Liberal/Conservat ive Litmus Test

[Al6200]

How can we predict if a position will be supported by the conservatives or the liberals? What is the common link between all the different liberal/conservative positions? How does supporting welfare tie in to opposing harsher drug laws? How does a stronger national defense relate to support of school vouchers? In this topic I will try to assert a single litmus test that can be used to determine if an idea is liberal or conservative. This will be coined the "Distorted Power Process Litmus Test". In addition, I will address some of the more popular litmus tests that have been used.

Distorted Power Process Litmus Tests

Humans have a natural desire to work towards a goal, and succeed through their efforts. In today's world, many of these goals - such as survival needs - are met without effort and provide little satisfaction. Other goals, like reproducing or making money are largely based on things like intelligence, things outside of the individual's control. Humans naturally want to undergo a satisfying power process that is tied to natural rewards, but are not allowed to do this in the context of modern society.

The key difference between Liberals and Conservatives is how they deal with the power process. Conservatives try to feel the power process vicariously by associating their own reproductive success with that of their society. They strongly support individual differences and their own inferiority because they see the superiority of others as adding to their own ego (since that ego is tied to the collective).

Conversely, Liberals delve into art and literature as a way of fulfilling the power process. Since there's no objective concept of good in the arts, the power process can be relieved. A person can succeed as an artist through pure effort, the same is not necessarily true of fields like engineering and math, where there are objective standards of success.

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

Here's how it stands on some big issues.

Vouchers: Liberals oppose them because they see it as alienating lower class persons, while conservatives support it since it allows those with the best genes to get ahead.

Taxes: Conservatives want to reduce taxes so that the most gifted individuals are free to succeed, while the least productive are free to fail.

Abortion: Liberals support it because they want every person to have the most pleasure, but conservatives oppose it because they see more people as benefiting society, and an objective value of human life as strengthening the human nationalist ideal. I'm not saying that the life/choice arguments are irrelevant, I'm just saying that most people take a stance on the issue before they understand any of the arguments or cases, almost instinctively.

Also, banning abortion allows the conservative to feel the power process, while legalizing abortion is passive and doesn't allow one to experience the power process as fully.

Military: Liberals oppose it because it costs money and doesn't provide anyone real pleasure. Conservatives support it because it allows them to fulfill the power process through the social system.

Drug Laws: Drugs make people less productive, and they don't contribute to society as a whole, so conservatives oppose them, while liberals see drugs as a personal way of fulfilling the power process.

Unless my reasoning is off somewhere, it seems like my litmus test is a pretty good way of differentiating between liberal and conservative ideas.

Liberals support more rapid change than conservatives

Than why did the conservatives support the war in Iraq? That was pretty rapid change. Why do liberals oppose nuclear power? Wouldn't its widespread adoption be change?

Not only does this definition fail on a large number of positions, it's also subjective. Take abortion. One could say that the Pro-Choice position is change because abortion was illegal in some areas before Roe vs. Wade. Conversely, one could say that the Pro-Life position supports change since US policy has been predominately Pro-Choice from Roe vs. Wade until today.

Liberals are cooperators and look out for others, conservatives are defectors and look out for themselves

This is an interesting case but it fails upon closer inspection. A cooperative strategy for some player is the strategy that is irrational for that player but benefits society as a whole. We can consider two players - the United States, and individuals within the US.

For the United States, it seems as though liberals are trying to maximize America's payoff matrix (non-interventionism), while conservatives are trying to reduce American's payoff matrix (Iraq War), although it's still questionable if that's irrational cooperation or just irrationality for the sake of irrationality.

Also, I should note that neither cooperation nor defection are objective and mutually exclusive. Consider that students working together to fail a test and lower the curve is an example of a Nash equilibrium. Doing bad on purpose would traditionally be considered a cooperative strategy, since it helps the other members of the class to do well. Conversely, doing well and breaking the curve would be considered defective since it

In other words, breaking the curve is rational for the individual, defective with respect to the class, and cooperative with respect to the school!

This litmus test fails on that basis alone.

