"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[koriwhat]

I'm calling you a try hard tough guy.

explains you to a T pav. :tu

[DMC]

I'm calling you a try hard tough guy.

Which means I don't think you're really a tough guy. The fact I had to explain that to you proves you aren't as smart as you want people to think you are.


Jesus.

You probably even type with a lisp.

:lol

[Pavlov]

You probably even type with a lisp.

:lol:lol moar deflections

[koriwhat]

You probably even type with a lisp.

:lol

i wouldn't doubt it.

[Pavlov]

lol tough guy homophobia

[koriwhat]

lol tough guy homophobia

lol the real homophobia lies within you and your thinking only gays have lisps. :tu

:lol moar deflections

[DMC]

lol tough guy homophobia

:lol Chumpy associating lisps with homosexuals.

Evolve, Chumpy. It's time.

[Pavlov]

lol the real homophobia lies within you and your thinking only gays have lisps. :tuOh, so what was your reason for saying you think I have a lisp?


Let's discuss your thinking here, kori.

[Pavlov]

:lol Chumpy associating lisps with homosexuals.OK, what is your reason for saying you think I have a lisp?


Let's talk about it, tough guy.

[DMC]

OK, what is your reason for saying you think I have a lisp?


Let's talk about it, tough guy.

Nah, I have a social life. No time to sit in here while you rapid refresh and sling out the same tired old shtick. You should argue with your other user name until the sun comes up. Get an extra bed pan or shit sack and make a night of it.

[Pavlov]

Nah, I have a social life. No time to sit in while you rapid refresh and sling out the same tired old shtick. You should argue with your other user name until the sun comes up. Get an extra bed pan or shit sack and make a night of it.Tough guy backs the fuck down.

Good boy.

[FrostKing]

Tough guy backs the fuck down.

Good boy.
Hahah. You're better than this fellow White man

[koriwhat]

Oh, so what was your reason for saying you think I have a lisp?


Let's discuss your thinking here, kori.

what i said was, "i wouldn't doubt it."

stay mad! the lisp thing got you all worked up. :lmao

[koriwhat]

Hahah. You're better than this fellow White man

he truly isn't.

[Pavlov]

Hahah. You're better than this fellow White manAll you gotta do is ask simple questions and all these pussies start running.

[Pavlov]

what i said was, "i wouldn't doubt it."And why wouldn't you doubt it?

What would having a lisp mean to you?

[Chris]

he truly isn't.

"I'm calling you a try hard tough guy."


Few minutes later...

"all these pussies start running"



:lol

[Pavlov]

"I'm calling you a try hard tough guy."


Few minutes later...

"all these pussies start running"



:lolDMC ran off to his very active Thursday social life.


He proved he's not all that tough.

[koriwhat]

"I'm calling you a try hard tough guy."


Few minutes later...

"all these pussies start running"



:lol

it's his same ol' tired played out shtick. the bullied trying to be the bully. it's sad but humorous all the same.

[Chris]

it's his same ol' tired played out shtick. the bullied trying to be the bully. it's sad but humorous all the same.

I haven't replied to a Pavlov post in close to 2 months. I highly suggest it for peace of mind :tu

[koriwhat]

I haven't replied to a Pavlov post in close to 2 months. I highly suggest it for peace of mind :tu

yeah it's like dealing with a child who keeps asking "why?"

[Pavlov]

it's his same ol' tired played out shtick. the bullied trying to be the bully. it's sad but humorous all the same.:lol same ol' mentally weak kori

[Pavlov]

I haven't replied to a Pavlov post in close to 2 months.Yeah, I asked you about your repeated use of fake news and it turns out you can't answer simple questions either.:tu

[koriwhat]

:lol same ol' mentally weak kori

cool story girl. :tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1159619527983992832?s=20

:tu

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1159619527983992832?s=20

:tuSo the guy was just open carrying while shopping?

I thought that was OK.


You guys need to pick a lane.

