Vatican: But seriously, atheists still get tortured forever »« More on the Merry Christmas bill

Comments

  1. says

    Matt quoted me!!! (the response to “where you there?” although surely someone had said it before me, I posted it on Beth’s facebook wall a few weeks ago) Yes, I’m a big dork.

    • Lord Narf says

      Well, they pushed it through moderation, so you’re probably fine. The most tactful way to do it is to find a blog post somewhere on here that relates in some way to a blog post that you’ve made. Then, introduce your post in relation to the discussion on here. Try to get others talking about what you had to say, on the blog.

      For example, I won’t be checking out your blog, because it’s just another random atheist blog that I don’t know will have anything dealing with any subjects I’m interested in. You have to give us a reason to care.

  2. changerofbits says

    I’m still waiting for a good pic of Matt in the pink beard. The red tint it has in the video I’m sure invokes a wide range of involuntary physiological responses in all those Christians who are more susceptible to woo.

        • Lord Narf says

          Yeah, the blog usually turns it into an imbedded video, but perhaps the HTTPS prevented that. Let’s try that again.

          • Lord Narf says

            It sounds like there’s a great deal wrong with his ability to formulate arguments. Admittedly, he never got his entire argument out, but I don’t think it would have helped. I’m sure it’s one of those masturbatory arguments where we have to sift through and figure out where he hid the divide-by-zero.

            The whole bit about the parts of the brain having different opinions seems similar to when theists try to use free will to explain away the problem of evil, without explaining why it would justify a damned thing. It’s introducing irrelevant elements in a mass of obfuscative hand-waving to try to hide your assertions.

            Personally, I’m a fan of introducing prophesy, whenever someone tries to stick free will into an argument.

          • says

            Yikes. Thanks for posting. If I understand his argument (and I’m not sure I do or if anyone can because it’s mostly nonsense) he’s trying to demonstrate that everyone can have their own “truth”. I reject that. yes, we all have our own personal experiences and that’s a kind of truth (useful for actors, novelists, etc.) but not applicable to the kind of objective truth in which we explain reality. It’s a messy way of thinking that is encouraged by our pop culture and all the new age and woo bullshit in which people, even otherwise intelligent people, indulge these days.

          • Felipe says

            Is there an official channel or playlist for these after-show calls? They’re often entertaining.

          • Lord Narf says

            Not that I’m aware of. Your best bet is to do an episode-number keyword search on YouTube or check UStream.

      • jacobfromlost says

        The after show caller made terrible arguments (and thus I am ignoring them all), but I still think he is correct. People can and do believe mutually exclusive claims, concepts, ideas, etc. They do all the time.

        Consider: is it possible to believe illogical things? Is it possible to believe impossible things? Is it possible to believe self-contradictory things?

        The answer to all of those seems to be yes. (I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.)

        So…how would believing both that a god does and doesn’t exist fall outside of illogical, impossible, and self-contradictory? It is all of those things, and yet it seems to me it is indeed possible to believe illogical, impossible, and self-contradictory claims, ideas, emotions, etc.

        I think the question I would ask in regard to this is, “Why would it be IMPOSSIBLE to believe two mutually exclusive propositions?” What makes it impossible?

        I might say it is impossible RATIONALLY to believe two mutually exclusive propositions, but I really don’t see why it is impossible to simply (irrationally) BELIEVE them mentally. There are all kinds of beliefs in religion, in mysticism, etc, that include beliefs in direct contradictions–and the direct contradictions seem to be the very point of the belief, the “single concept”.

        When Matt has previously said that for one of the propositions you are only SAYING you believe it, I think he is implying that beliefs have to in some way be practical or demonstrated by acting directly on them. I wouldn’t say that is a requirement for holding something to be true in your mind, and if holding something to be true in your mind doesn’t equate to “belief”, I’m not sure what we are talking about. If we are reducing “belief” to rationally, demonstrably true belief…then I think that is better defined as “knowledge”, and I would agree that any knowledge worth the name can’t be self-contradictory. But beliefs aren’t knowledge.

        I sympathize with Matt as I don’t think Matt wants to believe such a mental state is possible–because I don’t really want to believe that either (it is very distasteful if one values demonstrable truth and, generally, sanity). But when a previous caller made this very same claim, it seemed that Matt finally asked in frustration, “How can you do that? How can you possibly do that?”

