Getting rid of Mormon books and other various books

[twopekinguys]

As it happens, Mormons tend to be better educated than any other religious group except Jews. Catholics…getting better but percentage wise? Not so much.

Source please.

I hope you are not referring to this quote from lightplanet.

“EDUCATION. Eighteen percent of LDS women and 22 percent of LDS men in the NORC survey have graduated from college. This is significantly higher than the comparable percentages among Protestants and Catholics, but lower than among Jews and those with no religious affiliation. Fourteen percent of LDS men and 8 percent of LDS women have received graduate education. Jews and those with no religion have higher percentages, while Catholics and Protestants have lower percentages.”

There is so much wrong with this sites data that I don’t even know where to begin, but, first and foremost is is a very pro-mormon site, and hardly unbiased. Second, their sample size each year is 1500 people. (when I posted this, the census “population clock” was at ,318,644,647) Hardly a representative sample.

See ["]here ](Mormon Statistics[/URL)and here.

 

[iepuras]

Of course it does not.

Nor did I claim that it did.

Then what did you mean when you said this in post #35? I understood it to mean dressing and behaving immodestly.

dianaiad:

After all, leaving one’s door wide open, the alarm off and the key in your car does not make the burglary that takes place your fault; that’s all on the burglar. However, I would prefer not to get burgled in the first place than to be able to righteously assign blame afterwords.

So yeah: I was taught not to send invitations that might be misinterpreted by men.

dianaiad:

But if a woman doesn’t put herself in a situation where rapists are likely to be…for instance, if a woman is careful about who she goes out with and where she goes on the first or second date, she is less likely to be a victim of a date rape drug. No opportunity.

It’s not her fault, either way, but which is better; to be able to assign responsibility for the rape to the rapist, or to not get raped in the first place?

While you are not assigning any moral culpability onto the rape victim, you made it clear in posts #35 and #57 that a rape victim bears a certain level of responsibility in not “leaving one’s door wide open, the alarm off and the key in your car”.

Your home burglary analogy doesn’t work nearly as well as you think it does. I have known quite a few people whose homes have been burgled. Guess what? They all locked the door and had the alarm on. The burglars didn’t care. They broke the window, entered and were gone before the police arrived. It didn’t really matter what they did to protect their homes, they were still burgled. Determined burglers don’t care how well protected the house is and neither do rapists. It is about power, not sex.

What about the Christian women in Iraq who have been captured by ISIS, raped and sold into sexual slavery. I guess they made the mistake of “leaving one’s door wide open, the alarm off and the key in your car”? Rape is about power, not sex.

Zaff’s daughters fully understood the misogyny of your posts. Frankly, it makes me sick.

dianaiad:

I’m am offended at this assertion by those here that Mormons teach women to be nothing but ‘wives and mothers,’

First, there’s nothing ‘nothing but’ about being a wife and a mother, any more than there is about being a good husband and father. These are THE most important roles any human being can fulfill.

Can you please provide a direct quote of the offending statements? I read through my and Zaff’s posts and couldn’t find where anyone said “nothing but” about being a wife and mother. In fact, I said the following in post #38:

iepuras:

Being a wife and mother is a noble calling.

It is a standard teaching in the LDS church, especially to the teenage girls, that the role of women is to be wives and mothers. That is their role and calling from Heavenly Father. There is no other eternal role or calling available to them. Even unmarried women are encouraged to be mothers in other ways. All women, whether married in this life or not, are promised in the temple that they will be wives and mothers in the celestial kingdom.

I have many Mormon friends who are still single women who are approaching the age when conceiving children becomes increasingly difficult. I cannot tell you how much pain and sorrow they feel about their situation. They feel a lot of pain and unworthiness. I did too when I spent all those years as a single woman in the LDS church. The promise of a husband and children in the celestial kingdom is pretty empty when one realizes that it will probably be as a plural wife. Not one of us ever saw being single as a “calling” in life, but rather a burden.

While I will agree that being a father and mother are important and noble callings, they are not the only ones that God has planned for everyone. Everyone is different and while God calls all to holiness, not everyone does it in the same way.

