for letting you know that
I did read some of the page, and did a quick scroll and scan of what
followed below that.

The fact that you have taken the time to put together a web page, much
less a web site, and the quality of your verbiage indicates to me that
you are a thinking person. And you have the ability to express the
concepts you wish to convey. I make note of this, because a few others
posting here do not have such attributes. I've my own website with
prolific writing on it myself, so I know what the effort involved is.

Suffice to say, I'm "testing" the conclusions of my logic in a group
that (mostly) has people with brains in it. This also allows me to find
the weaknesses in my presentation, to find a better way to say what I am
saying. It only costs me having mental midgets call me names when they
get frustrated. Most of the time I just ignore that crap and focus on
the point(s) at hand.

So, having noted that you are a "thinker", this should be interesting.


Robert Copcutt wrote:

I note that you have made four assertions in as many sentences. I will
deal with each in turn.

I also note that you paragraph in toto purports to answer the question:
How does calling theft "taxation" make it not theft?

Implied in that question is the assertion: Taxation is theft. That is
what you are replying to.

You write that tax is the exchange of money for services. Do you believe
people should be forced to purchase services at the barrel of a gun?

You write that tax is supposed to be a way of leveling the playing
field. Do you believe people should be forced to contribute to charity
at the barrel of a gun?

You write that those who are fit and strong have a duty to those who are
not. Do you believe fit and strong people should be forced to help those
not fit and strong at the barrel of a gun.

You assert that the alternative is to go live alone. Please elaborate,
because that statement, unsupported as it is, is just so much poppycock.
Here is my proposal as an alternate: I decide who, when, and how much
charity I will donate of my own free will, be it money, goods, or service.

As I said, I did scan through your web page. I'll address those points
as you paste them into your dialog with me.



That is an unsupported assertion, your following sentence (addressed
below) notwithstanding. You fail to show the mechanism whereby you link
from somebody's vote to another entity's authority to tax. This actually
makes your answer to the question a non sequitur. It simply does not follow.

My guess is you probably don't see it as such because you assume I
believe what you believe. A lot of people do believe what you believe,
so they probably accept your naked assertion and supply the support in
their own heads out of their own belief. I however, refuse to accept
this unsupported assertion.

One way to get to the mechanism is to start with the authority to tax
and follow that "authority" back up the chain. This should be the same
regardless of which side of the pond we are on, for the several of the
linkages.

a. Tax (the noun) is property taken by taxation.
b. Taxation (the verb) is the taking of property.
c. The "authority" to take property (taxation) is delegated to the tax
takers, "by law".
d. "Laws" can be said to have "authority" when the persons making the
laws have "authority" to make said laws.
e. In the US, said law makers are called "legislators".
f. Said legislators are chosen "by vote".

If your side of the pond's path of authority is appreciable different,
you could briefly elaborate the the path of authority from the Queen's
subjects to the Queen's law makers.

In any event, I think I have filled in your missing linkage from voting
to authority to tax. So this brings up the next question:

How does voting for legislators give them the right to do something you
and I do not have the right to do?



Neither of the pages on your site even contain the word "vote". The
cited page is a poem of sorts, not even your own words. I scanned it,
could not see the connection you are attempting to make, and am now
going to ignore it until you direct my attention to the point hidden
within it that you want me to see.



You've correctly ascertained that points 3 to 7 rely upon the first two,
so we can dispense with addressing 3 to 7 for now.

You wrote: "Your first two points are wrong..." That is an assertion.
And that assertion does not have any support. Quite the contrary as
shown below.

My point:
1. Taxation is the taking of property.

Your unsupported assertion:
Taxation is NOT the taking of property.

As I stated in another post in this hijacked thread:
If you don't pay property taxes, men with guns come to FORCIBLY remove
you from your home and steal it from you. This is called an eviction and
sheriff's sale.

You have asserted that such taking of property is NOT taking of
property. Your assertion is void on its face.

My point:
2. You can NOT delegate a right to somebody else that you yourself do
not have.

