Direct Democracy Ireland: the split?

MilanPan!c

Hijpo wrote: »

I would like for you to expand on your claims that "All of their policies dovetail with their leadership's conspiracy theories"

Now can you provide an explaination where you see a conspiracy theory in all the policies or not?

If you cant provide the explanations to back up your own conspiracy theory then your claims are inaccurate and tells me you have only commented in that way so you can fit in with the lads and be in with the gang on this thread

This has been discussed to death on the Freeman thread. And on Politics.ie. And on other boards.

No one but you seems to have trouble understanding it.

I know that - considering your attitude - if I try and explain something glaringly obvious to you you'll:

- not understand, somehow, or
- pretend not to understand in an effort to defend your position - which sounds like no fun to me, or
- make some ridiculous excuse

I have no interest in engaging in any of those outcomes.

I know that your fellow posters, many many many of them, have discussed this at length with no confusion. For some reason you want to argue about this; no thanks.

benway

Here, I'll have a quick go at this:

DDI Policies wrote:

Launch a legal review of the use of state assets where irregularities or corruption are suspected.

Ireland is rich in natural resources. Much of these natural resources are being given away literally for nothing via contracts signed by amongst others an ex-minister subsequently convicted of fraud. DDI will launch a full, independent, transparent legal review of any and all such contracts.

Dovetailing neatly into the conspiracy theory put forward by Ben Gilroy™ in an interview with Pat Kenny

Gilroy: We have what everyone wants. We have as much oil as Kuwait had.
Pat: I beg your pardon...
Gilroy: Yes. that is what they believe.
Pat: You can't make these blanket statements. Why are the oil companies not here if we have vast amounts of oil and gas? One has left recently
Gilroy: Check out myoilandgas.org .There is a lot of good information there. They are tying us into the euro for an asset grab. I believe that we have vast amounts, huge amounts of oil and gas
Gilroy: In 2014, we there is a new voting system in the European Parliament which basically negates negates the Irish vote - and then you will see the asset grab of our oil and gas.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

And don't even start me on the pseudolaw and unique constitutional interpretation à la Ben™ that's also in there.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Wow. That interview is truly embarrassing.

benway

"The founding fathers". FFS.

Have snake-oil. Will sell.

Considering that that the stud farm business happened a month before and afaik the attachment/committal order was out by the time this interview aired, that's some hardball interview from Pat there. Another clear example of media bias.

I also love the way he references the receiver selling your properties...

MilanPan!c

benway wrote: »

"The founding fathers". FFS.

Have snake-oil. Will sell.

Considering that that the stud farm business happened a month before and afaik the attachment/committal order was out by the time this interview aired, that's some hardball interview from Pat there. Another clear example of media bias.

I also love the way he references the receiver selling your properties...

he had a warrant out for his arrest at the time of this interview, if I remember correctly...

Hijpo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This has been discussed to death on the Freeman thread. And on Politics.ie. And on other boards.

I am open to discussion and other peoples opinions should they care to explain how they arrived at their own opinions, you seem to have simply thrown out an inaccurate blanket statement that is more than likely derived from the opinions of users you look up to on the freeman thread, Politics.ie. and on other boards. I derive that opinion from the lack of your own explanation again and point me (again) in the direction of someone elses opinions.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No one but you seems to have trouble understanding it.

I know that - considering your attitude - if I try and explain something glaringly obvious to you you'll:

- not understand, somehow, or
- pretend not to understand in an effort to defend your position - which sounds like no fun to me, or
- make some ridiculous excuse

I have no interest in engaging in any of those outcomes.

I know that your fellow posters, many many many of them, have discussed this at length with no confusion. For some reason you want to argue about this; no thanks.

You have not given me anything of yours to understand though. You posted a comment, i asked what led you to have those (yours apparently) opinions and you pointed me at the DDI policy and then to three different sources
Now that iv asked again you want to break off all conversation on the topic that you brought up

I think my attitude is fine considering im open to discuss the opinion you have but for some reason you dont, which is odd.
Hmm, spank_inferno seems to have your back with "thanks" so ill leave you alone.

oscarBravo wrote:

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible for both to be negatives, but in different ways.

