Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway
The Left is never wrong. Just aks them
Before you try to fit a round analogy in a square hole, you might read Steve Sestanovich's "Did the West Undo The East" from a 1993 special edition of The National Interest.
Or you can just keep throwing shit because you're a bitter ex-Dem. You're choice
Fucking Cal grads...I'm not sure which one is worse. Morons like HondoFS who at least don't claim intellectual superiority or true idiots that do.
You ought to go read it yourself...as some might say Sestanovich "concluded that Reagan’s policies were crucial factors in the disintegration of Soviet communism"
Keep rewriting history...
It's clear that you didn't read the piece, because even one of the architects of Reagan's second-term policy knew it was much more complicated than that.
Since he was my boss for a year, you can bet that we discussed it in person.
You mean the part in said article where he said such things as:
"As for the detente of the 1970s, its claim to have begun digging totalitarianism's grave is weak" (i.e. the previous point of policies like sending pallets of cash to places like Iran and nuclear reactors to NK is HondoFS...)
Getting to Reagan's policy, Sestanovich said: "Admittedly, the Soviet Union suffered no outright military defeat in the first half of the 1980s. Nevertheless, by the middle of the decade, the outlook on almost every front of the Soviet foreign policy was poor and clearly deteriorating. The list of failures needs very little elaboration: INF deployments in Europe and successive large increases in the US military budget; Afghanistan, Grenada, and the emergence of the "Reagan Doctrine," which put new pressure on Soviet clients in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; Moscow's exclusion from Middle East diplomacy, and the humiliation of Soviet-made weapons in the Lebanon war of 1982; the Solidarity challenge in Poland; robust Chinese economic growth against a background of continuing Sino-Soviet hostility. And all of this bad news before even mentioning the Strategic Defense Initiative, which threatened a new round of military competition and high-lighted Soviet technology inferiority. ... Mearly to recite this list of Soviet setbacks is to underscore the West's (aka Reagan's policies) role in discrediting the policy of Gorbachev's predecessors."
or, as Sestanovich summarized: "Soviet policy was particulary vulnerable because it had made a mess everywhere. This argument, if correct, implies that the unrelenting approach of the Reagan administration was probably more effective than a better balanced Western policy - beat up the Soviets here, conciliate them there-would have been."
He goes on to talk in detail about how Reagan's SDI program was particularly effective in screwing with your comrades, Reagan's calling for the wall to come down in 1987 causing all sorts of problems for the Soviets, etc. etc.
And, especially focusing on apparently you and some of you comrades here, he summarized by saying "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship...."
Hey, I'm glad you worked for him. I'm sure that year his garden looked the best it has in, what, an entire year.
And a special shout-out to CreepyCoug for couging in and buying BearsDontWiin's shite.
In other news, things sharper than BearsDontWiin:
Way to cherry pick from the first few pages that establish background but aren't the meat of the article. What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? I' m curious as to whether you read the whole fucking piece, because from your choice of quotes it sure as hell doesn't look like it.
Its not a novel...its a fucking 9 page article. I quoted directly from pages 2, 3, and 9, and summarized chunks of pages 4 and 5. Considering pages 6 and 7 were on the 1970s (with themes like Carter and Company's coddling of Russia "made it easier for the Soviet elite to preserve the system as it was" and "According to Brezhnev, detente promoted the consolidation of socialism, and he was right"...as if that somehow agrees with anything you are inferring).
Page 8 is more general themes with such damning indictments of Reagan's policies such as "The policy shifts of the 1980s - deep hostility followed by another detente - were equally hard on the Soviet System" and citations like "Paul Kennedy makes this point: "Russia has always enjoyed its greatest military advantage vis-a-vis the West when the pace of weapons technolgy has slowed down enough to allow a standardization of equipment and thus of fighting units and tactics...Whenever an upward spiral in weapons technology has placed an emphasis upon quality rather than quantity, however, the Russian advantage has diminished"
Yeah...you keep riding this horse into the ground...
Fucking moronic Cal grads...I'm starting to think Sestanovich's garden looked like shite that year you "worked for him" as well. You can't make this idiocy up...
Somehow @BearsWiin thinks this isn't "reading" the article...