When you say that being a father and mother are “THE most important roles any human being can fulfill”, you insult and devalue the lives and contributions of all the faithful Catholic and Orthodox priests, nuns, monks and consecrated virgins over the centuries. So Pope St. John Paul II did not fulfill the most important role God had for him because he became a priest and ultimately the pope? What about all the great women saints who never married and had children? St. Joan of Arc, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese of Lisieux, Blessed Mother Teresa, etc. They didn’t fulfill their “most important role” because they never married and had children? Frankly, THAT is insulting.

 

[Bookcat]

Good things - one can find a good home for.

Bad things (error filled etc) can be commended to the flames so as not to lead anyone into the particular error etc. Some may be donated to Catholic Answers Apologists perhaps if they want them - for they will not harm them and need perhaps for research.

 

[iepuras]

I notice that Dianaiad has not explained why it is worse to take out anger on an object than on people.

Diana, do you think you can address this question since it is directly related to the topic of the thread? Thank you.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, do you think you can address this question since it is directly related to the topic of the thread? Thank you.

I did not say that it is worse to take anger out on things than on people. I resent this misrepresentation of what I did say.

However, burning things in effigy IS ‘taking anger out on people.’ After all, things don’t feel anything. Things do not get offended.

Consider for a moment the sheer outrage felt by most of the Christian world at 'the **** christ."

That was 'just a thing."

Consider your reaction to having protestors burn the US flag. The flag didn’t feel anything. The anger was at what the flag represented…and that was people.

Books are physically nothing but paper, mostly. Flammable. But when you burn books, you aren’t burning the paper, are you? You are expressing your disdain and hatred for the ideas printed upon that paper.

You are showing anger at people.

Indeed, most people would prefer being personally yelled at than to have the symbols of the things that are precious to them treated with that level of hatred and disrespect.

People have died and become martyrs to the Catholic faith protecting THINGS from being desecrated.

This is why I made it clear that it is the motive behind it that is important. If the motive is; I need a fire and this is the only thing handy; it’s paper, it’ll burn…that’s fine. It’s just paper. It burns.

However, if the motive is to express hatred for the ideas printed on that paper? Now you have a very different situation. Now you have hate–and it isn’t toward the ‘thing.’ It IS toward the people.

And folks who burn books for that reason are a whole lot closer to burning the people than is comfortable; burning books for that reason never assuages the hatred; it only raises the heat.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Or…do you all leave your doors open at night, leave your cars unlocked,and store your jewelry in a basket outside your front door?

Not the doors but the windows yes, never lock the car in the driveway, unless I’m hiding presents in it and, other than my wedding and engagement rings which I wear, I don’t have any jewelry worth stealing. The trouble with saying women should do this or should not do that is that it won’t keep women from getting raped and the list of things women shouldn’t do will just get longer. From listening to the new one could say women shouldn’t jog in parks or forest preserves, they can never go jogging alone. Every time a woman is raped the list of dos and don’ts just get longer.

 

[dianaiad]

Not the doors but the windows yes, never lock the car in the driveway, unless I’m hiding presents in it and, other than my wedding and engagement rings which I wear, I don’t have any jewelry worth stealing. The trouble with saying women should do this or should not do that is that it won’t keep women from getting raped and the list of things women shouldn’t do will just get longer. From listening to the new one could say women shouldn’t jog in parks or forest preserves, they can never go jogging alone. Every time a woman is raped the list of dos and don’ts just get longer.

That they do…and it is not the fault of the women that they do.

Just as it is never the fault of the child who gets blown up in a mine field. He SHOULD have the right to wander and play in that field, the way he used to, before the terrorists planted all those explosives. He is innocent. It absolutely should not be necessary to fence that field off and warn him not to go there.

But we still will teach that child to avoid playing in mine fields, because we’d rather have him safe and healthy than be able to point the finger at the ‘real’ bad guy.

As to the list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ for women…they really aren’t new. The same ‘rules’ (don’t go jogging alone along forest paths, for instance) apply to men, too. Or at least, if you do, go armed.

The point is, it doesn’t matter what women SHOULD be able to do. Women SHOULD be able to dress like Madame Godiva on her horse, dressed only in her hair…and be absolutely safe wherever she goes.

They aren’t, though. It’s not their fault, but they aren’t. It’s not their fault, nor are they ‘responsible,’ morally, for what happens to them.