        To me, that sounds very much like the argument from ignorance fallacy–ie, “I can’t imagine how someone could possibly believe two mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously, therefore they cannot.”

        I know there are extensive areas of psychology devoted to this kind of thing, including cognitive dissonance. It would seem that there would have to be polygraph data, or fMRI data, or others, that would indicate if a single individual with a normal brain could indeed believe two mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously…and not suffer from some obvious mental illness. I’ll see if I can find some data and welcome others to do the same.

        In short, it seems to me that if it is NOT possible to believe two mutually exclusive propositions, why is it possible to believe anything that is false? Why do self-contradictory beliefs get a special section of “impossible for anyone to believe”, while beliefs that simply contradict demonstrable reality are possible because…? I’m still unclear on that.

        • Lord Narf says

          The after show caller made terrible arguments (and thus I am ignoring them all), but I still think he is correct. People can and do believe mutually exclusive claims, concepts, ideas, etc. They do all the time.

          They believe mutually exclusive claims, sure, because they haven’t thought through their beliefs and discovered the contradictions.

          But they don’t hold contradictory positions about the same claim. That’s what the caller was asserting, and he’s wrong. He was basically asserting the invalidity of the law of non-contradiction, only he somehow didn’t see it.

        • says

          I sympathize with Matt as I don’t think Matt wants to believe such a mental state is possible–

          I think you may have missed the point of the argument.

          It’s one thing to believe A and B, which happen to be contradictory. The caller was trying to equate this to believing A is true at the same time as believing A is false.

          He was trying to do this with a composition fallacy, by saying that two separate “parts” of the brain believing different things about A.

          • Lord Narf says

            Also, it’s not that Matt wants to believe that such a mental state is impossible. There are all sorts of things that a malfunctioning brain can do, and I’m sure that Matt knows it. The problem arose when the caller insisted that it’s perfectly normal for a brain to do that.

          • jacobfromlost says

            Lord Narf: The problem arose when the caller insisted that it’s perfectly normal for a brain to do that.

            Me: Actually, all people experience cognitive dissonance. Even Christopher Hitchens thought it was simply a necessary part of getting through life. I know others will say cognitive dissonance isn’t a direct contradiction, but many times it actually is. Irrationality is something we all have to guard against all the time. I don’t think asserting a certain kind of irrationality makes that certain kind impossible, it just makes us feel better.

          • Lord Narf says

            Actually, all people experience cognitive dissonance.

            There’s cognitive dissonance, and then there’s multiple personality disorder. I’m speaking about the latter, because that’s what the caller was describing.

            And again, we’re not talking about simple contradictions. We’re talking about the ability to hold opposite beliefs about the exact same claim. That’s not a simple contradiction, and it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

        • says

          Awesome – the site ate my post. Trying again.

          Instead of a brain, let’s say we’re talking about a senate – one who has just voted on a bill. 51 out of 100 voted to pass the bill. We would say that the senate as a whole passed the bill.

          Individual members of the senate may hold mutually exclusive positions about the bill, but that doesn’t mean that the senate simultaneously passed the bill and not passed the bill. That’d be silly.

          The fact that the component parts of the whole don’t agree with the net decision of the whole, doesn’t mean the Law of Non-Contradiction has exemptions.

        • jacobfromlost says

          It is clear I was misunderstood, so I will try to address some of the responses.

          Lord Narf: They believe mutually exclusive claims, sure, because they haven’t thought through their beliefs and discovered the contradictions.

          Me: In some instances. In some instances it IS the contradiction that they believe, so the contradiction is clear to them and *that’s what they believe* (the contradiction).

          Lord Narf: But they don’t hold contradictory positions about the same claim. That’s what the caller was asserting, and he’s wrong. He was basically asserting the invalidity of the law of non-contradiction, only he somehow didn’t see it.

          Me: Two mutually exclusive claims/propositions by definition negate the other. If one believes them both true, one simultaneously believes they are both false, as one negates the other. Again, I think my point is missed. The law of noncontradiction IS NOT INVALIDATED just because someone believes something that is self-contradictory. Beliefs don’t REQUIRE noncontradiction. If you think they do, explain why, because I still haven’t seen an argument as to WHY holding something to be true in your head has to exclude mutually exclusive claims (even for people who are otherwise rational, they can and do hold such irrational beliefs).