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? If you can't answer, then you didn't fucking read the article.
These are simple quereys. They go to the main fucking poont of the article. I'm guessing that you read online snippets of what other people say about the article, and/or the first page or so from Jstor or NatInt, because they're easily available. But you for goddamn sure didn't read the article. Even you aren't that fucking stupid to miss the Simple. Basic. Important. Poont.
Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway
The Left is never wrong. Just aks them
Before you try to fit a round analogy in a square hole, you might read Steve Sestanovich's "Did the West Undo The East" from a 1993 special edition of The National Interest.
Or you can just keep throwing shit because you're a bitter ex-Dem. You're choice
Fucking Cal grads...I'm not sure which one is worse. Morons like HondoFS who at least don't claim intellectual superiority or true idiots that do.
You ought to go read it yourself...as some might say Sestanovich "concluded that Reagan’s policies were crucial factors in the disintegration of Soviet communism"
Keep rewriting history...
It's clear that you didn't read the piece, because even one of the architects of Reagan's second-term policy knew it was much more complicated than that.
Since he was my boss for a year, you can bet that we discussed it in person.
You mean the part in said article where he said such things as:
"As for the detente of the 1970s, its claim to have begun digging totalitarianism's grave is weak" (i.e. the previous point of policies like sending pallets of cash to places like Iran and nuclear reactors to NK is HondoFS...)
Getting to Reagan's policy, Sestanovich said: "Admittedly, the Soviet Union suffered no outright military defeat in the first half of the 1980s. Nevertheless, by the middle of the decade, the outlook on almost every front of the Soviet foreign policy was poor and clearly deteriorating. The list of failures needs very little elaboration: INF deployments in Europe and successive large increases in the US military budget; Afghanistan, Grenada, and the emergence of the "Reagan Doctrine," which put new pressure on Soviet clients in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; Moscow's exclusion from Middle East diplomacy, and the humiliation of Soviet-made weapons in the Lebanon war of 1982; the Solidarity challenge in Poland; robust Chinese economic growth against a background of continuing Sino-Soviet hostility. And all of this bad news before even mentioning the Strategic Defense Initiative, which threatened a new round of military competition and high-lighted Soviet technology inferiority. ... Mearly to recite this list of Soviet setbacks is to underscore the West's (aka Reagan's policies) role in discrediting the policy of Gorbachev's predecessors."
or, as Sestanovich summarized: "Soviet policy was particulary vulnerable because it had made a mess everywhere. This argument, if correct, implies that the unrelenting approach of the Reagan administration was probably more effective than a better balanced Western policy - beat up the Soviets here, conciliate them there-would have been."
He goes on to talk in detail about how Reagan's SDI program was particularly effective in screwing with your comrades, Reagan's calling for the wall to come down in 1987 causing all sorts of problems for the Soviets, etc. etc.
And, especially focusing on apparently you and some of you comrades here, he summarized by saying "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship...."
Hey, I'm glad you worked for him. I'm sure that year his garden looked the best it has in, what, an entire year.
And a special shout-out to CreepyCoug for couging in and buying BearsDontWiin's shite.
In other news, things sharper than BearsDontWiin:
Way to cherry pick from the first few pages that establish background but aren't the meat of the article. What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? I' m curious as to whether you read the whole fucking piece, because from your choice of quotes it sure as hell doesn't look like it.
Its not a novel...its a fucking 9 page article. I quoted directly from pages 2, 3, and 9, and summarized chunks of pages 4 and 5. Considering pages 6 and 7 were on the 1970s (with themes like Carter and Company's coddling of Russia "made it easier for the Soviet elite to preserve the system as it was" and "According to Brezhnev, detente promoted the consolidation of socialism, and he was right"...as if that somehow agrees with anything you are inferring).
Page 8 is more general themes with such damning indictments of Reagan's policies such as "The policy shifts of the 1980s - deep hostility followed by another detente - were equally hard on the Soviet System" and citations like "Paul Kennedy makes this point: "Russia has always enjoyed its greatest military advantage vis-a-vis the West when the pace of weapons technolgy has slowed down enough to allow a standardization of equipment and thus of fighting units and tactics...Whenever an upward spiral in weapons technology has placed an emphasis upon quality rather than quantity, however, the Russian advantage has diminished"
Yeah...you keep riding this horse into the ground...