[spurraider21]

Defending yourself isn't being fucking Rambo. Don't be a pussy. You cower and get shot in the head like all those people or you fight back. I would fight back. I might die. I might die either way. I am a military vet, I don't give a shit what he says. The cop in Florida who did nothing was criticized for not doing anything, but he wasn't in harms way yet somehow he's supposed to walk in and engage the guy with the rifle. However someone in the thick of it needs to cower and die because well, don't want to risk getting killed. You won't limit events because you won't know the ones you've prevented. Limiting casualties is the only solution and even then, I am the primary casualty I am trying to prevent.

Don't bifurcate the situation to never armed vs always armed. If you want to protect yourself and you are concerned about this kind of thing, you'll do what's required. Otherwise you'll hope you don't become one of the unlucky ones and experience an event, and hope someone does something about it.

The reason police stations and gun shows aren't attacked is because the shooter wants max casualties with minimum personal risk. Every time another gun free zone is created where people are packed in like sardines, it's feeding time for the crazies. Churches, schools, theaters, bars, stores (not all stores are gun free zones, but the odds are most people in one aren't carrying and I've not seen any armed protection for anything but the money drop).

It's odd, we put 2 cops at banks but none where our most precious resources are. It makes you wonder if human life is really that important. That's why I said protect yourself first. If you don't want to, that's your choice. You won't talk me into being a victim.
could say the same about casualties tbh

[midnightpulp]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1159619527983992832?s=20

:tu

Indeed good. I think you miss the point, though. Firefighters (who are typically upstanding citizens) are the kind of people I don't mind having guns. The mass shooting debate, for me, isn't about gun grabbing, but about figuring out solutions to keep firearms away from mentally unstable individuals. The Dayton shooter might set a precedent insofar as your record being scrubbed clean when you turn 18. Guy had rape and kill lists in HS and had the police called on him for that, but yet, didn't show up in a background check. That doesn't make sense to me. Your psychological problems don't magically go away when you turn 18.

[Chris]

Indeed good. I think you miss the point, though. Firefighters (who are typically upstanding citizens) are the kind of people I don't mind having guns. The mass shooting debate, for me, isn't about gun grabbing, but about figuring out solutions to keep firearms away from mentally unstable individuals. The Dayton shooter might set a precedent insofar as your record being scrubbed clean when you turn 18. Guy had rape and kill lists in HS and had the police called on him for that, but yet, didn't show up in a background check. That doesn't make sense to me. Your psychological problems don't magically go away when you turn 18.

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.

[Chris]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

[Pavlov]

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.How many guns do you have?

[Pavlov]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.The number of households with guns is lower.

Fewer households with guns = less gun violence

[koriwhat]

How many guns do you have?

anyone can still be an advocate of the 2nd amendment and guns in general without owning one so what exactly is your point?

[Pavlov]

anyone can still be an advocate of the 2nd amendment and guns in general without owning one so what exactly is your point?Just asking, tough guy.

How many guns do you have, Rambo?

[Xevious]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.
Donald Trump, Dan Crenshaw, and now Mitch McConnell seem to disagree with you.

[koriwhat]

Just asking, tough guy.

How many guns do you have, Rambo?

who asked me this yesterday? i thought it was you but i guess not. 0 was the answer i gave yesterday and it's the same answer today and yes i strongly support our rights given to us by our constitution. i really don't care if you do or don't pav.

[DMC]

Tough guy backs the fuck down.

Good boy.

:lmao that reaction to being left alone.

[DMC]

could say the same about casualties tbh

This is true. You never know what you prevent. You only have years worth of data and the cause isn't always discernible.

[spurraider21]

This is true. You never know what you prevent. You only have years worth of data and the cause isn't always discernible.
But that’s why i was confused by your comment.

You said we won’t limit events because we never know what we prevented, and so limiting casualties is the only solution. But now you’re admitting that we also can’t limit casualties because you never know which casualties we prevented. So how do you know that one approach is wrong and the other is right if they have the same limitation?

[Pavlov]

:lmao that reaction to being left alone.You're staying backed down.


Good boy.

You will never speak of this again.