          Jasper of Maine: I think you may have missed the point of the argument.

          Me: I reject the argument as incoherent. The claim, however, is supportable by many examples, and I see no counter evidence that it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe (X and Not X). I just hear it being asserted over and over. That’s my problem.

          Jasper of Maine: It’s one thing to believe A and B, which happen to be contradictory. The caller was trying to equate this to believing A is true at the same time as believing A is false.

          Me: If A and B are mutually exclusive, as I made clear, then B = Not A, and A= Not B, so the “one thing” of believing “A and B” which “happen to be contradictory” also tell us they are equivalent to “believing A is true at the same time as believing A is false” (as well as believing B is true at the same time B is false–it’s a double whammy).

          Jasper of Maine: He was trying to do this with a composition fallacy, by saying that two separate “parts” of the brain believing different things about A.

          Me: I understand, that’s why I began by saying his arguments were terrible and I would ignore them, as I did. I still, however, see no reason why a direction contradiction cannot be believed in the mind. Why not? What makes it different from believing other things that are false? Why do you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe a direct contradiction, when it is clearly possible for someone to believe something despite evidence to the contrary right in front of their face? Is that not also a direct contradiction?

          Many times on the show callers have simply ignored the hosts when the hosts say “I don’t believe in your god”. The caller who pointed out Russell had a Halloween costume and then tried to say that was proof Russell believed in the supernatural is one example. Why do we get to ignore the many examples of people who do indeed claim to believe things that are direct contradictions? The first caller who made the same claim as this one said he was just as much a theist as an atheist, and Matt said that is like saying, “I’m just as much a basketball as not a basketball”. The problem is that beliefs are mental states, and basketballs are not, so that is a false analogy at the very heart of the matter. If those two things WERE analogous, then it would be impossible to believe anything that wasn’t either true, or demonstrably true. But people believe things that are false and demonstrably false all the time! (It would be more analogous to BELIEVING I am a basketball and not a basketball simultaneously. People have many such beliefs that are analogous to such a contradiction.)

          Again, I don’t see the difference between believing something is true that has already been demonstrated to be false, and believing something true even though it is logically impossible. The human brain allows us to believe pretty much anything, given the right circumstances, and to dismiss everyone who believes a direct contradiction as “insane” or mentally ill is going to leave no sane people, as we all do it in one way or another in ways that may not always be clear to us (if it were, we wouldn’t be doing it). Rationality isn’t something magical you have simply by default–it’s something that must be worked at constantly.

          So in that spirit, I am still open to any argument that provides evidence of why it is impossible to believe (ie, hold in the mind as true) a direct contradiction, because I see lots of evidence to the contrary and none supporting the impossibility of it.

          (I would concede that it is impossible to believe a direct contradiction using reason/rationality, but I think it is clear now that I don’t hold the position that beliefs MUST be rational. Is that a position others hold? If so, why? If not, then again, why is a self-contradictory claim so irrational that it can’t be believed at all, while other contradiction are irrational too but CAN be believed? I don’t see any distinction in the irrationality.)

          • says

            Again, I don’t see the difference between believing something is true that has already been demonstrated to be false, and believing something true even though it is logically impossible. The human brain allows us to believe pretty much anything,

            I think this part pretty much encapsulates what I’m trying to point out – again, you seem to have missed the point.

            The problem is not whether one can believe in contradictions, or believe something that’s false. The problem that the caller was (apparently) trying to raise, as an example of a violation of the Non-Contradiction law, is to both believe and not believe at the same time, the same claim. This leaves the question of whether it’s psychological or not. It’d be like asserting that my computer is simultaneously running Google Chrome, and not running Google Chrome. It either is, or isn’t.

            That’s not equivalent to believing two things that contradict each other, or believing something that’s contradicted by evidence. Sure, one can believe two mutually exclusive things, and just not realize they’re mutually exclusive… we aren’t talking about two different claims though – we’re talking about a belief status regarding a single claim.

            The evidence for this impossibility is that it contradicts the Non-Contradiction Law of Logic… a well established behavior of the universe. I looked over your original post, and I didn’t find any examples that were relevant to this particular question.

            My guess would be that the caller was trying to come up with an example of where this law wasn’t applying, in order to find a chink in the armor as to why God doesn’t have to obey the laws of logic, or something.

