Sacrifice

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:41 am

I note the following quote.Last week her husband Khizr Khan told Democrats Mr Trump had sacrificed "nothing and no-one" for his country.

Fury as Trump mocks Muslim soldier's mother Ghazala Khan - BBC News

For some strange reason that isn't considered laudable.

I'm delighted Donald Trump has this unique record, I sincerely hope he can retain it during his eight years in office as President.

The entire notion of sacrificing anything or anyone for one's country is deeply, utterly repellant.

Khizr Khan said that Mr Trump was "devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son".

It's like applauding Abraham for obediently marching Isaac up a mountain with every intention of slitting the boy's throat on a scratch-built altar at the top. Why's this meant to be an attractive aspect of Abraham's character? Or an attractive aspect of the character of an All-American Mom?

More to the point, Donald Trump has so far no track record of killing foreigners, not with armchair-piloted drones, not with conscience-free snipers, not with amoral pilots firing missiles and dropping explosives, not with any of it - unlike every ex-President still alive, and unlike the present incumbent in office. And unlike, to make my point more clear, ex-Secretary of State Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton, who is already close to edging Pol Pot off the high-score leader-board for consequential civilian casualties of badly-judged policy decisions. Every drowned economic migrant off the coast of Libya is a direct sacrifice to her deliberate choices in office.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:49 am

You do have a unique way of looking at the real world.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:24 pm

You remember the chapter about Abraham?

Start there. Discuss.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:43 pm

spot;1499413 wrote: I note the following quote.Last week her husband Khizr Khan told Democrats Mr Trump had sacrificed "nothing and no-one" for his country.

Fury as Trump mocks Muslim soldier's mother Ghazala Khan - BBC News

For some strange reason that isn't considered laudable.

I'm delighted Donald Trump has this unique record, I sincerely hope he can retain it during his eight years in office as President.

The entire notion of sacrificing anything or anyone for one's country is deeply, utterly repellant.

Khizr Khan said that Mr Trump was "devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son".

It's like applauding Abraham for obediently matching Isaac up a mountain with every intention of slitting the boy's throat on a scratch-built altar at the top. Why's this meant to be an attractive aspect of Abraham's character? Or an attractive aspect of the character of an All-American Mom?

More to the point, Donald Trump has so far no track record of killing foreigners, not with armchair-piloted drones, not with conscience-free snipers, not with amoral pilots firing missiles and dropping explosives, not with any of it - unlike every ex-President still alive, and unlike the present incumbent in office. And unlike, to make my point more clear, ex-Secretary of State Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton, who is already close to edging Pol Pot off the high-score leader-board for consequential civilian casualties of badly-judged policy decisions. Every drowned economic migrant off the coast of Libya is a direct sacrifice to her deliberate choices in office.

If you ever listened to Donny Boy you wold know a difference between that foul mouthed nasty slug and the O'man is if elected the Trumphole will be all bombs away don.

There is no place for the kinds of comments the Trumphole made about Mrs.Khan much less about anything said by Khizr himself.

Like the man said donskunk never made any sacrifice for our country. That draft dodging rich boy almost makes President Obama look good.

It has a childish way of going about name-calling which most people just grow out of by the time they reach 12 yrs old.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:47 pm

Thank you tude. I was trying to raise the question of whether sacrificing for one's country is anything other than a murderous pathological insanity, with passing reference to the Old Testament. For some reason I never managed to include the Aztecs, but even in Tenochtitlan I doubt it was the mothers who took their children to queue at the temple steps.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:08 pm

spot;1499424 wrote: Thank you tude. I was trying to raise the question of whether sacrificing for one's country is anything other than a murderous pathological insanity, with passing reference to the Old Testament. For some reason I never managed to include the Aztecs, but even in Tenochtitlan I doubt it was the mothers who took their children to queue at the temple steps.

Sacrifice for one's tribe/family/country is as old as human existence. Even older, as many creatures will put their own lives on the line to protect others of their family group.

Since the days of the Hunter-Gatherer, Humans have valued the the sacrifice of the individual for the tribe.

Obviously, in some of your examples here, the concept may have taken a nasty turn, but altruism and sacrifice are much more worthy character traits in Human society than selfishness and greed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:19 pm

spot;1499421 wrote: You remember the chapter about Abraham?

Start there. Discuss.

