Another school shooting... damn it....

[MSTCNC]

I'm afraid it's far worse than two...

Actually, a 5th child died this morning when she was removed from life support...

Hug your kids... and tell them you love them EVERY CHANCE YOU GET!

In todays World... you just NEVER know anymore...

Regards,

Andy

 

[exile]

If you had heard some of the stories I have from a guy I know who works as an orderly in a hospital for the criminally insane, you would be even more paranoid.

I still can't quite get my head around the Amish killings... are the people who do these things like this even human any more? Paranoia seems to be the only rational response sometimes... it was easier in the days when people believed that someone who did this sort of thing was demonically possessed. At least it was a story that made sense. Looking at the photos in the news stories that have been coming out, all these stunned people who can't fathom what just happened...

not sure I want my little boy to go to school this week.

 

[exile]

I'm afraid it's far worse than two...

Actually, a 5th child died this morning when she was removed from life support...

Andy---yes, I just caught up on the total... it's enough to break a heart of stone. Keep thinking, it could have been mine... just an accident it was there and not here...

IHug your kids... and tell them you love them EVERY CHANCE YOU GET!

Amen to that...

IIn todays World... you just NEVER know anymore...Regards,

Andy

It's true, you don't know... that's why it's so scary. What could be safer than an Amish village schoolhouse?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If there were only more good people with guns around when stuff like this happens.

 

[exile]

It's easy to blame the media, and that's often an alibi to shift individual responsibility. But... three in one week? A severely twisted mind, right at the tipping point, might well go over the edge on the basis of a prior school shooting episode. Look at this... thing... that shot those kids in the Amish school. Sitting on some grievance that was twenty years old, according to his last message. And he picks this week to `avenge' himself by shooting 11 kids? It doesn't sound like he wanted notoreity or anything along those lines. I don't think he had a record, or an obvious history... just a human time bomb sitting there. Statistically, there are probably at least a dozen cases like that here in Columbus, sleepers waiting for some event to set them in motion. No wonder people are scared, these days.

 

[Cruentus]

People like this are probably damaged beyond repair---the medicines that they need to become reliable, connected member of society probably won't exist for centuries. Under ideal conditions, certain violent individuals probably be rehabilitated, but someone like this... no, I can't imagine it. He's wired for destruction, probably has been for a long time and will continue to be as long as he's alive.

The thing that I think that people need to realize is that some individuals don't want to be rehabilitated. All the drugs and therapy in the world will not help someone who doesn't want to be a reliable, connected member of society. Generally speaking, we have all the methods available to us right now to prevent those who would hurt themselves or others from doing so; but none of these methods will work on the individual determined to do horrible acts anyways.

And I think that the fact that some individuals don't want to be moral and want to be violent is the hardest thing for normal, moral people to wrap their heads around. People just can't believe that someone would voluntarily want to be a horrible person. So, the tendency can be to look at these individuals as victims as well. If only they had more help, better therapy, better drugs. If only Law Enforcement was more effective, if we had better gun control laws, or better social programs, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, certain things like better access to therapy, a better socioeconomic environment, better funding for programs (particularly school funding and kids programs to get people on the right track at a young age), and so forth are all good things. But the lack of these aren't to blame for these shootings. Some individuals will chose to be horrible no matter what the circumstance, and that is a fact that we need to face.

Paul

 

[MJS]

People like this are probably damaged beyond repair---the medicines that they need to become reliable, connected member of society probably won't exist for centuries. Under ideal conditions, certain violent individuals probably be rehabilitated, but someone like this... no, I can't imagine it. He's wired for destruction, probably has been for a long time and will continue to be as long as he's alive.

So..that being said, why is someone like that still a member of society?

Mike

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Its a quick way to fame and attention, albeit posthumously, for someone feeling marginalized. I feel that the media IS somewhat of a factor in these cases. We are so bombarded with "fame" and celebrity...reality shows...Brad and Angelina...what the movie stars are doing, wearing, saying, driving, selling, etc. I think some people feel like failures if the world doesnt know who they are. Among those people are the few who decide to shoot their way into the spotlight.