Your unsupported assertion:
You CAN delegate rights to others that you do not have.

By your logic, I can delegate the right to your neighbor to take your
home (car, bicycle, computer, whatever) and sell it or take your money
itself, then use the money for whatever he sees fit to spend it on.

You have asserted that you CAN delegate rights to others that you do not
have. Your assertion is void on its face.



To start with, yes. It's your red herring, run with it.



Not really.

Do you have a right to life?
Do I have the right to kill you?

Do you have a right to justly acquired, hold, use, enjoy, discard, or
sell property according to your will?
Do I have the right to take your property because I want it for myself
or because I will use it to society's benefit?

Do you own yourself?

(A segue to the right of liberty.)

Posted by Robert Copcutt on September 23, 2009, 2:36 am
 

YouDontOwnMe wrote:


It is OT for this group.


Travelling outside the USA would probably help show you the errors in
your conclusions. Reading quality text when you find it rather than just
scanning it would also help.


No guns are used for such things in most countries. It is human nature
to test the boundaries of the society they live in. In a small community
where everyone knows each other the rules of the society can be changed
by mutual consent when the need arises. In all other bigger societies a
more formal system of making rules is required. The alternative is to
allow crime to escalate.


Not at the barrel of a gun, but coercion to help others is essential.


The USA gun culture is sick. The Japanese get very high degrees of
social compliance by using the fear of social ostracism.


Such ideas have been scientific tested and the result is that if there
is no coercion the donations dwindle to almost nothing. To live with
other people you need to develop rules. I am guessing you are not
married. Marriage counselling is frequently all about getting a couple
to compromise with each other and make rules they both follow. As the
group gets bigger the rule book gets bigger - no options here - its
human nature.


A big society has to have a big rule book. That rule book takes
dedicated upkeep. Elected Governments are the best way found so far to
maintain that rule book (law). That takes money. Therefore there has to
be an exchange in the society where taxes are collected in return for
the rule of law. The alternative is escalating crime. Look at Somalia.


It works the way you state in nearly all countries in the world.

You are not. Tax is an exchange just like shopping is an exchange. If
you take a ride in a taxi, the driver has a right to demand money from
you when you are delivered to your destination. Governments also deliver
a service and have a right to expect payment. If you cannot understand
that I think you need to do some more travelling and reading before you
set your ideas in concrete.


It is quality and deserves more than a scan. If you cannot take the time
to contemplate its every word you do not deserve an answer from me.


My objection is with the word "taking". All words have subtleties of
meaning so it is not strictly wrong but I would rather use the word
"exchange". We are in agreement that in reality the practice is not what
it should be. However, try to see the bigger picture and concentrate
your effort where it is needed and that is with things like improving
the honesty of governments.


Yes, you are less free in the USA than most of your countrymen recognise.


I think our misunderstanding comes from you talking about actual
practice and me talking about the fundamental principles.


I actually agree with that. Reading your points again more carefully I
see it is 3 I disagree with and not 2.

 > 3. You do NOT have the right to take my property just because you want
 > it or because you will use it for the benefit of society.

Governments have the authority to exchange your money for services
because you have voted them in to decide what services they will
provide. It is supposed to a fair exchange even though we both agree the
actual practice falls short of ideal. So the root cause of the problem
is not with the concept of tax but with the dishonesty of governments.
It is the dishonesty we need to tackle and that is the prime message of
my website, and the way to proceed is to examine our own standards
first. Gandhi had a huge amount of excellent insight into that.


Those who murder others could loose it.


In self defence, yes.

We could spend a year trying to define "justly".


What about extreme emergencies?


Good question. What is the self?

Posted by YouDontOwnMe on September 23, 2009, 11:46 pm
 

Robert Copcutt wrote:

And it is CLEARLY labeled as such.

When all that existed was slow dial up, Off Topic posts clogged the pipe
so to say, so courtesy was to label the OT posts as such. That way,
somebody not interested in the OT discussion would not consume the
capacity of his conduit downloading it.