Just like it’s not the fault of the child in the mine field–but we don’t let the kid play there anyway.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I did not say that it is worse to take anger out on things than on people. I resent this misrepresentation of what I did say.

However, burning things in effigy IS ‘taking anger out on people.’ After all, things don’t feel anything. Things do not get offended.

Consider for a moment the sheer outrage felt by most of the Christian world at 'the **** christ."

That was 'just a thing."

Consider your reaction to having protestors burn the US flag. The flag didn’t feel anything. The anger was at what the flag represented…and that was people.

Books are physically nothing but paper, mostly. Flammable. But when you burn books, you aren’t burning the paper, are you? You are expressing your disdain and hatred for the ideas printed upon that paper.

You are showing anger at people.

Indeed, most people would prefer being personally yelled at than to have the symbols of the things that are precious to them treated with that level of hatred and disrespect.

People have died and become martyrs to the Catholic faith protecting THINGS from being desecrated.

This is why I made it clear that it is the motive behind it that is important. If the motive is; I need a fire and this is the only thing handy; it’s paper, it’ll burn…that’s fine. It’s just paper. It burns.

However, if the motive is to express hatred for the ideas printed on that paper? Now you have a very different situation. Now you have hate–and it isn’t toward the ‘thing.’ It IS toward the people.

And folks who burn books for that reason are a whole lot closer to burning the people than is comfortable; burning books for that reason never assuages the hatred; it only raises the heat.

Ideas are not people and burning something that lays out ideas is not hate for people even if you hate the ideas and beliefs. Burning things that have disturbed you can be therapeutic for people, we have three official “project fires” during the school year. One in the late fall, one in the spring as soon as it’s nice enough (read dry) in our fire area and then one last one when school gets out. It started out my kids burning the projects and work that angered them the most, expanded to include their close friends and wound up being a popular event in their respective classes. The last one, this past June was an all day event with kids and their parents coming by for food and ritually burning what made them mad. One neighbor even tossed in a craft project that infuriated her, so sad such pretty fabric but for her it is not an unfinished project sitting around, she is done with it.

There are many reasons why someone one may want to burn books and such. They may believe they contain false and damaging teachings that they don’t want to pass on to others. They may feel it’s a way of burying the past or they may just want to express their negative feelings for what the books represent. People are always going to disagree and hate ideas outside their own, I would be very happy if the worst expression of this was burning things.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Books are physically nothing but paper, mostly. Flammable. But when you burn books, you aren’t burning the paper, are you? **You are expressing your disdain and hatred for the ideas printed upon that paper. **

**You are showing anger at people. **

One of these things is not like the other. So which is it? Does burning literature express hatred for the idea which the literature espouses or does it necessarily express hatred for the people who hold the literature in high esteem?

I’m like you, dianaiad, in that the idea of burning books leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I too wouldn’t do it with Mein Kampf let alone the scripture of another religion. Growing up in the West we’ve come to understand book burning as a desperate attempt to stifle the free exchange of ideas, which is of course something I’d assume we all abhor.

I think this discussion could use a little nuance though. I’m having trouble seeing how burning a book in and of itself means that the person burning it is showing contempt towards anyone. Of course the Devil will be in the details. Am I burning a Book of Mormon in the privacy of my backyard or am I doing so in the parking lot of the local LDS chapel on Sunday where there will be plenty of Mormons there to see my behavior? If I do the latter, then of course I’d be doing so in order to offend people, in which case I think you’d be pretty persuasive in stating that such was done in a spirit of animus. If I do the former, who exactly is the object of my disdain? Unnamed Mormons who don’t even know that a Book of Mormon is being burned?

 

[iepuras]

That they do…and it is not the fault of the women that they do.

Just as it is never the fault of the child who gets blown up in a mine field. He SHOULD have the right to wander and play in that field, the way he used to, before the terrorists planted all those explosives. He is innocent. It absolutely should not be necessary to fence that field off and warn him not to go there.

But we still will teach that child to avoid playing in mine fields, because we’d rather have him safe and healthy than be able to point the finger at the ‘real’ bad guy.

As to the list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ for women…they really aren’t new. The same ‘rules’ (don’t go jogging alone along forest paths, for instance) apply to men, too. Or at least, if you do, go armed.