Fucking moronic Cal grads...I'm starting to think Sestanovich's garden looked like shite that year you "worked for him" as well. You can't make this idiocy up...
Somehow @BearsWiin thinks this isn't "reading" the article...
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? If you can't answer, then you didn't fucking read the article.
These are simple quereys. They go to the main fucking poont of the article. I'm guessing that you read online snippets of what other people say about the article, and/or the first page or so from Jstor or NatInt, because they're easily available. But you for goddamn sure didn't read the article. Even you aren't that fucking stupid to miss the Simple. Basic. Important. Poont.
Or R U
First off, feel free to explain how anything relating to Gorby, who took over in 1985 after Reagan's policies had already run the Soviets into the ground is pertinent to the discussion? Gorby took over in 1985 because the Soviet economy was a disaster...he was chosen basically because of promises of reviving the Soviet economy. The military buildup of the early 1980s robbed and stagnated the Russian economy leaving it a complete mess.
Here is BearsFS passage that he is now hanging his hat on...which basically says the Western policies of the early 1980s ran the Soviets into the ground, and once there Reagan and company convinced Gorby to finish the job on the Soviet state himself (what was Reagan going to do...invade? You are a bright one BearsWiin...): The hard international environment of the early 1980s obliged the Soviet leadership to consider change (hmm....), but tough Western policies alone could not finish the job. Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, and other Western leaders who dealt with Gorbachev had only limited leverage over him. What they did, in effect, was hand him a gun and suggest that he do the honorable thing. As is often true of such situations, the victim-to-be is more likely to accept the advice if it is offered in the gentlest possible way and if he concludes that his friends, family, and colleagues will in the end think better of him for going through with it. For Soviet communism, the international environment of the late 1980s was a relaxed setting in which, after much anguished reflection, to turn the gun on itself.
The subsequent few paragraphs actually make some pretty good points (not for BearsDontWiin's position) about how the 1970s detente of Carter allowed the Soviet communist system to survive much longer than it should have, and if Reagan's policies weren't present in the early 1980s the Soviets might have been able able have "gradual economic and social adjustments to the modern world, without political revolution"
Bravo BearsWiin...you are making HondoFS look like a brighter light bulb today relatively speaking. Oh yeah...never read the article either.
Hope the gardening business is treating you better...
A HondoFS-worthy response...still comical you got caught in a complete lie and still can't admit it.
Where did I lie? Originally I was making the poont that things were more complex than "Reagan won the Cold War." Sestanovich's article supports that contention. And he should know, he was there.
Why did it take you so fucking long to answer those simple questions? Because you finally just read the fucking article. Look, if you want to show up at Kip's 10/27 we can have a nice discussion about the challenges that Ogarkov, Akhromayev, or Ligachev made to the system (and how each of them eventually failed), ponder the hypothetical of a Romanov chairmanship (or even healthy Andropov kidneys), and chew the fat about how Gorbachev's subsequent attempts to expand the selectorate in order to gain influence over his rivals so that he could move from neo-Andropovian uskoreniye to perestroika blew up in his face and paved the way for nationalists at the republic level to unravel the USSR from within (Roeder's House of Cards meets Downsian competitive politics). A lot of those insights came after Steve's article, not that he would have talked about them anyway because his particular article was tasked with international relations, not internal politics. It'll be a hoot. But do some homework first, so you can keep up.
And what's with the gardening references? Am I supposed to be insulted? Baffling.
A HondoFS-worthy response...still comical you got caught in a complete lie and still can't admit it.
Where did I lie? Originally I was making the poont that things were more complex than "Reagan won the Cold War." Sestanovich's article supports that contention. And he should know, he was there.
