mooeypoo

I think I did a better job defending that point than you did, but that's besides the point, because as I pointed out (and you ignored. Again) it's irrelevant to the *proof* of this theory. That's *ONE* of the things I've said, as a SUMMARY. What about the rest of the points I've made? Do you not have answers to them or are you being disingenuous? How comfortable, Graviphoton, to skip all the points I made and answer a single one (and miss my point) by twisting the point I was making to fit your own agenda. In some circles that's called Trolling. Whatever you may call it, it isn't very sincere for you or for your theory. I am not going to address any more points you make until you fairly answer mine. As far as I am concerned, this theory is bunk, and the only way you can *start* convincing me otherwise is by actually answer my points. I suggest everyone else to do the same and stop this clearly-one-sided debate until you actually answer *all* we are saying. You didn't come to a theology forum, we are not here to take your points and nod our heads. We are *RATIONAL* people, following the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*. That means honesty, thorough analysis and peer review. Stop trolling and start being fair - we are taking teh time to answer you, the least you could do is read our points and *answer them all*. Ignoring points that don't "do you good" is cowardly. I am not holding my breath. ~moo

The formation of the planets in the solar system is more or less at the same time. Most of the moons, too, were formed at the same time as the planets, with the exception of our moon. Our moon was probably formed by a heavy object hitting the earth and extracting mass out of it -- which formed together to create the moon. The moon of our earth is NOT formed from mercury, it is quite proven by checking the composition of the soil, and more things that i can quite recall at the moment. However, this is a good reference for the creation of our solar system, the planets and its moon: http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/planet_form.html Hope that helped. ~moo

I am a bit confused by the stream of not-sure-that-they-are-related questions.. Are you asking if the moon has mercury? or that it's made of mercury? and then at the end you ask an imagination question, so.. i'm not quite sure where to start from. Can you clarify your question(s)?

Indeed, specially since there are fake ones (I know, I like 'em) that are actually pretty damn good, and *VERY* good quality and taste, that are made from other parts of the animal, hence removing the need for this cruel treatment of the animal.

Alright, you're old fashioned. Seriously, though -- I think that as long as a child receives love and care from his family, and is being educated to be openminded and comfortable with who he is, there is no difference between a same-sex parenting or the 'heterosexual' parenting. I mean, there are many "regular" families out there that are utterly screwed up, do not give love to the child and mess their lives up. Gay parents usually *want* the child (either adopting or insemination) - I am not saying that gay parents are better parents, I am just saying I won't be surprised if percentagewise there would be more gay parents who care for their kids than hetero parents that do, for the simple reason that hetero couples might have a baby without *absolutely* wanting it, while gay parents, by the act of adopting, have more "odds" of wanting the child. I.. hope I was clear here, and I'm not trying to say I *know* this for a fact, because I don't, I'm just raising an opinion, so don't misquote me as saying gay parents are better than hetero parents. I'm simply trying to say I don't see a diference as long as the child is raised happy, secure, loved and cared for. [edit]... I think iNow summarized what I was trying to say better than me. I completely agree, the only issue is which discrimination is justifiable and which isn't. I think that since we do have case studies of children who were born and/or raised to gay couples, we *can* examine if it is harmful or not.

Hi eric! welcome to the forum! To answer your question: No. The reason the answer was such a harsh "no" is because there is no evidence, whatsoever, about "mind power" or telekinesis. It just doesn't exist. What you *could* do is try and find a scientific aparatus to cause the pan to fly. Like electromagnetism,for instance. That can be fun. Science is fun and exciting enough to itself without invoking imaginary processes that only exist in our wishful-thinking. Welcome to the forums, Eric. ~moo

I wouldn't say we're at an evolutionary stand still, but i guess I see what you're saying. I would say that the problem is the slippery-slope argument - only our experience make it non-falacious this time (imho), because governments and societies actually DO seem to systematically regress into the "division into 'classes'" idea. The movie "Gattaca" is a great example of what "might be happening" with this problem. I am by no means saying that this should stop the technology (or that it CAN.. i am not sure we can stop it anymore) but it is a good idea to have this type of things in mind so we can try and avoid such a society. ~moo

