Highest-Priority Goals for 2016 By Month


Hello all. This is a list of my number-One goal for each month of 2016. This is my means of telling everyone “Happy New Year!”

Goals by the month


Get a head-start with Parallels 11, Windows 10 Pro, and Battle for Middle-earth II being on my Macbook pro for purposes of a head-start my “Middle-earth Saga” mod, named for what all six Peter Jackson LOTR films are called together. I have to e-mail certain people asking permission for certain aesthetics I wish to use for this project.


Get an actual girlfriend FINALLY, although I prefer black hair with blue eyes I suspect I might end up dating & Marrying a lady with red hair and green eyes. I will try the most practical tactic at this point in my life with seven years of not having a GF when I should have had one: not thinking about the idea of romantic friendships at all.


Set up my Paypal and Amazon to both be linked to my ATM account that I have with my bank.


Register my fictional reality to be Copyrighted as run and expanded exclusively by me, while making Rand Paul win the GOP primary election.


Get my first dose of comics of my fictional reality dished out to anyone who has an Amazon Kindle and/or an Apple product with iBooks on it.


Get at least one custom design costume done and done


Go to the every-fictional-reality-possible convention I go to every year for my first-ever all-weekend stay.


Start with getting my college education at a Community College.


Make my first Custom design LEGO people for Warhammer Fantasy Battle setting troop type and character simulation.


Sponsor and host the most epic Halloween Party in my current town of residing.


Make Rand Paul the 45th President of this grand nation.


Show the good people of “The 3rd Age” modding community what I have done with my copy of the BFME Anthology.

Final Thoughts

I have been as honest as possible while leaving out the how-to of every goal, except obviously the February one. So, these are my goals for 2016. Happy new year readers,



Correcting Wikipedia on Neolibertarianism


I cherish going to Wikipedia for knowledge like I cherish going to YouTube for music and Amazon for commerce. In fact, those three and WordPress are all the social media I really do.

However, I wanted to let Wikipedia know as a WordPress user how it can correct its very well-placed Neolibertarianism article. And by well-placed I mean to applaud Wikipedia for having a Neo-libertarianism article on their site, and wish to offer only Constructive Criticism.

Step 1 – Redirect options

Here are some terms Wikipedia can program to redirect to the article, I am going in order from top to bottom with this article correction offer:

  1. “Neolibertarianism”
  2. “Neolibertarian”
  3. “Neo-libertarian”
  4. “Neolibertarians”
  5. “Neo-libertarians”

One can easily read and/or type these terms and regrettably none of them redirect to the article.

Step 2 – Honesty in Opening Text

Here is a sample of an honest opening for that article, with strikethroughs of the stuff that can be removed and italicizing of stuff to be newly added:

Neo-libertarianism is a political and social philosophy that is a combination of libertarian principles with present-day Neoconservative Ayn Rand’s Objectivist principles. This philosophy promotes liberty as its main idea, promoting freedom of choice, other civil liberties, and laissez-faire capitalism, while also being critical of authority and favorable to Secular Democracy. However, neo-libertarians differ from libertarians on issues of government oversight, as many neo-libertarians tend to sympathize with neoconservative always sympathize with objectivist ideas on authority, especially when it comes to military action. Neo-libertarians believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism, and support interventionist policy as the way to maintain America’s importance in foreign relations and sovereignty from foreign nations.

Step 3 – The Full History

Wikipedia has an article about Dale Franks, who is the primary thinker behind this philosophy I myself have embraced since middle 2011. This philosophy was devised in 2003 mainly by him, with help from other thinkers. Here is what I suggest for the History bloc of the article:

Neo-libertarianism was first devised in 2003 with assistance from other thinkers at the QandO online magazine by American author Dale Franks, who has since defined the unifying principles of neo-libertarianism as follows:

  1. The policy choice that maximizes civil liberties is the best choice
  2. The policy choice that minimizes government control of the population is the best choice
  3. The policy choice that limits government interference in the economy to rational, market-based incentives is the best choice

And in foreign policy:

  1. The diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes totalitarian rule is the best diplomacy.
  2. The military policy that uses overwhelming US military force solely at the discretion of the US, and even then only against direct threats to America’s national sovereignty, is the best military policy.

