Originally Posted by Opinionated

These are mostly examples from WW1, but how much braver for those who considered the fact that less than twenty years later there was another "war to end all wars" and knowing how poorly they would be treated because of their "cowardice", still chose to take a stand. Would that I could be so true to my principles and convictions.

I would never condemn another for taking the CO route, as long as they do demonstrate the courage of their convictions and remain to face whatever "punishment" is meted out. Personally, I thought Muhammed Ali showed extrodinary courage in refusing to serve and and not running off to Canada but faced the courts and went to prison. On the other hand I have nothing but contempt for those who fled during the VN war.

'War cannot be ended by war nor any situation improved by it....Millions are secretly against war.'

I don't recognise this quote, can you attribute it?

The above quote, brings to mind a book I received for Christmas and have only just begun, Freedom's Battle by Gary Bass. It's about humanatarian efforts through history, mostly sending forces to end atrocities. Up front Bass points out the peculiar fact that it is usually those on the far right and the far left that are against such efforts. Those on the right because they are not usually in 'the national interest' for example Rawanda, Dafur, etc. and those on the left because they see them as imperialistic actions. It is usually those close to center who are the atrocitarians and argue for intervention to stop slaughter. Humanatarian/Atrocitarian intervention to stop slaughter of innocents, would seem to argue loudly against 'War cannot be ended by war nor any situation improved by it....'

I would challenge the author of that quote to look at the pictures of the millions of Jews and others who died at the hands of the Nazi's, the millions murdered by Pol Pot, the rivers choked with bodies of the murdered in Rawanda, Stalin's millions and on and on and say '...nor any situation improved by it...'

I'm afraid I cannot tell you who the quote comes from beyond telling you he was a member of the British clergy and he was excommunicated for his pacifism (I'm not sure if his name is lost to history, but that is all I know).
I'd actually agree that as a quote it comes unstuck when you consider the need for humanitarian action (although in all cases it ultimately just leads to more death and often comes close to escalating into full blown international conflict) and I've never really been able to reconcile the need to stop Hitler with my belief that war is wrong.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

In another thread about the elderly, Octopus mentioned conscientious objectors in a derogatory tone

That got me thinking (as Nick Griffin's mocking of Straw because of this fact on Question Time had also), why when we know it wasn't the easy option to be a conscientious objector do we still instinctively reach for the white feather?
Surgeons, carpenters and other skilled workers who relied on their hands forced to risk disability and their futures by working in quarries and other work essential to the war effort, don't really sound like snivelling cowards do they? Not to mention those extremely brave men who chose to deliver medical aid and supplies to the front, volunteering essentially to be target practice! These are mostly examples from WW1, but how much braver for those who considered the fact that less than twenty years later there was another "war to end all wars" and knowing how poorly they would be treated because of their "cowardice", still chose to take a stand. Would that I could be so true to my principles and convictions.

'War cannot be ended by war nor any situation improved by it....Millions are secretly against war.'

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/a...1974/peace.gif

An interesting post. I do agree that it was not an easy decision to be a Conscientious Objector, particularly in the First World War. It takes a very different type of courage to stand up for your principles, rather than the physical courage required to fight. Interestingly there are a number of documented acts of immense heroism by COs who displayed both moral and physical courage. A number of these related to actions of stretcher bearers and medics recovering and treating wounded men under fire, and many died doing so.

I am an admirer of Siegfried Sassoon, the WWI poet, who as an infantry Captain was awarded the Military Cross. However as he witnessed the meaningless carnage he came to the conclusion that continuation of the war was not justified, and during a leave wrote to the papers, and refused to return to France in a symbolic gesture of defiance. Recognising that he was a high profile public figure, and his stance had a measure of sympathy, the Establishment handled the embarrassment by having him certified and institutionalised. I seem to recall that he threw his MC into the River Mersey.

However many of us today, living in a society which has a volunteer army, and is comparatively enlightened with regard to those who would not bear arms do not have our principles tested, but would have been as condemnatory as the next person in their view of a 'conchie'. Different attitudes for different times.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

However many of us today, living in a society which has a volunteer army, and is comparatively enlightened with regard to those who would not bear arms do not have our principles tested, but would have been as condemnatory as the next person in their view of a 'conchie'. Different attitudes for different times.