A political party without policies is going to be a difficult sell to Irish voters, because Irish voters are used to their parties having policies. If you ask a voter for a preference, but tell them that the policies you'll introduce will be decided at a later date, you're selling them a pig in a poke. That's a negative.

On the other hand, it's exactly how direct democracy is supposed to work, so if instead the party does decide on its policies, it's contradicting its own core ethos. That's also a negative.

I don't know how you square that circle, but you can't just dismiss the criticisms, because they're both valid in their own way.

I agree and im not dismissing the criticism, after all without criticism you cant improve. DDI, through local meetings, saw that the majority of voters would appreciate some policies to judge the party on and it would also provide a better position for local candidates to debate with there constituents. However, anti-DDI have now taken this progressive change and spun it into another negative even though the previous situation was also pointed out as a negative. I dont mind negativity, it provides an opportunity to turn it into a positive but given the fact that some people point out negativity simply because thats the only view they wish people to see (whatever their problem is) is not in the least bit constructive.

I would put a wager that even if Gilroy, and Rudd and Jaan van Halen (:p) and any of the other "conspiracy theorists", which seem to be the main focal point of negativity, were gone from DDI the people in this thread still wouldnt see a positive or be open to constructive discussion.

With regards the attacking of immigrants and banning of minarets, those links only provide one side of a story which has two sides, but your not supposed to see that.

benway

Hijpo wrote: »

I would put a wager that even if Gilroy, and Rudd and Jaan van Halen (:p) and any of the other "conspiracy theorists", which seem to be the main focal point of negativity, were gone from DDI the people in this thread still wouldnt see a positive or be open to constructive discussion.

If Ben™ and Co. were gone from DDI, it wouldn't be DDI. The party is a vehicle for promoting the likes of Ben™ and Whitehead, nothing more. The sham around the party leadership illustrates this.

Hijpo wrote: »

With regards the attacking of immigrants and banning of minarets, those links only provide one side of a story which has two sides, but your not supposed to see that.

Oh, do tell: here's your chance to add something constructive.

By my count, there's been an average of a little over one anti-immigrant / naturalisation / "for the deportation of criminal foreigners" / banning minarets type referendum per year for the last couple of decades.

All of which have clearly been totally necessary and argued in a level-headed, non-xenophobic manner:

humberklog

DDI the party that keeps giving...more parties.

Another day another split. 3 parties now claiming the politicall higher moral ground of transparency and accountability. The holy trinity of wobblies.

Father:
DDI by the original of the species for the original of the species. It's their toy and you're not playing with it (even if you pay your subs). They want to sell you water that for a cup full costs about €4, 000. They don't want the government selling you water. The ring of Silverbacks leaders sit in the higher plains grooming each other and any inroads into toppling them from the head of the herd is accepted by them. And then ignored by them. They're transmitters not receivers. They're on message: a vague enough political message but a fruity enough one to attract the attention of the disenfranchised.
A tap on the donation box concentrates the mind better than the beating of chests in this camp. The leaders will tell you the government is using chemicals in the mains water to keep the population docile and these people would know all about that malarky.

Son:
IDP are ideologists. These people are into it. They're pretty open and seem to enjoy answering questions. They're traditionalists, more conservative and catholic. Less overtly interested in money than DDI and much less secretive and paranoid to boot. These people linedanced through the 90's and bought AGAs in the boom. Now they car pool it to zumba fitness every tuesday.

Ghost:
Old skin for the old ceremony. Enter UnitedPeople. The dreamchild of Jeff Rudd (previously of the DDI parish). Back to basics for JR, a spot of lickityspit on his old website and it's good as gold again.Refreshingly open on it's site apologising for the vagueness of its message but depressingly familiar with his paranoid reasons as to why he must be vague at this point in time. JR likes to ask himself questions in the guise of soneone else. He's shown this in a previous article in The Drogheda Leader. I believe he's doing the same on UnitedPeople's site too. He has...eh...quite a distinct way of writing. So his message is "clear and graphic" without being either- except to him.
I suppose if your asking the questions and giving the answers you can be your own silverback in your own patch of grass.

Should be fun, Amen.