Since then, numerous factions of the libertarian movement; from libertarian Republicans like the Republican Liberty Caucus, the US Libertarian Party, and the Tea Party Movement’s libertarian half; have all had growing neo-libertarian demographics of their own. On foreign policy, the libertarian movement has been split since 2003 into typical libertarians and neo-libertarians, with the former supporting ideas personified by the Cato Institute, and the latter preferring the ideas of Ayn Rand Institute. Supporters of Cato believe in the libertarian ideal of Non-interventionism, preferring to only interact with other nations in the contexts of Free Trade, liberal immigration policy, and minimal – if any – restrictions on world traveling; and to keep military funding low and to only attack nations that directly attack Americans on American soil. Neo-libertarians, on the other hand, believe in policies and conduct inspired by American Civil War Union General William Sherman, favoring a high-funding military who takes action against foreign regimes who threaten US national sovereignty before they launch any attacks against Americans on American soil. Ultimately the entire libertarian movement, including neo-libertarians, have a hostility to regime change, humanitarian aid and other ‘liberal internationalist’ and ‘neoconservative’ policies.

Step 4 – The rest of the article is fine to me

I will just stop correcting here because Wikipedia gets our domestic policy beliefs about economy and culture down generally truthfully. That is all I wanted to clarify tonight, Wikipedia staff, and if you are reading this – I think you may know what self-correcting steps to take.

Even paleontologists like my far future self must correct themselves based on newly discovered concrete data. Thank you all reading this article,


My Foreign Policy Beliefs as a Libertarian


I have reflected on my foreign policy beliefs and did a LOT of reading about foreign policy on the Ayn Rand Institute’s website [ari.aynrand.org].

I also did a retake of the Foreign Policy Philosophy quiz on Select Smart, and my top result [100% match] is “Libertarian” emphasis on self-defense and Free Trade. So, let us explore what my beliefs are regarding my political strong suite exactly.

My Domestic Policy views [as a heads-up]

I am basically a Fiscal Conservative and Classical Liberal when it comes to domestic issues. I support deficit reversal, reducing government budgets, paying off the national debt, free market economies, globalization, free trade, deregulated economy, and a low tax rate that is only applied to profit differences in sales, never to income or to property. I also support rule of law, the secular state, civil rights, personal freedoms, permissive societies, electoral democracy, natural law, science, and legal equality.

On to my Foreign Policy views

The first many pointers will be based on the Select Smart quiz. I may add other pointers afterward.