Liberals support freedom and conservatives oppose it (or the opposite of that)

Liberals support more freedom on issues like drugs, speech, and religion - while conservatives support more freedom on issues like guns, education, or business. This fails as a litmus test.

[SmilezRoyale]

Very well written, very comprehensible, i agree with most of it. Also note that the 'conservatives helping themselfs' and 'liberals helping everyone' is not true, i am sure most liberals acknowledge that wealth redistribution in tax policy does not benefit everyone, it benefits the lower class and equals the playing feild, that is their goal. Nor do conservatives 'accept' that they chose to benefit themselfs and their kind, most of them genuinely beleive that cross the board tax cuts help the poor more than government aid does.

It's more my theory that the part of the brain you predominantly use to make conscious descisions determines how you feel about an issue. I think the fact that i was born thinking in black and white [And to this day, doing so, as many people have told me] makes me conservative.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

Nice theory but anyone can find an all consuming hidden meaning behind everything. Without causal links I for one can't take it seriously.

[Al6200]

At 4/18/08 10:51 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Nice theory but anyone can find an all consuming hidden meaning behind everything. Without causal links I for one can't take it seriously.

I'm suggesting that it has predictive validity, and that's why it's the correct explanation. That's the "casual link".

[Zeistro]

Todays conservatism is tomorrow's liberalism and vice versa.

At least, that's what I've observed.

[Slizor]

Conversely, Liberals delve into art and literature as a way of fulfilling the power process. Since there's no objective concept of good in the arts, the power process can be relieved. A person can succeed as an artist through pure effort, the same is not necessarily true of fields like engineering and math, where there are objective standards of success.

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

So.....Liberals dislike the theory of evolution and Conservatives have been pushing for it to be taught in schools?

Anyhow, I think you have to understand that people tend to support welfare not on the grounds of undermining the chances of hard-working people getting their just rewards, but instead enhancing it - they don't (rightly) believe that a meritocratic system exists and that the playing field must be levelled before we can talk of letting people "sink or swim".

[Al6200]

At 4/19/08 09:29 AM, Slizor wrote:

Conversely, Liberals delve into art and literature as a way of fulfilling the power process. Since there's no objective concept of good in the arts, the power process can be relieved. A person can succeed as an artist through pure effort, the same is not necessarily true of fields like engineering and math, where there are objective standards of success.

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

So.....Liberals dislike the theory of evolution and Conservatives have been pushing for it to be taught in schools?

I was considering that. I think that liberals oppose it because it supports moral absolutes and objectivism, and conservatives support it because they see it as a form of national/social unity. Of course, the science shows that creation theory is wrong, but that doesn't stop people - the same way liberals still support socialism even though it has a horrific track record.

Anyhow, I think you have to understand that people tend to support welfare not on the grounds of undermining the chances of hard-working people getting their just rewards, but instead enhancing it - they don't (rightly) believe that a meritocratic system exists and that the playing field must be levelled before we can talk of letting people "sink or swim".

Right but income is mostly determined by mental ability, and that is mostly inherited. Today we clearly have a meritocracy, since any free market system is really be definition a meritocracy.

There are a few exceptions to meritocracy, like affirmative action for women and minorities, but we mostly see that it's liberals supporting these measures and not conservatives.

[Al6200]

At 4/19/08 01:35 AM, Zeistro wrote: Todays conservatism is tomorrow's liberalism and vice versa.

At least, that's what I've observed.

So today's liberalism, which believes in - lets say - more welfare, by your logic would be supported by conservatives in the past?

One - that test lacks rigor because you haven't defined "tomorrow" in concrete terms - is it 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Also, it seems to fail on most issues.

[arcansi]

At 4/19/08 10:39 AM, Al6200 wrote: Liberals are cooperators and look out for others, conservatives are defectors and look out for themselves

Thats where you went wrong. You are obviously a liberal.

[Zeistro]

At 4/19/08 10:39 AM, Al6200 wrote: So today's liberalism, which believes in - lets say - more welfare, by your logic would be supported by conservatives in the past?

