HIV: Conspiracy or Really Bad Fucking Luck?

[Division56]

I tend to believe HIV is very likely a conspiracy. It seems to fit into place. If HIV were a conspiracy, it would have numerous benefits for certain portions of society.

1. Drug companies - They now have a very tough virus they can make billions on, selling their overprices drugs.

2. Extreme Right Wing Conservatives: They would eliminate portions of society they deem "undesireable" while making long term business for the said drug companies, who make major contributions to their political campaigns.

3. The virus itself: It's not a normal virus, constantly mutating it is very hard to fight, both naturally and with modern medicine.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories

[candela]

Uh huh.

[candela]

Man was there a ninja post here? I'm going crazy.

[Claverhouse]

I voted no, but I think it could be. More possibly those people just found it one of life's bonuses.

Some Africans consider it a conspiracy to target Africa. But as some of them are raping babies in order to cure themselves, they probably don't have a secure grasp on reality.

The most probable explanation is here:

Cancer -causing Vaccines (http://www.rense.com/general54/Cancer-causing_vaccinesR.htm)

Bloody scientists. Shoot the lot of them.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

I think some things are too freaking weird to not be true.

[Arioch]

I've heard that the USA goverment made it in labs.. I forgot why... I think it was for biological warfare

[Sam172]

To be honest, I wouldn't be suprised if it was.

Mind you, on the drugs side of things I try to steer as far away from any man made drugs. So far i'm fine :D

[file cabinet]

I have no opinion on the matter.

[Partisan]

Conspiracy? Probably made in a lab. Is it really out there, or is it just a hype? It's really out there. 12 people in my 160 (Approx) graduating class in high-school were HIV positive. I am in a place full of sex and drugs.

Just because people make loads of money off of something disasterous doesn't neccisarily mean it's a conspiracy. Take 9/11 for example. I'll leave it up to you to determine whether that was sarcasm or not.

[shaytana]

I voted no, but it could be true, population control stage 1.

[booyalab]

conspiracy theories are annoying....*leaves in a huff and stands over on the SJ side of the room*

[booyalab]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

[HairlessBluetick]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

That's a rather S thing to say.... :wacko: After all, who's to tell me off what to base my perception of reality?

[booyalab]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

That's a rather S thing to say.... :wacko: After all, who's to tell me off what to base my perception of reality?

I'm not going to tell you off what to base your perception of reality. But if you think it's ok to conclude , for instance, you're the soon-to-be-dethroned queen of France because everyone you know likes croissants and your peasants (family members) never do as you say, then perhaps that 'whacko' emoticon should be after your defiance of empirically sound logic....not your suspicion of me being an S.

[HairlessBluetick]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

That's a rather S thing to say.... :wacko: After all, who's to tell me off what to base my perception of reality?

I'm not going to tell you off what to base your perception of reality. But if you think it's ok to conclude , for instance, you're the soon-to-be-dethroned queen of France because everyone you know likes croissants and your peasants (family members) never do as you say, then perhaps that 'whacko' emoticon should be after your defiance of empirically sound logic....not your suspicion of me being an S.

....that wasn't an attack. Calm down. Logic is more than just a-->b.

[booyalab]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

That's a rather S thing to say.... :wacko: After all, who's to tell me off what to base my perception of reality?

I'm not going to tell you off what to base your perception of reality. But if you think it's ok to conclude , for instance, you're the soon-to-be-dethroned queen of France because everyone you know likes croissants and your peasants (family members) never do as you say, then perhaps that 'whacko' emoticon should be after your defiance of empirically sound logic....not your suspicion of me being an S.

....that wasn't an attack. Calm down. Logic is more than just a-->b.

I am calm, but my point was that logic is more than just deduction. If your reasoning about external reality is not based on empirical evidence, you're no better off than someone who thinks they're Marie Antoinette.

[booyalab]

(can't I defend my point without people assuming I'm going emotionally ballistic? It's funny because I don't even use exclamation points or emoticons or petty insults)

[HairlessBluetick]

except I don't dislike them because you're questioning authority...I just think it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy.

That's a rather S thing to say.... :wacko: After all, who's to tell me off what to base my perception of reality?