No relevance at all.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:56 pm

It's the core definition of sacrifice in Western civilization. How is it not relevant?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:56 pm

spot;1499424 wrote: Thank you tude. I was trying to raise the question of whether sacrificing for one's country is anything other than a murderous pathological insanity, with passing reference to the Old Testament. For some reason I never managed to include the Aztecs, but even in Tenochtitlan I doubt it was the mothers who took their children to queue at the temple steps.

You are correct, I totally missed what you were talking about.

Could be as I don't see any sacrifice in the religious sense of taking a life. One can sacrifice time and wealth, but Americans do not go to war to sacrifice our lives or that of anyone else.

I didn't understand your post till I read Lars response.

Didn't help when Trumphole is mentioned and my eyes bleed.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:59 pm

spot;1499430 wrote: It's the core definition of sacrifice in Western civilization. How is it not relevant?

Suppose to be a lesson, which is civilized people do not sacrifice each other.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:20 pm

tude dog;1499432 wrote: Suppose to be a lesson, which is civilized people do not sacrifice each other.

I don't hear any God-like voice telling the US White House at the last minute not to actually sacrifice the civilian populations of Afghanistan, or of Iraq, or of Libya, or of Syria, just to name the most recent. And that's millions of civilians sacrificed to US foreign policy. Perhaps it's simply that the leaders of US White House administrations have not in fact been civilized people for generations, that would solve the puzzle entirely.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:22 pm

spot;1499430 wrote: It's the core definition of sacrifice in Western civilization. How is it not relevant?
I disagree.

Here: is the core definition of sacrifice

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:22 pm

spot;1499430 wrote: It's the core definition of sacrifice in Western civilization. How is it not relevant?

Might be in Christianity.

Obviously the soldiers from the Indian sub continent that served in the Second world war wouldn't rely on such a definition.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:25 pm

spot;1499435 wrote: I don't hear any God-like voice telling the US White House at the last minute not to actually sacrifice the civilian populations of Afghanistan, or of Iraq, or of Libya, or of Syria, just to name the most recent. And that's millions of civilians sacrificed to US foreign policy. Perhaps it's simply that the leaders of US White House administrations have not in fact been civilized people for generations, that would solve the puzzle entirely.

We (The US) cannot sacrifice those people. Sacrifice is about giving up what really matters to you for good of others.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:28 pm

I'm puzzled. Who did Abraham think he was doing good for while he was whetting his knife, having tied up his son? Who are these others who were going to benefit, in his mind?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:00 pm

spot;1499435 wrote: I don't hear any God-like voice telling the US White House at the last minute not to actually sacrifice the civilian populations of Afghanistan, or of Iraq, or of Libya, or of Syria, just to name the most recent. And that's millions of civilians sacrificed to US foreign policy. Perhaps it's simply that the leaders of US White House administrations have not in fact been civilized people for generations, that would solve the puzzle entirely.

You can on and on if you like. Nothing left for us to discuss.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:03 pm

It's shameful that you're not distressed at the suffering involved. All lives matter.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:09 pm

spot;1499440 wrote: I'm puzzled. Who did Abraham think he was doing good for while he was whetting his knife, having tied up his son? Who are these others who were going to benefit, in his mind?

The way I read it Abraham was simply following a command with no specific though of what good may come of it.

To me always an interesting to me is why Issac, a young man allowed his old father to bind him in the first place.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:39 pm

spot;1499443 wrote: It's shameful that you're not distressed at the suffering involved. All lives matter.

Nothing to discuss when you frame the whole discussion in terms of the binding of Issac and human sacrifice. It sounds more like accusations of genocide or mass murder of which I would maintain we have nothing to discuss.

jasonandreaspeters · Post by **jasonandreaspeters** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:51 pm

so sweet mom

jasonandreaspeters · Post by **jasonandreaspeters** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:53 pm

im not perfect person

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:57 am

tude dog;1499444 wrote: The way I read it Abraham was simply following a command with no specific though of what good may come of it.

To me always an interesting to me is why Issac, a young man allowed his old father to bind him in the first place.

I don't think the text allows that interpretation. Isaac is an unmarried boy with no children at this point. That's why Abraham can't have been sacrificing Isaac for the sake of future generations, since he and Sarah were incapable of having another child between them and Isaac was their only son.