Yeah, it's a common reaction among men, usually, and religious women, which makes me wonder if it's a social/educational thing. My parents are very *very* open minded, and yet I too, before "coming out" had a LOT of trouble seeing two same-sex people (both sexes, btw) kiss and/or touch. I had no problem with the concept, it just made me feel uncomfortable. I think it has a lot to do with the social environment we're brought up in, but that's another issue. I must say, though, that I personally find a LOT of difference between "hardcore sex clips" (oh shuttup of course I watch these, I'm a woman, not a corpse) and the more "tender/affectionate" touch/kiss situations. I feel uncomfortable watching same-sex couples in a hardcore obviously-directed-and-looks-fake sex clip. On the other hand, I don't feel too comfortable with the heterosexual scenes of the same nature either. Something with the fake'ness of the entire thing is just making me feel very uncomfortable about the entire thing. So regarding your question, john, about what I am comfortable watching - I don't mind, it depends on my "mood" so-to-speak (and if .. I.. have a partner for the night.. ahem) and as long as they are not these uber-fake sex movies that are just bad because they're unreal. In general, I am more comfortable watching 2 women than I am 2 men. But I am not uncomfortable to a level of looking away. Unless they're ugly... And I "blame" social upbringing on that too.. there's a lot to be said about the way we view two women vs. two men in society in general. I have a gay friend and we have long talks about the seeming-fact that women are a bit "better off" coming out of the closet as opposed to men. There's this "expectation" from men to be "macho" even if they're not... I think. In any case, as weird as it was, I hope that answered your question. ~moo p.s: I think it's very brave of you to admit to your emotional "instinct", a lot of people don't admit to them and that sometimes causes more of a problem than the reaction itself. It's like with racism and 'xenoism' (is that the right word?) *xenophobia* (thanks, yourdadonapogos), imho, we sometimes have natural/upbringing/social-programmed automatic responses, but what makes us better people individually and socially is the ability to "catch ourselves" and try to unprogram our subconsciousness. Don't feel bad about it, it's natural, just keep being aware of it. btw, getting back to the main point of the OP, here's an excerpt from the Times that just says it all: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Great summary by the judges. It's not about the marriage itself, it's about equality under the law. ~moo

Priceless. Say, Vishal, if you think that scientific corroboration is unnecessary to do scientific stuff (interesting concept), uhm.. what.. exactly.. are you doing in a science forums network? ((And that wasn't a rude 'get lost' invitation, I appreciate a debate, I'm simply wondering)).. Second - since you are the one making the claim, you are the one with the need to prove it. I don't quite think anyone here said "it doesn't exist", we said that *what was published* --> FAILED... hence, all the ZPE machines out there are not doing ZPE at all. Now, it is certainly possible we have either missed just that perfect one who's working, or that you have built one who's working. Either way, we will be thrilled to get information about this and test it out. ZPE, if it is utilized, is definitely great. Give us some examples of the machines that do exist out there, with some proof they work, and we'll work with you. Heck, I want a picture of your Nobel Prize after you win it --> I believe that would qualify for a definite win. ~moo

That's a good point Edtharan, but allow me to play "devil's advocate" and say that if those codes are given by god himself (either explicitly or by "causing someone to write them") then humanity doesn't have to know the concept of 0 for god to know (obviously) and write it, and allow us to "discover it" when we are "wiser". That, however, is by no means proof. Though I am not going to be surprised if Graviphoton will say exactly what I just said, as another ad-hoc excuse. This theory is consistent in providing ad-hocs, i'll give it that. I can find cool numbers in random words (and if I try, probably random words with cool meaning) in ANY BOOK I CHOOSE. From Harry Potter to "The God Delusion", the sheer number of words and letters will allow anyone with a bit of patience and the desire to find exactly what they want to see find what they are looking for. The theory you suggest is only impressive if (a) it was continuous, which it isn't - the words are RANDOM, not one-after-the-other and (b) would exist solely on that book and © be connected to the meaning of the word, suggesting a correlation between the text and some hidden "authenticating" message. It's neither. It's bunk. And worse of all, you keep dancing around it. You called the thread "Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible" which is vague to itself, but it does include *STATISTICAL* (number.. statistics..) and *LITERACY* (literal meaning -- hence, the meaning counts). Now you claim that we either know the words in general, or the meaning isn't important, or the language on which this is based is not as important as the fact these codes appear, etc etc. You're being inconsistent, moving the goal post, dancing around the faults we raise to you and ignore screw-ups. You're not convincing anyone like that. I don't have time nor do I have the patience to do this excercize on Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz, but I suggest you take one of these books and prove to yourself that you can find 666, 777, 7707 or 820319 (my birth date) in random word combinations (appearing or NON APPEARING -- your examples give some words that are simply *made up* and do not appear in Genesis) in the first chapter too. And I can put my money on it, too. ~moo