I'm not going to tell you off what to base your perception of reality. But if you think it's ok to conclude , for instance, you're the soon-to-be-dethroned queen of France because everyone you know likes croissants and your peasants (family members) never do as you say, then perhaps that 'whacko' emoticon should be after your defiance of empirically sound logic....not your suspicion of me being an S.

....that wasn't an attack. Calm down. Logic is more than just a-->b.

I am calm, but my point was that logic is more than just deduction. If your reasoning about external reality is not based on empirical evidence, you're no better off than someone who thinks they're Marie Antoinette.

But let's say that I am the soon-to-be-dethroned Queen of France.

[booyalab]

But let's say that I am the soon-to-be-dethroned Queen of France.

So you admit that there is a difference between something being so, in reality, and something not being so? Therefore there would be a right way to determine whether something is so and something is not so, correct? So not just any perception of reality is the right one. I think we agree, but there's some discrepancy with semantics or something....

or maybe you're kidding.....or maybe you're crazy.....*walks away backwards slowly*

[HairlessBluetick]

But let's say that I am the soon-to-be-dethroned Queen of France.

So you admit that there is a difference between something being so, in reality, and something not being so? Therefore there would be a right way to determine whether something is so and something is not so, correct? So not just any perception of reality is the correct one.

That's where I disagree with you. It's my personal belief (which I hold almost religiously) that there is not a difference between something being so and something not being so. Also, all perceptions of reality are the correct one.

[booyalab]

But let's say that I am the soon-to-be-dethroned Queen of France.

So you admit that there is a difference between something being so, in reality, and something not being so? Therefore there would be a right way to determine whether something is so and something is not so, correct? So not just any perception of reality is the correct one.

That's where I disagree with you. It's my personal belief (which I hold almost religiously) that there is not a difference between something being so and something not being so. Also, all perceptions of reality are the correct one.

But you said "suppose I AM the queen of France" thereby implying there is such a thing as NOT being the queen of France. Btw, it is logically impossible for all perceptions of reality to be simultaneously correct...since there are so many that are polar opposites

[booyalab]

For instance, my perception is that there are some perceptions that are FALSE. So according to you it is possible for all perceptions of reality to be false and true at the same time. The implications make communication and thinking pointless.

[HairlessBluetick]

But let's say that I am the soon-to-be-dethroned Queen of France.

So you admit that there is a difference between something being so, in reality, and something not being so? Therefore there would be a right way to determine whether something is so and something is not so, correct? So not just any perception of reality is the correct one.

That's where I disagree with you. It's my personal belief (which I hold almost religiously) that there is not a difference between something being so and something not being so. Also, all perceptions of reality are the correct one.

But you said "suppose I AM the queen of France" thereby implying there is such a thing as NOT being the queen of France. Btw, it is logically impossible for all perceptions of reality to be simultaneously correct...since there are so many that are polar opposites

Yes ... I am the Queen of France. Let's say. I am also NOT the Queen of France. I never said I wasn't :-p. And I stopped caring whether or not something was "logically impossible" a LONG time ago. I worshiped that god for too long, it became my undoing and I disposed of it, to my benefit.

[booyalab]

There are some topics that deserve logic and some that don't. It's not impossible to reconcile logic with subjectivity in a worldview.

[HairlessBluetick]

There are some topics that deserve logic and some that don't. It's not impossible to reconcile logic with subjectivity in a worldview.

I don't think you and I are really having the same discussion....

[booyalab]

There are some topics that deserve logic and some that don't. It's not impossible to reconcile logic with subjectivity in a worldview.

I don't think you and I are really having the same discussion....

You said that you had logic as your god and now you are free from it and your resulting 'worldview' seems to be extremely relativistic. I believe that some things are 'true by definition' without over-applying it....so you don't have to give up one totally for the other.

[HairlessBluetick]

There are some topics that deserve logic and some that don't. It's not impossible to reconcile logic with subjectivity in a worldview.

I don't think you and I are really having the same discussion....

You said that you had logic as your god and now you are free from it. Your 'worldview' seems to be extremely relativistic, and I believe that some things are 'true by definition' without over-applying it....so you don't have to give up one totally for the other.