Hijpo

Thats a silly statement, its a registerd political party, of course its going to be DDI even if they are not involved.
I suppose because FG is not FG anymore since Eoin O'Duffy and the lads are not involved eh? :rolleyes:

I see it as more a vehicle that can be used by the electorate to voice there opposition to the corruption, nepotism, fraud, etc that is rife among politics, politicians and anyone involved with them. The members voted to remove Whitehead from having total control of the party, the members voted to elect a national council which holds most of the decision making powers (democratically of course) on which members sit not leaders or founders. The members also voted to change the party constitution, all of which was upheld and with more changes to come i would imagine.


Heres a link giving the other side of one of those stories which you either chose not to link to or failed to notice, either way its bad .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

Banning minarets was a step the people of switzerland chose to take in order to slow the pace at which Islam was being injected into there society, mostly because:

The former Imam of a mosque in Geneva, Hani Ramadan, a Swiss citizen by the way, publicly justified the stoning of adulterers or the punitive amputation of the hand of a thief. Muslim parents prevented their daughters from attending swimming classes, gymnastics or summer camps in public schools because they didn't want their girls to be together with boys. Media reports about forced marriages, female genital mutilations and "honor killings" of Muslim women - all confirmed by authorities or in court -- came as a shocking surprise. A university professor even went as far as to suggest in an official publication of a federal commission to introduce elements of the Sharia, the Muslim legal system, into Switzerland.

The fact that the people were given the opportunity to have a say in such a significant decision speaks volumes, what would happen if it was going on here?
I suppose we could rely on our solid justice system or could we rely on our moralistc representatives to act on our behalf?

humberklog wrote: »

DDI the party that keeps giving...more parties.

Another day another split. 3 parties now claiming the politicall higher moral ground of transparency and accountability. The holy trinity of wobblies.

Father:
DDI by the original of the species for the original of the species. It's their toy and you're not playing with it (even if you pay your subs). They want to sell you water that for a cup full costs about €4, 000. They don't want the government selling you water. The ring of Silverbacks leaders sit in the higher plains grooming each other and any inroads into toppling them from the head of the herd is accepted by them. And then ignored by them. They're transmitters not receivers. They're on message: a vague enough political message but a fruity enough one to attract the attention of the disenfranchised.
A tap on the donation box concentrates the mind better than the beating of chests in this camp. The leaders will tell you the government is using chemicals in the mains water to keep the population docile and these people would know all about that malarky.

Son:
IDP are ideologists. These people are into it. They're pretty open and seem to enjoy answering questions. They're traditionalists, more conservative and catholic. Less overtly interested in money than DDI and much less secretive and paranoid to boot. These people linedanced through the 90's and bought AGAs in the boom. Now they car pool it to zumba fitness every tuesday.

Ghost:
Old skin for the old ceremony. Enter UnitedPeople. The dreamchild of Jeff Rudd (previously of the DDI parish). Back to basics for JR, a spot of lickityspit on his old website and it's good as gold again.Refreshingly open on it's site apologising for the vagueness of its message but depressingly familiar with his paranoid reasons as to why he must be vague at this point in time. JR likes to ask himself questions in the guise of soneone else. He's shown this in a previous article in The Drogheda Leader. I believe he's doing the same on UnitedPeople's site too. He has...eh...quite a distinct way of writing. So his message is "clear and graphic" without being either- except to him.
I suppose if your asking the questions and giving the answers you can be your own silverback in your own patch of grass.

Should be fun, Amen.

Badly researched and structured even worse, not worth analysing.

MilanPan!c

Hijpo wrote: »

Thats a silly statement, its a registerd political party, of course its going to be DDI even if they are not involved.
I suppose because FG is not FG anymore since Eoin O'Duffy and the lads are not involved eh? :rolleyes:

I see it as more a vehicle that can be used by the electorate to voice there opposition to the corruption, nepotism, fraud, etc that is rife among politics, politicians and anyone involved with them. The members voted to remove Whitehead from having total control of the party, the members voted to elect a national council which holds most of the decision making powers (democratically of course) on which members sit not leaders or founders. The members also voted to change the party constitution, all of which was upheld and with more changes to come i would imagine.


Heres a link giving the other side of one of those stories which you either chose not to link to or failed to notice, either way its bad .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

Banning minarets was a step the people of switzerland chose to take in order to slow the pace at which Islam was being injected into there society, mostly because:


The fact that the people were given the opportunity to have a say in such a significant decision speaks volumes, what would happen if it was going on here?
I suppose we could rely on our solid justice system or could we rely on our moralistc representatives to act on our behalf?