If "Abraham was simply following a command with no specific thought of what good may come of it", and not merely the delusionally insane psychotic he appears, then Abraham was party to a criminal conspiracy to murder under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 51 Â§ 1117: "If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life". Just like Donald Rumsfeld, in fact: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not".

All lives matter.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:43 am

LarsMac;1499439 wrote: We (The US) cannot sacrifice those people. Sacrifice is about giving up what really matters to you for good of others.

I think you've hit the problem square on, as you did with your firefighter example. If what you've given up is for the good of others then it's a sacrifice. What I query in relation to US foreign policy is how anyone with half a brain can possibly think it's in the interest of any civilian population to have their country's infrastructure torn down by the US military and the State Department, when every instance shows that it causes the consequential deaths of vast numbers of unarmed residents and - to use a favorite phrase of gloating early 21st century US Exceptionalists - bombs the place back into the Stone Age.

To encourage someone to volunteer, knowing from precedent they'll be ordered to do these things, isn't sacrifice at all. It's greed - for the pay - and inexcusable indifference to the suffering. The suffering doesn't matter because it's "Them" doing the suffering, and when "They" are dying a hundred times more frequently then "Us" it's not a dangerous environment, it's a turkey shoot, it's the equivalent of Dick Cheney killing domesticated quail for fun.

The devil is in the asymmetry.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:41 am

What about the foreign policy of your nation, you hypocrite?

As for: "I'm puzzled. Who did Abraham think he was doing good for while he was whetting his knife, having tied up his son? Who are these others who were going to benefit, in his mind?"

This makes you as irrelevant as Gnostic Christian Bishop, xfrodobagginsx, et. al. Who did Abraham think, etc? I DON'T CARE.

As irrelevant as this thread.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:50 am

AnneBoleyn;1499460 wrote: What about the foreign policy of your nation, you hypocrite?

As for: "I'm puzzled. Who did Abraham think he was doing good for while he was whetting his knife, having tied up his son? Who are these others who were going to benefit, in his mind?"

This makes you as irrelevant as Gnostic Christian Bishop, xfrodobagginsx, et. al. Who did Abraham think, etc? I DON'T CARE.

As irrelevant as this thread.

I've no idea what nerve just got touched there but I can scarcely be accused of posting the thread just to annoy you.

The foreign policy of the United Kingdom has been in slavish lockstep with that of the USA under every Prime Minister since Churchill, with the one honorable exception of Harold Wilson. Other than Harold Wilson refusing to send any British troops to Vietnam we've wagged our collective tail every time we've been spoken to. I think my point is that we don't make up our own foreign policy, we do as we're told. British foreign policy originates in the White House.

The reason for discussing the notional non-existent Abraham of mythology is that his legend defined Western Civilization's concept of sacrifice for most of the last two millennia, and as such it's obviously relevant and important. If you know a better definition, please cite it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:31 am

No one wants war but what would spot have done with the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot et al? There are no simplistic answers which is exactly what Trump presents. A simpleton?

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:01 am

Stalin and Pol Pot were internal affairs for their respective countries, since neither of their countries engaged in a war of aggression beyond their own border. From 1945 to 1953 you might have a case that the Soviet Union's de-facto continuing occupation of Eastern Europe was illegal under some aspect of International Law but I don't think a competent court existed at the time to decide that - and certainly no nation state at the time intervened militarily to challenge the event. Were anyone to ask, my own opinion is that Stalin was the saviour of his nation and deserves admiration.

Hitler waged a war of aggression and was defeated by the International coalition of the Soviet Union, the USA, France and the British Commonwealth which immediately set up, once they had ended the Third Reich, both the United Nations and the War Crimes trial at Nuremberg. Were anyone to ask, I'd recommend a similar response today to the continuing US wars of aggression which show no signs of ending and also constitute a war crime. Wars of aggression are never tolerable.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:13 am

I consider life to be sacred but no one has the right to take other's life regardless of what country or nation is doing so.l I believe we are duty bound to intervene when innocent folks are being murdered (Isil, taliban et al)

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:52 pm

Just saw Trump on the news. God help the US if he is elected. They will need divine intervention in my opinion.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Ted;1499466 wrote: I believe that all life is sacred and no one has the right to murder innocent folks regardless of country or nation. I believe we are duty bound to intervene when innocent folks are being tortured and mudered.
The trouble is your weasel words, "innocent folks" instead of "people", and "murdered" instead of "killed". If you consider life to be sacred you shouldn't be hedging around like that and allowing interpretation about who qualifies and - more to the point - who doesn't.