Yeah... I understand what you're saying. And I don't give up one for the other, in practice. But I think that in most situations, doubt is the path to follow, and I found myself rather .... irritated by your assertion that "it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy." I think I took issue with that because: a> I don't think you can really tell other people how to form their realities (which we seem to agree are at least partially subjective, especially when using words like "whimsy") and b>words like "dangerous" are often more "dangerous" then the things they are describing, especially with regard to ideas.

[booyalab]

Yeah... I understand what you're saying. And I don't give up one for the other, in practice. But I think that in most situations, doubt is the path to follow, and I found myself rather .... irritated by your assertion that "it's dangerous to base your perception of reality on something that is no more than whimsy." I think I took issue with that because: a> I don't think you can really tell other people how to form their realities (which we seem to agree are at least partially subjective, especially when using words like "whimsy") and b>words like "dangerous" are often more "dangerous" then the things they are describing, especially with regard to ideas.

Whimsy might have a negative connotation already, but I'm not inherently biased towards it...since I know it's benefits. By 'whimsy' I meant an explanation of something that is plausible but probably false. I don't know what you mean by dangerous being more dangerous than the things it is used to describe, that seems to be a contradiction in terms (yet another...) I find it dangerous because it leads to things like germ-phobias and unfounded resentment towards entire groups of people and racism and terrorism and suicide and insanity etc.... I don't mean that every conspiracy theory leads to it.....I mean many of society's ills that I described are because of logic with faulty premises. Granted...still something else might be at the root of the logic with faulty premises. Especially in the case of insanity and depression.

[HairlessBluetick]

Whimsy might have a negative connotation already, but I'm not inherently biased towards it...since I know it's benefits. By 'whimsy' I meant an explanation of something that is plausible but probably false.

What I meant was that "whimsy" is a subjective term. So I was irked by your use of the word in an argument for objectivity.


I don't know what you mean by dangerous being more dangerous than the things it is used to describe, that seems to be a contradiction in terms (yet another...)

Please explain how that is a contradiction in terms, preferrably without resorting to not-so-subtle jabs at my intelligence such as "yet another."


I find it dangerous because it leads to things like germ-phobias and unfounded resentment towards entire groups of people and racism and terrorism and suicide and insanity etc.... I don't mean that every conspiracy theory leads to it.....I mean many of society's ills that I described are because of logic with faulty premises.

What I said was that with regard to ideas it is better to doubt than to assume that a certain idea is "dangerous" because it is whimsical.

[HeyBooU]

Nah, nature has more to gain from HIV then the government.

[CamINTPeron]

I remember reading an article once how our own bodies try to neutralise drugs as they are foreign to our bodies.

To overcome, this pharmaceutical companies tried to develop a means to prevent our “T” cells particualy the "T4" which are like the Generals of our immune system from attacking drugs so they are more effective.

They tested this on a vaccine in Africa and later I think in Philadelphia asking for gay young men to volunteer.

Aids attacks and destroys our “T” cells.

Now when I found this site it looked very “radical” so I am a little sceptical.

[paladinoflunaria]

I suppose I haven't put much thought into that question. I'm not really one for conspiracy theory either; perhaps because I don't much care. I do think that a documented case of an individual immune to HIV and AIDS is in existence, though. Not sure what to make of it all.

[Lucas]

Conspiracy??? No way. Nobody could have possibly created HIV in the 40's when the first cases of it were found in Humans in Africa. Nobody had that advanced of technology back in the early 80's, let alone the 40's. Yet another example of how people will believe anything.



I do think that a documented case of an individual immune to HIV and AIDS is in existence, though.

I've heard about people immune to HIV too. In my anthro class my professor talked about a group of prostitutes in Africa that are immune, another group of Russians and Latvians that are immune as well.

[Lucas]

I found this article from BBC:




---------------------------------------------

Tuesday, 20 May, 2003, 14:00 GMT 15:00 UK

Hope for Aids vaccine.

BBC

The search for an Aids vaccine could be a step closer. Researchers have discovered that a small group of Ugandans seem to have natural protection against HIV. The two dozen or so individuals have not contracted the virus despite having unprotected sex with partners who are HIV positive. Studying how their immune systems keep the virus at bay could help scientists develop an effective vaccine against Aids.