Why did it take you so fucking long to answer those simple questions? Because you finally just read the fucking article. Look, if you want to show up at Kip's 10/27 we can have a nice discussion about the challenges that Ogarkov, Akhromayev, or Ligachev made to the system (and how each of them eventually failed), ponder the hypothetical of a Romanov chairmanship (or even healthy Andropov kidneys), and chew the fat about how Gorbachev's subsequent attempts to expand the selectorate in order to gain influence over his rivals so that he could move from neo-Andropovian uskoreniye to perestroika blew up in his face and paved the way for nationalists at the republic level to unravel the USSR from within (Roeder's House of Cards meets Downsian competitive politics). A lot of those insights came after Steve's article, not that he would have talked about them anyway because his particular article was tasked with international relations, not internal politics. It'll be a hoot. But do some homework first, so you can keep up.
And what's with the gardening references? Am I supposed to be insulted? Baffling.
Nice untrue (big surprise for you...) deflection...I quoted extensively from the article 6 month ago. You just seem to enjoy lying to deflect from your own mental limitations.
You got caught saying the opposite about an article that specifically says the previous policies of the 1970s propped up the Soviets, Reagan's policies were key in shoving the Soviets to a point of being unsustainable, and (as I said 6 months ago) the article says "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship....". The article says the exact opposite of what you inferred when you brought it up thinking nobody would check you.
You can think/argue whatever you want...just don't lie about some obscure article saying it proves you are right and everyone else is wrong when the article itself completely contradicts you.
And is Kip's the pseudointellectual hotspot version of 7/11 on Aurora Blvd now?
A HondoFS-worthy response...still comical you got caught in a complete lie and still can't admit it.
Where did I lie? Originally I was making the poont that things were more complex than "Reagan won the Cold War." Sestanovich's article supports that contention. And he should know, he was there.
Why did it take you so fucking long to answer those simple questions? Because you finally just read the fucking article. Look, if you want to show up at Kip's 10/27 we can have a nice discussion about the challenges that Ogarkov, Akhromayev, or Ligachev made to the system (and how each of them eventually failed), ponder the hypothetical of a Romanov chairmanship (or even healthy Andropov kidneys), and chew the fat about how Gorbachev's subsequent attempts to expand the selectorate in order to gain influence over his rivals so that he could move from neo-Andropovian uskoreniye to perestroika blew up in his face and paved the way for nationalists at the republic level to unravel the USSR from within (Roeder's House of Cards meets Downsian competitive politics). A lot of those insights came after Steve's article, not that he would have talked about them anyway because his particular article was tasked with international relations, not internal politics. It'll be a hoot. But do some homework first, so you can keep up.
And what's with the gardening references? Am I supposed to be insulted? Baffling.
Nice untrue (big surprise for you...) deflection...I quoted extensively from the article 6 month ago. You just seem to enjoy lying to deflect from your own mental limitations.
You got caught saying the opposite about an article that specifically says the previous policies of the 1970s propped up the Soviets, Reagan's policies were key in shoving the Soviets to a point of being unsustainable, and (as I said 6 months ago) the article says "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship....". The article says the exact opposite of what you inferred when you brought it up thinking nobody would check you.
You can think/argue whatever you want...just don't lie about some obscure article saying it proves you are right and everyone else is wrong when the article itself completely contradicts you.
And is Kip's the pseudointellectual hotspot version of 7/11 on Aurora Blvd now?
God what a fucking moron...
Where did I say the opposite? Feel free to quote me. You can't, because I didn't.
I also see that you're inserting your words into Sestanovich's text. Steve always chooses his words carefully, and he'd never say what you said because he understands that Western influence (many countries/organizations over a long period of time) and Reagan's policies (US policies during one 8-year span) were not the same thing. Words matter.
I also invite you to read, with comprehension this time, the previous paragraph, where Steve writes:
Kennan was annoyed that the issue had become so entangled in partisan politics. (His title was, "The GOP Won the Cold War? Ridiculous.") There is no doubt that exaggerating Western influence has its costs. It obscures the internal forces that powered the anticommunist revolution and makes the future of Russian democracy look more precarious than it really is. Claiming too much for Reagan also infuriates Gorbachevites and leads them to distort their own version of the story, making it harder for anyone to learn the truth.
His next paragraph:
Yet even as we reproach those who exaggerate Western influence for partisan reasons, it should be said that many who understate it are also moved by partisanship and obscure the most important lessons to be learned from the story. Communism was ready for burial, but the lessons of our struggle with it should be kept alive. We need to know - because this is what the record shows - that we can in fact influence the internal affairs of rival states, even large and seemingly secure ones.
