bud rates everybody, 1 to 10

I was intrigued by this list that bud shared back on this post — so much so that I thought I’d promote it to its own post, as a conversation-starter:

I ranked a collection of organzitions from the ones I least respect (1) to the ones I most respect (10). Here’s the entire list. As it relates to this I am completely indifferent to the various illegal aliens issues. If we fund health care for illegals, ok by me. They’re humans with health needs too. And they probably contribute more to the well-being of society than most people.

I could live with or without funding of abortion. But if we don’t fund it then don’t fund it for anyone, including those who want an abortion in cases of rape.

As for the insurance industry I’d just as soon let them go under as keep them.

Nazis 1
Al Qaeda 1
Taliban 1
NAMBLA 1
Ku Klux Klan 1
Health Insurance Industry 2
Bush (Jr.) Administration 2
Soviet Communism 2
Hezbolah 2
Catholic Church 2
Conservative Talk Radio 2
Birthers 2
Pro-Lifers with exceptions 2
Creationist “Science” 2
Tea Baggers 3
FOX News 3
PLO 3
Southern Baptist Church 3
Republican Party 3
NRA 3
Slavery Reparation Movement 3
Isreal 4
Iran 4
“Mainstream” Media 4
Illegal aliens 5
US Military 5
Methodist Church 5
Global Warming Movement 5
Scientology 5
Libertarian Party 5
National Teachers Association 5
Pro-Lifers without exceptions 6
Obama Administration 6
Democratic Party 6
Liberal Talk Radio 6
Labor Unions 6
ACORN 7
Unitarian Church 7
Nudists 7
PETA 8
Peak Oil Movement 8
Vegetarians 8
Pro-Choicers 8
ACLU 8
Green Peace 9
Sierra Club 10
Audibon Society 10
SPCA 10
NORML 10

It’s an imperfect scale (should Nazis get a point at all? shouldn’t they be in the negatives?), but it’s an interesting exercise. It makes you think. (For instance, you might think at the end there, what’s bud been smoking?). So using the same list — no additions or subtractions — and the same rules, here’s my shot at it:

Nazis 0 (I just couldn’t give them a point; I don’t care what the rules are)
Al Qaeda 1
Taliban 1
Hezbolah 1
NAMBLA 1
Ku Klux Klan 1
Soviet Communism 2
PLO 2
Birthers 3
Tea Baggers 3
FOX News 3
Conservative Talk Radio 3
Liberal Talk Radio 3
Iran 3
Scientology 3
Libertarian Party 3
NORML 3
Nudists 3
“Mainstream” Media 4
Health Insurance Industry 4
Bush (Jr.) Administration 4
Creationist “Science” 4
Republican Party 4
NRA 4
Slavery Reparation Movement 4
National Teachers Association 4
Democratic Party 4
Labor Unions 4
ACORN 4
Unitarian Church 4
PETA 4
Pro-Choicers 4
ACLU 4
Greenpeace 4
Illegal aliens 5
Southern Baptist Church 5
Peak Oil Movement 5
Methodist Church 5
Catholic Church 6
Pro-Lifers with exceptions 6
Pro-Lifers without exceptions 6 (I didn’t really understand these categories)
Obama Administration 6
Vegetarians 6
Sierra Club 6
Audubon Society 6
Israel 7
Global Warming Movement 7
SPCA 7
US Military 9

So, do I really think that Iran and nudists are morally equal? Or that the U.S. military is by far the most wonderful thing in the world? No, I wasn’t really comparing them, but considering each on its own – negatives? Positives? Where does that leave me? The post-Vietnam military, which was in pretty bad shape, would have gotten a low score. But the military today as an institution, judged as to how well it does what it’s called on to do, is way up there.
Do I think the military is better than the Church? No. But when you say “Roman Catholic Church,” are you talking the Body of Christ, in which case 10-plus, or do you mean the troubled human institution that most of you, my readers, are thinking of? So I average out at 6.
And yes, while I still have a somewhat favorable view of the Obama administration, I do have a better impression of Israel.
Hey, as I said, it’s an imperfect system bud came up with, but I found it an interesting exercise.

43 thoughts on “bud rates everybody, 1 to 10

  1. Brad Warthen

    Also, note that the standard was supposed to be “respect,” as opposed to “like.”