  1. Treaties cannot alter the nature of countries, because actors shape institutions, not the other way around
  2. As of the Non-aggression axiom, violence is only right in self-defense, whether it’s an individual’s self defense or an entire nation’s.
  3. Civil Liberties and Free Markets are excellent forerunners of a legitimate foreign policy, just like how they are marvelous at forerunning domestic policy
  4. Humanitarian missions are not the job of a military. There are plenty of Non-profit charity NGOs out there who are qualified to do humanitarian work, but militaries? Militaries are for national defense, not global aid.
  5. Free Trade with basically any nation that does NOT sponsor terror AND also refrains from ever directly committing terror is the only moral trade policy
  6. People and nations are historically not all good, but rather humans are a typically self-centered species who also happen to be a colossal diversity of moralities, and this effects human nations as well.
  7. Globalization leads to major peace and prosperity for all those living on this planet.
  8. The governmental system is very relevant in other nations, because Full Democracies and even Flawed Democracies like Israel are far more likely to basically be Good nations who do not terrorize people. Almost all Authoritarian Regimes and the Authoritarian-leaning Hybrid Regimes, on the other hand, are either State sponsors of non-state terror or are conductors of state terror, or both.
  9. Considering other nations’ internal affairs is often a grand strategy in assuring the defense of the American People, however there needs to be a middle ground that is not ignoring psychopathic regimes but also not being invasive to fellow democracies. It is usually wisest to simply Study the affairs of foreign nations.
  10. Regime Change and Nation-building are always a big, giant disaster. Expansionism and Imperialism are, like Noninterventionism and Isolationism, Also epically failed policies. Simply have our military go to a terror regime’s nation, end the regime and come home Immediately.
  11. All sovereign nations have some kind of natural resource that they profit from to fund their sovereignty, there is no exploitation system between Developed and Undeveloped nations.
  12. Allying with authoritarian regimes is extremely dangerous and morally unrealistic. The only nations we are friendly to should be either Full or Flawed democracies or Democracy-leaning Hybrid regimes.
  13. Preemptive War is not always justified, but there do exist Self-defense justifications for, in example, preemptively striking out a renowned State Sponsor of Terror.
  14. National and ethnic minorities should fight back against oppression, but should not be attacking civilians.
  15. Spheres of Influence is an outdated idea and should not be implemented by any nation, even by America.
  16. Fuel resources like Oil should not be murdered over, instead they should be bought and sold peacefully through Unrestricted Free trade and Globalization.
  17. As has been demonstrated with Historic tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, Arms control agreements never do the job of getting terroristic tyrants invested in not being terroristic anymore.
  18. Woodrow Wilson had absolutely abysmal foreign policy and his ideas were far too fiction-based to work.
  19. It is always practical to have a strong volunteer military with realistic high spending, and as the US has 5.75 times the military funding of the highest-funded Non-American military, I don’t think there is a better way to change that than to stop funding other nations and turn that foreign aid into additional military funds [10% hike, given what we spend in these two categories]. No larger budget-hike than that.
  20. Transparency and Government honesty with the citizenry is always a healthy means of improving relations between nations.
  21. Even though it is not morally ideal, using overwhelming retaliatory military force is the only reality-based way to defeat terror, but the problem is we stupidly keep up these unneeded expansionist policies of the Neoconservative mindset.
  22. Economic affairs have nothing to do with Foreign affairs, I therefore believe business interests do not have too loud of a voice on foreign policy.
  23. State-conducted Terror and State-sponsored Terror are both caused by a regime’s legalistic and puritanical approach to either an Abrahamic Religion like Islam or an Atheistic Religion like Marxism, depending on the exact regime in question. Never by American or Israeli policies, never by natural disasters, and never by economic turmoils. I am not simply saying this as a deeply Nonreligious person who happens to be an Atheistic Republitarian, that is an observation one can make just by assessing reality instead of trusting TV and Radio stations on it.
  24. Nationalism is never a healthy thing to engage in, neither is the “Blame America First” mindset. Both of these cause people of Earth to disregard humanism and to merge into misanthropy.

Final Thoughts

So basically now the globe knows my 24 principles regarding foreign policy. I do not support intervening just about everywhere like John McCain, but I also do not support doing nothing about Terror Regimes until one of them attacks us on our soil like Ron Paul. I am basically right in the core of the middle of this… spectrum. Sort of like my presidential candidate endorsement choice, Rand Paul, is. Except I am not sure if he is this intricate about foreign policy. I imagine some of his foreign policy views are similar to mine though. All I know is I side with him on 82% of the presidential issues of 2016, and he shares my willingness to always side with Israel when it’s given any trouble.

Why this post?

Because I wanted to get my foreign policy platform out to prevent anyone from polarizing me into being either pacifism extremist or militarism extremist. I am no extremist in any sense, and I refuse to ever identify as strictly Left Wing or Right Wing.

Thank you all for reading,


Some long-needed Paleontology

Greetings, readers. It has been very long since I have talked science, mainly due to an absence I have had from my own WordPress.

Paleontology is the science I wish to get a career in about a decade from now, and indeed this is my scientific strong point for sure.

Today I am going to speak of the life cycle of a Dimetrodon, which is a sail-backed reptile ancestor of ours from the early Permian.

Wikipedia explains here.

Now, the Dimetrodon reproduction phases:

  1. First we come to the fertilization of the egg. Because according to current-century biology, all animal life begins at reproduction. And I will get into how we humans are no exception in a different post.
  2. Second comes the eggs being laid. In order to cope with this ordeal, female Dimetrodon finds herself needing to eat enough animal flesh to last her a long seven months of waiting to lay the eggs, often this means enduring a freezing winter [winters in the time of Dimetrodon and other Early Permian beings were 20% colder than 21st century AD winters] before laying the eggs.
  3. Third is the incubation of the young. This entails the embryos growing inside of the eggs after they have been laid into a vaguely cave-like nest by the mother Dimetrodon. It also entails the Dimetrodon needing and wanting not just to defend her eggs at any cost, but also to pile on and remove layers of dirt according to a very basic form of parental care: temperature control. If the young inside the eggs overheat or overcool, then they will die before even hatching.
  4. Fourth is the eggs finally hatching. This is when the Dimetrodon are finally at the ‘baby’ stage of life. Even though the source I learned most of this from claims adult Dimetrodon were cannibals, apparently there is no scientific evidence of this claim being fact. Right off the bat you can tell I got my interest in paleontology and prerequisite sciences from that BBC “Walking With” saga intellectual documentaries, which are mostly science fact, with extremely few exceptions, like the cannibalism claim I just called “falsehood” on. Okay, back to the topic on hand. Baby Dimetrodon, as with any prehistoric baby animals, mainly relied on a mix of parental care and basic instinct to survive its way into juvenile stage, but mostly parental care.
  5. Fifth is the juvenile stage. This is the time when they stop hunting tiny arthropods [animals like insects and scorpions who have their skeletons on the outside] and start hunting fellow mammal-like reptiles. Specifically non-Dimetrodon genera of pelycosaurs. Also this is the stage when they first start to learn how to act like adults.
  6. Sixth is the adolescent stage. Here is where the two genders of Dimetrodon begin to have features like the differently-shaped sails that set them apart.
  7. Finally, we get to stage seven – the full grown adult stage. This is the stage of the first signs of readiness for mating, the process of animal reproduction in general. In fact this is where all readiness for mating begins. It is also where the Dimetrodon is a completely sovereign being in all fields: hunting, scavenging, adapting to changes in the climate and in the weather, finding fresh water, and of course – defending one’s young. Which leads Dimetrodon to reproducing, causing the life cycle of Dimetrodon to repeat for later generations.

And yes, I will do a thing like this for all of the animals I know about the life cycle of. And there is also the notion of human life beginning, like all animal life does, at fertilization that I must discuss in the future as well.

Thank you readers,


“Atheism” Too Vague for me

Hello readers. Even though I do not believe that deities are anything more than fictional beings, I still find the “atheist” label very vague in terms of describing my Religious and spiritual Views as a whole.

Which is why I would prefer all who know me from here on out calling me “Secularist” to refer to my religious views, as basically I maintain an empathy-based morality and the most important religion or non-religion thing to me is keeping politics and religion as far from being the same topic as realistically possible.

Basically I prefer the term Secularist to the term Atheist because it allows people to decipher that,

“Oh! See, [my real name] believes in Separation of Church and State AND in Freedom of Religion AND in legal equality, we know ’cause he is more of a ‘secularist’ than an ‘atheist’ in his religious identity!”

So, in short, I am a Secularist first, and an Atheist second. That’s all for this morning on which I am posting this to all. Thank you all,


Unusual Pet Toad idea!

As people who read this site may know, The Legendary Atheism is a website of many different topics, with science, politics and religion only being three of those topics.

I have decided to make this post to share something you may not expect to be true about me: if I could have any kind of unusual pet, it would be a few members of a species of True Toad, family Bufonidae.

This is mainly because they are very resilient beings who will eat almost any insect or other invert they can fit into their heads. But I also like how just about all of them have the kind of toes that are specialized for digging.

If I could have members of any species of Bufonidae as pets, than the species would be Bufo Asper, the Asian Giant Toad.

Why an Asian Giant Toad?

I would love to own Asian Giant toads because they are a very rare sort of toad to find in markets, especially here in America. I would also love some because from what I can gather they grow to lengths averaging 9 inches from snout to vent.

Also the Asian Giant Toad is a non-invasive alternative to a more commonly marketed species like the Cane Toad that grows to 10 inches from snout to vent.

Plus there is a 25% chance I could get one in pure black, and that would be very musically metal to have for a pet toad! I usually see something in a positive light when I say it is “musically metal”, for those of you who are not sure what I mean by “musically metal”. But, the other colors are grey, brown and green, of which I have equal chance of having one of those if I were to try and succeed in buying one for affordable.

Thank you all for learning this about me today,


Why I Changed to Atheism

Good morning people. It is nearly 8 AM in my town at the time of me posting this, hence the opening word choices.

But that is not what this post is about, this post is about my history with Non-religious philosophies and why I have converted to Atheism after nearly three years of being a Deist.

My History with Irreligion

Irreligion is the absence of and rejection of religion from one’s beliefs.