On the other hand, I've read some really interesting discussions that
were off topic. Sometimes the result of thread drift, sometimes a new
subject labeled as off topic. Sometimes somebody would recognize the
thread had drifted off topic and change the subject line. It was still
connected to its lineage of the first thread.

So, since these posts are off topic, admitted by both you and I, I must
simply observe that nevertheless, It has intrigued you enough for you to
engage the topic.


My conclusion is that the end does NOT justify the means.

With the exception of the poster "OK", EVERY one of you who have replied
to this off topic post so far, IS arguing that the end justifies the means.

Are you going to argue that the end DOES justify the means?

Are you saying that if I travel outside the USA I'll be able to see the
end justifies the means?



<digression>
Not that I can prove it to you, but I have better recognition and
retention "scanning" then some people I know when they "read".

When I'm doing technical troubleshooting on equipment I've never seen
before, I "scan" the tech literature to find what I need to get a handle
on how to fix the problem.
</digression>

 > Reading quality text when you find it rather than just
 > scanning it would also help.

Are you referring to your writing or the poem you copied?

The poem - not worth the time, hence the request for you to direct my
attention to the point you are attempting to make with it. In scanning
it, I found nothing that applied to what you posted. It was a non
sequitur. That's not to say I won't go back and actually read it in it's
entirety at a later date, because I do like to read for its own sake.

I can sum up YOUR writing in 4 words for the purpose of my posts: You
"believe" in taxation.

As does almost EVERY other poster who has engaged with me in this off
topic thread. So when I write "you" I mean "you and the others".


You "believe" in taxation. You "believe" 'taxation is for good purpose'.
You "believe" 'taxation is good'.


"Taxation" is "extortion".

Wait for it... Wait...



Oh the shocked anger.


Yes, I am accusing that:

You "believe" in extortion.
You "believe" 'extortion is for good purpose'.
You "believe" 'extortion is good'.


You've already made the case for me that you "believe" in taxation, it's
for a good purpose, thus it's good. To prove my accusation I need only
prove that "taxation" is "extortion".

It will be far easier for me to get a blind man to read my posts, a deaf
man to listen to me, and a paraplegic to walk with me, than to get past
the cognitive dissonance my assertion and subsequent accusation is going
to fire up.

Pay heed to the last sentence:

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Abridged:
        At its heart, cognitive dissonance theory is rather
        simple. It begins with the idea of cognitions.
        Cognitions are simply bits of knowledge. They can
        pertain to any variety of thoughts, values, facts, or
        emotions.

        The basic idea behind cognitive dissonance theory is
        that people do not like to have dissonant cognitions.

        There are several key ways in which people attempt to
        overcome, or do away with, cognitive dissonance. One is
        by ignoring or eliminating the dissonant cognitions.

        Finally, perhaps the most important way people deal
        with cognitive dissonance is to prevent it in the first
        place. If someone is presented with information that is
        dissonant from what they already know, the easiest way
        to deal with this new information is to ignore it,
        refuse to accept it, or simply avoid that type of
        information in general.
Source:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cognitive_dissonance/

You "believe" in taxation. You "believe" 'taxation is for good purpose'.
You "believe" 'taxation is good'.


"Taxation" is "extortion".

Instant cognitive dissonance, just add proof.




Moving on to your "beliefs" which you wish for me to share with you.



We don't need to discuss most countries, let's just discuss the UK. If
you refuse to pay a tax will the State leave you alone? Or will the
State do what States have done from time immemorial?

I want you to explain what the UK will do to somebody who refuses to pay
a tax.



You contradict yourself and don't even recognize it.


        co·erce (tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es. 1. To
        force to act or think in a certain way by use of
        pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. 2. To
        dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the
        strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force. 3. To
        bring about by force or threat.

Compare with:

        ex·tort tr.v. ex·tort·ed, ex·tort·ing, ex·torts. To
        obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.


So lets do an Einstein "thought experiment".

I possess the fruits of my labor. I have 200 euros. My neighbor does not
have as many euros as I do. My neighbor only has 100 euros.