I trimmed the duplicates.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:57 pm

I try to have a little empathy and ask myself if I were in that situation what would I want. A helping hand from those not suffering so. If you want to play word games I'm not really interested. I think about that parable of the Good Samaritan and realie that whoever is in need of help is my neighbor. It was a metaphor used as a teaching tool.

The message is still the same.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:12 pm

In what way was that a word game? To the killers, "innocent folks" includes - or excludes - resistance fighters. Or Muslims in general. Or just plain foreigners. Or abortionists, or LGBT practitioners, or those who dishonor anything the killer happens to approve of. To the killers, if they have religious - or government - authority to kill then they're not murdering anyone, innocent folks or otherwise, because killing is only ever murder if it's Against The Law (for whatever law code the killer recognizes). The language matters immensely, and the person using this it's-legitimate-to-kill qualifying language is you.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:22 pm

word games

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:36 pm

spot;1499461 wrote: 1. I've no idea what nerve just got touched there but I can scarcely be accused of posting the thread just to annoy you.

2. The foreign policy of the United Kingdom has been in slavish lockstep with that of the USA under every Prime Minister since Churchill, with the one honorable exception of Harold Wilson. Other than Harold Wilson refusing to send any British troops to Vietnam we've wagged our collective tail every time we've been spoken to. I think my point is that we don't make up our own foreign policy, we do as we're told. British foreign policy originates in the White House.

3. The reason for discussing the notional non-existent Abraham of mythology is that his legend defined Western Civilization's concept of sacrifice for most of the last two millennia, and as such it's obviously relevant and important. If you know a better definition, please cite it.

1. No, but you did so anyway.

2. So, Brits are the USA's Dog, the USA's Bitch, huh? That lets you off the hook? No, it makes you even worse, it makes Brits willing slaves who must love the taste of what comes from the USA buttocks.

3. Presently speaking, only over-educated fools like you or I and some others would even bother to take Abraham/Isaac into account as the omnipresent symbol of sacrifice. The others, the Great Unwashed, live in the real world, not Ivory Towers. Such talk to the majority of the real is Irrelevant.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm

PS--Seems I love & respect Britain more than you do. How about we switch flats?

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm

Ted;1499474 wrote: word games

There are millions of people dead this century because various White House administrations decided their deaths would be lawful under American law, and very few of them were armed. Entirely because of the way these administrations chose to interpret words like "innocent folks" and "murder".

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:41 pm

spot;1499452 wrote: I don't think the text allows that interpretation. Isaac is an unmarried boy with no children at this point. That's why Abraham can't have been sacrificing Isaac for the sake of future generations, since he and Sarah were incapable of having another child between them and Isaac was their only son.

What I wrote was

The way I read it Abraham was simply following a command with no specific though of what good may come of it.

"Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."

HE was telling Abraham to give it all up, the greatest sacrifice.

I don't think Abraham really believed he was going to be required to perform the deed as he told the two young men who accompanied them,

Abraham said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder, and we will prostrate ourselves and return to you."

And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.

15And an angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven. And he said, "By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, that because you have done this thing and you did not withhold your son, your only one,

17That I will surely bless you

Point being, nowhere in the text is there ever a promise made to entice Abraham to do this thing.

Seems obvious it was a test of Abraham's faith.

spot;1499452 wrote: If "Abraham was simply following a command with no specific thought of what good may come of it", and not merely the delusionally insane psychotic he appears,

Doesn't matter how he appears, he was being tested by G-d and rewarded for his loyalty.

spot;1499452 wrote: then Abraham was party to a criminal conspiracy to murder under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 51 Â§ 1117: "If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life".

ex post facto law is not enforceable.

spot;1499452 wrote: Just like Donald Rumsfeld, in fact: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not".

Who claimed that was a command from G-d?

spot;1499452 wrote: All lives matter.