Sestanovich is making the argument that Reagan played an important part and deserves a fair amount of credit, but also that it was a hell of a lot more complicated than just saying that "Reagan won the Cold War." And he would absolutely decry the crude tiresome partisanship on this bored, which originally moved me to refer to his more nuanced and sophisticated work.
The entire point of said article is that Reagan's policies were significantly different than the previous policies of the 1970s, and those policies destabilized the Soviets (trashing their economy, undoing their foreign policy, etc). The article in no way, shape, or form says that at 1980 the Commies were ready to collapse...in fact it says much the opposite. Funny how you left out the next 2 sentences... "East-West relations in the 1970s and 1980s also underscore the differences between a detente that realizes the other side's goals and one that realizes ours. Finally, we should see that the differences between incremental and radical improvement can sometimes be made by "overdoing it" - by getting separate elements of policy to reinforce each other, not cancel each other out." All hallmarks of what Reagan did. It tries to be nice and say others deserve credit too (after all, the author was a Moynihan guy hence BearsDontWiin's hardon for him), but in doing so it in no way minimizes Reagan's impact.
You can say a lot of things about the paper, but saying it is a counterpoint to the comment "They said the same thing about Reagan. Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. The Left is never wrong. Just ask them" is just lying, and you got caught.
The entire point of said article is that Reagan's policies were significantly different than the previous policies of the 1970s, and those policies destabilized the Soviets (trashing their economy, undoing their foreign policy, etc). The article in no way, shape, or form says that at 1980 the Commies were ready to collapse...in fact it says much the opposite. Funny how you left out the next 2 sentences... "East-West relations in the 1970s and 1980s also underscore the differences between a detente that realizes the other side's goals and one that realizes ours. Finally, we should see that the differences between incremental and radical improvement can sometimes be made by "overdoing it" - by getting separate elements of policy to reinforce each other, not cancel each other out." All hallmarks of what Reagan did. It tries to be nice and say others deserve credit too (after all, the author was a Moynihan guy hence BearsDontWiin's hardon for him), but in doing so it in no way minimizes Reagan's impact.
You can say a lot of things about the paper, but saying it is a counterpoint to the comment "They said the same thing about Reagan. Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. The Left is never wrong. Just ask them" is just lying, and you got caught.
Ladies, ladies. Creep has left the building. This one is now beaten and dead. I'm sorry, but I have to score it in favor of Houston. The Bear will live to fight another day.
Comments
These are simple quereys. They go to the main fucking poont of the article. I'm guessing that you read online snippets of what other people say about the article, and/or the first page or so from Jstor or NatInt, because they're easily available. But you for goddamn sure didn't read the article. Even you aren't that fucking stupid to miss the Simple. Basic. Important. Poont.
Or R U
Here is BearsFS passage that he is now hanging his hat on...which basically says the Western policies of the early 1980s ran the Soviets into the ground, and once there Reagan and company convinced Gorby to finish the job on the Soviet state himself (what was Reagan going to do...invade? You are a bright one BearsWiin...):
The hard international environment of the early 1980s obliged the Soviet leadership to consider change (hmm....), but tough Western policies alone could not finish the job. Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, and other Western leaders who dealt with Gorbachev had only limited leverage over him. What they did, in effect, was hand him a gun and suggest that he do the honorable thing. As is often true of such situations, the victim-to-be is more likely to accept the advice if it is offered in the gentlest possible way and if he concludes that his friends, family, and colleagues will in the end think better of him for going through with it. For Soviet communism, the international environment of the late 1980s was a relaxed setting in which, after much anguished reflection, to turn the gun on itself.
The subsequent few paragraphs actually make some pretty good points (not for BearsDontWiin's position) about how the 1970s detente of Carter allowed the Soviet communist system to survive much longer than it should have, and if Reagan's policies weren't present in the early 1980s the Soviets might have been able able have "gradual economic and social adjustments to the modern world, without political revolution"
Bravo BearsWiin...you are making HondoFS look like a brighter light bulb today relatively speaking. Oh yeah...never read the article either.