I first started with Non-religious philosophy after a long time in my little-kid days of asking myself deep in the brain stem questions about Biblical compatibility with the Prehistoric and Modern animal biology I grew up on at the times and still to this day thrive on loving at my current age of 21. This lead me to adopt Agnosticism, but I never really told anyone until now.

Agnosticism, for those who want me to post a definition in my own words and/or do not know, is the philosophy that no one will ever determine whether any deities [gods & goddesses] exist or not.

Then around the year 2007 I had my first switch to Atheism, which lasted until 2010. Atheism, in my words, is the belief that all deities are inherently fictional characters.

2010 saw me moving on to a philosophy almost no one knows of, called Ignosticism. Being an ignostic means one believes all religions and all fellow irreligious beliefs, including agnosticism, assume too much about the validity of deities. This appealed to me because it harkened over to my typical goal in life to remain always intelligent and wise.

Then in 2013 I questioned the overt simplicity of ignosticism and switched to Deism until September of 2015. My Deist era is when I created this website, and the “Legendary Deist” account I have on YouTube. Then I thought once again about the compatibility of Deism with modern scientific discoveries, and once again I switched to Atheism during September of this year.

Motives for latest conversion to Atheism

As stated above, scientific knowledge once again motivated me to question the existence of any deities. I have thought for some time about how science proves our universe started, by expanding from an initially hot and dense condition, and I thought about the cosmos’s age of 13 to 14 billion years – and it made me question the idea of a deity starting the universe and abandoning it to its future, mainly because I was not sure of the question of how a deity could cause an event like this and still be alive somewhere out in space. Meaning… space is all vacuum and no atmosphere, something I suspect not even a deity can survive. Plus even deism sounds not so scientific to me, hence my latest switch.

Concluding thoughts

As an atheist, I have no problem with people embracing religions, be it Catholicism, other Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Wicca, other Paganism, whatever it may be. Actually quite a contrary, I readily advocate and defend freedom of religion and believe in a maximum social freedom philosophy and maximum economic freedom philosophy. Yes, I am one of the most committed enemies of Marxism and allies of Laissez-faire on Earth. I refuse to ever let the nativism & theocracy of the Far Right turn me against maximum economic freedom, and I also refuse to ever let the progressivism of the Far Left turn me against True maximum social freedom. Not to mention most of the political inputs I keep on this site are and have been and always will be focused on advocating an Empire Of Liberty foreign policy, as foreign policy topics like Military spending and Ending Genocides abroad are my political strong point. Thank you people,


Who will I vote for in 2016?

Before I go into this, I want to very carefully explain to people – even though I am registered to vote as Republican, I am a very devout Independent at heart and in the head, for example I will vote for Third Party person Gary Johnson in the general election if the specific Republican I want for president loses the primary to some clown like Trump or Carson. The break down will be my philosophy and which factions of the GOP I agree with on which issues, then I will detail my initial history of endorsing people for president, then I will answer the titular question.

My Own Platform

Generally, I am what you would call a “Free-market liberalism” Republican, so basically a GOP-voting libertarian or “Republitarian”. I say ‘generally’ because I am one of the rarer Republitarians that supports an active international policy inspired by world liberation themes like “Empire of Liberty”. In terms of party loyalty though I am merely just a “small-R” republitarian, I do not care to embrace any party platforms aside from the Modern Whig Party platform.

As a republitarian, I endorse Free Markets, free trade, Free-market healthcare and private property under Laissez-faire. I also hold that all military service must be voluntary and there must be no draft, and I believe a vast majority of government functions should be privatized, and the domestic policing functions and scientific progress projects turned over to the city and town governments [both known as the “local level”]. Tax-wise I advocate replacing our current taxation system and the IRS with the Negative Income Tax [a flat rate system crafted for dodging all welfare traps] and the FairTax [a sale tax that takes 23 cents from every dollar of profit margin]. I additionally believe in eliminating all Federal regulations of economy and ridding our economy of the Federal Register [book of regulations].