You believe I should be taxed to level the playing field. You believe MY
50 euros should be taken from me and given to my neighbor so we both
have 150 euros.

You believe it is acceptable for me to be coerced to relinquish MY 50
euros.

You believe it is acceptable for me to be pressured; threatened;
intimidated; compelled to relinquish MY 50 euros.

You believe it is acceptable for me to be made to relinquish MY 50 euros
by force or threat.

In short, you believe it is acceptable for me to be extorted into giving
up MY 50 euros.

You write that this should be done by taxation. Taxation is what the
'government' (misnomer) a.k.a. the State does.

I refuse to relinquish those 50 euros to the State.

What is the State going to do?

Will the State do what States have done from time immemorial?



You did NOT answer the question. Do you believe fit and strong people
should be forced to help those not fit and strong at the barrel of a gun?



So what.

Who owns MY money? Me or somebody else? Who owns MY property? Me or
somebody else? Who owns my labor? Me or somebody else? Who owns the
fruit of my labor? Me or somebody else?

Besides, a lot of churches are still around, having existed only on
charity for a very long time. Why? Because those donating see their
church as something worth supporting. Likewise the following.

I see your single, unsupported assertion about "scientific tests proving
charity must be must be coerced", and raise you TWO citations proving
otherwise, with a third citation of how many charities exist.

        The American Red Cross is not a governmental agency and
        receives no government funding. Programs and services
        to the community are funded by public donations,
        grants, foundations, and the Southwest Illinois Division
        of the United Way of Greater St. Louis.
http://swillinois.redcross.org/

        To ensure its independence, Amnesty International does
        not seek or accept money from governments or political
        parties for its work in documenting and campaigning
        against human rights abuses. Instead, Amnesty
        International's funding depends on the contributions of
        its worldwide membership and on donations from the
        public.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us/about-amnesty-international/page.do?id 01189

        Of the over five-hundred charities currently rated by
        AIP, only a select number qualify for our listing of
        Top-Rated charities based on our rigorous analysis.
http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html




In the example you use, a married couple, the compromise is voluntary.
Agreement to the rules is voluntary. One spouse does NOT have the right
to order the other spouse to follow the rules.


The logic does NOT change just because the group is bigger. Nobody in
the group has the right to order anybody else to follow rules. Therefore
nobody can give the group the collective right to order anybody else to
follow the rules.

What gives you the right to make rules for me? What gives you the right
to order me to follow those rules? What gives you the right to say what
I can and can not do? You don't own me.

You can agree to obey any rules YOU want to. You can NOT make such an
agreement for me. You can NOT order me to follow the rules YOU agree to
follow. You don't own me.



A big society does not have to have a big rule book. The rules are the
same. Do unto others as you have done unto you.

We need to come to an understanding as to what 'government' and 'law'
are. I know your understandings like I know a six year old's
understanding of Santa Claus. I used to have the same "beliefs" in those
myths.

The six year old thinks that some guy in a red suit comes to his home
after he goes to sleep on December 24th. and leaves him toys. The six
year old doesn't understand the illogic of Santa's hyper speed travel in
a sled pulled by flying reindeer allowing him to personally visit
several hundred million kids, separated by thousands of miles, all in
one night. Never mind how Santa can be in all those stores everyday and
be at the North Pole making the toys he is going to deliver in his
aforementioned hyper speed reindeer sled. Like 'government' Santa is a
comfortable myth it's belief only lasting until critical, logical
thinking is applied to the myth.

I know your understanding of 'government' because I used to believe what
you believe.

Law, is a lawmaker's command (politician in the USA), backed by threat
of force, up to, and including, killing you for refusing to obey the
lawmaker's command.

Law and Enforcement of law are, by definition, extortion: Do what we
tell you to do or we will hurt you.



Why? Why does there have to be an exchange of MY dollars (or euros) in
return for a State thug to hurt me if I refuse to obey a politician's
command?