Hope the gardening business is treating you better...
Only took you six months
Why did it take you so fucking long to answer those simple questions? Because you finally just read the fucking article. Look, if you want to show up at Kip's 10/27 we can have a nice discussion about the challenges that Ogarkov, Akhromayev, or Ligachev made to the system (and how each of them eventually failed), ponder the hypothetical of a Romanov chairmanship (or even healthy Andropov kidneys), and chew the fat about how Gorbachev's subsequent attempts to expand the selectorate in order to gain influence over his rivals so that he could move from neo-Andropovian uskoreniye to perestroika blew up in his face and paved the way for nationalists at the republic level to unravel the USSR from within (Roeder's House of Cards meets Downsian competitive politics). A lot of those insights came after Steve's article, not that he would have talked about them anyway because his particular article was tasked with international relations, not internal politics. It'll be a hoot. But do some homework first, so you can keep up.
And what's with the gardening references? Am I supposed to be insulted? Baffling.
You got caught saying the opposite about an article that specifically says the previous policies of the 1970s propped up the Soviets, Reagan's policies were key in shoving the Soviets to a point of being unsustainable, and (as I said 6 months ago) the article says "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship....". The article says the exact opposite of what you inferred when you brought it up thinking nobody would check you.
You can think/argue whatever you want...just don't lie about some obscure article saying it proves you are right and everyone else is wrong when the article itself completely contradicts you.
And is Kip's the pseudointellectual hotspot version of 7/11 on Aurora Blvd now?
God what a fucking moron...
Get the fuck outta here.
I also see that you're inserting your words into Sestanovich's text. Steve always chooses his words carefully, and he'd never say what you said because he understands that Western influence (many countries/organizations over a long period of time) and Reagan's policies (US policies during one 8-year span) were not the same thing. Words matter.
I also invite you to read, with comprehension this time, the previous paragraph, where Steve writes:
Kennan was annoyed that the issue had become so entangled in partisan politics. (His title was, "The GOP Won the Cold War? Ridiculous.") There is no doubt that exaggerating Western influence has its costs. It obscures the internal forces that powered the anticommunist revolution and makes the future of Russian democracy look more precarious than it really is. Claiming too much for Reagan also infuriates Gorbachevites and leads them to distort their own version of the story, making it harder for anyone to learn the truth.
His next paragraph:
Yet even as we reproach those who exaggerate Western influence for partisan reasons, it should be said that many who understate it are also moved by partisanship and obscure the most important lessons to be learned from the story. Communism was ready for burial, but the lessons of our struggle with it should be kept alive. We need to know - because this is what the record shows - that we can in fact influence the internal affairs of rival states, even large and seemingly secure ones.
Sestanovich is making the argument that Reagan played an important part and deserves a fair amount of credit, but also that it was a hell of a lot more complicated than just saying that "Reagan won the Cold War." And he would absolutely decry the crude tiresome partisanship on this bored, which originally moved me to refer to his more nuanced and sophisticated work.
"East-West relations in the 1970s and 1980s also underscore the differences between a detente that realizes the other side's goals and one that realizes ours. Finally, we should see that the differences between incremental and radical improvement can sometimes be made by "overdoing it" - by getting separate elements of policy to reinforce each other, not cancel each other out."
All hallmarks of what Reagan did. It tries to be nice and say others deserve credit too (after all, the author was a Moynihan guy hence BearsDontWiin's hardon for him), but in doing so it in no way minimizes Reagan's impact.
You can say a lot of things about the paper, but saying it is a counterpoint to the comment "They said the same thing about Reagan. Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. The Left is never wrong. Just ask them" is just lying, and you got caught.
Here are 2 places to read it for anyone how wants to go drink Zima's with BearsWiin at Kips on 10/27 and pontificate on the virtues of Gorby (you have to set up login if you don't have access to them...):
http://www.oxfordfirstsource.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199794188.013.0194/acref-9780199794188-e-194
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42894854?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
And I'm good with this thread dying (again)...hopefully BearWiin won't go start lying (again) to haul it out of its grave...
And Sark is better than Ty
So the Creep has written it. So it shall be.