          • jacobfromlost says

            Lord Narf: I think this part pretty much encapsulates what I’m trying to point out – again, you seem to have missed the point.

            Me: I get WHAT you are asserting. I don’t see any evidence it is so.

            Lord Narf: The problem is not whether one can believe in contradictions, or believe something that’s false. The problem that the caller was (apparently) trying to raise, as an example of a violation of the Non-Contradiction law, is to both believe and not believe at the same time, the same claim.

            Me: I don’t think that was what he was doing, but if it is, I would disagree. Beliefs are mental states, not objective realities.

            Lord Narf: This leaves the question of whether it’s psychological or not. It’d be like asserting that my computer is simultaneously running Google Chrome, and not running Google Chrome. It either is, or isn’t.

            Me: The analogy is not apt. The computer is not capable of beliefs. Beliefs are mental states that do not have to be rational, or reflect reality.

            Lord Narf: That’s not equivalent to believing two things that contradict each other, or believing something that’s contradicted by evidence. Sure, one can believe two mutually exclusive things, and just not realize they’re mutually exclusive… we aren’t talking about two different claims though – we’re talking about a belief status regarding a single claim.

            Me: But “single claim” is completely arbitrary. The claimant (and believer) is the one who gets to decide the nature of his claim and the elements involved. For instance, if I claim the earth goes around the sun in our solar system, you can’t object that this is three claims because it’s making claims about earth, the sun, and the solar system. That’s just the nature of the claim, and/or belief.

            Lord Narf: The evidence for this impossibility is that it contradicts the Non-Contradiction Law of Logic… a well established behavior of the universe. I looked over your original post, and I didn’t find any examples that were relevant to this particular question.

            Me: Beliefs are mental states, not objective realities. All you need to do is move up one level, and you can “believe that I believe X and Not X” and the problem is solved. It is still irrational, but it isn’t an impossible mental state, as mental states are not required to be rational. Neither does this violate the law of noncontradiction as the “mental state” of believing that I believe X and Not X” is what it is and is not what it is not.

            Lord Narf: My guess would be that the caller was trying to come up with an example of where this law wasn’t applying, in order to find a chink in the armor as to why God doesn’t have to obey the laws of logic, or something.

            Me: I didn’t get that from the call at all but I may have missed an underlying agenda.

          • Lord Narf says

            The law of noncontradiction IS NOT INVALIDATED just because someone believes something that is self-contradictory. Beliefs don’t REQUIRE noncontradiction.

            You’re leaving out an important component of the call. Matt is talking about sane minds. Once you introduce defective brains, all bets are off.

          • says

            And that is the point where the caller lost me, because he sounded as if he was talking about a mentally ill person having a debate/conversation with himself. There are few things in my own life where I am that wishy washy in my stances. Sure, I can lie to myself, or not accept the facts of something if I choose to be stubborn but that guy was taking the concept of cognitive dissonance to a whole…nutha…. level. It may not be what he was going for, and I kinda got it; but not quite. Close but no cigar. It was an excercise of mental masturbation and nothing more; we are giving credence to nonsense. Don understood that, which is why I think he walked away…lol

          • Lord Narf says

            He lost me a bit before that. At about 1:22, he started an argument that the equivocation fallacy means you can hold opposite positions on the same claim, because you can mean different things with the same words. When someone has reached that degree of logical bankruptcy, I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained from listening to him.

            “I’m already of the firm, nearly certain position that this is impossible, and what you’re going to do is tap dance around something with semantics.”
            “Well, that’s not what I’m doing …”
            *proceeds to tap dance around with semantics*

            He explicitly said it at about 3:11. When you start playing those sorts of stupid word games, you’re done.

        • says

          Let’s try an example:

          1) Bob believes Fred is at the Mall.
          2) Bob believes Fred is not at the Mall.

          These are totally mutually exclusive. You could argue it’s possible to believe both these things, but not simultaneously. Sure, we could claim to accept both, and even successfully do so, but not at the same time… perhaps in which succession, oscillating back and forth… but our “belief” is a net acceptance of a claim.. like the senate passing a bill. It either passed the bill, or not. It’s can’t both pass and not pass the bill at the same time.