A bunch of politicians got together and made a rule that I have to
give     MY money up to pay for YOUR kid's schooling. I refuse to pay and a
bunch of State goons come to my home with guns, to forcibly take my
home, because I refuse to pay for YOUR kid's schooling. If I resist the
force of the State's goons attempting to STEAL my home, THEY will
escalate that force up to, and including, killing me. THAT'S your "rule
of law".

'Government' IS the criminal that escalates the crime EVERY time its
victims choose to resist the extortion.

Somalia doesn't understand: Do unto others as you want done unto you.



Hey, if I'm ignorant, I'm ignorant. The way to get un-ignorant is to
request information. I wanted to be sure it was the same in your part of
the world. Thanks for confirming.



You are not what? You are not giving legislators the right to do
something you do not have a right to do? I'll assume that is what you meant.

Recap defrag:
I asked:
        Where does the local (or any other) authority get that
        authority to tax in the first place?

You answered:
        From your vote.

I replied:
        You fail to show the mechanism whereby you link from
        somebody's vote to another entity's authority to tax.

I provided a map of said mechanism which you confirmed is valid in the
UK as well [edited for clarity]:

        a. Tax (the noun) is property taken by taxation.
        b. Taxation (the verb) is the taking of property.
        c. The "authority" to take property (taxation) is
        delegated to the tax takers, "by law".
        d. "Laws" can be said to have "authority" when the
        persons making the laws have "authority" to make said
        laws.
        e. Said law makers are called "legislators".
        f. Said legislators are chosen "by vote".

I also asked:
        How does voting for legislators give them the right to
        do something you and I do not have the right to do?

To which you replied:
        You are not [giving legislators the right to do
        something you do not have a right to do]

Which brings us to the next question.

Do you personally have the right to tax anybody else?

Almost as if prescient, you attempt to run off elsewhere with the following:



No, it's not. When one does shopping, one gets to choose who will
provide the goods and services received in the exchange. One gets to
reject the service if the cost is too high. One gets to choose whether
to make the exchange or not make the exchange.



You have a right to refuse the service if you don't like the price. You
have the right to choose a different taxi. You have the right to choose
a different mode of transport. You have the right to choose who you will
exchange money for services with.


'Government' expects payment even if you have refused the service.
'Government' expects payment even when you have used a different
provider. 'Government' expects payment even if you have chosen a
different mode of service from a different provider.


Then I assume I can look forward to you dropping out of the discussion?

Of course, if I was 'government' you couldn't drop out of the
discussion, and I would expect your payment for my 'government' services
in regard to this discussion regardless of whether it serves you or not.



<sarcasm>
Well imagine that.
</sarcasm>

Getting ahead of myself so as to not cut your next sentence in half,
yes, I am VERY aware of the subtleties of meanings, and it was with such
a subtlety in mind that I DELIBERATELY chose the word "taking".

And you are correct, it is not strictly wrong; Extortion is much more exact.

1. Taxation is the EXTORTION of property.

Give us the property we demand with this tax law or we will hurt you.


Of course you would. It hides the true nature of what taxation is.

Taxation is the taking of property against the property owner's will,
under threat of violence, up to, and including, killing the property
owner if said owner resists the State's extortion.



Correct. Ironically we do not agree as to what it actually is and we do
not agree as to what it should be.



Translation:

Try to concentrate my effort on things like improving the honesty of a
group of politicians who lied to get elected, who use law to steal, and
who order their thugs to murder if you resist their extortion.



Non sequitur. Whether my fellow citizens are more or less free than they
recognize has nothing to do with the fact that taxation is the taking of
property.

Correct or not, I see your statement implying that it's different in the
UK. Thus the clarifying question: Are you implying that the UK state
won't forcibly take your real property for back taxes?

Wait! The Beatles came from the UK didn't they? Gotta love their song:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Taxman-lyrics-The-Beatles/5CDCCB0FEE68ED6E48256BC20013CFDA



You totally ignored what I have attributed to you.

Doing a recap to defrag:

You said:
        Your first 2 points are wrong [...]

I said:
        My point:
        1. Taxation is the taking of property.