    Which means, now that I look back, maybe I should have rated the Taliban higher than the Democrats and Republicans. And maybe, after all, the Nazis should have been higher. They were certainly a force to be reckoned with. In fact, it took all that we and the Brits and especially the Russians could throw at them to bring them down. But then, that was the Wehrmacht and other institutions that were NOT the same thing as the Nazis, while the Nazis were a bunch of thugs who couldn’t have accomplished much if they hadn’t gained control of all those other institutions…

    And do I really RESPECT the Soviets less than birthers? Not really.

    Dang. This is just too hard…

    Reply
  2. Todd

    Great post. Where would you put the South Carolina legislature, South Carolina Governor and South Carolina Supreme Court?

    Reply
  3. bud

    I meant respect in moral terms. Were the Nazis a power to be reckoned with? Absolutely. Were they worthy of respect in the moral sense? Hell no.

    Surprisingly my list and Brad’s aren’t all that different.

    Reply
  4. bud

    Pro-Lifers with exceptions – These are the folks who make exceptions for rape and incest. It sorting like giving human life a value based on how the baby was conceived. I don’t get them at all.

    The no exception group finds human life sacrosanct – however it was conceived. That’s something I can respect. At least to a point.

    Reply
  5. Doug Ross

    My Libertarian list:

    Nazis 0
    Al Qaeda 0
    Taliban 0
    NAMBLA 0
    Ku Klux Klan 0
    Health Insurance Industry 5
    Bush (Jr.) Administration 2 ! Worst of my lifetime
    Soviet Communism 0
    Hezbolah 0
    Catholic Church 5
    Conservative Talk Radio 3 ! Mindless drivel
    Birthers 3 ! Overblown – there aren’t many of them
    Pro-Lifers with exceptions 5
    Creationist “Science” 3
    Tea Baggers 10 ! True patriots
    FOX News 3 ! It’s entertainment, not news
    PLO 0
    Southern Baptist Church 8 ! My church
    Republican Party 1 ! A few good conservatives, mostly self-interested corrupt politicians
    NRA 10 ! And I don’t own a gun
    Slavery Reparation Movement 0 ! Move on!
    Israel 4 ! Given far more power than they deserve
    Iran 0
    “Mainstream” Media 2 ! Lazy copycats
    Illegal aliens 0 ! What part of illegal is respectable?
    US Military 5 ! Good at the bottom, political at the top
    Methodist Church 5
    Global Warming Movement 0 ! I like the heat :-)
    Scientology 0 ! Junk religion for Star Trek fans
    Libertarian Party 10 ! The only hope for America
    National Teachers Association 1
    Pro-Lifers without exceptions 8
    Obama Administration 3 ! Hasn’t done anything positive yet, worst is yet to come
    Democratic Party 0 ! If it can be taxed, it will be taxed
    Liberal Talk Radio 5
    Labor Unions 2 ! Do more harm than good;
    ACORN 0 ! Corrupt
    Unitarian Church 5
    Nudists 10 ! As a one-time streaker, gotta give ’em high scores
    PETA 0 ! Half-good motive, terrible implementation
    Peak Oil Movement ?
    Vegetarians 10 ! Wish I could give up the Angus Filet
    Pro-Choicers 2 ! It’s a lousy choice.
    ACLU 8 ! Someone has to rein in Big Brother
    Green Peace 8
    Sierra Club 10
    Audubon Society 10
    SPCA 10
    NORML 10 ! Stop putting pot smokers in jail; waste of time, money

    Reply
  6. sallizar

    Brad! You rated the NRA a 4 and nudists a 3? If everyone was nude we’d have nowhere comfortable to conceal our firearms. I think you might want to rethink that 3.

    Reply
  7. greg flowers

    You give Nazis a 0 and the North American Man Boy Love Association, the raison d’etre of which is to promote pedophilia, a point?

    To play devil’s advocate here for a moment, the victors write the history. Germany’s National Socialists did horrible, horrible things, killed millions of innocents for no good reason. But, to put it in perspective, killed a fraction of the number of people of the Stalin regime or probably that of Mao. Also they took a nation stripped of its assets and pride by the Versailles treaty and returned to it a degree of prosperity. Were they bad actors, you betcha! Were they devoid of any positives whatsoever and the worst of the worst, hmmmmm?