          • jacobfromlost says

            So you are saying it would be impossible to polygraph, or fMRI, etc, a person and ask them if they believe BOTH simultaneously, and have them pass? Repeatedly? (What would you say if they DID PASS repeatedly, and yet seemed rational otherwise?)

            But claims can be ANYTHING. A claim can even be “I claim that Fred is both at the mall and not at the mall.” There is no restriction on what can be in a “single claim”.

            Again, beliefs are not objective realities. They are mental states, and mental states can be as irrational–even as irrational as excepting a direct contradiction.

          • Lord Narf says

            So you are saying it would be impossible to polygraph, or fMRI, etc, a person and ask them if they believe BOTH simultaneously, and have them pass? Repeatedly? (What would you say if they DID PASS repeatedly, and yet seemed rational otherwise?)

            I would say that they need to be checked out by a shrink, because they’ve got something horribly fucked up going on in their brain. Either that or the polygraph technician is incompetent … or the person is a pathological liar and is good at fooling polygraphs.

          • changerofbits says

            Jacob, I’ll agree with you that somebody (a single mind/brain) can claim they believe A and Not A at the same time, but at that point they might as well have claimed that 1=2. It’s simply irrational, full stop. I’ll also agree that there can be pathology or any number of other neurological hiccups (other unknowns, could be happening in my brain right now, I’m not a neurologist) that could lead to a mind/brain believing A and Not A at the same time. That still doesn’t make it rational. Our brains seem to be wired to be really good at spotting simple, direct contradictions. The after show caller seemed to be basing his argument on stuff that he thought were examples of direct contradiction, but that really weren’t (hence Matt’s frustration) to back up that its fine to believe A and Not A at the same time. He couldn’t get past that two different definitions of the same word aren’t contradictory since they are two different definitions (doesn’t fracking matter if one word can be used for either definition). I’ve thought for a while of just referring to theists as equivocation fallicies, but to them it would just be the same thing as “equal to a penis”…

      • says

        Yes, thanks for sharing. Great flaming eyebrows of fire–what was he trying to assert? One can’t say I believe in something and yet also say I don’t believe in that SAME CONCEPT at the same time. I believe in god but don’t believe in god??? Huh? What I want to know is; why are people like this caller is trying to find alternative ways of defining reality and perception? What doe sit really gain us? Sure, we can be a brain in a jar but the excercise is irrelevant…what matters is what we conclusively can agree on; like water being wet. Some things are water is wet simple and yet we insist on complicating them–whhhhhy? Do some people believe that over complicating matters will make a god or particalar non falsifable ideology pop into existence out of the ensuing confusion?

  3. robertwilson says

    I loved the after show caller just because he was so unaware of how he sounded and how poorly he was putting his argument forward.

    “You can make your argument but make it quick, the show is over and the studio is coming down.”

    “Well if you insist that I move ahead, but I warn you …”

    Dude, seriously… just write or call in next week. Or figure out how to make your argument clear and concise. You don’t HAVE to do it on the air, or talk in person to Matt, or … any number of other things.

    Of course, he just had to… result? Sounded like an idiot.

  4. sasa says

    Good show. The first David was very pleasant but he didn’t have points of disagreement at all. Is it even possible for a theist and an atheist to have a constructive yet calm and pleasant conversation? It’s usually either one or the other.

    On a totally unrelated note, I don’t know if this is okay so please delete the post if not- I designed a God/Jesus t-shirt for a Threadless competition so check it out if you’re interested: http://www.threadless.com/theonion/hand-of-god/ You can also vote if you like it. Thanks!

  5. says

    Okay the caller needs an example. And also needs a point. All I got from that was word salad. I know what all those words mean but it didn’t add up to anything for me. If he calls in again I hope he works to streamline what he wants the listener to take away from his presentation.

    This reminds me of a conversation I had this week with a librarian. She writes abstracts of scholarly writing for a search engine. She commented that sometimes she’s read an entire dissertation and had no idea what their point was. It couldn’t be summarized in a paragraph because there was no core idea. I quipped that the author probably didn’t know either. That’s a problem. I think this applies here. Even if I accept that you can believe two self-contradictory ideas at the same time, why does that matter?

    • says

      I heartily agree. Abstract ideas may sound good inside your head, but on paper, or spoken aloud, it can get a little sketchy. In the end, I have no idea what the fu that guy was trying to say. Point missed, so in essence, pointless. I think he needed to have a discussion with both hemispheres of his brain before making that call.