According to a consensus of scientists, vaccinating against Aids should be possible one day. Attempts so far have not proved successful but trial vaccines are being tested around the world. Clues to combating the disease, which has killed more than 25 million men, women and children worldwide, come from a minority of individuals who are repeatedly exposed to HIV but never succumb to infection. The first example of this was found in Kenya among sex workers who appear immune to HIV. Follow-up research by the universities of Oxford and Nairobi has led to a prototype vaccine which is being trialled in the UK and Kenya.

Slow process.

The latest findings relate to a small group of people living near Lake Victoria in Uganda. They appear to be able to stay HIV negative because their immune systems are able to fight HIV. The research, by the Uganda Virus Research Institute, is expected to be published later this year. Professor Andrew McMichael of Oxford University, UK, a leading Aids vaccine researcher, said the work was encouraging.

"It strengthens the case that the immune response can protect against infection so if you can make that immune response with a vaccine you can protect people," he said. Professor McMichael developed the trial DNA-MVA vaccine in collaboration with scientists in Nairobi. He said the Ugandan research will help them evaluate the existing vaccine and perhaps provide clues to how to modify it to improve it. "It's a painfully slow process to develop a vaccine," he told BBC News Online. "Any increased evidence that this is the right approach is very helpful."

[INTrPosr]

I think it could have been a chemical warfare experiment gone awry. There are naysayers who still did not believe that the Tuskegee experiment did not occur, even after they admitted it. Some people are just boneheads, or too trustful...

Conspriacy is a relative term, when you consider that the government allows big company's to get away with a plethora of things that are known to be harmful to humankind, i.e., cigarettes, power lines, toxic waste in the rivers,...... and the list goes on. I believe that technically anything can be considered conspiracy when distributed in mass quantity, and pertinent information is omitted.

[Lucas]

Some people are just boneheads, or too trustful...

Too many go to the other extreme and are paranoid about everything. People actually believe that we didn't go to the moon! Some say the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon didn't really happen! The list of insane beliefs goes on and on.

All the evidence points toward the conclusion that HIV naturally crossed the species barrier from primates to humans in the 40's. What shred of evidence supports the HIV conspiracy theory?



Conspriacy is a relative term, when you consider that the government allows big company's to get away with a plethora of things that are known to be harmful to humankind, i.e., cigarettes, power lines, toxic waste in the rivers,...... and the list goes on.


Really, unless you live right next to a powerstation or under a line, there is no significant danger; and I wouldn't want a government that didn't allow smoking because of the negative health effects. Pollution is another issue, but people do tend to blow things out of proportion without knowing the facts. (ignorant judgementalism that is prevelent in the run of the mill Hippie, for example) :(

-Lucas

[INTrPosr]

Some people are just boneheads, or too trustful...


Too many go to the other extreme and are paranoid about everything. People actually believe that we didn't go to the moon! Some say the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon didn't really happen! The list of insane beliefs goes on and on.

But those are not boneheads, just morons who are in need of a philosophical compass. I remember the craze that the Holocaust and Civil Rights movement never occurred. I am not sure about the Holocaust, but I grew up in the 60's and 70's.


Conspriacy is a relative term, when you consider that the government allows big company's to get away with a plethora of things that are known to be harmful to humankind, i.e., cigarettes, power lines, toxic waste in the rivers,...... and the list goes on.


...I wouldn't want a government that didn't allow smoking because of the negative health effects.:(-Lucas

It's not the pure tobacco that kills us. It's all of the poisons added, not to produce flavor, but to enhance probability to addiction.

[Birdsnest]

I vote conspiracy but, I think it was not about gay people to begin with at least.

What I heard back in the 60's from my mom (may or may not be true) was that scientists - perhaps those in the CDC found Aids originally in monkeys in Africa, and did indeed bring it into the labs here to do experiments with. I am not certain, but it very well could have been experimentally added to vaccines given to certain races, perhaps African children as a vaccine, and spread that way. This is not something I am sure about, but something I vaguely remember hearing in the 60's. That could be total malarky too.