My attitude, as stated below, was held during the Vietnam War, while serving. An unpopular opinion, I assure you, but my belief nonetheless. I rank as courageous those who, like Ali, stood their ground and accepted the consequences, while ranking as cowards those who lacked the moral courage to stick it out and fled. My opinion then, my opinion now.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I'm afraid I cannot tell you who the quote comes from beyond telling you he was a member of the British clergy and he was excommunicated for his pacifism (I'm not sure if his name is lost to history, but that is all I know).
I'd actually agree that as a quote it comes unstuck when you consider the need for humanitarian action (although in all cases it ultimately just leads to more death and often comes close to escalating into full blown international conflict) and I've never really been able to reconcile the need to stop Hitler with my belief that war is wrong.

Don't you even hold to the principle of a "just war" following a casus belli?
I certainly do, even as a Christian, I have no problem with acts of self defence and the defence of the persecuted.

Originally Posted by Barry

Don't you even hold to the principle of a "just war" following a casus belli?
I certainly do, even as a Christian, I have no problem with acts of self defence and the defence of the persecuted.

I don't know Barry, I struggle with it as I know many people do (Christians especially, given the whole turn the other cheek thing). I can pretty much safely say that if someone I loved was threatened my pacifism would be the first thing out the window, which makes my admiration for those COs even greater, to not only put your own comfort on the line for your principles but also open your family up to a difficult time is extraordinary.

In the event of a mass call up I believe we would (apart from the repatrition of thousands of forigners who will suddenly decied they are not British after all) see the majority become CO's. Untill such times as we are an independant Nation again free from the chains of Brussels what exactly would be the point ?

The CO's of the past were probably a mixture of principled and cowards. Only they themselves realy knew which side of the fence they were on ,It was not for us to judge them, that, they had to do themselves

I would say that if National service was the rule i would be a CO against it. I feel that a Government does not have the right to demand its people go off to fight a war against their will.The CO s of WW1 and WW2 were brave and principled people.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

I would say that if National service was the rule i would be a CO against it. I feel that a Government does not have the right to demand its people go off to fight a war against their will.The CO s of WW1 and WW2 were brave and principled people.

Very true, it took alot of bravery to be a conscientious in WWI and WWII, they CO's back then. CO's were treated terribly back then.

being a CO in wars like Vietnam is a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Very true, it took alot of bravery to be a conscientious in WWI and WWII, they CO's back then. CO's were treated terribly back then.

being a CO in wars like Vietnam is a no-brainer.

To stand by your principles in war or peace is brave, it takes more to be yourself than to be what others demand you be.

All very principled folks, but in WWII those who were co's who were imprisoned etc., lived on to enjoy the benefits of the freedoms of the UK, whilst many who fought to maintain those freedoms gave their lives in the fight.

Edmund Burke summed it up best;

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Originally Posted by Binnman

All very principled folks, but in WWII those who were co's who were imprisoned etc., lived on to enjoy the benefits of the freedoms of the UK, whilst many who fought to maintain those freedoms gave their lives in the fight.

Edmund Burke summed it up best;

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

If they werent imprisoned they could have served a usefull purpous offering Medical care to the wounded.Yes they enjoyed the freedons won by the soldiers but so do many today who do not serve in the armed forces.Should full citizenship rights only become available to Veterans??

Originally Posted by pauli007001

If they werent imprisoned they could have served a usefull purpous offering Medical care to the wounded.Yes they enjoyed the freedons won by the soldiers but so do many today who do not serve in the armed forces.Should full citizenship rights only become available to Veterans??

No, I was merely pointing out that as many here were applauding the CO. viewpoint, it was worthy of consideration that many sat in prisons whilst others risked their lives for freedoms, which they (the COs) got the benefit of.