    Reply
  8. Kathryn Fenner

    My sister-in-law — husband’s sister– was an employee of the “Church” of Scientology from 1973-2008, working for room and board and maybe two hundred dollars a month. She was fired for being in debt–she was sending her learning-disabled son to a special private school. Somehow I’d put them a lot lower than the Methodist Church, which I actually respect fairly highly–their courageous positions during the civil rights struggle in particular and their ongoing open-mindedness would put them on a par with the Unitarians and the Friends in my list.

    Reply
  9. Brad Warthen

    I DID put them a lot lower than the Methodists — at 3, as opposed to 5. And 5 is just a point below my own Church. And seeing as how I’m a convert, a Catholic on purpose, that’s pretty good.

    Also, with my list, there’s a fairly sharp drop when you get to 4, and an even steeper one when you get to 3.

    And yes, Greg, as horrible as pedophilia is, I count genocide as worse. Abusing a child is probably the next worst thing to murder. And the Nazis murdered children, and their parents and grandparents, by the millions.

    Of course, when you get to something as awful as pedophilia, you’ve gotten into the realm of things where it’s a little weird to call it “not as bad” as something else. Pedophilia is so bad as to cause me to question the wisdom of our constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. But yeah, genocide is worse.

    Once, I saw a film on PBS or somewhere that showed footage of Jews in a concentration camp performing orchestral music for fellow prisoners. Everything was clean and neat and the prisoners looked healthy, not abused. Then the narration told me that this was a Nazi propaganda film, that the fascists had found prisoners who were still fairly healthy and dressed them up for this, so they could tell the world that the “relocation camps” were nothing more than than, and look at how pleasant they were — music!

    It was the angriest I’ve ever been over an issue of justice. I felt cheated that I was born too late to enlist and go kill the bastards who deliberately perpetrated such an evil fraud on mankind. An absurd feeling, I suppose, but I felt it strongly. Of course, I’ve felt deprived all my life that I didn’t live through that time (to the best of my knowledge, barring reincarnation). But that was about my desire to experience that national unity, so different from what I’ve known in my day. I look at pictures, or read books, from those days and feel a tremendous affinity.

    But this was about the urge to kill, so it was different. Some people got worked up about Pearl Harbor. I got worked up about that propaganda film.

    Reply
  10. greg flowers

    OK, genocide is horrible, no argument here, but then how does Soviet Communism which eliminated tens of millions in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50’s, rate two points?

    Reply
  11. Herb B.

    You forgot C Street. Let me guess: Brad gives them a 3, Kathryn gives them a 2, and Libb gives them a 1. I’ll give them a 6, along with most churches.

    The Jesus of the New Testament gets a 10.

    And I agree with Doug on one thing for a change: pot-smokers should be legal, and then I’d have a chance to get to a drug that would give me the most relief from severe RLS. Taking high doses of Neurontin is no good for an aging memory . . . . Heck, if it weren’t for the grandkids, I’d move to California. Or maybe rather Holland–it’s closer to Germany.

    Reply
  12. Kathryn Fenner

    Brad–I was referring to bud’s equal ranking–which surprised me, since I generally agreed with him….even on NORML. I’ve never used marijuana, but it doesn’t make sense to me that it’s illegal when alcohol isn’t. I’d posit that marijuana users are less dangerous as a whole than drinkers are. Potheads don’t fly into rages, by and large, for example.

    Reply
  13. Maude Lebowski

    “The no exception group finds human life sacrosanct – however it was conceived. That’s something I can respect. At least to a point.”

    Forcing an 11-year-old to give birth to her father’s baby? That’s not something I can respect, to any degree.

    Reply
  14. Randy E

    The Catholic Church is where I differ sharply with my fellow progressive, bud. The pedophilia, the failure to stand up to the Nazis, the Crusades etc. obviously are a major albatross. On the other hand, we have Catholic Charities, ubiquitous works of Faith, and Mother Teresa.

    I want to add to the lists and will include some individuals.