Badly researched and structured even worse, not worth analysing.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculous response that justifies my desire to not engage with you.

You're absolutely - and this is obvious to everyone - not intested in a discussion; you want to argue and defend your ideology, and will be dishonest to try and achieve your goals.

It's a waste of time to try and have a substantive debate/discussion with you, which was - if I'm going to be honest - clear before you opened your mouth.

Anyone that would support the DDI party, especially now, is beyond reason.

It IS worth noting that you think the "general unease" created by a few incidents in Switzerland justifies the oppression of all Muslims there. It's just this sort of institutionalised hatred that DD allows. If you can work a crowd into a tizzy then you can do all sorts of damage.

But sure sure, just stick with your mock confusion... It's better than your REAL "clarity".

whippet

it amazes me that DDI and all the other associated entities and people can't accept any real questioning or media coverage.

It seems that they immediately accuse any media outlet (press, radio, TV) of 'hatchet jobs' and being pro-estabilishment as opposed to addressing the issues discussed.

In recent times all media outlets including RTE have had very critical scrutiny on all the major parities, especially the government parties and ministers, however, if DDI are mentioned at all it's a hatchet job and a conspiracy against them.

There new leader hasn't made a public appearance yet, hasn't given a mainstream interview yet ... how can any political party expect any sort of recognition when their new leader won't even introduce himself; apart from a few selfies with Vincent Browne and a minutes worth of cliche talk on VB's new shouting match (or people's debate as he is calling it)

The links to the Freeman movement- especially with regards to Ben Gilroy can't be denied; even though they do deny it- have a look at all these entities - Debt Options, Attack the Tax, The Common Law Society, Charlie Allen etc .. the rhetoric is all the same, the aggressiveness to 'non-believers'; the inability to accept criticism; the use of the 'lay litigant'; the attempts to frustrate due process ....... to anyone looking objectively it is far to wacky to be taken seriously.

45 people at an AGM, no media, self written reports in local papers, unanimous elections of leaders ......

benway

Hijpo wrote: »

Thats a silly statement, its a registerd political party, of course its going to be DDI even if they are not involved.
I suppose because FG is not FG anymore since Eoin O'Duffy and the lads are not involved eh? :rolleyes:

You can say what you like about DDI as it might be or as you want it to be, but as it actually is it's just a vehicle for Ben™ & Co. Take those guys out of the equation and you'd be talking about an entirely different proposition, hence "it wouldn't be DDI". Not sure if you're being wilfully obtuse here, tbh.

Hijpo wrote: »

I see it as more a vehicle that can be used by the electorate to voice there opposition to the corruption, nepotism, fraud, etc that is rife among politics, politicians and anyone involved with them.

Politics and politicians very much including DDI as currently constituted, probably more than most, but how and ever...

Hijpo wrote: »

The members voted to remove Whitehead from having total control of the party, the members voted to elect a national council which holds most of the decision making powers (democratically of course) on which members sit not leaders or founders. The members also voted to change the party constitution, all of which was upheld and with more changes to come i would imagine.

When you say "the members", is that the 45 turned up for the EGM? Who's on this national council? Were they selected at the EGM? Why were no outside media allowed to that EGM if everything was as happy-clappy as you're making out?

What do you think about how Gilroy seemingly manoeuvred his choices into the top jobs? Certainly demonstrates a fair level of control over the party, notwithstanding the supposed democratic revolution. And what do you think about his comments in >this piece<:

Ben&#8482 wrote:

We cannot be totally democratic or we’d be dead in the water. The only reason they’re bitching is they’re trying to destroy the party.

Hijpo wrote: »

Banning minarets was a step the people of switzerland chose to take in order to slow the pace at which Islam was being injected into there society

Uh-oh, it's a clash of civilisations, Moorish hordes overrunning our pure white volk, rivers of blood, etc. That's base Islamophobic scaremongering, tbh, and I don't see what difference minarets make to the things cited in that article, which are already prohibited by secular law and are by no means a defining characteristic of Islam.