 

[exile]

So..that being said, why is someone like that still a member of society?
Mike

I know what you're saying, but the overwhelming stumbling block is identification of the dangerous cases before the fact. This guy who shot all those children in the Amish school... I don't think, from any of the news accounts I've read, that he had given any signs to anyone else that he was deranged, certainly not to the degree he really was. There's no mental Geiger counter you can turn on to tell you when you're in the presence of lethal derangement. Put the sex criminals, the paedophiles and those cases in oubliettes and melt the keys down, sure, but with this guy Roberts... no clues. What do you do?

 

[exile]

Generally speaking, we have all the methods available to us right now to prevent those who would hurt themselves or others from doing so; but none of these methods will work on the individual determined to do horrible acts anyways.

And I think that the fact that some individuals don't want to be moral and want to be violent is the hardest thing for normal, moral people to wrap their heads around. Some individuals will chose to be horrible no matter what the circumstance, and that is a fact that we need to face.
Paul

This is the essence of it. There's that great line from The Doors song `Riders of the Storm' that goes `There's a killer on the road/His mind is squirming like a toad', and there's something really right about that---the minds of these people are simply not comprehensible to us; I strongly suspect we can't visualize what's going on in their heads any more than we can imagine what it feels like in the inside of a crocodile's mind. These guys very likely don't have any conception of good/evil even remotely close to ours. To me, it looks like they're another species.

But they look human, and they're capable of acting human for long stretches. So how can you tell who you're dealing with, in advance? What horrifies us, I suspect, is the same thing that scares us in a dozen or so sci-fi movies predicated on alien intelligences that have taken over the bodies of human beings. But these people aren't fiction, and that's what's really scary.

 

[Cruentus]

I know what you're saying, but the overwhelming stumbling block is identification of the dangerous cases before the fact.

I agree with you that hindsight is 20/20, and that identification and prevention is our biggest stumbling block.

However, the misconception propigated by the media is that there are no warning signs. It is common to show parents, friends, neighbors, etc., all reporting that the preditor was "normal" or even "loving and caring." This is probably true when one chooses to only look at certain incidences while overlooking others. There is this misconception that these people were normal, and walking around smelling the daisies, and then one day they just "snapped" and decided to light up a school.

Selling this idea makes the stories more sensational and fearful; as if we as citizens and members of our community have no way of recognizing warning signs because they don't exist, and people just "snap."

This is almost never the case. There are almost always warning signs, and I only throw in the word "almost" simply for the sake of conservatism. When one really looks past the media and into these cases, it becomes evidence that many warning signs existed, and that incidents could be stopped if these were recognized. Therefore, we aren't powerless to stop these things from happening.

The reason that these occurances are such "shockers" is because normal, moral people would never think of doing something atrocious like shooting up a school. The surprise is more over the fact that someone would do such a thing at all. Because people who are generally good people don't think in terms of violence and what others are capable of, warning signs aren't noticed. Once one realizes that doing a violent act is on the table, all of the warning signs become evident.

 

[Cruentus]

the minds of these people are simply not comprehensible to us; I strongly suspect we can't visualize what's going on in their heads any more than we can imagine what it feels like in the inside of a crocodile's mind.

I am not in full agreement with this notion.

What I mean is that most people who are good people naturally don't want to get into the minds of a "bad" person.

That doesn't mean that we aren't capable of understanding human preditors, or that they are some how alien to the rest of us. This idea is promoted by the understandable tendency to demonize preditors because good people don't want to think that a regular human being could do such a thing.

The thing is, there is nothing special about these preditors. They are just like you or I in more ways then they are not. They are more human, and more similar to good, moral people then they are not. There are only a few elements that are different that makes them monsters to the rest of us.

According to psychiatrist Menninger: "I don't believe in such a thing as the criminal mind, Everyone's mind is criminal; we're all capable of criminal fantasies and thoughts."

Attrocious and horrific acts, although we call them "inhumane," are unfortunatily precisely human. Anyone of us are capable of attrocious acts. You can prove this to yourself; just sit for a minute and think of something attrocious that you yourself could physically do. But of course, your wouldn't. Yet, Any one of us could shot up a school, hurt or torture someone, and the list goes on. Yet, we don't, while a small part of the population does.

What seperates "us" from "them" are simple things like morality, compassion, empathy, but only for the moment. These things are very small and subjective, however significant; and at any given moment changing them could be the difference between a seriel killer or a city worker, a school teacher or a rapist, etc.