The point is, it doesn’t matter what women SHOULD be able to do. Women SHOULD be able to dress like Madame Godiva on her horse, dressed only in her hair…and be absolutely safe wherever she goes.

They aren’t, though. It’s not their fault, but they aren’t. It’s not their fault, nor are they ‘responsible,’ morally, for what happens to them.

Just like it’s not the fault of the child in the mine field–but we don’t let the kid play there anyway.

You really should quit while you are behind. The misogyny in your posts is quite evident.

The problem with all of your do’s and don’ts to prevent sexual assault is that they will never eliminate it because rape is about power, not sex. Women can do everything “right” and still get raped. Women who wear burqas and are accompanied by male family members get raped. Babies get raped. Elderly women whose homes have been robbed get raped. Men in prison get raped. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power.

 

[iepuras]

One of these things is not like the other. So which is it? Does burning literature express hatred for the idea which the literature espouses or does it necessarily express hatred for the people who hold the literature in high esteem?

I’m like you, dianaiad, in that the idea of burning books leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I too wouldn’t do it with Mein Kampf let alone the scripture of another religion. Growing up in the West we’ve come to understand book burning as a desperate attempt to stifle the free exchange of ideas, which is of course something I’d assume we all abhor.

I think this discussion could use a little nuance though. I’m having trouble seeing how burning a book in and of itself means that the person burning it is showing contempt towards anyone. Of course the Devil will be in the details. Am I burning a Book of Mormon in the privacy of my backyard or am I doing so in the parking lot of the local LDS chapel on Sunday where there will be plenty of Mormons there to see my behavior? If I do the latter, then of course I’d be doing so in order to offend people, in which case I think you’d be pretty persuasive in stating that such was done in a spirit of animus. If I do the former, who exactly is the object of my disdain? Unnamed Mormons who don’t even know that a Book of Mormon is being burned?

Thank you for this Brandon. The nuance is very important. No one here has advocated the public mass burning of books. As a general rule, books should not be burned or banned. While I would never do it myself, I don’t have an issue with burning a book privately for a measure of closure or other personal reasons.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That they do…and it is not the fault of the women that they do.

Just as it is never the fault of the child who gets blown up in a mine field. He SHOULD have the right to wander and play in that field, the way he used to, before the terrorists planted all those explosives. He is innocent. It absolutely should not be necessary to fence that field off and warn him not to go there.

But we still will teach that child to avoid playing in mine fields, because we’d rather have him safe and healthy than be able to point the finger at the ‘real’ bad guy.

As to the list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ for women…they really aren’t new. The same ‘rules’ (don’t go jogging alone along forest paths, for instance) apply to men, too. Or at least, if you do, go armed.

The point is, it doesn’t matter what women SHOULD be able to do. Women SHOULD be able to dress like Madame Godiva on her horse, dressed only in her hair…and be absolutely safe wherever she goes.

They aren’t, though. It’s not their fault, but they aren’t. It’s not their fault, nor are they ‘responsible,’ morally, for what happens to them.

Just like it’s not the fault of the child in the mine field–but we don’t let the kid play there anyway.

Recently girls, one 14 and one 16 or 17 were raped at a park. It was a large open and well frequented park it happened in the early evening not even close to dusk. Should girls not play at parks now. Also a man broke into a home and raped a 4 year old in her bedroom, should girls not have their own rooms because well they’re all alone in there.

 

[dianaiad]

You really should quit while you are behind. The misogyny in your posts is quite evident.

The problem with all of your do’s and don’ts to prevent sexual assault is that they will never eliminate it because rape is about power, not sex. Women can do everything “right” and still get raped. Women who wear burqas and are accompanied by male family members get raped. Babies get raped. Elderly women whose homes have been robbed get raped. Men in prison get raped. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power.

You are quite right. It IS about power. And it is never the woman’s fault. However…

My grandmother had a saying: you can forgive a bulldozer for running you over, but you don’t have to stand in its way to do so.

So rape is about power. However, that doesn’t mean that women are helpless. It doesn’t mean that women should simply give up and leave themselves wide open to be victims. It means that smart women avoid doing the things, and going to places, that would put them IN the power of the rapist.

It’s not mysogyny. It’s simply good sense. A woman who only group dates isn’t nearly as likely to be ‘date raped’ than someone who goes out with every man who asks her.