[midnightpulp]

Gun for me, but not for you is a dangerous precedent to set. Our forefather's envisioned this, and God bless them for it.

The constitution doesn't say what age is considered an adult (26th amendment does cite 18 years old as the minimum voting age).

Do you think it's wise to allow developing brains under adolescent hormonal assault free purchase of firearms? Or the mentally ill/unstable. Would you be comfortable sharing the road with Parkinson's sufferers? (a condition that would impair their competency in driving a car). Gun for responsible/competent, no gun for irresponsible/incompetent is the better way to frame it.

[DMC]

But that’s why i was confused by your comment.

You said we won’t limit events because we never know what we prevented, and so limiting casualties is the only solution. But now you’re admitting that we also can’t limit casualties because you never know which casualties we prevented. So how do you know that one approach is wrong and the other is right if they have the same limitation?

I mean from an "inside the unfolding event" perspective. In those instances, you are already involved in a mass shooting attempt. There's no guess work involved. You put one in the shooter's head, you likely prevented more casualties. You have to presume that to be the case since you cannot know for certain what you prevented, but that amount of uncertainty in that situation is acceptable. However, if you don't know who is going to be a shooter or when or where, you don't know if you prevented it with certain legislation. You would need mounds of data and even then we can all draw different conclusions for cause/effect. Only a full out ban and confiscation would get close to the 1st example.

[spurraider21]

I mean from an "inside the unfolding event" perspective. In those instances, you are already involved in a mass shooting attempt. There's no guess work involved. You put one in the shooter's head, you likely prevented more casualties. You have to presume that to be the case since you cannot know for certain what you prevented, but that amount of uncertainty in that situation is acceptable. However, if you don't know who is going to be a shooter or when or where, you don't know if you prevented it with certain legislation. You would need mounds of data and even then we can all draw different conclusions for cause/effect. Only a full out ban and confiscation would get close to the 1st example.
No tbh. You always end up back in this well

[Chucho]

The constitution doesn't say what age is considered an adult (26th amendment does cite 18 years old as the minimum voting age).

Do you think it's wise to allow developing brains under adolescent hormonal assault free purchase of firearms? Or the mentally ill/unstable. Would you be comfortable sharing the road with Parkinson's sufferers? (a condition that would impair their competency in driving a car). Gun for responsible/competent, no gun for irresponsible/incompetent is the better way to frame it.

That's a good argument for children coerced into sexual confusion and transgenderism, but hey, its allowed and encouraged despite the inability for a developing brain to understand any of the life altering issues being fed to them.

[DMC]

No tbh. You always end up back in this well

It's a fact. Unless you remove a key ingredient from the recipe, you cannot ensure that you changed the outcome. You cannot legislate thoughts or motives, you can only legislate means.

[ElNono]

It's a fact. Unless you remove a key ingredient from the recipe, you cannot ensure that you changed the outcome. You cannot legislate thoughts or motives, you can only legislate means.

Removing a key ingredient from the recipe might well be a fact, that it would necessarily require a full out ban or confiscation is not.

Sure, you can't legislate thoughts or motives, but you can certainly reduce the surface tension by removing some components that are more likely to apply pressure. We already do that, for example, by denying gun ownership rights to felons.

That removes the key ingredient from statistically significant groups. It won't cure the disease, but it improves the quality of life.

[DMC]

Removing a key ingredient from the recipe might well be a fact, that it would necessarily require a full out ban or confiscation is not.

Sure, you can't legislate thoughts or motives, but you can certainly reduce the surface tension by removing some components that are more likely to apply pressure. We already do that, for example, by denying gun ownership rights to felons.

That removes the key ingredient from statistically significant groups. It won't cure the disease, but it improves the quality of life.Doing that will not ensure anything. It will only give you hope that things will change, because you have to assume the cause then assume you've remedied it. If you really want to stop the killings, you have to remove the means to do so. Banning guns means nothing with the number in circulation, unchecked and unregistered. You'd have to confiscate them and do house to house searches and offer stiff penalties including death to anyone caught with one. It's harsh as fuck, but if you want to ensure the killings stop, that's what you'd have to do. Then you'd only need to be concerned with the backlash, but not mass shootings.