These "killer's on the road" aren't from some foreign place; they were born in the same hospitals as the rest of us, and live down the street, shop in the malls, work in the office, etc. They aren't foreign because just as much as there is some of "us" in "them", there is some of "them" in "us".

And that, my friend, is much more frightening then the notion that these people are aliens.

 

[exile]

I am not in full agreement with this notion.

What I mean is that most people who are good people naturally don't want to get into the minds of a "bad" person.

That doesn't mean that we aren't capable of understanding human preditors, or that they are some how alien to the rest of us. This idea is promoted by the understandable tendency to demonize preditors because good people don't want to think that a regular human being could do such a thing.

The thing is, there is nothing special about these preditors. They are just like you or I in more ways then they are not. They are more human, and more similar to good, moral people then they are not. There are only a few elements that are different that makes them monsters to the rest of us.

According to psychiatrist Menninger: "I don't believe in such a thing as the criminal mind, Everyone's mind is criminal; we're all capable of criminal fantasies and thoughts."

Attrocious and horrific acts, although we call them "inhumane," are unfortunatily precisely human. Anyone of us are capable of attrocious acts. You can prove this to yourself; just sit for a minute and think of something attrocious that you yourself could physically do. But of course, your wouldn't. Yet, Any one of us could shot up a school, hurt or torture someone, and the list goes on. Yet, we don't, while a small part of the population does.

Tulisan---what you say has a lot of merit. I know I may be exaggerating the difference in the consciousness of guys like the Amish school killer on the one hand and the people familiar to me from daily life. My comments are based on a thought experiment very similar to the one you suggest: I imagine what this guy (or the other school killers, or predatory horrors like Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo) have done to people, and then I try to imagine how much different my mind would have to be like in order for those kinds of actions to seem even doable, let alone justified, let alone appealing. It strikes me that to get to that point, I would have to separate my mode of thinking, feeling and imagining so far from the way I am that there would be essentially nothing left of normal consciousness, or of anything that I share with people like my friends and family, or you and the other people who have been posting on this thread. So my conclusion about the `alien' nature of the consciousness of people like these school killers and serial killers and the rest, reflects my sense that that for me to be able to do the same kind of thing would require me to give up all the reactions and networks of affect that I think of essential to the conduct of ordinary life in human society. But there's more...

What seperates "us" from "them" are simple things like morality, compassion, empathy, but only for the moment. These things are very small and subjective, however significant; and at any given moment changing them could be the difference between a seriel killer or a city worker, a school teacher or a rapist, etc.

See, this is what I really wonder about. You mention compassion, and I think that's crucial, but it goes further I think, because I suspect we all know a lot of people who, though quite decent, aren't particularly compassionate in any obvious way at least. But I think all normal people share the ability to picture other people as possessing feeling, reactions, desires and fears similar to their own. We can imagine other's reactions based on our own emotional reactions---we attribute to others the same inner life we know in ourselves firsthand. My conception of people like these killers is that they do not see other people as having an inner life, a identity, very much like theirs---they have no sense of affect or personality in anyone else. For them, people are things that it is legitimate to destroy.

I've heard of Menninger's views, but I'm not sure just what kinds of offenders he based them on. I wonder if a clinical acquaintance with Charles Manson, or this Amish school murderer, or that genre, would have given him different perspective... just a thought.

These "killer's on the road" aren't from some foreign place; they were born in the same hospitals as the rest of us, and live down the street, shop in the malls, work in the office, etc. They aren't foreign because just as much as there is some of "us" in "them", there is some of "them" in "us".

I know what you're saying, I think. There's a lot of truth to what you say... I still wonder though if there's some fundamental failure of imagination, a kind of violent autism, that allows these people to carry out acts that we can't picture ourselves doing to innocents.

And that, my friend, is much more frightening then the notion that these people are aliens.

I agree, it is horribly frightening. As soon as you start recovering from one of these tragedies, another shows up on the front page, it seems like...

Gotta go train tonight, but I'm very interested in your take on all this and what the other posters make of it, and want to check in later to see where this very thought-provoking thread is going...

 

[Cruentus]

My conception of people like these killers is that they do not see other people as having an inner life, a identity, very much like theirs---they have no sense of affect or personality in anyone else. For them, people are things that it is legitimate to destroy.

