When I'm spending time on the internet, I will go over maybe sixty to a hundred sites in a typical session, some on a regular basis, others on links from other links, others based on my own searches. There are people out there more experienced than I am, more specialized, a lot smarter, and with more time to spend doing the slogging legwork that a really good exercise in reporting or research requires.

Sometimes I discover something serious that isn't getting the play it ought to. Sometimes it's just something fun. I am better at ferreting out information on the Web than almost anyone else I know. I like to think this can be an asset.

I use these resources in my own thinking, and thought passing them on here would be useful to the kind of minds that can take in a wide range and volume of opinions and information and process it to maybe come to some fresh conclusions or learn something new. When I am presenting information, or other people's opinions, I don't always feel it's essential to wrap my own words around it. I like to think I can stick it up on the bulletin board without having to stand there and explain it.

Believe me, I don't post a fraction of what I could. In the past few days, I have read many excellent analyses of the recent ISG report, from military leadership sources, diplomatic sources, troops in Iraq, other think tanks, and just plain pundits. I haven't passed any of this on. Neither have I passed on recent news like the current status of the AP controversy, the elections in South America and their results, the unsurprising results of the Foley investigation, the expanding Polonium investigations, the aborted terror attack in Illinois, or many others.

For et to actually disagree with something he didn't even bother to read is astounding to me, but apparently this kind of thinking is perfectly understandable to others here.

Sorry. I get the message.