I'll give an example. Consider the Spartan practice of leaving their either weak or deformed infants on a mountain side to die. At first glance this seemed to benefit Spartan society as a whole and it was the social norm to carry out such measures. In today's world we can't imagine doing something we'd see as so barbarous, therefore, it be a radical idea to undertake such a practice and thus a huge change from out traditional society.

Let's not forget how different the terms "liberal" and socialist were three hundred years ago.

One - that test lacks rigor because you haven't defined "tomorrow" in concrete terms - is it 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Also, it seems to fail on most issues.

I'd define as more along the lines of generations.

[Al6200]

At 4/19/08 12:01 PM, arcansi wrote:

At 4/19/08 10:39 AM, Al6200 wrote: Liberals are cooperators and look out for others, conservatives are defectors and look out for themselves

Thats where you went wrong. You are obviously a liberal.

I wasn't making that case, I was just pointing out a position that I've heard before. And I actually attacked and debunked that suggestion later in the post.

[Al6200]

At 4/19/08 12:18 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 4/19/08 10:39 AM, Al6200 wrote: So today's liberalism, which believes in - lets say - more welfare, by your logic would be supported by conservatives in the past?

I'll give an example. Consider the Spartan practice of leaving their either weak or deformed infants on a mountain side to die. At first glance this seemed to benefit Spartan society as a whole and it was the social norm to carry out such measures. In today's world we can't imagine doing something we'd see as so barbarous, therefore, it be a radical idea to undertake such a practice and thus a huge change from out traditional society.

Are you saying that this was a conservative idea and today is liberal - since I wouldn't exactly say that's the case.

I think Spartan society was pretty conservative for its time and would be considered conservative today.

Usually people make the exact opposite of your claim, that today's liberal ideas are tomorrow's conservative ideas.

One - that test lacks rigor because you haven't defined "tomorrow" in concrete terms - is it 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Also, it seems to fail on most issues.

I'd define as more along the lines of generations.

But how many generations?

[Zeistro]

At 4/19/08 12:35 PM, Al6200 wrote: Are you saying that this was a conservative idea and today is liberal - since I wouldn't exactly say that's the case.

No, it isn't liberal in the sense of Howard Dean, Georga Galloway, Randi Rhodes liberal per sa, but liberal in the respect that it would introduce such a drastic change to our society and it's moral outlook.

I think Spartan society was pretty conservative for its time and would be considered conservative today.

At it's time are the magic words im talking about. At their time in history they would be considered one thing, but its funny if someone talked about reinstating they'd be labelled a leftwing kook or right wing nut.

I'll say it a different way; what may be advocated by a conservative a thousand years ago would be considered liberal todays strictly for the fact it would divert the social norm of what is already established.

Usually people make the exact opposite of your claim, that today's liberal ideas are tomorrow's conservative ideas.

Hence whay I said today's conservatism is tomorrows liberal and vice versa.

But how many generations?

Generation is a broad term of reference I use. It could be ten or a thousand generation before the regression/reintroduction of espoused political ideas.

[Slizor]

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

So.....Liberals dislike the theory of evolution and Conservatives have been pushing for it to be taught in schools?

I was considering that. I think that liberals oppose it because it supports moral absolutes and objectivism, and conservatives support it because they see it as a form of national/social unity.

What the fuck? Liberals don't oppose the theory of evolution, I was using it as a counter-example to your claim of Liberal dislike of science. It's Conservatives who have been pushing for non-scientific, non-"objective" crappy "Crationist science".

Of course, the science shows that creation theory is wrong, but that doesn't stop people - the same way liberals still support socialism even though it has a horrific track record.

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Anyhow, I think you have to understand that people tend to support welfare not on the grounds of undermining the chances of hard-working people getting their just rewards, but instead enhancing it - they don't (rightly) believe that a meritocratic system exists and that the playing field must be levelled before we can talk of letting people "sink or swim".

Right but income is mostly determined by mental ability, and that is mostly inherited.

Income is mostly determined by what class you were born in, as the study I linked to already said. And "mental ability" is co-determined by nuture and nature.

