It seem that your definition of double-standards is that there is not a one-to-one comparison of issues involving opposing sides....even when the situations are not directly comparable. ...OR when someone...such as I... totally missed the posts and events that so upset you. I don't remember you being told such things. Every issue needs to be evaluated on its own.."Bush did 'X'" or he didn't...Gore made money under suspicious conditions...or he didn't. We can (sort of) debate that, but your demands that we have a META-debate over whether my 'side' indulges in sufficient self-criticism is impossible in this forum. You just wave your arms and STATE that you are outnumbered and treated badly, and therefore.....ummmm... your side wins by default?