    NY Stankees -10
    Rush Limblaugh 0
    Neocons 0
    Ralph Nader, Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Carter, RFK 10s
    SCouRGe 0
    Sarah Palin 10 (she’s great for the democrats)
    The cooks who make the chile renos at El Chicos 10
    U2 10
    Carolina Gamecocks 2 (as in 2 wins vs Clemson this decade)
    obama 8
    Reagan 2
    Waterloo and Tea bagging Strategy 0
    Waterloo and Tea bagging strategy backfiring priceless

    Reply
  15. Kathryn Fenner

    Maude–
    So do you believe abortion is a woman’s choice? (I do.)

    The point is that *if* abortion is murder, because a fetus is equal to a full-fledged human, then yes, an 11-year old has to have her father’s child and the child of the stranger who beat her up and raped her.

    If you don’t believe that the little girl should have to carry the fetus to term because of certain circumstances of its conception, then you do not believe the fetus has the same rights as a full-fledged human. If so, then I believe you have no right to make decisions about which fetuses have to be carried to term and which don’t. That is for the host human to make, i.e. the woman carrying the fetus.

    Reply
  16. Randy E

    Brad, I’m still unconvinced that the dems have a chance as a result of Sanford. Rex has name recognition and had a tremendous resume in politics. The fact that he barely won against a superficial Palinesque candidate speaks to the skewed political leanings of most South Carolinians. As a result, Sanford would get a 1 (given that Limblaugh gets a 0).

    BUT, those rellenos (mispelled previously) are so good, I have to either give them a bonus point or dock Palin a point cuz she ain’t no relleno (aside from intellectually that is).

    Joel Lourie gets a 9. What do you think about his chances at the state level?

    Reply
  17. bud

    Kathryn, I’ll take another look at Scientology. Right now I’m just indifferent towards them. They seem, on the surface at least, no worse than your typical religous organization. But I could be wrong.

    Reply
  18. Karen McLeod

    I see no point in ranking Nazis, Nambla, communist Russia, the KKK, al Quaida and such. They are completely beyond the pale. Most mainstream churches at there best, are up in the 9-10 ratings; at their worst–2 to 3. I know of none that show any signs of following Christ nearly as closely as we should, I, too, find abortion reprehensible; unfortunately, I find that refusal to allow abortion can lead to atrocities that are as bad. And since it’s not my body the fetus is growing in; I’m not the one to make the decision. Ok. abortion for sex selection, or eye color, or any such is off the table. Politics? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush jr.=2. Obama=8+. The current congress is crazy on both sides. Maybe we should have a spot in every city adorned with large pictures of all our congressional leaders where people can go and throw eggs, shoes, darts, whatever at the pictures until these folks get it into their heads that they should lead, not squabble like so many seagulls.

    Reply
  19. David

    I’ll play the game.

    Nazis 1
    Al Qaeda 1
    Taliban 1
    NAMBLA 1
    Ku Klux Klan 1
    Bush (Jr.) Administration 2
    Soviet Communism 2
    Hezbolah 2
    Birthers 2
    PLO 2
    Scientology 2
    Creationist “Science” 2
    Tea Baggers 3
    FOX News 3
    Republican Party 3
    Conservative Talk Radio 3
    Democratic Party 3
    Liberal Talk Radio 3
    Slavery Reparation Movement 3
    ACORN 3
    “Mainstream” Media 4
    Health Insurance Industry 4
    Pro-Lifers with exceptions 4
    Isreal 4
    Iran 4
    National Teachers Association 4
    Obama Administration 4
    Labor Unions 4
    Illegal aliens 4
    Pro-Lifers without exceptions 4
    Pro-Choicers 4
    Southern Baptist Church 5
    Catholic Church 5
    Unitarian Church 5
    Nudists 5
    PETA 5
    Peak Oil Movement 5
    Sierra Club 5
    NRA 5
    Green Peace 5
    Methodist Church 6
    Global Warming Movement 6
    Vegetarians 6
    NORML 6
    Audubon Society 7
    Libertarian Party 7
    ACLU 7
    SPCA 7
    US Military 8

    I have little respect for the divisive, intellectually dishonest groups that often pretend that their side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. They are ruining any kind of political dialogue in this country — most often intentionally and for their own benefit. They include the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, talk radio, tea baggers, and Fox News.

    I rate the Libertarian Party highly as I would just about any other third party in this country. See the paragraph above for why I don’t think we should entrust the Republican and Democratic parties alone with this country.