Yes, of course, the presence of 150 mosques in a country of 7 million (according to that HuffPo piece) represented a clear danger to the fabric of Swiss society and a pressing issue that required to be urgently addressed by way of plebiscite. Their minarets were obviously a clear and present threat to society. Clearly.

I mean, it's definitely not a thing that there's always political capital to be made kicking an outsider minority,and that direct democracy provides less protections for minorities than representative systems.

And even if we're to accept the HuffPo author's view that, "It would be utterly wrong -- and dangerous -- to think that this was primarily a racist vote." (which I don't), what about all the other referendums attacking foreigners and immigrants in various ways? Why do the Swiss have one of these on average once a year? And what other useful measures do you think were products of Swiss direct democracy?

Simple question, do you think it's right that a minority's right of religious observance, so long as it breaks no existing law, should be restricted by the majority?

And how do you propose that a system of direct democracy would provide adequate safeguards against a tyranny of the majority?

humberklog

New party, new logo. Together we are stronger- I wonder did he think of this before or after he left?

Not gonna be a grammar nazi about the spelling as there seems to be enough right wing people attracted to them already.

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

I agree and im not dismissing the criticism, after all without criticism you cant improve. DDI, through local meetings, saw that the majority of voters would appreciate some policies to judge the party on and it would also provide a better position for local candidates to debate with there constituents. However, anti-DDI have now taken this progressive change and spun it into another negative even though the previous situation was also pointed out as a negative.

You can spin it as a progressive change, but in fact it's a party that exists for the purpose of advocating direct democracy realising that the people don't seem to want direct democracy, and embracing representative democracy instead, which seems to contradict their entire raison d'etre.

4zn76tysfajdxp

humberklog wrote: »

New party, new logo. Together we are stronger- I wonder did he think of this before or after he left?

Not gonna be a grammar nazi about the spelling as there seems to be enough right wing people attracted to them already.

"People" would imply it has more than one member.

Robbo

Jagger Hundreds Tailspin wrote: »

"People" would imply it has more than one member.

In fairness, if the logo is anything to go by, he's representing the constituency of Pangea North-East.

Pelvis Parsley

The people have indeed suffered enough.

That's another hour or two wasted that he could have spent earning a living.

benway

Kinda wondering what precisely happened to drive away a loyal party man like Jeff, although I could probably hazard a guess. Nearest he's come to giving a reason that I've seen is this from his forum:

Jeff Rudd wrote:

I too was a member of a previous party and a member of FF (as a teen). Thankfully I got out when I saw sense that they were corrupt and not right. I wish to be involved with something clean - not stained by inner corruption alone and still have very questionable people in it that I know have been up to various low antics.

I wanted to be in something that is unstained but just is out to do some genuine good - not a means to an end for individuals to fill their own pockets.

Davarus Walrus

Do we know what went down to cause this great schism? What ideological differences divides the three parties, and in which camp has Ben of the House Gilroy planted his flag?

MilanPan!c

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Do we know what went down to cause this great schism? What ideological differences divides the three parties, and in which camp has Ben of the House Gilroy planted his flag?

Ben™ is still with DDI as far as anyone knows.

Ben and the other DDI honchos betrayed the plebs in the party by giving themselves extra powers. At least that's what the plebs think. Which is why they split off.

Trying to understand why JR does anything is beyond anyone. Including JR.

4zn76tysfajdxp

benway wrote: »

Kinda wondering what precisely happened to drive away a loyal party man like Jeff, although I could probably hazard a guess. Nearest he's come to giving a reason that I've seen is this from his forum:

Every time I've heard him retell that story, his time as a FF member gets shorter and shorter.

Pelvis Parsley

Jagger Hundreds Tailspin wrote: »

Every time I've heard him retell that story, his time as a FF member gets shorter and shorter.

It turned from a long story to a short one, around the time that I mentioned that I could ask a few FF friends of mine about the circumstances. Prior to that, he was a "senior member with possible probable control of the finances also indeed in fact".

This is a guy who turns up to a pub gathering about three hours early to "assess the scene" for security reasons because he's painted himself into a corner with the yarns he's spun.

humberklog

So life goes on. One road opens another one closes.

It depends on if you're a glass half full or a glass half empty type. This lot don't mind what way you see it once they can charge 4,000 euro for it.