[Pavlov]

DMC presents his false "all or nothing" dichotomy so he can avoid actually thinking of a possible solution.

[Isitjustme?]

Since 1950, nearly 99% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones.

Gun ownership in the U.S. INCREASED by 56% from 1993 to 2013.

Gun violence, however, DECREASED by 50%.

Gun control ≠ less gun violence.

https://cdn.japantimes.2xx.jp/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/n-gundeaths-g-20160614-870x609.jpg

[ElNono]

Doing that will not ensure anything. It will only give you hope that things will change, because you have to assume the cause then assume you've remedied it. If you really want to stop the killings, you have to remove the means to do so. Banning guns means nothing with the number in circulation, unchecked and unregistered. You'd have to confiscate them and do house to house searches and offer stiff penalties including death to anyone caught with one. It's harsh as fuck, but if you want to ensure the killings stop, that's what you'd have to do. Then you'd only need to be concerned with the backlash, but not mass shootings.

Nobody I know is arguing for no more gun deaths ever, or assurances of anything. That doesn't mean that incremental measures to improve the situation and reduce, at the very least, statistical significant cases cannot be made.

What good is a background check when you purchase a weapon if 5 years later that same person goes through depression or a nasty divorce? Why can't we screen people either at those life changing events or periodically?

They're statistically part of groups that are more likely to kill themselves or others, so why not keep a closer look at them? Like I said, we do the same with felons, another statistical significant group.

Is it going to stop all the killings? Unlikely. Is it going to save some lives? Likely. Is it going to inconvenience a minority of people? Probably.

This is like not having a definitive cure for Cancer. It doesn't mean we stopped looking for incremental treatments, like drugs or chemo, that sometimes might put the cancer in remission, or sometimes just improves the quality of life. They're worthwhile pursuits that might put at least a dent into a bad situation.

[midnightpulp]

Doing that will not ensure anything. It will only give you hope that things will change, because you have to assume the cause then assume you've remedied it. If you really want to stop the killings, you have to remove the means to do so. Banning guns means nothing with the number in circulation, unchecked and unregistered. You'd have to confiscate them and do house to house searches and offer stiff penalties including death to anyone caught with one. It's harsh as fuck, but if you want to ensure the killings stop, that's what you'd have to do. Then you'd only need to be concerned with the backlash, but not mass shootings.

As Chump mentioned, your thinking is all or nothing. Personally, I wouldn't care if every gun was melted down. But I share this society with other Americans who value gun ownership, for hunting, recreation, personal defense, collecting, etc, and I'm not about to impose my tastes/worldview on them in absolutes. There can be compromises that reduce these incidents without trampling on gun rights. And yes, I do believe increased minimum age laws, extended background checks, and a tiered licensing structure would reduce the frequency of these events.


Firearm homicides and violent crimes disproportionately involve individuals under age 21, both as perpetrators and as victims. Indeed, in 2012, arrest rates for violent crimes peaked at age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2016). Of the 7,152 firearm homicides committed in 2014 for which the age of the offender was known, 47.2 percent were perpetrated by individuals aged 12–24.


https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/minimum-age.html

Here's an interesting study that illustrates how more mass shootings occur (per capita) in states with permissive gun laws than in states with restrictive gun laws.

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

But that said, prior to 2010, the incident frequency didn't seem to be influenced that much by gun control, aside from the 2002-03 spike, which looks more like noise than anything. But after 2009-10, the trend is pretty clear. So what changed? The rise of social media and the proliferation of the smartphone (which has also correlated with an unprecedented rise in teenage depression). The modern media/social landscape, in my mind, is creating more depressive, disgruntled, isolated, and just plain angry people than ever before.