    • Raymond says

      I almost feel sorry for the guy. Just think of the mental gymnastics this guy is doing just to keep believing as he believes. I would give him a solid 9 for the effort he has gone to continue to have faith but a 2 for presentation. It always blows my mind how these people will, when confronted with rock solid evidence against them, will go to any lengths to prove their pet idea is still possible. Wouldn’t it just be simpler to just admit you are wrong and move on with your life?!

  6. changerofbits says

    My brain stopped believing in god, but I didn’t like that so my brain invented a new brain that does believe in god, but my brain didn’t like that either, so it invented a third brain that doesn’t believe in god. I’m happy that 2/3 of my brains are atheist, that other third is an ignorant asshole.

  7. No One says

    This would make a great comedy act, like one of those stand-up deals where the comic was dressed as half man, half woman. You could do half atheist, half whatever.

  8. bradman1203 says

    I hope the after-show caller expands pn his concept, as I’d like to see Matt dismantle him without interruptions (on either/both sides). That’s not to say Matt was unjustified in interrupting him – his basic premise seemed to be fatally flawed.

    He seemed to equate accepting two (contradictory) meanings of a word with believing contradicting things. If he is saying people can accept one definition of god but reject another, that’s understandable (and obvious). But if he conflates that to mean accepting a contradiction, I’m afraid he’s sadly mistaken. As Matt pointed out multiple times, this is not believing and rejecting an identical premise.

      • Lord Narf says

        It would be nice if we could get a more formal presentation of his argument, but I don’t anticipate it being any more coherent than he was in the first call. I foresee a bunch of gaps in his logical structure. We’ve already seen a few that he can’t work his way around.

      • Lord Narf says

        They almost always cut the podcast at the end of the broadcast show. I think they’ve accidentally included the after-show maybe twice. It’s not meant to be part of the show.

          • Lord Narf says

            Yeah, I wish they would compile them somewhere, too. I’ve seen some good stuff in the after-shows.

      • Lord Narf says

        As for the why question … you saw some of that in this particular post-show. It’s less professional at that point, with random chaos going on in the background, and the hosts aren’t as focused after the show is off the air. Best to make the cutoff at that point and maintain the vaguely more professional appearance, at the cost of losing some potentially interesting material.

        I’d rather have them sacrifice professionalism in exchange for getting the extra stuff, but I understand why they chose to go the other way, with their mission goals. I’m a loyal viewer, but I’m not one of the ones they’re trying to reach. I’m neither a theist nor a struggling atheist trying to reach out to other atheists from under my parents’ oppression or from a podunk town in which I don’t know any other atheists.

        • says

          Yeah, but what I think is cool about the after show is the casual chaos if you permit me…it shows their dedication to speaking to everyon., Besides, a aless formal setting may be a bit more appealing to the target audience they are trying to reach as well. I know that when they spoke to me in the after show I felt all special like and I’d hope that those who did see it who were theists would kinda understand how the guys on the show are so willing to go the extra mile for their goals of promoting a positive interactive discourse with all……:-) My 2 cents anyhoo…

          • Lord Narf says

            Well, once they finish getting the building set up and can broadcast from there, we might see a major reworking of the show format.

          • Lord Narf says

            I dunno. They need somewhere to set up the laptops. They often make heavy use of those, during the show, when they get some creationist nut throwing claims at them. It helps when you can brush them off with a 5 second Google search that the creationist couldn’t be bothered to do.

          • Lord Narf says

            It’s a foundation to start with and adjust things from, at least. We’ll have to see how much of the equipment they can duplicate.

            The cameras, computers, and software in the studio aren’t cheap. I don’t know how much of it can be done with cheaper alternatives. Considering how long green-screening has been around, there are probably some cheap programs that can handle it.

          • says

            Well–I can’t wait to see what they do come up with–possibilities are endless…either way I just want the topics to keep coming lol

    • Raymond says

      I really miss the 90 min format. You know, they have been talking about this building for nearly a year. When will it be done?

      • Lord Narf says

        The last I’ve heard, it’s mostly set up. It’s a matter of inertia, for one thing. There are a lot of benefits to using the public access resources. There’s a lot of stuff that is handled for them. There are always tradeoffs to the additional freedom they’ll gain from going it by themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>