When a person thinks in concepts they assume everyone else does as well. When a person thinks in pictures they assume everyone else does as well. The reality is, there are people who think in pictures and need show and tell to understand concepts, and people who think in concepts who consider show and tell to be redundant. The process of thinking in pictures runs the risk of being controlled by them instead of evaluating them for the concepts they make.

I call that the Algorithm, and this is how it works:

In order for the algorithm to understand itself I would normally use crayon, but in this case, text only, I'll use stick figures the reader will have to 'see' in their head on their own.

Let us call them Stick Man Al and Stick Man Joe, and let us put them in the environment they would understand: a bar fight.

Good ol' Stick Man Joe was not bothering anyone but he was associating and supporting the 'wrong' side of the bar, where those 'bad' people sit and that alone was enough for Stick Man Al to jump him because Stick Man Joe was helping them and Stick Man Joe would not stop.

The fight began. The fight ended when Stick Man Al beat up Stick Man Joe. As Stick Man Joe was on the ground, covered in his own beer droppings, Stick Man Joe's friends didn't like Stick Man Al for beating up Stick Man Joe so they each attacked Stick Man Al, one at a time. When the whole war was finished, Stick Man Al stood alone while the friends were all down and out.

What was the topic? Oh yes, Stick Man Joe was cavorting with the wrong element.

When did the Stick Man Joe and Stick Man Al fight end? Was it when Stick Man Joe was beaten up or was it when Stick Man Joe's friends were all beatin up? The war of the bar consisted of individual fights, we call those (engage fingers in quotes) "battles". Now... all liberals say "b a t t l e s". Each battle is not a war, although it is war.

Applying the Algorithm: If a war has battles, then all battles are wars.

Therefore we have the War in Iraq, when it was actually the Battle of Iraq. Remember "battle". When that "battle" ended, our President stood on a naval vessel and celebrated with the powerful warriors of the "battle", our proud and honorable troops, and thanked them for 'Mission Accomplished". Because it was!

The "War on Terror" (use finger quotes) has so far consisted of the first attack on the U.S. when 241 Marines were killed by Hizbollah in Lebanon, another attack in a basement in New York City when the police were left to fend for themselves and intelligence communities could not talk to each other and escalated with the Twin Towers and the Cole and other incidents and Stick Man Joe was paying his buddy terrorists' families for suicide attacks on Isreal, attacking his neighbors, attemping genocide in his own country and working feverishly to deceive the world through the use of oil money and the alliances that would create which accounts for France and Russia's ignoring his actions.

Afghanistan was a "battle" in the war on terror.

Iraq was a "battle" in the war on terror.

The only reason Stick Man Joe's friends have concentrated on Iraq is the constant show and tell presented by a media with other motives to grind.

But you have to love the reactionary responses from an essay simply listing the facts. Some of my favorites are:

"What the author fails to take into account is that unlike world war II where the Germans and the Japanese officially surrendered and ceased hostilities, the war in Iraq continues."

Algorithm in action:

That would mean Stick Man Joe did not lose the "battle" because he never said 'uncle'. He couldn't. He went into hiding to save his own skin.

"The war will be over and won when the other side says 'I quit'."

Algorithm in action:

In Arizona, my beloved state, there is a man who declares Arizona to be part of the Confederate States of America because the Confederacy never surrendered. The military surrendered. So to him, there was no surrender and the southern states are still their own country and he wants to add Arizona to that 'country'. He keeps running for office and he keeps losing but he has never admitted the loss so he must have been elected. You don't believe it? Read it. Mr. Goodson employs the Algorithm in nearly every paragraph.

"The real problem is that there is no comparison whatsoever factually."

Algorithm in action:

When your own missteps, and is caught in detail; ignore it and attack elsewhere.

"Al Queda [The terrorists] is a renegade militant organization without alleigence to or from any nation at all , there is absolutely no correlation to Germany or Hitlerism."

Algorithm in action:

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Therefore all terrorists are members of Al Qaeda.

A 'renegade militant organization' is only a threat when it seizes power of a country. The Nazi's were not a threat until they actually took over Germany. (Just ask Chamberlain as he ignored the threat until it was too late.)

'Hitlerism' is a term used to denote people who followed the mantra of Adolph Hitler. From a reader: "Islamofascism was first spoken last week , one of the many propagandized phrasisms created in the spin cycle after the sh*t hit the fan a few years ago in a place called Iraq ." Problem is, Islamofascism was first coined either by Malise Ruthven in The Independentor on September 8, 1990 or by Albert Scardino, writing in The Guardian on February 4, 2005. Neither of which are Donald Rumsfeld of George Bush. But when one considers that people who argue with facts do not care what the facts are, it tends to make one ignore the rest of the argument they make.

The actual Algorithm?

(((F+f)/2)+f) = spin

Take one part fact (F), add (+) another unrelated fact (f), average the two (/2) and add the unrelated fact (f) back in to change the topic. Where the deductive reasoning ‘concept' person will wonder how that logic could ever exist, the inductive reasoning person will have an image in their head that completely supports it. It is how one could read of the race versus race Survivor program and excuse it as just an extension of the way the game works. No, it cannot be, even if the image supports it or there was no reason for a civil rights movement to begin with.

It probably would have been much easier for the conceptual 'aural' thinker to have simply read, "liberalism is defined as inductive reasoning", but without the stick figure images they would never have grasped the concept, which is: inductive reasoning is a fatal flaw of logic, and Nancy Pelosi was dead wrong.