Look at something like the rise of Flat Earthers. I thought I've never see something like that happen. But you can find an echo chamber on the Internet to confirm whatever crank belief you have, which normalizes that belief. And troublingly, this includes radical beliefs that can lead to violent action. So following the logic, we have more depressed, angry, and alienated people out there than maybe ever before in the last century, which is something that doesn't mix too well with permissive gun laws. But how do you curb the influence of social media, crank websites, and the like without a significant alteration of the 1st amendment (which is a much more important amendment than the 2nd amendment)?

Culture isn't static, so the laws themselves have to be dynamic as culture evolves (or devolves). It really doesn't make much sense to consider an 18th gun rights law as stone etched gospel in a 21st century world.

[DMC]

As Chump mentioned, your thinking is all or nothing. Personally, I wouldn't care if every gun was melted down. But I share this society with other Americans who value gun ownership, for hunting, recreation, personal defense, collecting, etc, and I'm not about to impose my tastes/worldview on them in absolutes. There can be compromises that reduce these incidents without trampling on gun rights. And yes, I do believe increased minimum age laws, extended background checks, and a tiered licensing structure would reduce the frequency of these events.



https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/minimum-age.html

Here's an interesting study that illustrates how more mass shootings occur (per capita) in states with permissive gun laws than in states with restrictive gun laws.

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

But that said, prior to 2010, the incident frequency didn't seem to be influenced that much by gun control, aside from the 2002-03 spike, which looks more like noise than anything. But after 2009-10, the trend is pretty clear. So what changed? The rise of social media and the proliferation of the smartphone (which has also correlated with an unprecedented rise in teenage depression). The modern media/social landscape, in my mind, is creating more depressive, disgruntled, isolated, and just plain angry people than ever before.

Look at something like the rise of Flat Earthers. I thought I've never see something like that happen. But you can find an echo chamber on the Internet to confirm whatever crank belief you have, which normalizes that belief. And troublingly, this includes radical beliefs that can lead to violent action. So following the logic, we have more depressed, angry, and alienated people out there than maybe ever before in the last century, which is something that doesn't mix too well with permissive gun laws. But how do you curb the influence of social media, crank websites, and the like without a significant alteration of the 1st amendment (which is a much more important amendment than the 2nd amendment)?

Culture isn't static, so the laws themselves have to be dynamic as culture evolves (or devolves). It really doesn't make much sense to consider an 18th gun rights law as stone etched gospel in a 21st century world.

The failure to commit to eradicating guns in the US is why we are where we are - where people hem haw about specific types of regulations as if that will have any effect at all. This is because the left is afraid to go for the brass ring, they know it's a suicide pill. However they will dance around it all the while, taking nips and bites here and there and trying to appear as if they are pushing for meaningful gun legislation. I see people here mention Australia, they banned guns pretty much. Why is that too stiff a penalty? Since we aren't going to arm everyone, disarm everyone. If you only have a few who are armed and unregulated, because you cannot police 300m people with unregistered firearms, then these things will continue to happen.

As far as the 2nd Amendment (which I think you're referring to in your last statement), does the same apply to the 1st Amendment?

[Chucho]

https://cdn.japantimes.2xx.jp/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/n-gundeaths-g-20160614-870x609.jpg

FYI, your chart is wrong. There's about half a dozen South American shitholes with 5 to 10 times higher gun homicide rates than here, per 100k per Wiki.

[Pavlov]

FYI, your chart is wrong. There's about half a dozen South American shitholes with 5 to 10 times higher gun homicide rates than here, per 100k per Wiki.If they're shitholes, that's probably why they aren't on the OECD list.

[boutons_deux]

This (RED) state actually has the highest rate of black homicide victims in the entire country

And the state that leads the nation in black homicides isn’t where Trump probably thinks it is.

It’s in the middle of America. Namely, Missouri.

Missouri has the highest rate of black homicide victims in the entire nation.

When you look at all of Missouri,

the homicide rate per capita for black people comes in at a horrifying

nine times higher than the overall rate for the nation.

Any guesses why Trump isn’t describing Missouri as “rat-infested?”