Personally, if (in time of war) a person declares him/herself a CO, then they should be given two choices. Either serve as a medic on the front, or "go and stand against that wall, whilst I get a bunch of guys together with rifles"

Originally Posted by Binnman

No, I was merely pointing out that as many here were applauding the CO. viewpoint, it was worthy of consideration that many sat in prisons whilst others risked their lives for freedoms, which they (the COs) got the benefit of.

Personally, if (in time of war) a person declares him/herself a CO, then they should be given two choices. Either serve as a medic on the front, or "go and stand against that wall, whilst I get a bunch of guys together with rifles"

So join the army or die?

That'd make a great new recruiting slogan for them

You may have missed this part of the second paragraph of my post;

(in time of war)

Originally Posted by Binnman

You may have missed this part of the second paragraph of my post;

(in time of war)

Yea, I saw it.

What right does a government have to demand that its people die for its principles, particulary when those principles go against those of the individual?

Originally Posted by pauli007001

What right does a government have to demand that its people die for its principles, particulary when those principles go against those of the individual?

What right do people have to enjoy the freedoms, benefits and liberties afforded by a country, without being willing to stand up and fight for them when their country is at war?

Originally Posted by Binnman

What right do people have to enjoy the freedoms, benefits and liberties afforded by a country, without being willing to stand up and fight for them when their country is at war?

That very much depends on whether the war is just or legal surely. Many are neither.

Originally Posted by Binnman

What right do people have to enjoy the freedoms, benefits and liberties afforded by a country, without being willing to stand up and fight for them when their country is at war?

Because those who did fight had to have something at home to fight for that's why!

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Because those who did fight had to have something at home to fight for that's why!

Freedom, Benefits, Democracy to name but three things worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by Midas

That very much depends on whether the war is just or legal surely. Many are neither.

Ah, but who decides whether the war is just or legal? The individual??? Or the Government elected by the people?

Originally Posted by Binnman

No, I was merely pointing out that as many here were applauding the CO. viewpoint, it was worthy of consideration that many sat in prisons whilst others risked their lives for freedoms, which they (the COs) got the benefit of.

Personally, if (in time of war) a person declares him/herself a CO, then they should be given two choices. Either serve as a medic on the front, or "go and stand against that wall, whilst I get a bunch of guys together with rifles"

[/QUOTE]I think that is a bit strong Binnman. I have no problem with COs serving in non-combatant roles in combat areas, but to advocate execution as an alternative is in my view rather extreme. For instance the Iraq war was arguably an illegal war, which we went into based on the lies of our then Prime Minister, who is arguably guilty of war crimes. A large number of people by your criteria would have been shot by firing squad by now, if only because there are not the vacancies for ten or twenty million medics in Iraq. I think the days of being conscripted into sacrificing your life for someone else's ideals are thankfully over, and I speak as an ex army officer.

I think that is a bit strong Binnman. I have no problem with COs serving in non-combatant roles in combat areas, but to advocate execution as an alternative is in my view rather extreme. For instance the Iraq war was arguably an illegal war, which we went into based on the lies of our then Prime Minister, who is arguably guilty of war crimes. A large number of people by your criteria would have been shot by firing squad by now, if only because there are not the vacancies for ten or twenty million medics in Iraq. I think the days of being conscripted into sacrificing your life for someone else's ideals are thankfully over, and I speak as an ex army officer.

You cannot cite the Iraq War as an example, as it was fought using a volunteer force. Any similar engagement would not require national mobilisation. My opinion (firing squad) related to a hypothetical situation similar to those faced in 1914 and '39. In such a circumstance, I don't think it's OTT to give COs the 2 choices. After all, if the option exists of sitting in a nice cozy jail during hostilities, that merely encourages folks to try the CO route. It'd be interesting in such a case how many COs would stand by their principles, when faced with being at the front line without the means to defend themselves....................................or standing beside a wall

Originally Posted by Binnman

Ah, but who decides whether the war is just or legal? The individual??? Or the Government elected by the people?

Well, as the events leading up to the war in Iraq have clearly shown, the government (or at leat this government) can't be trusted to decide! If there's any doubt whatsoever about whether we should send in our troops to a foreign war which isn't of our making, I think the views of the people should certainly be given serious consideration.