My republitarian nature also has me endorsing civil liberties. Meaning I endorse these rights as originally popularized by the 18th century AD European thinkers who influenced America’s founding fathers, also as known in global terms nowadays [hence my choices of which Wikipedia pages about them I link to]:

  1. Freedom from Torture
  2. Freedom from Exile
  3. Freedom of Thought
  4. Freedom of Media
  5. Freedom of Belief
  6. Free Expression
  7. Freedom of Assembly
  8. Right to Security
  9. Right to Privacy
  10. Legal Equality
  11. Due Process
  12. Fair Trials
  13. Right to Life
  14. Property Rights
  15. Right of Self Defense
  16. Right to own handheld weapons
  17. Bodily integrity
  18. Freedom of Education
  19. Freedom of Choice
  20. Freedom of Association
  21. Freedom of Movement

But, in foreign policy, I diverge from most republitarians by supporting a strong military with a realistically high budget, a harsh foreign policy against Salafi [Islamic Authoritarian] regimes & militias in the Greater Middle East, and an eagerness to always support both Israel’s national sovereignty and Israel itself, and I support “Empire Of Liberty” expansionism. Most fellow libertarians, including most fellow republitarians; support a limited military with an idealistically low budget, a foreign policy of tolerating authoritarian regimes and militias who do not attack Americans on American soil, and an Israel policy of Only supporting that nation’s sovereignty, but not that nation itself. Plus this majority of my own psychographic opposes “Empire Of Liberty” expansionism. I agree with the National Security faction of the GOP on issues of foreign policy, I basically cannot say I agree with the Neoconservative faction on foreign policy as I disagree with them on a majority of political issues facing the US, especially in Domestic Policy.

So, instead of being a blind and inhuman sheep of agreeing with the current GOP platform on absolutely everything, I am one who can be most accurately described as “national security libertarian” republican or, simply put, “Neo-libertarian”. Both in a GOP-leaning sense and in the fact that I am an LP-leaning Independent at heart, in the head and in the soul; I am an “NSL”, National Security Libertarian.

Initial Endorsement patterns

The very first person I endorsed for President for 2016 was a guy who was very straight headed and very Independent-at-heart at the time: Wayne Root. Yes, the man who ran for Vice President on the LP [libertarian party] ballot in 2008 was going to be my first pick for president. But then the vile rhetoric of Donald Trump and Ben Carson corrupted him into sympathizing the Nativism of the Far Right, so now I can no longer call him a fellow middle-ground Neolibertarian let alone endorse him for president. I am just glad he still shares with me headstrong resistance to the political correctness of the Far Left.

Next I looked at the Republican Liberty Caucus’s “Liberty Index”, but regrettably the newest one around now is from 2013, and it says that this guy Marco Rubio has a 90% clean record in Personal Freedom and a 95% clean record in economic freedom, meaning this guy had a Liberty Index ratio of 93%. So then I look on his campaign site and notice his foreign policy inputs are mostly based in reality and I go to endorse him for president. Then I see a bunch of stances of his on other issues that make me wonder how he got a 90% record on Personal Freedom, such as his support for the Patriot Act and for extended NSA spying.

Finally, I look at Rand Paul with initial skepticism based on his foreign policy beliefs. Turns out he very recently rethought his foreign policy philosophy, and his entire platform on a whole, to sound exactly like something modeled to be similar to the Libertarian Defense Caucus tenants list and/or the Modern Whig Party platform. For example, right on his site, he says “I vow to explore all diplomatic options before sending our armed forces into battle”. Hmmm… sounds like the following LDC line:

  • “We believe a Global War on Terror exists, and that the war must be executed by diplomatic, economic, and only as a last resort, military means.”

Both sound exactly like the kind of “Big Stick Diplomacy” myself and other neo-libertarians support in US foreign policy! You know, Theodore Roosevelt’s line “Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick”.

Time to Answer the Titular Question

In case you were already predicting, yes, I endorse Rand Paul for president of the United States. But do I disagree with him on anything? Well… I disagree with him slightly on the issue of abortion, I believe there should be no government involvement in that issue, but I also respect Rand Paul and other pro-life people as I am one of the, unfortunately, very few pro-choice people who have the common sense to recognize from a Zoology-based perspective that the idea that human life and other animal life begins at fertilization, and that it’s been a common fact and norm of Life on Earth for a good 5 or 6 hundred-million years.

So, to end this post, I am a former Non-religious Deist and current Non-religious Atheist who Stands With Rand. But I will talk about my conversion to Atheism and why it happened later, if I have not already.

Thank you all for reading this entire thing,

~TLA [The Legendary Atheist]