Some see people as things, others don't. Many see people as people with feelings, thoughts, and emotions, and actually get off on manipulating those through violent acts. They see people as humans, and thrive on the power and satisfaction that being monsterous and horrible towards them brings.

I've heard of Menninger's views, but I'm not sure just what kinds of offenders he based them on. I wonder if a clinical acquaintance with Charles Manson, or this Amish school murderer, or that genre, would have given him different perspective... just a thought.

Often what you find is those who work close with these people, professionals or otherwise, give accounts on how eerily most of these people are "normal." Warning signs are there, but killers generally don't seem "alien" to these people.

You see, the issue of profiling and prevention came up, and I think that for prevention it is essential to recognize the humaness of these violent individuals. By recognizing this, we can begin to see what factors would cause an otherwise normal human do violence. We need to understand that often these factors are usually not grandious, like the killer was locked in a closet for his entire childhood or something like that. What they are is maladaptive responses and developments of their choosing from occurances that happen to large numbers people, most who choose not to kill. Only when we realize the normalness of these killers will we be able to successfully seperate what elements are not adaptive, so we can take preventative measures on any scale.

 

[jetboatdeath]

Read Gavin Debeckers book gift of fear. He speaks of this alot one nut sitting around watching the news and sees a school shooting and acts.
His solution don't post his face all over the place thats what he wants.
He (debecker) says we need to take the fame away from the killer. Make him a news story but tell of how he was a looser with no friends in high school. Of how he ;in this case molested before maake him look like the fool he is. The next nut seeing this may say hey i don't want to be made a fool of and not go on to the mext phase of his plan.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It was reported thet the guy was in a really good mood the weekend before the event. This is typical of scuicidal people that have finaly decided to go through with killing themselves.
Sean

 

[Cruentus]

Read Gavin Debeckers book gift of fear.

Good book, and good point. That is the whole thing; the media wants to sensationalize these characters and make them into inhuman, sensational, powerful, and frightening creatures; charactaristics that might attract certain individuals lacking felt value. Not sensationalizing them would be a start.

Yet, we need to understand that the media and people in general don't realize that they are sensationalizing these preditors (even me calling them preditors for lack of a better term could be considered sensationalizing, no matter how accurate); because most normal people would never desire to have the traits attributed to these killers - at least not in the same way that these killers achieve their ends.

 

[exile]

Some see people as things, others don't. Many see people as people with feelings, thoughts, and emotions, and actually get off on manipulating those through violent acts. They see people as humans, and thrive on the power and satisfaction that being monsterous and horrible towards them brings.

Yes, there are plenty of people of the second type you mention. Shakespeare's villain Iago in Othello is the classic icon of this sort: he undertands love, jealousy, fear and pride in other people---how to evoke them and how to use them to trigger certain actions in others---and plays Othello and Desdemona like chess pieces, for no better reason than that he can do it (he's got a lot of frustrated ambition as well, but it's clear that his destructiveness comes from nothing but his love of playing people against each other like a private Punch and Judy show) But I don't think that that's quite the same thing as identifying with other people's emotional responses. If you explain the Golden Rule to a normal child, one with an undamaged capacity for emotional rapport with others, s/he will not have any trouble intuitively grasping the underlying basis of `do unto others as you would have them do unto you'---normal children can picture themselves undergoing something painful caused by another's actions and typically take their own aversion to suffering as a self-evident reason not to subject others to suffering. From what I've read about autism, the difference between normal and autistic children is that the latter do not see why anything that affects their own emotional state has any implications for how they should relate to other, because autistic children don't feel any connection between themselves and others. They do not, in a basic sense, attribute mind and feeling to others that have anything remotely to do with what they themselves think and feel. They understand that certain things cause people to react in a certain way, but for them, those are just the rules of a certain game.

So it still seems to me possible for a destructive personality to recognize affect in others without taking it to have the slightest importance in guiding their own actions towards those others. And it still seems to me at least possible that the capacity that the people we're talking about have to do damage to others is in part a function of this... inability to visualize themselves in the other's place. But maybe there's no way to determine the (un)truth of this suggestion...

You see, the issue of profiling and prevention came up, and I think that for prevention it is essential to recognize the humaness of these violent individuals. By recognizing this, we can begin to see what factors would cause an otherwise normal human do violence. We need to understand that often these factors are usually not grandious, like the killer was locked in a closet for his entire childhood or something like that. What they are is maladaptive responses and developments of their choosing from occurances that happen to large numbers people, most who choose not to kill.