It’s not misogyny. It’s just fact. It’s not blaming the dating woman.

It’s…the man who swims with aligators is a lot more likely to get eaten by one than the man who lives in the desert.

 

[iepuras]

You are quite right. It IS about power. And it is never the woman’s fault. However…

My grandmother had a saying: you can forgive a bulldozer for running you over, but you don’t have to stand in its way to do so.

So rape is about power. However, that doesn’t mean that women are helpless. It doesn’t mean that women should simply give up and leave themselves wide open to be victims. It means that smart women avoid doing the things, and going to places, that would put them IN the power of the rapist.

It’s not mysogyny. It’s simply good sense. A woman who only group dates isn’t nearly as likely to be ‘date raped’ than someone who goes out with every man who asks her.

It’s not misogyny. It’s just fact. It’s not blaming the dating woman.

It’s…the man who swims with aligators is a lot more likely to get eaten by one than the man who lives in the desert.

…who then dies from a rattlesnake bite.

Actually, your posts are mysogynistic. I just don’t think you can really see that.

So an elderly woman or small child in their own homes are putting themselves in the power of a rapist? Is the woman in a burqa accompanied by a male relative putting herself in the power of a rapist? Are teenagers in a busy park during daylight hours putting themselves in the power of a rapist?

I agree that everyone should pay attention to their surroundings and know some simple self-defense and even pack heat if they desire. However, that does not mean that if someone does not meet your standard, they are putting themselves in the power of a rapist. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what a victim does. If the rapist wants to rape, he or she will rape no matter what the victim does or does not do.

 

[twopekinguys]

This is a bump for Diania. I posted a request for your source shortly after you posted this, and haven’t received a reply.

Please provide a source for your statement.

As it happens, Mormons tend to be better educated than any other religious group except Jews. Catholics…getting better but percentage wise? Not so much.

Source please.

I hope you are not referring to this quote from lightplanet.

“EDUCATION. Eighteen percent of LDS women and 22 percent of LDS men in the NORC survey have graduated from college. This is significantly higher than the comparable percentages among Protestants and Catholics, but lower than among Jews and those with no religious affiliation. Fourteen percent of LDS men and 8 percent of LDS women have received graduate education. Jews and those with no religion have higher percentages, while Catholics and Protestants have lower percentages.”

There is so much wrong with this sites data that I don’t even know where to begin, but, first and foremost is is a very pro-mormon site, and hardly unbiased. Second, their sample size each year is 1500 people. (when I posted this, the census “population clock” was at ,318,644,647) Hardly a representative sample.

See ["]here ](Mormon Statistics[/URL)and here.

 

[dianaiad]

…who then dies from a rattlesnake bite.

Actually, your posts are mysogynistic. I just don’t think you can really see that.

So an elderly woman or small child in their own homes are putting themselves in the power of a rapist? Is the woman in a burqa accompanied by a male relative putting herself in the power of a rapist? Are teenagers in a busy park during daylight hours putting themselves in the power of a rapist?

No.

They are not. And in no way have I said that they were.

Having said that, however, a woman who goes bar hopping with a guy she just met IS putting herself in the power of a rapist, if the guy is one.

Women cannot avoid all risk, just as men cannot. However, just as nobody considers me a misogynist because I insist that my daughters wear seatbelts if they are in my car, (and I give the same instructions to my sons, btw…in terms of seat belts AND of social interactions) then it’s not being misogynistic to be realistic.

Realistically, the most common rapes are the following:

date rape…where sex is forced within a dating relationship.
Acquaintance rape…where the rapist is known to the victim.
Drug facilitated rape…where the use of drugs (like rohypnol) or alcohol is used to facilitate the rape. On college campuses, 90% of rapes are alcohol related.

WAAAAAAAY down the list, in frequency, are those rapes you are claiming that I ‘blame the victim’ for…old ladies and four year olds.

you are quite right; there isn’t a whole lot, short of utter paranoia, one can do to prevent a determined rapist from ‘getting’ someone from the above classes of victims.

However, for those rapes that make up the vast majority of rapes committed? You bet the woman can do something about that.

For Date rape–be chaste, be careful…group date and go to public places. Don’t go to his place, and don’t let him come to yours if you live alone. Be careful. Don’t give him the opportunity to get you in his power.