Good luck with that, it's one of those things that will earn you a Nobel Prize. ..... and it DOESN'T exist yet. Which means that your claim is unsubstantiated, and nothing more than a guess. Either substantiate why it is that "all we can deal with is subatomic phenomenon" (Wha?? uhh... nooo... depends on what you're .. looking at...) If we were able to represent all phenomenon -- BIG and SMALL -- with one theory that represents both, the big big items as if we look at their small-small particles, we would, effectively, have a UNIFIED THEORY. Which we don't. At the moment. Not everything is quantum mechanics. In fact, only small small things are quantum mechanics. That's the "problem".

Okay, seriously now. Either the words mean something ro they don't. Either the meaning is important or it's not. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST. If the words 'cearly mean something', the meaning is important, and cannot be roughly taken, specifically as an ad-hoc explanation after finding out the intended translation was wrong. I do know the true form, because I can read the original form of the bible, in which these word-number-games were created. This needs proof. There is no proof there's a "hidden meaning". Specifically not (AGAIN!) as an ad-hoc explanation for you fiding out you don't like the translation. The reader should be unbiased and go to external sources to validate his claims. The reader should read the words in their original intended language if he is to claim they hold special value. This reader seems to just not accepting the facts presented. WHAT CODES!? Geesh. The codes that come from random meaningless words or the codes that come from "whoops, thats not the intended words we hoped for" words? Meaning mean something or not? What about other random numbers to find words?? I found *other meanings* using the SAME THEORY -- and you completely ignored it. And after all this, you seriously expect anyone to take your theory seriously. Seriously now.

Since we haven't found, yet, a unified theory, that statement isn't entirely true.

Most men are No offense intended, btw. I just find it interesting. I think there is a lot to do with education and social "norm" here.. heterosexual sex videos depict 2 women kissing and all.. and men like that. Two men are more taboo. I wonder if it's because women were (and are, to a degree) considered to be the "gentle" ones, so "taking care of one another" (ahem ahem) is 'sexy' while two men doing the same is "nasty". Just a thought, tho. Well, I would claim, then, that we need to define what harm you mean, then. Social harm or personal harm? I mean.. I see no harm to anyone if there is a 5-person marriage, if that works out to all sides (doesn't work forme, but.. if the peopel are happy, who am I to judge). Nor do I see the harm in a sister-brother marriage, other than the scientific outcome of it... *but* that leads us to the restriction on government and the role of education -- I personally don't think the govt has any place dictating anything in personal life as long as people do not HARM one another -- but education is necessary for a functional society. So the govt shouldn't interfere if a 5-people-collective wish to marry, as long as there is no rape, child-molestation or anything else that *harms* others. There should always be education for rationality and science, and for what society broadly defines as morality - but that is the role of EDUCATION, not the government, since I believe as history proved, morality is oh-ever-a'changin'. As part of the gay community, I must agree, but not for the reasons you might think. The "Gay movement", in my opinion, sometimes does more harm than good to the goal of acceptance in society. The goal of any human being is to be treated as any other, regardless of individuals "accepting" or "agreeing" with his/her traits or habits. The way I see the problem (the way i defined it above multiple times, hence the problem of generalized human rights as opposed to specific-gay rights) is my own opinion, sadly not-shared by the "mainstream" gay movement. I actually think this decision to take the institution "head on" on the matter of specifically-gay issues instead of "we are humans too" type of debate is detrimental to the fight, but I am not a movement leader, nor do I aspire to be one. Ironically, btw, a large part of that movement has problems considering me one of them, since I'm bisexual. Bisexuals and Transgendered have their own problems within the "community". But I don't care much, I never considered myself "part of the community", I don't see the need to classify myself as based on my sexual orientation. I do believe, though, that if I meet a woman I fall in love with, I want to have the *same* rights under the law as if you would meet a woman you fall in love with. Be it kids, buying a house, having my green-card (no, Im not looking just for that.. ha , joint funds and workplace-benefits. I will give a very brief example from my old workplace -- I was sent by the government of Israel (as a deal with the US government) to do airline security. I got work+study visa and some pretty good status, so I can work in New York. I have a good friend who is married - his wife recieved a limited-work visa, so she could be with him, naturally. I have another workmate who is a lesbian. She is actually in Israel considered married, I believe, but that's besides the point -- her partner is illegal here. She is on the status of a "tourist visa" (no more, they returned back when they saw it wasn't possible to fight this) -- but that is simply unfair. If you want to argue the validity of *any* marriage, that is a very interesting debate, but it's an ENTIRELY different subject. If a country sets laws for its citizens, then *all* citizens need to be included, not just who the government is prefering. Switch "gays" with "blacks", or with "women". It was the same 'fight' historically, and for the same reasons. The only huge difference imho, is that blacks and women fought to show they *are* humans, hence they are equal, and the gay movement seems to be fighting to allow gays X and Y because being gay is okay. ... I .. hope that was clear, I am not sure if I managed to deliver my points entirely