Yes---in the end, it does come down to those choices. For most of us, those choices are incomprehensible, because no matter how angry or frustrated we get, we simply cannot see how directing violence toward innocent strangers has anything to do with relieving our anger. So there's still a problem for explanation here: what is it about the people who do these things that makes it possible for them to choose---apparently with no regrets in a great majority of cases---to do horrific violence and damage to people they don't even know?

Only when we realize the normalness of these killers will we be able to successfully seperate what elements are not adaptive, so we can take preventative measures on any scale.

But, in the end, doesn't this amount to saying that yes, what we have to look for are certain tendencies or inclinations in a population which suggest that the people possessing these tendencies are not going to respond to other people according to `normal' restrictions on action---i.e., that their tendency to violence won't be constrained by the fellow-feeling we take to be one of the crucial aspects of `normality'?

This of course is way independent of the question of how you do any kind of screening so that you catch these cases early without having an Orwellian level of routine intervention and monitoring in the lives of individuals...

 

[Cruentus]

But I don't think that that's quite the same thing as identifying with other people's emotional responses.

I think that the word you're looking for is EMPATHY. As I said before, many predators do identify with the other person's emotional response; which is precisely what motivates them to kill, torture, rape, etc. It is either an inability or refusal at that moment to have empathy, or to put it a different way, to "give a ****."

But this is not the same as not having the capacity to have empathy. There are killers who love their pets, for example. There are violent criminals who are significant others, parents, sons or daughters, friends, and so forth. They demonstrate a capacity for empathy in one context, but not in another.

This is another thing that normal people do. How many of us, for example, have been guilty of driving unempathetically because we were in a hurry? How many of us have been uncaring for another persons needs because we had needs of our own that took precedence? We all have been guilty of not being empathetic from time to time. It is just that most of us don't decide to take it to a level of shooting up a school, or doing a violent act. That is because most of us don't have needs that could be met that way. But, what if one came to the conclusion that needs could be met through a violent act, and that those needs took precedence over other peoples? Unfortunately, most of us could logic out a situation where this could be true for us. When a person decides to do violence like a shooting, that person has not only reasoned out a way to meet needs for themselves, but they are acting on what they have reasoned in a violent manner.

If you explain the Golden Rule to a normal child, one with an undamaged capacity for emotional rapport with others, s/he will not have any trouble intuitively grasping the underlying basis of `do unto others as you would have them do unto you'---normal children can picture themselves undergoing something painful caused by another's actions and typically take their own aversion to suffering as a self-evident reason not to subject others to suffering.

There is a lot of research done on the subject of early and late childhood development, critical age, and so forth. It really isn't as black and white as you described; and recent research refutes the psychoanalytical notion that if one misses something like "empathy" in their development that they will be unable to experience this later. We cannot pinpoint yet when and how people decide to become empathetic. Many functioning people aren't at times empathetic at all. We can look at situations of white collar crime; K-mart, Enron, etc., if we want to see examples of people behaving unempathetically with dire consequence. The only real difference between a school shooter and someone who would clean out the pensions of elderly people is access, ability, and need; the school shooter decided that his needs could be met in one manner of which he had access and ability to meet those needs, while a white-collar criminal decided his needs could be met in another of which he had access and ability.

The needs, ability, and access may be completely different, but the willingness to put ones own needs above others unempathetically is the same. A glaring difference between a school shooter and another unempathetic person is that the shooter is willing to meet his needs violently.

We learn to behave both empathetically and unempathetically at an early age, and for no good reasoning behind either. Anyone remember their K-12 experience and how cruel kids of all ages can be to one another at any given time?

To reiterate from above, the issue is empathy in a specific context. Most, if not all, predators have demonstrated at one time or another a capacity for empathy. These people simply choose not to demonstrate empathy when they are meeting certain needs through violently victimizing another.

From what I've read about autism, the difference between normal and autistic children is that the latter do not see why anything that affects their own emotional state has any implications for how they should relate to other, because autistic children don't feel any connection between themselves and others.

Autism is quite different then what your implying here, in that autism is a problem of communication due to perceptual differences in how the brain is wired. I highly recommend the works of Dr. Temple Grandin to better understand Autism:
http://www.templegrandin.com/templegrandinart.html. Autism is not really a problem of empathy as far as we know.