Today we clearly have a meritocracy, since any free market system is really be definition a meritocracy.

Unless you decide that the way that a free market works is a meritocratic way, then no, you can't define it that way.

There are a few exceptions to meritocracy, like affirmative action for women and minorities, but we mostly see that it's liberals supporting these measures and not conservatives.

There are a number of exceptions to meritocracy....such as reality. America is a class-stratified society where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Opportunities for advancement are limited and social problems stem from this.

I would make actual arguments for these views, but since you seem content to simply state your views in opposition to mine without any explaination I can't honestly be bothered wasting the time.

[bearchild]

IMHO, Liberalism and Conservatism are very narrow ways of looking at it. It seems what these Americans call "Politics" show only two views:

View 1:
Liberals=evil
Conservatives=good

View 2:
Liberals=good
Conservatives=evil

Frankly, in terms of discussing politics that's quite shit.
You could use something like the Political Compass: www.politicalcompass.com which is quite good for gauging political views as it handles both social and economic policy - two very different things.

As for me I'm what they call in the US a "mental liberal"
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
This basically means that I'm a moderate socialist libertarian.

Note:Communism/Neo-liberism is economic and Fascism/Libertarianism is social

The concepts of Liberal/Conservative are very simplified and can be boiled down to:
Liberals:
Probably usually Christians but usually support gays, nationalised health care etc. Most Liberals are pro-free-trade with businesses doing their own thing. In the grand scheme of things, most "Liberals" are quite conservative anyway but try not to tell people that.
Conservatives:
Prefer to follow the Bible for political advice and usually fervently disagree with Liberals about most things, usually very liberal in economic policy, prefer businesses to do their thang.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/19/08 01:35 AM, Zeistro wrote: Todays conservatism is tomorrow's liberalism and vice versa.

At least, that's what I've observed.

I think you have it in reverse. liberalism is tomorrow's conservatism.

[n64kid]

At 4/21/08 11:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I think you have it in reverse. liberalism is tomorrow's conservatism.

What's the difference between a moderate and a conservative?

5 years

=D

[Memorize]

At 4/21/08 09:36 AM, Slizor wrote:

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Well...

During the time of the Stock Market Crash, Hoover decided to:
-Cut Trade
-Raise Tariffs
-Increased Taxes
-Government Intervention for businesses to keep prices high

Which later caused unemployment to reach double digits.

What the democratic candidates doing?
-Opposing NAFTA
-Opposing Columbian Trade
-Increased taxes on rich, letting tax cuts expire
-Blame the banks and not the people who bought homes they couldn't afford.

All during what they claim is a recession... even though the recession will cause house prices to fall, allowing people and bargain hunters to buy and pick up the housing market.

Recession... even though our unemployment is only around 5%. We used to call that full employment, I guess not anymore.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 4/21/08 11:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/21/08 09:36 AM, Slizor wrote:

-Blame the banks and not the people who bought homes they couldn't afford.

Actually, I blame both groups. The people who bought the homes shouldn't have bought them, but the banks should have known that people who couldn't qualify for a standard mortgage wouldn't likely be able to pay back these screwy loans once the interests rates reset. I'll explain this cause in a few seconds.

All during what they claim is a recession... even though the recession will cause house prices to fall, allowing people and bargain hunters to buy and pick up the housing market.

The problem was that much of our economy was being fueled by credit, not real economic growth. In the case of housing, many people were granted loans they couldn't afford in the long term. The banks, in there greed, were so concerned about turning a quarterly profits, that they underwrote loans that people could afford in the short term, such as these variable rate and interest only loans. There was a lot of credit available to do so, so these banks took full advantage and loaned to everyone could. Now, more people than ever before were buying houses, and housing prices skyrocketed.

At the same time, banks were also giving out lots of home equity loans (borrowing against the value of your house - debt still owed on it). This was caused both by too much credit and also by the fact that the increase in housing prices meant people had more value to back the loans. Smart people who took these loans put them right back into their houses with repairs and upgrades, increasing the value of their house by an amount that surpassed what they had borrowed. Many individuals, though, blew their loans on items that depreciate, such as expensive cars, electronics, recreational vehicles and the like. This in part helped fuel consumer spending and economic growth.