For Drug facilitated rapes: don’t drink. Don’t go to places where your date (or anybody else) can slip you a roofie. Be aware of your surroundings. Have a plan to get OUT if you are feeling ‘hinky.’

Do these things, and you are considerably less likely to BE raped. This is not misogyny. This is just hard, miserable, knowing that the bad guys ARE out there, fact.

As I have said several times: if I have a choice between being able to feel innocent about being raped, and being able to point the finger at my attacker, and not getting raped in the first place…I’ll go with the latter.

The former is a given; it’s always the fault of the rapist. That doesn’t mean that you have to show up and say 'HERE, LOOK AT ME, I"M EASY PICKINGS!"

I agree that everyone should pay attention to their surroundings and know some simple self-defense and even pack heat if they desire.

Well there you go. We agree.

However, that does not mean that if someone does not meet your standard, they are putting themselves in the power of a rapist. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what a victim does. If the rapist wants to rape, he or she will rape no matter what the victim does or does not do.

Now THAT is a defeatist attitude. With an outlook like that, why bother with the self defense moves or the gun? No matter what you do, evidently, the bad guy will rape you.

If you don’t go to the bar, the bad guy will come to you and force you to swallow the date rape drug? If you don’t get drunk at a frat party, the guys will break into your apartment and force you to drink the booze?

C’mon.

THAT is a misogynistic approach; the woman has no chance, no matter what?

(snort).

It’s never a woman’s fault if and when she is raped. However, that does NOT mean that she has to hang a sign around her neck saying 'look at me, I’m a victim!"

 

[Stephen168]

This is a bump for Diania. I posted a request for your source shortly after you posted this, and haven’t received a reply.

Please provide a source for your statement.

Mormons drop out of college at a higher rate than Catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

One of these things is not like the other. So which is it? Does burning literature express hatred for the idea which the literature espouses or does it necessarily express hatred for the people who hold the literature in high esteem?

I’m like you, dianaiad, in that the idea of burning books leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I too wouldn’t do it with Mein Kampf let alone the scripture of another religion. Growing up in the West we’ve come to understand book burning as a desperate attempt to stifle the free exchange of ideas, which is of course something I’d assume we all abhor.

I think this discussion could use a little nuance though. I’m having trouble seeing how burning a book in and of itself means that the person burning it is showing contempt towards anyone. Of course the Devil will be in the details. Am I burning a Book of Mormon in the privacy of my backyard or am I doing so in the parking lot of the local LDS chapel on Sunday where there will be plenty of Mormons there to see my behavior? If I do the latter, then of course I’d be doing so in order to offend people, in which case I think you’d be pretty persuasive in stating that such was done in a spirit of animus. If I do the former, who exactly is the object of my disdain? Unnamed Mormons who don’t even know that a Book of Mormon is being burned?

I believe that I was rather clear in my differentiation here: it’s all in the motive.

In some cases, burning is considered the respectful way to treat a symbol/book/item that is too old or damaged to serve its purpose.

In some cases, the purpose for the burning is the fire; nothing else around, you need heat, or light, or the ability to cook, and that’s what’s there.

In some cases, the motive is to express displeasure/hatred/disagreement with the ideas expressed within the book.

It is the latter that is problematic, and it doesn’t really matter WHERE it is done, the motive is the same; hatred for the ideas…and for the people who believed in, or originated, those ideas.

History has shown us that people who are willing to express their hatred through destroying THINGS are almost inevitably willing to take the next step and express their hatred against the people who hold those ideas.

In other words, people who burn their enemies in effigy are a lot more likely to burn their enemies than people who don’t.

Some ideas need burning…but they need burning with other words, not with flames.

 

[twopekinguys]

Diana,

Please see post number 72.

Are you going to provide a source for this statement, or are you just going to pretend that 2 requests for the information were not made?

If you make a definitive statement like that, you are to provide your source.

Please do so, or retract it.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,

Please see post number 72.

Are you going to provide a source for this statement, or are you just going to pretend that 2 requests for the information were not made?

If you make a definitive statement like that, you are to provide your source.

Please do so, or retract it.

Oh, sorry…I actually DID reply to it, with lots of sources, including Pew and a few other objective folks.

I thought it had been posted. It wasn’t.

Give me a bit and I’ll post a (truncated) version of it.