The IDP kinda stagnent but still answering questions to members of the non paying public. A free sheet to liberty once you can put up with noise. They do make noise. Mostly tub-thumping and calling loudly FOR A CUP OF TAE!

DDI haven't even bothered to mention the departure of their chairman. They haven't even bothered to notify at least one paid up member. They can't be arsed answering a simpe question regarding the situation on FB. The Louth branch can't give a fiddlers about a paid member's enquiry about who's on the ticket for the upcoming local elections.
You pays your money and you make your choices. You pays your money. YOU PAYS YOUR MONEY!
The 10 spot subs you pay apparently doesn't mean you get to know who the chairman is nor does it mean who you get to vote for in the upcoming Locals. It doesn't mean you're told who to support. It just means you pay 10 snoots.
Another tap on the collection box to get your attention by the leaders, tap, tap, tap. No beating of chests here- just more money. No questions please.

Jeff Grasshopper Rudd has started a march towards Dublin. He seems really excited about goung to Dublin (busses can do that to a person). I hope he's not disappointed to find Switzers is no more and there'll be no jiving in the Ierne. But he's quoting Buddha and meeting important people. He's quoted Buddha twice today and asked for no money. It must be lent.

A Buddhist version of Lent.

Something DDI could learn about. Giving nothing for nothing.

But how can they make money from that? Homeopathy, that's how. And unquestionable politics.

Pelvis Parsley

Jeff is seeking affirmation, recognition, acceptance, vindication, and all that jazz. That's all he's ever been about, inventing falsehoods, and trying to make mountains out of molehills.

That's about the sum of his aims-Gilroy is and was a jumped up chancer, who can talk all day about nothing-this Van De Ven fellow seems to be a dole sucking crusty with no work ethic, reveling in the wonders of conspiracy- and little else, at least Jeff tried his best from behind his keyboard in the sitting room, he did put in effort of a sort while negotiating the obstacles presented by reduced internet bandwidth, sleeping children, and train schedules.

Jeff, I know you're reading this. Take five for yourself, mind your home and your care. Forget all this nonsense, you'll only drive yourself into more disappointment. And for the love of whoever, try and find a meaningful and fruitful outlet for your energies, because that will do more for those you care about and have brought into this world than sitting back, basking in all this bolloxology, and expecting the rest of us to pay for it.

benway

There's a term (falsely) attributed to Lenin that neatly sums up how Ben™ and the silverbacks appear to think of the likes of Jeff and Jaananda.

What I'm curious about is whether it was a thing that it was the latter part of that equation that led to him being forced out, or was it a thing that his usefulness was undermined by expecting that the Chair of DDI was about anything other than doing the bidding of the main men. Given the general fruitiness of DDI, I know which one my money would be on.

MouseTail

I don't understand the logo from united people, is that sputnik, a globe, a random image from clipart? Anyone know what the ball is meant to be?

Davarus Walrus

MouseTail wrote: »

I don't understand the logo from united people, is that sputnik, a globe, a random image from clipart? Anyone know what the ball is meant to be?

It's a rather nebulous concept designed to invoke images of fairness, equity, KOP on, family, direct democracy, socialism, conservatism, whateveryouarehavingyourselfism, Justin Bieber, definitely not the Freeman movement, the XFactor and huge lashings of that rarest of virtues, COMMON SENSE.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Lindsey Lohan too.

Pelvis Parsley

Jeff has posted the following on his new forum:

JR wrote:

After another in DDI Louth doing something (short version: back-stabbed and slandered) that effected my family deeply, I put my family first and resigned from DDI completely. I got no help from the heads of DDI who again proved to be completely useless.

As for the local elections - that might still be a possibility - looking into it.

I remember telling him on the Journal, following another one of his rants in support of DDI and Big Ben, that he was going to be left with egg on his face after the inevitable parting of the ways. I doubt he remembers that either.

Seedy Arling

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

It's a rather nebulous concept designed to invoke images of fairness, equity, KOP on, family, direct democracy, socialism, conservatism, whateveryouarehavingyourselfism, Justin Bieber, definitely not the Freeman movement, the XFactor and huge lashings of that rarest of virtues, COMMON SENSE.

That's a fairly clear and graphic message.