In a psychotic or anti-social person, the problem usually isn't communication. The problem is, again, empathy in a given context coupled with a willingness to do violence.

But, what I think you're implying in your autism example is that there is something biologically wrong with violent predators. To date, there is no evidence to support that there is one consistent biological factor or set of factors that would contribute to violent behavior. I am guessing that we will never be able to isolate one or a few biological reasons for violence, nor we will be able to fix these problems through biological or pharmacological means without becoming an Orwellian society. Biological causal factors are all highly individualized.

But, in the end, doesn't this amount to saying that yes, what we have to look for are certain tendencies or inclinations in a population which suggest that the people possessing these tendencies are not going to respond to other people according to `normal' restrictions on action---i.e., that their tendency to violence won't be constrained by the fellow-feeling we take to be one of the crucial aspects of `normality'?

This of course is way independent of the question of how you do any kind of screening so that you catch these cases early without having an Orwellian level of routine intervention and monitoring in the lives of individuals...

Yes, we can look for trends, so long as we do so with the realization that each murder is highly individualized, even though there may be common trends.

We can value an emphasis on social issues that would curb maladaptive behavior patterns in the first place. Perhaps making sure that our schools are educating our children with a gestalt approach (the whole is greater then the sum of its parts), and that families and parents aren't stretched to the max working multiple jobs, leaving children to raise themselves. Perhaps ensuring that adults, particularly in depressed socioeconomic area's where violence tends to be seen as the only solution to have needs met, have access to therapy where maladaptive patterns can be identified and helped while the person is still willing to be helped, and before something drastic occurs. Perhaps the medical and insurance community demphasizing the 15 minute doctor visit followed by a prescription of anti-depressants in favor of more therapeutic, holistic solutions where problems can be identified and solved would be a good move.

These are all some possible solutions and examples. They all work and they all fail at the same time. This is because there is no simple set of band-aid solutions. To really better solve these issues we would need a societal change and an entirely new collective outlook to transform these issues at their core.

As citizens, we could all be a little more responsible for our communities, and pay attention to what is going on around us, and be willing to solve problems of violence either before or when they do occur. There is no one trait of a predator that can be pinpointed, as we all have the same traits in varying degrees in different contexts. But we can recognize behavior patterns of individuals before they decide to do a violent act like shoot up a school. Because hindsight is 20/20, there is almost always recognizable patterns that are individualized, but evident that someone is preparing to do something violent. This is obvious simply from reading news accounts of these stories, such as this one from the Christian Science Monitor on the Amish school shooting:

"On Monday, however, he left suicide notes for his family, then drove his pickup truck to a school he no doubt passed many times on late-night milk routes. He brought to the school a semi-automatic pistol, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a rifle - along with restraints, lumber to block the doors, and a change of clothing.
In a scene that seemed to echo the Bailey shooting, the gunman ordered boys and school aides out, then bound 10 girls ages 6 to 13. He called his wife on his cellphone."

"Law-enforcement officials, working to unearth Roberts's motive, said Tuesday that sexual assault seemed the most likely one. In a suicide note, they said, Roberts recalled an incident 20 years ago when he, a pre-teen at the time, molested younger children. The note indicated he had been haunted by dreams about molesting young girls, police said."

You can't convince me that no one could notice this kind of preparation. As you can see, there are always warning signs that if the guys wife, people he delivered too or worked with, or what have you, had responded to sooner, the tragedy may have been prevented. This tragedy is no one's fault but the shooter, but that doesn't mean that people can't step up and do something when something seems wrong.

So...solutions? I have named a few, but the issue is far deeper then what I could cover in an Internet discussion, I think. And of course, there are unanswered questions as well. I think that if all of us could take responsibility for ourselves and our environment, and work towards a more holistic and free society, then that would be a start.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

I wanted to say also that although that this is an incredibly interesting discussion I am having here with Exile and others (and I thank you for that) I have to get back to other productive things, unfortunatily. I have gotten about as detailed as I am willing to get on a forum with this topic; and I just can't afford the time even though I would love to delve into this more.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Also, once again, my heart and prayers go out to the families and communities and the victims. I am deeply sorrowed when I hear of such tragedies, and I hope that these communities see better days.

Paul Janulis