Post by **spot** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:45 pm

AnneBoleyn;1499475 wrote: 2. So, Brits are the USA's Dog, the USA's Bitch, huh? That lets you off the hook? No, it makes you even worse, it makes Brits willing slaves who must love the taste of what comes from the USA buttocks.I have never in my life voted for anyone who became a Member of Parliament at that election. Not one Member of Parliament has been returned to Westminster with my vote backing him. Except Chris Smith in the eighties in Islington and you can scarcely say he was a warmonger. Short of actively attempting the overthrow of the state I'm not sure how I can be held to be on a hook of any description.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:32 pm

spot;1499479 wrote: I have never in my life voted for anyone who became a Member of Parliament at that election. Not one Member of Parliament has been returned to Westminster with my vote backing him. Except Chris Smith in the eighties in Islington and you can scarcely say he was a warmonger. Short of actively attempting the overthrow of the state I'm not sure how I can be held to be on a hook of any description.

You are guilty because your tax money supports the deeds you hate, you profit from your country's complicity. No one is innocent. That's why, during Vietnam, I left my country. You are as guilty as anyone.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:20 pm

spot;1499471 wrote: The trouble is your weasel words, "innocent folks" instead of "people",

Really?

I don't see the problem. Those words seem to be pretty much synonymous.

spot;1499471 wrote: and "murdered" instead of "killed".

Those two words have very different meanings.

Been my experience all too often the word kill is wrongly used when murder is more accurate. No crime there when the mistake is innocent, though annoying.

spot;1499471 wrote: If you consider life to be sacred you shouldn't be hedging around like that and allowing interpretation about who qualifies and - more to the point - who doesn't.

Not a matter of who is more or less sacred.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:20 pm

Trump is a jackass and the media a bigger group of jackasses. He came right out and announced a month ago that he wasn't worried about funding his campaign, that he had no trouble getting airtime for free.

Trump is not making a stand for anything he believes in. He's getting free press. And if he doesn't win this election, he'll still find a way to make money off of us all.

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:37 am

AnneBoleyn;1499480 wrote: You are guilty because your tax money supports the deeds you hate, you profit from your country's complicity. No one is innocent. That's why, during Vietnam, I left my country. You are as guilty as anyone.

You're working with too little information. I stopped paying income tax in 2001 for that specific reason and I've paid not a penny since.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:27 am

Why does this thread not clear from 'New Posts' after I visit it ?

And why does it show 5 pages but I can't land on page 4 ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:45 am

spot;1499487 wrote: You're working with too little information. I stopped paying income tax in 2001 for that specific reason and I've paid not a penny since.

How are you getting away with that? Is your declared income so low that you are exempt? I don't know your tax laws, please explain why you are not in jail.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:07 am

AnneBoleyn;1499504 wrote: How are you getting away with that? Is your declared income so low that you are exempt? I don't know your tax laws, please explain why you are not in jail.
He must be working for Google.

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:18 am

AnneBoleyn;1499504 wrote: Is your declared income so low that you are exempt?Yes, as is my actual income. Deliberately so. I'd rather be poor and honest than a collaborator. I choose interesting jobs that provide little financial return. I've never worked for Google, though I'm not sure why anyone would think that a possibility - Google pay quite high salaries.

I'm not in jail because it's not yet a crime to refuse to participate in society to the maximum of one's financial ability. No doubt there are capitalists who will try to make that illegal if they get a chance.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 am

Bruv;1499501 wrote: Why does this thread not clear from 'New Posts' after I visit it ?

And why does it show 5 pages but I can't land on page 4 ?

I only see three pages.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:57 am

It seems to me that if one chooses to live in a community one has a moral obligation to pay their fair share of the privilege of living there. If I want protection I'd better be prepared to pay and not ride on someone else's pocket.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:23 pm

LarsMac;1499517 wrote: I only see three pages.

I have 5 pages but can't access page 4.......the last time I looked.

When on page 3, clicking on page 4 returns me to the top of page 3.

Clicking on next, from page 3 via the next arrow, takes me to page 5.

Clicking on Spots post chevron type thingy in post 42 which a quote from a post presumably on page 4 takes me to page 3, so there is a page I cannot see.......very strange.

Post by **spot** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:34 pm

It may depend on how many posts per page your account is set to. I've found there's occasional boundary problems when one or more posts are either deleted or moderated off the thread and the net count gives a different page total to the gross count. It self-adjusts after a few more posts but it's annoying if you can't see something for a while. I've had it in a couple of threads this year but not gone chasing vBulletin support.