Now, fast forward to today: Many of those creative financing schemes have now reset to higher rates. Now, these loans were given to people that the banks wouldn't have given loans to before and should have readily known that these people couldn't afford the higher rates. The individuals go bankrupt and/or sell their houses. This has two results. First, many banks incur large losses because of the bankruptcies. Second, housing prices drop.

Now, I realize you believe this to be a good thing because houses will now be cheap, but it is also the cause of the problem. There is an increasing amount of people who owe more money on their houses then they are worth. Some of these people bought their houses when prices peaked and are losing big now as prices fall, and others borrowed on their houses when they were higher priced and now the value of their home is less than their mortage + home equity loans. Now, in addition to suffering from losses due to these risky loans, they are also saddled with loans that aren't fully secured by houses. If the person defaults, the bank will lose money even after selling the house.

As a result, banks become stingy with credit, and people don't want to invest in the banks. Credit has helped fuel both consumer spending as well as provided capital to allow businesses to grow. With less credit to go around, people spend less and businesses have less resources to use to grow and cover short term losses. As a result, economic growth retracts.

Of course, the banks aren't the sole cause. Increasing energy costs, outsourcing removing jobs that paid better than what is now available, and the increase in the income gap have also all helped play a role.

Recession... even though our unemployment is only around 5%. We used to call that full employment, I guess not anymore.

A recession simply means that the economy is shrinking, or more specifically a reduction in GDP. It means that many businesses aren't doing as much business. The result of this is employees are let go, which can further reinforce a decline in business. It is not dependent on unemployment numbers. We could have 2% unemployment and be in a recession.

[Slizor]

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Well...

You didn't mention anything about the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. In fact, you didn't mention anything that is to do with socialism, unless you work on the binary assumption that if something is not (narrowly-defined) capitalism, then it is socialism.....which is just plain stupid. To make an honest case you would have to present a (good) definition of socialism (something along the lines of calls for the nationalisation of a number of industries, subsidisation of a number of essential foodstuffs, the complete nationalisation of healthcare, etc) and then match up "Liberals" to these policies.

On a side note, do any Americans actually understand what socialism is and where it is located in the political spectrum? Have any of you honestly studied it?

[Memorize]

At 4/22/08 08:41 AM, Slizor wrote:

You didn't mention anything about the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. In fact, you didn't mention anything that is to do with socialism, unless you work on the binary assumption that if something is not (narrowly-defined) capitalism, then it is socialism.....which is just plain stupid. To make an honest case you would have to present a (good) definition of socialism (something along the lines of calls for the nationalisation of a number of industries, subsidisation of a number of essential foodstuffs, the complete nationalisation of healthcare, etc) and then match up "Liberals" to these policies.

Or maybe you just didn't get the simple fact that when "times are tough", you don't make it worse by having people worry about their money.

Was that hard enough for you to understand?

Stupid ass.

[bobomajo]

Yeah I think bearchild's post sums that up quite well.

[Christopherr]

Drugs make people less productive?

You'd be surprised how much you can get done without having to stop to eat or sleep or talk to people.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/21/08 09:36 AM, Slizor wrote: "Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism.

Um yeah they do.

Someone who is "liberal" compared to someone who is "conservative" by the modern definition is one who is more supportive of socialist economic policies. This is true not in the world as a whole but within individual countries. The more "liberal" they are by the modern nomenclature, the more supportive they are of government controlled industry and services.

They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Except, not.

[Al6200]

At 4/21/08 09:36 AM, Slizor wrote:

What the fuck? Liberals don't oppose the theory of evolution, I was using it as a counter-example to your claim of Liberal dislike of science. It's Conservatives who have been pushing for non-scientific, non-"objective" crappy "Crationist science".