    Reply
  20. Kathryn Fenner

    bud–
    Scientology sounds okay on the surface–they basically do a sort of lay therapy–listening to your issues while you hold an “e-meter”–which used to be a couple of tin cans rigged to a sort of primitive impedence device–a lie detector sort of thing that depended on the sweat from your palms. Anyway, they charge a lot more than your basic licensed counselor, and use underpaid or unpaid volunteers (who are, in fact, volunteers, so no tears on my part.) It gets a lot worse the deeper you go though. Apparently if you start poking around on the ‘net, you find loads of “escapees” from the cult with spooky stories to tell, given that it is supposedly fairly acceptable. It’s not the Methodist Church by a long shot.

    To give them their due, my sis-in-law is the least messed-up of my husband’s three siblings, so you might credit Scientology’s precepts of taking personal responsibility and so on—a lot like 12 Step programs, for that…and she was a grown woman who chose to do all this.

    Reply
  21. bud

    For all you folks who ranked the US Military so high what was the deciding factor? Was it the Haditha massacre, Abu-Ghraib, the cozy deal with Halliburton or the constant begging for more and more money for weapons we don’t need.

    Reply
  22. Brad Warthen

    bud, we know you don’t like the military, but on those last couple of points you are obviously confusing the military with Congress and the civilian bosses of the Pentagon.

    Reply
  23. Brad Warthen

    Oops, I take that back about you not liking the military. You rated it a 5, which is higher than I ranked most things.

    Beyond that, I don’t know what to tell you. I think what the military accomplishes without enough people, with all volunteers, is extraordinary.

    Reply
  24. Greg Flowers

    Kathryn- I am familiar with the term, I just wanted to see what Randy meant as I have heard everything from “Republican Jews” to “Dick Cheney.” Many do not mean the “textbook” definition when they use the term.

    Reply
  25. Randy E

    Greg, by neocons I refer to Clarke, Kristol, Rummey, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton etc. who push for a wildly un-conservative approach to world affairs with aggressive big government intervention into the lives of anyone outside of the US (see PNAC).

    As far as I know, there is no “text-book” definition.

    Reply
  26. Randy E

    bud, if you hold religion accountable for abuses committed by members, how can you not hold the democratic party similarly accountable for transgressions?

    Reply
  27. Burl Burlingame

    I have to admit one of the things that made me crazy about the last administration is the way they kept cutting benefits to our military whilst simultaneously giving billions to contract military servicers like Halliburton and BlackWater. Every time Bush or Cheney said they support our people in uniform they were actually undercutting them.

    Reply
  28. Kathryn Fenner

    Ah–I *was* surprised that you didn’t.

    Obviously the Wiki writers are having issues with that, as well.

    Reply
  29. Randy E

    Burl, Liz Cheney came out strong about Obama being on camera as he attended the return of the remains of service people at Dover. She explained that President Bush had the dignity to “not bring the entire White House press corp” to these ceremonies. In fact, W NEVER attended the Dover ceremonies. Also, the cameras were present at the request of the family members.

    My point is the message (propaganda) taking priority over substance is alive and well.

    Reply
  30. Greg Flowers

    Kathryn, I find it interesting that it has become a catch-all insult with no specific meaning among its users, much as many people are accused of being fascists when they have nothing to do with promoting nationalism. I did not mean to snap at you.

    The most generally accepted definition, as I understand it, is a group of former progressives, even communists who came to conservatism late in life (hence the neo) Kristol pere being perhaps the archetype. I would argue that Cheyney and Bolton, for example, as lifelong conservatives (in their own view) would not qualify as it makes the neo meaningless.

    All in all though I guess you can call anything anything as long as you explain what you mean. Standardization in language does however seem to be a laudable goal.

    Reply
  31. Kathryn Fenner

    Greg—My husband always cautions not to read tone into email, so I didn’t take offense– you do seem like quite a decent sort.

    Generally Irving Kristol is considered to be the ur-neocon (with his wife Sylvia (?)), agreed? If so, then we could argue that people who ascribe to his belief system, regardless of their provenance, could be considered neocons. Sort of like Goldwater Republicans– “neocon” means Kristol Republican. The neo- prefix has outgrown its original use, as, if I were as sharp as I used to be I could name them, other words have.

    The reasoning behind that could be that, while not applicable in the case of the Dark Lord Cheney, many neocons are too young to have had any conversion and were and are Young Republicans.

