[mburbank]

I don't think that matters. Bitch wise I mean.

That being said, I'm quite certain if I made you 'my bitch' it was an unhappy accident.

I have nothing whatever against you thinking Objectivism is a philosiphy. It just means you have a broad deffinition of the word. My objection is that you seem to take it seriously. I may be wrong. If so, you ought to lend equal credence to other worthy philosiphers, like Gene Rodenberry, the guys who do the Chicken Soup for the Soul books and amoral darwinism as espoused by The Punisher.

"I never said that the air pollution thing proves that pollution is getting better, but the other information in the novel - as well as little evidence that suggests the contrary - should speak for itself, not to mention if you apply a little rationalism to the idea. "

You certainly implied it, in your "I'm the cutest li'l provacateur in the senior class!" way. But wait! Novel? Your little crap science factoid came from novel? And now we've whittled the original statement, that the ENVIRONMENT has been getting BETTER since the 1500's, to pollution is getting better (if you mean since the late ninteen-seventies in aggragate, I might even agree) and then to say there's 'little evidence to suggest the contrary' is sad. Simply because the author presents none is no reason... of for Christ's sake. Nuclear waste? The Exxon Valdiz? Love Canal? All the other Superfund sites? The collective auto emissions since the invention of the internal combustion engine? Mercury in fish? Bopal? All of these things are without paralell prior to a century ago. The only way you can get away with a statement like there is ' little evidence that suggests the contrary' is by being quite deliberately vague. 'oh, oh, by 'environment' all I ever really meant were records of coal usage over a portion of one city, that's all I ever said, and there's LITLLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY'.