What about two women? I am half-joking, of course, I see what you're saying, but still, I think that the consideration is that in reality children with no homes exist, period. It is the situation. So since gay couples adopt if they want children (and many do..), I see no harm in it. But I will repeat my previous point -- either you do something *for all* or *for none*. That's equality. The government atm says "all has rights *except* gays" and that's what's wrong here, in my opinion, more than whether or not gays should *want* to get married or if straights should "want" to get married, or if the government should or shouldn't compel people to get married. Equality.

Physics doesn't contain ONLY quantum physics. Not "all things" within the universe abide by quantum rules in that such-broad aspect. A fired missile does not "abide by quantum rules".. its particles might. I am not sure I understand how you jump from Consciousness having both a metaphysical and scientific application directly to "ti's QM"

Wait wait.. I think I understand what you're saying but we're arguing two different thigns here. Whether or not a marriage should remain something the government has its hands on is an entirely different argument (an interesting one, I agree) than whether or not Gays should have the same right to it. The bottom line is that whether or not we agree with it, the government (and Israeli government too, for that matter) *does* have it's "hand" in marriage, even for the fact that it gives some 'extra' rights to married couples over non-married-couples. Since that is the case, then *all human beings* should be equal in the eyes of the law, which is why the gay and lesbian movement is fighting to get the right to be married. I can tell you that many of them don't mind the actual "ceremony" and if they do, they make one uniquely for family or "party" or whatever else, the point is not the declaration of marriage, it is the rights that accompany it. The argument of whether or not we SHOULD add rights to married couples should be carried on regardless - but SEPARATELY - from the issue of Gay rights to be considered EQUAL under the *current* law. ... I .. hope I was clearer too now.. About Israel in specific, well, sadly, the "internal" matters are being "governed" by largely religious parties, for various political reasons. There are huge huge groups in Israel that fight against it, but the current situation is that the Ministry of Internal Affairs (that 'governs' marriages, among other things) was, for many many eyars, governed by the religious party, and is today still largely politically affected by it. So the *only* *JEWISH* marriages that are available are *ORTHODOX* marriage. Arabs, Christians and all other religions can marry using their religion, of course, but there is no "atheist" marriage in israel, because of the religious parties. For that matter, I have some friends, for example, that are perfectly heterosexual, non religious (though 'cultural' jews.. hence, follow culture and not religion so much) did *not* want to marry through an orthodox wedding, because of mainly the "message" of such marriage (the biblical 'ketuba' -- "agreement" of marriage -- is hinting towards a "sale" of the woman to the man). Many couples don't want that type of schauvinistic ceremony. But Israel doesn't quite recognize, officially, any other type of marriage, including other Jewish "streams". So what many many people do, is fly to any other country (usually cyprus, because it's close and cheap) - get married in a civilian contract marriage (which is recognized as marriage in israel, because it's internationally recognized as marriage), go back to Israel and have a *CEREMONY* whatever way they want it. Backwards way, but it works.

If I were you, I'd be looking at more videos by the James Randi foundation. They seem to be quite good absolutely invalidating your claim. ~moo

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming Israel is openminded in this issue. I am simply saying it's a bit MORE openminded than what it seems to be here in general. But again, that's less of the issue.