    I suppose it’s like born-again Christians who got “born again” at age 12, say. It doesn’t seem like quite the same thing as it does when you consider the transformation of George W. Bush. The Amish require their young (men?) to leave the fold for a period of years and then decide to return voluntarily. Perhaps the neocons need to require their adherents to become communists for a few years first?

    Reply
  32. Burl Burlingame

    Liz Cheney came out strong in order to attack Obama whilst she lied about Bush? I am shocked, shocked!

    The term when I was a kid was “crypto-fascist.” Pretending to be mainstream while pursuing fascist agendas. Sound like the last eight years.

    Reply
  33. Randy E

    I don’t think Kristol was the leader of the movement – he’s a talking head after all. I also don’t think the term “neo-con” has been used in the context of a johnny came lately to the conservative movement. My interpretation is that the neo-cons have taken the hawkish approach to conservatism – irony.

    The GOP candidate in upstate New York is supporting the dem. The GOP senator from Ohio who is retiring already condemned the conservatist movement for big footing moderates. He refers to the GOP as a provincial party now.

    bud, how do you freakin survive down there!?!

    Reply
  34. Brad Warthen

    Randy, “hawkish” is probably correct, but only in the limited sense — the neo-cons brought the JFK sort of muscular liberalism (lampooned by Doonesbury in a strip in which characters dressed up as the Best and the Brightest and said in unison, “We can WIN the war in Vietnam”) along with them. This is why they were among the chief advocates of invading Iraq.

    Interestingly, such hawkishness became so unfashionable among liberals after Vietnam that when I interviewed Ted Sorensen awhile back, he insisted that JFK would have gotten us out of there had he lived. Maybe he’s right, but I had to wonder to what extent the old gentleman was amending his memories in light of subsequent events…

    Reply
  35. Bart Rogers

    Brad, if memory serves correct, during Eisenhour’s administration, we were sending “military advisors” to Vietnam with a non-military involvement in actual combat conditions. The involvement escalated after some were killed during “advisory” missions with South Vietnamese troops. From there, the reasoning behind expansion grew due to “protecting” our advisors and the beginning of the “Domino Theory”.

    JFK understood the potential of being drawn into an internal conflict resulting from an ideological war between two factions of a divided country. Remember our own Civil War? He also knew if we didn’t extricate our troops soon, it would be too late and our commitment would be further validated by troop escalation.

    I am not a conspiracy theorist person but there was a lot of specualtion that JFK’s assassination was because he had made the decision to disengage us from Vietnam.

    Later on, the Gulf of Tonkin non-event was one of the many reasons used that gave the hawks in Johnson’s administration the fuel they needed to inflame passions and to justify the escalation of our involvement which ultimately lead to 50,000 names on a wall in Washington, DC, a nation torn apart, and the advent of the political divide we are currently experiencing.

    Just my humble opinion and observation. i.e., I think Sorenson’s comment was correct.

    Reply
  36. Kathryn Fenner

    Well, Brad, that was back when you *were* somebody….(ouch)

    This, of course, from someone whose greatest brush eoth fame was as a waitress.

    Randy– So who was the Ur-Neocon? I think the neocon zeal is that of a convert. Brad, for example, is a lot more rah rah as a Catholic than any of my cradle Catholic friends. They seem to view Catholicism as something like hair-color or freckles–it runs in the family. They don’t know much more about it than what little they apparently had to know to pass confirmation tests or whatever. I usually have to clue them in when questions come up as to doctrine. They show up and get their tickets punched, if that. I guess if that works for them….

    Reply
  37. Greg Flowers

    There probably was not A ur-neocon, as I think the word was originally used. It was a small group of intellectuals, Kristol most certainly amongst them who veered far to the right as a reaction to their experiences on the left. Their brand of conservatism tended to encompass nationalism and a strong pro-Israeli stance (many if not most of them were Jewish). Until well into the Shrub administration (thank you Molly Ivins) I had never heard the term used to describe any lifelong self-labeled conservative (e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheyney). I think that it is a misappropriation of the term, others would say metamorphosis. It gives no meaning to the word neo except making it a synonym for nationalist or interventionist. Why not use one of those terms instead?

    Kathryn, as they say, hell hath no fury like a convert.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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