The thing is, that the monkeys could eat some medicinal plant that grew only in the African jungles, and it actually cured them. Now nobody knows what plant that is, and if they could find it, it might be the cure.

[HeyBooU]

The thing is, that the monkeys could eat some medicinal plant that grew only in the African jungles, and it actually cured them. Now nobody knows what plant that is, and if they could find it, it might be the cure.

Wow, if I had HIV I sure would be eating a lot of leaves.

[Ckyzxr]

The thing about conspiracy theories is that most of them require a high degree of organization within a group of people not necessarily with the same agenda. I can't even get a couple of people on the same team with the same agenda to agree on how to clean a piece of equipment.

Additionally, that group or persons would need to remain true to the original agenda and their original way of thinking when they participated in the Conspiracy for the rest of their lives, otherwise the conspiracy would be exposed later when someone felt guilty or responsible and "fessed up".

[Claverhouse]

The thing about conspiracy theories is that most of them require a high degree of organization within a group of people not necessarily with the same agenda. I can't even get a couple of people on the same team with the same agenda to agree on how to clean a piece of equipment.

Additionally, that group or persons would need to remain true to the original agenda and their original way of thinking when they participated in the Conspiracy for the rest of their lives, otherwise the conspiracy would be exposed later when someone felt guilty or responsible and "fessed up".

Oh, I think they have penalties.

;P


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

too much time and posts have passed to directly quote and address the last rebuttal from hairless bluetick, so I guess I'll just clarify. I don't think it's bad to doubt, I'm just saying that not much truth can come from it , in and of itself, aside from the fact that you're doubting. Descartes already proved this. So conspiracy theories are nice little thought experiments, but I believe that unsavory consequences may arise from basing your perception of external reality on fantasy. (I defined whimsy as being plausible but probably false earlier in this thread....a better definition would be conceivable but probably false) BTW, whimsy is only subjective in the relationship between what is conjured and who conjured it and how you let it affect you. To use the word correctly is being objective.

[Lucas]

What I heard back in the 60's from my mom (may or may not be true) was that scientists - perhaps those in the CDC found Aids originally in monkeys in Africa, and did indeed bring it into the labs here to do experiments with. I am not certain, but it very well could have been experimentally added to vaccines given to certain races, perhaps African children as a vaccine, and spread that way. This is not something I am sure about, but something I vaguely remember hearing in the 60's.


The discovery of HIV in primates dates back to the earliest days of the recognized human epidemic, when scientists with the California Primate Research Center at Davis noted similarities between disease symptoms experienced by gay men and those seen in four strange disease outbreaks among monkeys at their facilities. This pretty much rules out that conspiracy.

But, the vaccine theory has been looked at by many people; the main suspect is a batch of live polio vaccine (which was made from african monkey kidney cells) and dispersed in Africa in the late 50's. All surviving samples of that vaccine have tested to be HIV free though.


However, knowledgeable people in the field reject all this conspiracy as nonsense.

[Ckyzxr]

Oh, I think they have penalties.

;P


Claverhouse :ph34r:


Someone with nothing to lose fears nothing. Deathbeds and posthumous books can be difficult to suppress. I have few regrets, but one is that I did not document my father's "military" biography. I would have likely been chatting up a few CIA agents after I got it published. :)

[Claverhouse]

Umm, the execution of Roberto Calvi was about two decades ago, but even now freemasons all over the world quiver at how their brothers would come for them if they squeak a word regarding the awesome rites in each lodge.

Not that most people can't find out if they want to know.



Claverhouse



[ Godfather III was partly based on this happening; but sanitised it, particularly by bringing in the Mob headed by the would-be saintly Michael ].

[Star Cannon]

Meh. AIDs can't be a natural virus... it's too perfect. Anyway, we should have a vaccine by now -- with all the "research and funds" it gets for that sole purpose... Conspiracy? Definitely. Why? To kill everyone. Who did it? THe government, of course.

[prometheusdestroyed]

I've heard about people immune to HIV too. In my anthro class my professor talked about a group of prostitutes in Africa that are immune, another group of Russians and Latvians that are immune as well.