May I propose an alternative view point to this? I think that the issue of choice here should be separated into 2 main issues so we can continue debate on this properly: (1) Choosing to be gay (or is this a 'choice' or a genetic thing) and (2) Choosing to get married. These are two completely separate issues. The first one has little to do with the issue of equal rights, and the second one only has bearing on equal "marriage rights" for those who choose to get married. We should also remember that there can be many reasons that people decide to get married or not to get married, the problem is not "should we" or "shouldn't we" or are we encouraging marriage or not. The point is that the part of the population of this country who *WISHES* to get married, CAN get married. Gays excluded. That last sentence is the problem, and the issues of being disgusted of gays, or thinking it's wrong, or moral values or family values or children or love or sex or whatever else -- are utterly irrelevant. There are rights given to citizens in this country. And gay citizens are excluded from those rights. That is the bottom line. Israel accepts Gay marriage, and has a very close-to-marriage-by-law status on Civil Union - for both gays and heterosexuals. For that matter, if a gay couple got married in Canada, where it si legal, the come to Israel and are *considered* married by law. It's still not possible to get married in Israel as gays, but (1) that is still being fought against and (2) still, it seems Israel is more pluralistic in that matter than the USA... funny, eh? BTW - Israel has a lot of laws that try to make sure gays are equal-rights citizens in the country, including laws about adoption, after-death-rights for partners, dividing property in "civil union" or just by living together, having workplaces recognize a gay partner as a spouse to get the same rights other couples get, etc. P.s -- in that aspect, ecoli, Israel has, sorta, created a "new" term for marriage ("Civil Union"). Marriage has more than just "will" in the eyes of the law (as I said, an example, is workforce benefits, government tax payouts, discounts for house, or whatever else.. there are a lot more to having the government recognize a couple as an actual couple). I don't care, for that matter, if instead of having a marriage we have a "booblalala". Call it whatever you want. But if the government decided it gives certain rights to the life-partners of people, then ALL PARTNERS from ALL GENDERS and ALL RELIGIONS should get the same. I am not sure if I agree about taking it away, I think it isn't that bad to recognize that couples that raise children or house or whatever get certain rights. I just think that if the govt DECIDED this is good, then it cannot just pick and choose who this right is given to. --- <sigh> I'm sorry, I don't mean to edit that much, I'm just at work and my attn span is off and on, so.. this is the last time i edit-in somethin, I promise --- ecoli, I just thought about another example -- wills are good and all, but there is something to be said about the "power" of a family. For example, a person dies unexpectedly in a car accident or whatever else -- not necessarily has a will. But is it fair to take away stuff -- from rights to his picture album, to the right to decide where to burry him - from the person who knows him/her the most ? there has been a few cases I remember where the rights were taken away from the same-sex partner and given to the parents, who kicked the now-deceased person out of home many years before. Is that a "right" thing to do? not sure, probably there are several ways to look at it, but it should certainly make the issue less "simple" than to just take rights away completely, or just take them away for gays.

It all depends, I guess. If we would like to live in a world where rights go to HUMANS and not specific groups-of-humans, then I would say the laws should not restrict themselves to ANYTHING that is "personal" -- hence, no restriction on gender, religion, personal belief or sexual orientation. In my opinion, btw, the problem of gay marriage is not the "marriage" part, it's that it seems instead of talking about it "globally" ("We want equal rights for ALL HUMANS, regardless of their gender, beliefs, religion or sexual orientation, or any other personal affiliation") we (and the gay/lesbian movement too, imho) argue this as a specifically "gay" matter. It shouldn't be, imo. It's a human-right thing. Just like women have a right to vote not because they're "women" but because they were recognized to have no difference in matter of political rights than men. And african americans were "given the right" to study in the same universities as "white people" not because they are black but because we (as a country/nation/people/whatever) recognized that there is no difference between races in aspects of education and political and human rights. This shouldn't be regarded as a "is homosexuality a good thing" debate, it should be regarded as a "give equal rights to all, whether you agree with what they represent or not, as long as they don't hurt anyone". Personal affiliations do not hurt anyone, they are personal. We shouldn't really care about inner matters of what gays like, don't like or want. They are human, therefore they deserve human rights. Since we aren't supposed to meddle in these private matters (because then we open up a pandora's box of 'through which religion do we look at things' danger, where we currently view things through judeo-christian matters, so other religions are not included, take that into account too), there shouldn't be a restriction about these laws. If a man chose to spend his life with another man, the state should have no right to take that choice off his hand in case he dies, for example, or becomes sick, etc, and not allow his partner (whom he CHOSE), to visit/make decisions/ etc. ~moo p.s (edit): As the situation is at the moment, Gays have these rights taken *away* from them on the basis of intimate relationships. Gays don't request 'special treatment', they request to receive the *SAME* treatment under the law.