Originally Posted by Binnman

What right do people have to enjoy the freedoms, benefits and liberties afforded by a country, without being willing to stand up and fight for them when their country is at war?

What freedom? The freedom to do as we are told? No doubt the army teaches you that is freedom however there are many other ways of viewing the concept

Originally Posted by Binnman

You cannot cite the Iraq War as an example, as it was fought using a volunteer force. Any similar engagement would not require national mobilisation. My opinion (firing squad) related to a hypothetical situation similar to those faced in 1914 and '39. In such a circumstance, I don't think it's OTT to give COs the 2 choices. After all, if the option exists of sitting in a nice cozy jail during hostilities, that merely encourages folks to try the CO route. It'd be interesting in such a case how many COs would stand by their principles, when faced with being at the front line without the means to defend themselves....................................or standing beside a wall

OK, I now better understand your point. Nevertheless COs were treated pretty harshly, certainly in WWI. Many very brave COs did perform non-combatant functions in both WWI and WW2. I don't honestly know how it came about that some went to prison, some went down the mines and some became medics/stretcher bearers etc.

However back to the present. I hope that we never have to mobilise a conscription army ever again, but if we did there would almost certainly be an unprecedented number of COs either through cowardice or principle, and I could not imagine the circumstances whereby capital punishment could become a justifiable consequence. In truth I suspect that the western powers will rely increasingly on technology rather than humans to fight their wars,

OK teacher's hat on for a bit (apologies in advance). Britain has a long history of recognising conscientious objection, the 1757 Militia Ballot Act allowed for Quakers to escape service. Over time our forces became all volunteer allowing for it to become seen as a a top profession for a while (isn't that so Mr. Darcy). The Military Service Act of 1916 which introduced conscription allowed for conscientious objection on three grounds: freedom of thought, conscience or religion.
In order to claim exemption one had to argue before a Military Service Tribunal one of the above; bearing in mind that just going through the process resulted in abuse and being spat on in the street it was never the easy option. During the first world war around 16000 men were registered as COs and depending on which grounds the claimed exemption, 4500 objectors were sent to do 'work of national importance' such as farming,mining etc. 7000 were ordered non-combatant duties, but 6000 were forced into the army, and when they refused orders, they were sent to prison; thirty-five were taken to France and formally sentenced to death but immediately reprieved to 10 years in prison; conditions were made very hard for conscientious objector prisoners — ten died in prison, and around seventy died elsewhere as a result of their treatment.
As one would imagine considering the still relatively recent memory of the realities of the horror of war there were far more COs registered during WW2, 60,000 by the end of the war, and tribunals were resumed and a non-combatent corps was set up where conscripted men were involved in duties such as bomb disposal as well as medical, transport and food stores at the front etc. Those who refused were again sent to military prisons, where they were treated very badly, not to mention the treatment their families recieved.

Originally Posted by OneMInd

What freedom? The freedom to do as we are told? No doubt the army teaches you that is freedom however there are many other ways of viewing the concept

So in a time of war, you'd advocate that folks should have the right to do as they please. In fact never mind in times of war, you're advocating that everyone should have the right to "do their own thing", without fear of consequences? That road leads to anarchy I'm afraid.

As to what the Army teaches, I haven't got a scooby, maybe you should ask Major Sinic.

Originally Posted by Binnman

So in a time of war, you'd advocate that folks should have the right to do as they please. In fact never mind in times of war, you're advocating that everyone should have the right to "do their own thing", without fear of consequences? That road leads to anarchy I'm afraid.

otherwise known as freedom. So the option is to fight for one form of social control or another or not to fight! Not fighting seems a fair choice (and surely if you have no freedom to chose then you have nothing worth fighting to defend. Next argument please!

Originally Posted by OneMInd

otherwise known as freedom. So the option is to fight for one form of social control or another or not to fight! Not fighting seems a fair choice (and surely if you have no freedom to chose then you have nothing worth fighting to defend. Next argument please!

You seem to have a rather idealistic view of freedom. Freedom does not mean there are no rules, no laws.