I can't source this, I'm afraid, but I think I heard very recently that the African prostitutes were found to become susceptible to HIV if they took a break from being on the game. i.e. they had to be continuously exposed was the assumption that was drawn. All sounds a bit fanciful.

But then this is the "conspiracy" as I understand it with HIV. It doesn't behave the way we were told it would in the 1980s - by being very contagious amongst heterosexual couples.

Also what is it exactly? I've read that you know you have HIV because you produce certain antibodies - is it possible to see the HIV virus? And then if you contract a rare disease or one that ravages you quicker than it should you are diagnosed as having AIDS. So AIDS itself isn't a disease.

It seems possible that the disease is a theory to answer certain observed phenomena. But is that the only theory that can fit?

I don't know enough really.

[blue_eye]

Yeah, and so what if this is conspiracy, this is reality. And yes the virus is spread by sexual deviant behavior, "the few prostitutes that are immune are the exception." Division56, you didn't mention condum companies benifit from this so called conspiracy. Star Cannon, let's assume that you're right, so what are you gonna do about it? And just because someone advances from it, doesn't mean that it's conspiracy, (i suppose the common cold is an illuminaty conspiracy because drug companies make millions selling cold remedies, ditto headaches, depresion).

[jittus rye]

Star Cannon, How can something be too perfect? Something so small that reproduces so rapidly is bound to have few flaws.

[Lucas]

just because someone advances from it, doesn't mean that it's conspiracy, (i suppose the common cold is an illuminaty conspiracy because drug companies make millions selling cold remedies, ditto headaches, depresion).

Well said. ha ha ha. There isn't any difference between the HIV conspiracy and other superstitions. Superstition being defined in my dictionary as, "An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear"

[anarchist]

i voted no...but it could very well be the offspring of an attempted biological warfare...

[Miss Anthropic]

Suspicious bunch, the lot of you! I just finished reading a book on the bubonic plague and how it shaped Europe's economy and social structure. Talk about population control. Anyway, it is theorized that some of the cases may actually have been anthrax because of the large herds of cattle they were grazing. Also the book talked about how the earliest humans or rather remains of the earliest humans have been found in Africa and how many diseases have originated out of that part of the world. Most recently would be west-nile virus and of course AIDS. For some reason the conditions are really good for new life forms to come out of Africa. Can't state this as fact, but one of the leading theories on how AIDS spread to humans is Africans eating chimpanzees that were infected with the virus, but don't suffer from the disease. So just like eating tainted meat from a cow--tainted with anthrax or mad cow the disease is passed on to humans. The germ warfare theory is kind of out there....doesn't seem too effective to develop a disease that requires exchange of blood or bodily fluids in order to kill. And it takes to much time to kill the victim. And I really doubt the drug companies need to manufacture something to cure in order to make money...they are doing pretty good right now, in spite of the FDA.

[Edmond Zedo]

Is it not obvious that epidemic is natural with overpopulation? And that it has a good side?

While I don't believe in "design," it seems that when technology can prevent or treat an epidemic, society is ready to grow. I wish we were colonizing space now, however, to give us all more ROOOOM.

[HeyBooU]

Is it not obvious that epidemic is natural with overpopulation? And that it has a good side?

While I don't believe in "design," it seems that when technology can prevent or treat an epidemic, society is ready to grow. I wish we were colonizing space now, however, to give us all more ROOOOM.
That's what I always thought. If we cured AIDS, then another disease would simply appear and it would probably be more deadly.

[mgb]

I honestly can't believe that a reasonable person would think this is a viable theory. If this was the first disease ever to hit the world...maybe. But its not. Happens all the time. Are all STDs part of this conspiracy. Did someone want to get rid of sailors and prostitutes a long time ago? No, people that travel are more likely to get diseases. They don't have an immunity and something that is endemic becomes a pandemic really quickly nowadays. And disease cross the species boundry all the time without government intervention.

[Miss Anthropic]

Is it not obvious that epidemic is natural with overpopulation? And that it has a good side?

While I don't believe in "design," it seems that when technology can prevent or treat an epidemic, society is ready to grow. I wish we were colonizing space now, however, to give us all more ROOOOM.
Mr.Zedo, I hear there is plenty of room in North Dakota....its kind of like outer space, not much there and really cold :)