>I must've missed something. I never read in John's message any hint that the U.S. was alone in providing aid to the world and he certainly did not denounce other countries for not providing aid. However, the tone of Walter's first message certainly implied that the U.S. is lacking in that area (as well as others). It is probably from reading from the 'U.S. perspective' but I too took Walter's message as insulting and John struck back with information on what the U.S. has in fact done and maybe rubbed his nose in it alittle. Then Walter took that response as insinuating that the rest of the world (particularly his country) was somehow excluded. Interesting that he takes insult but doesn't see the insult he gives. This is what happens when discussions are only performed online and not in person.

OTOH, I wonder how many people have just given up trying to talk, when confronted with these standards of completeness etc. Something one can't find in the current message (but knows the opponent said last week elsewhere) is, therefore, sufficient to dismiss the rest of the argument as invalid, one or the other side as insulting etc etc. Which then means that writing messages here needs to become a fulltime job - I imagine if I hit anyone with "find where did I say X and Y but not Z", it would take a couple of hours to find, even within the last few months. We don't have such time. And such formal requirements may simply lead people to say "I don't have the time for this". In the end, and that will be the end, we'd be left with a dozen perfect masters of rules of engagement (and one me, probably) who wouldn't even need to exchange arguments. They'd all be stored in a table somewhere on the UT and their primary keys would suffice.