In a time of national emergency (ie a major conflict) it is not unreasonable for the Government to expect it's citizens to defend the freedoms enjoyed within this country.

Fine, you don't want to kill someone on concientious grounds. Okay dokey, work down the mines or work on the land for minimum wage, or serve on the front lines in a non-combatant role.

Doesn't matter which, but in such major conflicts, there should be no free ride, so sitting on your backside in a nice cozy prison cell is not an option.

Of course there's always the L/Cpl Glenton method......................................just run away.

Originally Posted by Binnman

You seem to have a rather idealistic view of freedom. Freedom does not mean there are no rules, no laws.

In a time of national emergency (ie a major conflict) it is not unreasonable for the Government to expect it's citizens to defend the freedoms enjoyed within this country.

In danger of repetition - what freedom?

Fine, you don't want to kill someone on concientious grounds. Okay dokey, work down the mines or work on the land for minimum wage, or serve on the front lines in a non-combatant role.

Why fight in someone else's war. Take WW1 for instance. it was a family spat between the royals of Europe yet the only one that even visited the front line was Tsar Nicholas II. instead they forced the poor to fight for them! Some freedom, freedom to die for the good of the bloated aristocracy!

Doesn't matter which, but in such major conflicts, there should be no free ride, so sitting on your backside in a nice cozy prison cell is not an option.

The freedom to do as they tell you is not freedom at all. Not to mention the COs who served in other capacities. Why force people to fight wars for the benefit of those who exploit them?

Originally Posted by Binnman

You seem to have a rather idealistic view of freedom. Freedom does not mean there are no rules, no laws.

Nor Duty, Nor Responsibility. Freedom is a precious gift that must be protected and sometimes that protection requires a blood sacrifice, unfortunate and to be avoided if possible, but sometimes necessary. Where would your precious freedom to chose be if your British brothers and sisters, among others, had laid down their arms in the face of the Nazi's?

That said, with very few exceptions, such as L/Cpl Glenton, CO status is pretty much moot without conscription, a state of affairs which I hope is never again inflicted upon my Army.

Originally Posted by OneMInd

In danger of repetition - what freedom?

Well - we could start with the fact that you're sitting in your home, giving your opinion, without fear of a knock on the door from some folks like the K.G. used to B.

Originally Posted by OneMInd

The freedom to do as they tell you is not freedom at all. Not to mention the COs who served in other capacities. Why force people to fight wars for the benefit of those who exploit them?

Sorry, but are you living in a country where you're told where to live, where to work, who to marry and how many children you shall have? Are you living in a country where you have no vote whatsoever? Are you living in a country where you're required to serve 2 years National Service? Are you living in a country where there is no freedom of speech?

If the answer to the above is no, then you have freedom.

Imagine this, that nut Cameron wins an election, and is instantly corrupted by power. He eats a bad french pastry, this causes him to violently ill.

Enraged Cameron dealers war with France as a response, to bolster troop numbers he makes it mandatory for all adults to serve in the military. All people who refuse to get revenge for the bad pastry are lined up and shot.

Yes, this would never happen. I am just pointing out how stupid Binnman's point was.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Imagine this, that nut Cameron wins an election, and is instantly corrupted by power. He eats a bad french pastry, this causes him to violently ill.

Enraged Cameron dealers war with France as a response, to bolster troop numbers he makes it mandatory for all adults to serve in the military. All people who refuse to get revenge for the bad pastry are lined up and shot.

Yes, this would never happen. I am just pointing out how stupid Binnman's point was.

Why thanks so much for your kind words............................................. ..NOT.

That's the second time you've taken a ridiculous view, totally ignoring the scenario I have been outlining in my posts.

You might benefit from reading (and acting upon) my signature.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

In another thread about the elderly, Octopus mentioned conscientious objectors in a derogatory tone

That got me thinking (as Nick Griffin's mocking of Straw because of this fact on Question Time had also), why when we know it wasn't the easy option to be a conscientious objector do we still instinctively reach for the white feather?
Surgeons, carpenters and other skilled workers who relied on their hands forced to risk disability and their futures by working in quarries and other work essential to the war effort, don't really sound like snivelling cowards do they? Not to mention those extremely brave men who chose to deliver medical aid and supplies to the front, volunteering essentially to be target practice! These are mostly examples from WW1, but how much braver for those who considered the fact that less than twenty years later there was another "war to end all wars" and knowing how poorly they would be treated because of their "cowardice", still chose to take a stand. Would that I could be so true to my principles and convictions.

