Do you care to explain why the distinction you and she are making is a significant one? You know, like I asked in the previous post? And which your whole argument depends? What exactly do you mean to imply by this? It's not a debate about a factual issue. It's a thread on a message board, with a bunch of individual contributions from different users at different times. One would expect, then, that meaning either derives from authorial intention of the thread starter, or the consensus meaning gleaned from all the separate posters. Given that you just derided the latter method, and the first has been called into question (as it potentially conflicts with your belief) how exactly do you propose we determine what a thread is "really" about? Who is the arbiter, that their opinion on the issue magically invalidates everyone elses'? Why should we understand your assertion about the actual nature of this thread as being the most correct? And why do you find it so absurd to expect that we could come to some idea of the meaning of a shared endeavor by polling the opinions of those variously involved in its authorship? Interesting that this is the second time that this has happened in the same thread. No, they aren't the same. But my point doesn't require that they are. It only requires that they are similar in the ways that Kiki found annoying and/or "problematic." To that point, both involve being lectured by superiors. Both involve potentially new or unwanted responsibilities. Both are in a structured format. Both take away time that the individual might otherwise use differently. And, in spite of all of the above, attendees usually recognize both as at being intended to fit theoretically into some greater good, even if the reality falls far short of that hope. Granted, one meeting discusses religious content and the other doesn't. But how is that a meaningful difference? The world is suffused with diversity. It's not that difficult to generate long lists of arbitrary distinctions. Only if they have meaning should we take note of them. In what other context would you possibly say that the severity of a problem doesn't matter, only the type? Anything that points implicitly to the yawning gap between first and third world standards of living should qualify for this thread. Your restriction against those gaps that owe their existence primarily to the severity (rather than type) of problem is bizarre, and not really factual. Some problems, even when common to all humans, are experienced so differently in developed versus developing nations that they highlight the difference in conditions more starkly than anything you would count as actually qualifying. Would you really say, for instance, that a broken fax machine is more emblematic of this disparity than the fact that the number two cause of death in impoverished countries doesn't even rank in the US, and is nothing more than a few hours (or, at most, days) inconvenience there?