It's not so much what it represents, it's about what accompanies it. The rights that come along with official marriage are more than just 'being married'. For example, if one of the partners is ill, or dies, then in a marriage the spouse is considered family with *rights* to make decisions, visit, etc. If the couple isn't married, like gays atm, then the partner has no rights whatsoever. Same goes with divorce issues.. if a couple lived for a long time together and shared a life, splitting the assets -- or deciding about the future of the children, if there are any -- are very important, as you can imagine. Having no title of "married" means no title of "divorce", and a hard time preserving the rights of the individuals in the no-longer-couple. Another example: If a gay couple lived together and shared a life for many many years and have built a home for themselves, etc... and then one of them dies -- accident, natural death, disease, whatever cause -- his/her partner has no rights as a family member to either the property or decisions of what to do with the body, etc. Married couple would have rights if the same happened. If the state found another "term" for the gay marriage issue that gives the exact same RIGHTS to both members of that union, then there wouldn't be any debate. "Marriage" would be the more 'religious/cultural' ceremony, and whatever-else-term (call it.. 'union') will be the utterly LEGAL part. It's true that there's "civil union" but (a) in many states it doesn't apply for gays and (2) it doesn't give the same rights and priviliges as a marriage. So it's not a matter of "having an orange juice from apples" - it's a matter of having the same RIGHTS under the law without discrimination. ~moo

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Seeing as there is all the evidence necessary (at the official website along with other places) for the existence and "safe being" of the million dollars, I would say the extraordinary claim is that the money wasn't paid. Hence, that anyone has won this. Since it isn't very hard to PROVE someone has won (repeat the experiment in a sterile environment, duh), I don't see why we should believe any of this. Oh.. and the attitude of the writer doesn't support his cause, either.

I figured something like this will start coming up when Randi declared his million dollar challenge to be off in two years. All these people who claim that he was wrong now "celebrate" the end of the challenge. Well, Mr "finger" (not very polite, are you?), how 'bout you take advantage of the two years that are LEFT to this challenge and get rich. Otherwise, you're *now* just as much a loser-of-the-challenge as you (and all who claim the same) were for the many many years this challenge was ongoing and they either failed it or were too cowards to try it. For anyone who doesn't know what challenge this is about, here's the link: http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html davidmabus20, I think you're in the wrong place. And wrong attitude. Grow up, will ya? ~moo p.s: -- Randi declared muiltiple times that if any of the really BIG fish out there (unlike the nutsos that did this challenge up until now, unsuccessfully) would declare they wanted to do the challenge after it's off (what a timing, eh? hahahaha) he will reopen it just for them. So, david darling, I suggest you go convince Sylvia Brown or other "big fish" lia-- uhh I mean "psychic" -- to take the challenge. Oh.. wait... they never will, will they. hehe.

Okay, if the meaning of the words don't matter, then the numbers are arbitrary. You claim there is 999 and 666 and that the mere existence of these numbers is enough to make a meaning, and I claim that there are 777 and 333 with entirely opposite meaning. Since the meaning of the word is irrelevant, I can just produce random words to make out any combination of numbers I care for. Your theory, therefore, is just irrelevant. It's all-inclusive and meaningless, without the meaning of the words. Wasn't the entire point is that 999 appears with *specific* words while 666 appears with other *specific* words? If it is, then meaning matters, and the bible wasn't written in english, so *hebrew* meaning matters. If it doesn't, then your theory just lost its legs. Oh.. and you did move the goal post, if you first argue about literacy (literacy means *MEANING*), then you claim to know if the translation is accurate, and then when that fails, you go for "the meaning of the words is irrelevant". That is moving the goal post. Three times. And counting. Funny things, numbers.