        Your unsupported assertion:
        Taxation is NOT the taking of property.

I followed with an example of what happens when property taxes are not
paid in the US PROVING that "taxation is the taking of property".

You have ignored and not bothered to clarify the contradiction. You have
asserted that taxation is NOT the taking of property, I have proven
otherwise, and you call it a "misunderstanding"?

The actual practice comes from the fundamental principles. The
fundamental principles is that the State demands property. The demand is
called taxation. If you don't do what the State demands, the State will
use violence to get what it wants.

Again, you are attempting to distract focus from the means by
highlighting the ends.



My point #3 is a compound sentence and contains multiple sub-points. I
will break it down to confirm your contrary assertion on each sub-point.

By disagreeing with my statement #3:

3a. You are asserting that you have the right to take my property just
because you want it;
3b. You are asserting that you have the right to take my property
because you will use it for the benefit of society.

Therefore, you have asserted that you don't care about MY property
rights. Neither does a carjacker, a bank robber, a convenience store
robber, a burglar, a pirate, an embezzler, a swindler, a thief, etcetera
ad nauseam.

You have chosen to emulate the characteristics of an unsavory group of
people.



You rely upon several unquestioned assumptions to support your otherwise
unsupported assertion.

Because of your vagueness caused by you not finishing an answer, point g
uses the best I could make of your intent. So, here it is again, from
the top, and expanded to include the next points.

a. Tax (the noun) is property taken by taxation.
b. Taxation (the verb) is the taking of property.
c. The "authority" to take property (taxation) is
delegated to the tax takers, "by law".
d. "Laws" can be said to have "authority" when the
persons making the laws have "authority" to make said
laws.
e. Said law makers are called "legislators".
f. Said legislators are chosen "by vote".
g. "You are not" giving legislators rights to do things
you don't have a right to do by voting for them.
h. A law is a command telling me what to do.
i. You don't have the right (authority) to command me.
j. You can't give the right (authority) to command me
to the legislators because you don't have that right.
k. If you do not have the right (authority) to command
me personally, then the legislators do not have the
right (authority) to command me personally either.
l. Therefore, "you are not" giving legislators the
right (authority) to do things by voting for them.

Did the legislators get the right (authority) to command me by magic?

I don't think so.

You appear to think that way though. You have basically asserted that by
doing the cult ritual of "voting" you magically create and give
"authority" to the legislators. "Authority" that you don't have in the
first place so you don't have it to give to the legislators.



 > Governments have the authority to exchange your money for services
 > because you have voted them in to decide what services they will
 > provide.

Recapping the above to make it shorter:

The legislators don't personally have authority.
You don't personally have authority
You can't give authority to legislators that you don't have.
You admit you don't give legislators the right (authority) do do
something you or I don't have the right (authority) to do by voting for
them.

And then you contradict yourself by saying it's the voting that gives
'governments' i.e. the legislators, the authority (right to do
something) "because you have voted them in".

No, I didn't vote them in. By voting, I would be agreeing that the
politician has the right to command me. He doesn't.


No, we don't agree as you have set the scene. It's not an exchange. It's
extortion. Give the State your money or the State will do bad things to you.



Well... I suppose I could accept extortion as a form of dishonesty.



Agreed with a modifier.


And if I'm protecting my property from State goons who are attempting to
steal it from me and I chose to resist their attempts, do I have a right
to kill them in self defense?


        just adj. 1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and
        actions. See Synonyms at fair. 2. Consistent with what
        is morally right; righteous: a just cause. 3. Properly
        due or merited.

Justly acquired, Property (money) earned by exchanging a fair day's
labor for a fair day's pay. Property (tangible goods) acquired by a fair
exchange of other property (money or other property). Both parties to
the exchange there by mutual consent, not "coerced".

Two minutes.



There are 365 days in a year. How many days of extreme emergencies of
the type you refer to have you experienced in the last 730 days?



That part of you I would order into the fields to pick cotton. That part
of me that you would order I believe as you do about taxation.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread