You're "for the mob" - when the mob has ideas you deem to be ~same Revealed Truth as You have. Of course when the mob has different views: why then.. ignore ignorant mob behavior. How very convenient and.. flexible of you.

(You don't even get.. that this isn't even about! the PoA.. per se). One Ernst Cantorowicz at UC, in the early '50s pointed out, in a nicely reasoned tract* which went around - and months later, caused the UC Regents to rescind Their 'Loyalty Oath':

* entitled, The Fundamental Issue, it pointed out that the entire oath hysteria was about - wait for it - YAN attack on tenure!. Yup a Regent - cast in same bullet-mold as you - was convinced that Profs were no different from janitors: hire & fire 'em at will, them uppity intellekshuls. (That's another thread. One idiocy at a time.)

[link|http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/docs_images.html|Loyalty Oath history]

C. pointed out that *any* coerced oath (sign this or starve / become unemployable / get beat up by class etc.) is invalid on the face of it. It's even inane on the practical side: why those awful, unPrincipled Commyunist Wackos\ufffd will sign Anything! in order to subvert, undermine, sabotage our US Bastion of Personal Freedom\ufffd. Oh the involute irony of it all...



Carry on with further box reinforcements - eventually you'll nail shut the oxygen vent too,


Ashton

PS - is this simple enough English for ya? I can make it reel simple, as fits your preference - by numbering the sequence from 'oath' ---> 'oaf'. Woof.

[link|http://www.dansdata.com/psycho.htm|How to spot a psychopath (or even just a trail)]