My case here is that liberals and creationists tend to support or oppose creationism (which I know is non-scientific) for reasons other than a general attitude towards science. I mean, this would generally

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Liberals tend to support socialist ideas more than conservatives. Consider: welfare, social safety net, medicare, etc.

Income is mostly determined by what class you were born in, as the study I linked to already said.

How does that contradict my point? I said that certain abilities are inherited and therefore class status is inherited, and you attacked this by saying that class status is inherited...

And "mental ability" is co-determined by nuture and nature.

Yes, but quite a bit of it is nature.

Today we clearly have a meritocracy, since any free market system is really be definition a meritocracy.

Unless you decide that the way that a free market works is a meritocratic way, then no, you can't define it that way.

Yes, you can. Meritocracy roughly means according status and positions by merit or ability.

For example, if a certain good is sold on a free market, it is being judged by its merits in the perspective of a consumer. Likewise, an employee is judged by the merits that the employer considers useful to the job.

You only get away from meritocracy when people try to place positions and duties artificially.

There are a few exceptions to meritocracy, like affirmative action for women and minorities, but we mostly see that it's liberals supporting these measures and not conservatives.

There are a number of exceptions to meritocracy....such as reality. America is a class-stratified society where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Opportunities for advancement are limited and social problems stem from this.

Your suggestion that class-stratification is incompatible with meritocracy is totally unsupported. If you had a meritocracy, and people had different merits, logically one would expect there to be social stratification.

I would make actual arguments for these views, but since you seem content to simply state your views in opposition to mine without any explaination I can't honestly be bothered wasting the time.

)

[Slizor]

At the moment, which is just before I go to bed, I have to say one thing that I will (probably tomorrow) explain.

Fuck right off. Socialism and liberalism the same thing? Socialism supporting a mixed economy? FUCK OFF. You guys seriously don't know shit about political theory if that's your shitty little argument.

Man, I've never been more angered by a picture in my life. How fucking pig shit thick are you? Seriously?

[cellardoor6]

At 4/22/08 07:13 PM, Slizor wrote: Man, I've never been more angered by a picture in my life.

Lol.

How fucking pig shit thick are you?

I think you should probably ask yourself that same question. Just because your vivid imagination and impressionable mind causes you to swallow glorified, fictionalized accounts of what a "socialist" society looks like, doesn't mean you can override the facts and accuse people who simply emphasize those facts as "pig shit".

Seriously?

Here's another one that states basically the same thing.

[cellardoor6]

Lol, I've got another picture. I don't really know how you can get away from this one.

Check it out (pg 7).

[n64kid]

At 4/22/08 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/22/08 07:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

Stuff and more stuff

I seem to be meddling into other peoples affairs but I'm pretty sure he's talking about political socialism, which favors a progression towards communism, therefore putting it left of center. However, in economics you have to assume three posibilities. Either resources are owned by the state, owned by the people, owned by both, or not owned at all. -Yes there are mixtures between these. Ownership of the majority of resources by the state is socialism, ownership of resources by private sectors is capitalism, and communism is the communal ownership of resources by everyone, or no one, depending on how you look at it.

I do have a problem with a few claims in the book you provided Cellar. It only provides allocation, but doesn't address ownership. Therefore, a linear graph can't fully explain the positions on economic systems. You'd have to use a matrix.
Now I'm going to be a little bitch and say there has never been a communist system, even the USSR plugging people to jobs fell short of communism, so I'll try to text this out as best as I can...

Allocation

Free Market Government Command

Private Market Capitalism Planned Capitalism

Resource
Ownership
State Market Socialism Planned Socialism

So what I'm saying is that socialism is a transition between communism and capitalism, but does not lie directly between the two. It's like a bell curve, not a linear one, so in one dimension it appears to be in the center, but when you add multiple dimensions, it shows socialism at an opposite end of the two other systems. Eh I suck at explaining graphs and can't find a good one online. Maybe I'll scan one in at a later time.

(Or maybe a Master Mason can back me up... or prove me wrong.)

[n64kid]

At 4/22/08 11:41 PM, n64kid wrote: so I'll try to text this out as best as I can...

Yeah, spacings didn't really hold.