'War cannot be ended by war nor any situation improved by it....Millions are secretly against war.'

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/a...1974/peace.gif

Interesting post, and it is a difficult one this.

I have given it some thought and decided this is my response:

If a person feels that they cannot, morally, kill another human being, regardless of the risk to themselves, and they stand by their conviction, then I would support their right to that. Failure to accept that right makes a mockery of the sacrifice made by service people who have fought for freedom previously as this choice of thought was one of the main precepts in the wars against tyranny.

However I do think that society needs to be careful and there should be some tests of those people.

Does their conviction stop them from helping in a support role that would not involve combat? If this then let them help
Does their conviction mean they do not understand the reason for the war and perhaps they need help to understand it? Education is a wonderful thing
Does their conviction have an underlying political reason that is at odds with that of this country The I would lock them up for the duration as a possible security risk or divisive influence
Do they have ulterior motives that are sinister If this could be proved beyond any reasonable doubt then I would execute them for treason

I know it's not as simple as that, but those who object on moral grounds, but are prepared to help in support roles, as happened in WWI and WWII have my full support and thanks. Sometimes these people help to provide a moral compass that is all to easy to lose in the brutality of war.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Imagine this, that nut Cameron wins an election, and is instantly corrupted by power. He eats a bad french pastry, this causes him to violently ill.

Enraged Cameron dealers war with France as a response, to bolster troop numbers he makes it mandatory for all adults to serve in the military. All people who refuse to get revenge for the bad pastry are lined up and shot.

Yes, this would never happen. I am just pointing out how stupid Binnman's point was.

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

That's really constructive, well done.

I guess it depends on the War. I guess I feel (as a nationalist) that any person should serve their country in the best way they can. Now during war it makes no sense for surgeons or engineers to go off to fight, because both can serve their nation better by being at home, but a semi-employed labourer may serve his country better by fighting. Now in the VN War I agree with a lot of conscientious objectors, but not in WWII.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

haha, you really are a fool.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Just rustling.......baaaah!

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Jim, next time use a spell checker please. The correct spelling is shagging.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

That post tells me how pathetic your thinking is. Perhaps you should still to sheep rustling and out of British Politics...you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

OK, I know that my post was to complicated for you to comprehend.

Binnman said that anyone that does not participate, when their nation goes to war should be executed. That is idiotic, because govt's can go to war over inconsequential things or lies. For example we know that Bush and Blair were lying when they created the case for the Iraq war. Does that mean that everyone in the USA and UK that didn't participate in the war should be executed?

Originally Posted by Don

Jim, next time use a spell checker please. The correct spelling is shagging.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...Motorcycle.jpg

Originally Posted by Don

Jim, next time use a spell checker please. The correct spelling is shagging.

Two points...firstly I thought shagging would get caught by the censor and secondly I was trying to be reasonably polite...I don't think the native Kiwi's have actually been accused of sheep shagging, only the European Kiwi's...but hey I am open to this suggestion

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...Motorcycle.jpg

Kiwi...I think you will find that is an Australian Aborigine with a sheep, not a Maori (or native Kiwi)...so not really relevant...

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Two points...firstly I thought shagging would get caught by the censor and secondly I was trying to be reasonably polite...I don't think the native Kiwi's have actually been accused of sheep shagging, only the European Kiwi's...but hey I am open to this suggestion

Come on Jim, give the guy some credit, at least he displayed a sense of humor .

Sheesh! Engineers are always sticklers for fact and detail. I once met an electrical engineer who made a point of proving he could recite Pi to 100 places. He insisted on doing it for me the first time I met him. After listening patiently, when he reached the end of his litany, I simply said 3.141 usually does it for me. Watching his face fall was worth the torture of listening to that BS.

SMILE!