While these upsetting numbers aren’t actually a new status for Missouri—

murder rates for black residents have been topping the charts in the state for a long time—

it’s important to contextualize now, in light of recent conversations about gun reform.

What does Missouri have? You guessed it: Weak gun laws.

Missouri lawmakers (https://qz.com/786821/missouris-new-permitless-carry-gun-law-will-put-black-americans-in-even-more-danger/)

lowered the age you need to be to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 19;

approved a “stand your ground” law;

stopped local government from banning open carry; and

you no longer need to get a firearms permit to carry a concealed weapon.

In fact, you don’t even need any firearms training to carry a concealed weapon.

lacks any kind of “red flag” gun laws that are important for protecting people who are victims of domestic violence, among other vulnerable populations

“If you want to hunt an animal in Missouri, you must attend a hunter’s safety education course and obtain a license,”

“But recent state legislation has removed any requirements on carrying or using a gun around people.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/13/1878755/-This-state-actually-has-the-highest-rate-of-black-homicide-victims-in-the-entire-country?detail=emaildkre (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/13/1878755/-This-state-actually-has-the-highest-rate-of-black-homicide-victims-in-the-entire-country?detail=emaildkre)

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1161840991034388481?s=20

[Thread]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1161840991034388481?s=20

Is he white, or, non-white?

[Chris]

Is he white, or, non-white?

Preach!

[Thread]

Preach!

CNN still won't own up to him. HA!

Where's Splits this morning? Probably hanging around a subway staircase aiming to wreck whitey's shit. GD him!

[boutons_deux]

It really doesn't make much sense to consider an 18th gun rights law as stone etched gospel in a 21st century world.

18th century slave-owning wealthy white guys who MISwrote the 2nd Amendment didn't think "well-regulated militias"

(aka "slave patrols" to appease states with influential slave owners)

needed automatic high capacity machines for mass slaughter.

The 2nd Amendment has been perverted politically, only since the late '70s, to increase BigGun profits, by gulling assholes into thinking gun ownership defines the assholes as badass hyper-patriotic Macho Man gun fellators, LIED to into believing that gun obsession is the highest form of patriotism

Gun obsession and gun violence are two symptoms of a diseased America.

[Thread]

18th wealthy white guys who MISwrote the 2nd Amendment didn't think "well-organized militias" (aka "slave patrols" to appease states with influential slave owners) needed automatic high capacity machines for mass slaughter.

The 2nd Amendment has been perverted politically, only since the late '70s, to increase BigGun profits, by gulling assholes into thinking gun ownership defines the assholes as badass hyper-patriotic Macho Man gun fellators, LIED to into believing that gun obsession is the highest form of patriotism

Gun obsession and gun violence are two symptoms of a diseased America.

My ass.

[boutons_deux]

My ass.

... is where your shit-for-brains head lives

[Thread]

... is where your shit-for-brains head lives

- "Come father, let us embrace at last."

- "Mordred" - "Excalibur"

[boutons_deux]

States with the most (and least) gun violence. See where your state stacks up.

28th Texas most gun violence, and all states down to #1 all ALL RED

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

[Splits]

CNN still won't own up to him. HA!

Where's Splits this morning? Probably hanging around a subway staircase aiming to wreck whitey's shit. GD him!

Nigga didn't drive 10 hours to murder whitey. In fact, he didn't murder anyone.

[Thread]

Nigga didn't drive 10 hours to murder whitey. In fact, he didn't murder anyone.

Nobody likes to be shot, Splits. You can never take. You can only dish.

ADDENDUM:::CNN posted his pic finally about an hour ago.

[Splits]

Nobody likes to be shot, Splits. You can never take. You can only dish.

ADDENDUM:::CNN posted his pic finally about an hour ago.

You should be lovin' this guy. Sitting at home, locked and loaded, when the popo show up and try to take his shit. He took a stand. Like your Koresh.

[Thread]

You should be lovin' this guy. Sitting at home, locked and loaded, when the popo show up and try to take his shit. He took a stand. Like your Koresh.

See, Koresh sticks in your craw.

Good.