mooeypoo

Agreed. Good job, John. I wouldn't call it "simple" though, even from a 'strictly' moralistic point of view, because as much as we would *like* to make ourselves relatively moral objective, we can't really when it comes down to considering people as "living" - somehow - after death. I personally have a few friends I've lost in terrorist attacks; In my head I know that their bodies are gone, and the only way they're "remain" after death is by memory, but can I swear that I never think of them in a "better place"? Nope, I can't. It's this wishful thinking quality I think most humans have. The question is - can we balance it when it comes down to the actual situation... Ah. I hope so. Anyhoo, great discussion. Thanks, guys ~moo

Wow rev, that's not what I said. Creationism is a group of ideaas just like astrology is a group of ideas. We can discuss it, but not in Science class, so what I said *true* science, that's what I meant. Creationists usually choose to claim they are being "oppressed" by science because science is "afraid" of the conclusion - the actual fact,however, is that we know the world is not 4000 years old from multiple fronts: Evolution, Carbon dating, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, etc. Yah, I will find links for you, if you want, I just can't at the very moment because I'm at work. A very short google search about what SCIENCE says about the age of the world will show you all the evidence, but I will do my best to gather up the links later. Yah I was afraid of that too, and still am - it's not easy. But I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we? As I said, I'll give you links, and the measure was out of my ass only if you consider my careful digits, and my avoidance in saying 100%. We are *certain* the world is older than 6000 years old, as certain as we can be about anything. Did God create us yesterday morning with memories of a lifetime and nature that *appears* to be here for billlions of years? Yah, maybe, it's possible, but the odds are so slim - and the idea so insignificant to the quest of more knowledge - that it's practically a non option. K, uhm, I don't see where I was ranting. What, because I don't believe we should respect religion at all cost? Because I think creationism is dangerous for progress? I do think that, and I think it's important to fight it OUT of our science classrooms. I didn't make any claim that I thought deserved backing up - this is a science forum, we had SO MANY discussions about the age of the earth (obviously being over 6000 years) that my "99999" percentage just seemed to me to be an obvious thing. You're right, though, I didn't think about the people who weren't there in all the other discussions. So as I said - I'm at work, but I'll collect data for you. I nsuggest you read a bit about the Dover case and watch Richard Dawkins' lectures -- they're available free online -- they summarize the evidence very nicely in a REALLY interesting way. Unless you're saying I fell for creationism trap by suggesting we talk about the true science (hence: the facts we know about today according to the scientific method, upon which the creationists brutally and blatantly *lie* about. Flat-out lie) is "falling" into their trap. In which case, I disagree. ~moo

The discussion shouldn't be "about" creationism, it could be about what is the *true science* behind the bogus claims OF creationism. My "GODMOS" project, for example, is taking an Astronomy "creation" book and analyzing the claims given - not out of "why" -- I *know* why -- out of "What is the *truth* behind it that they're hiding behind false arguments and incredulity, and lots (LOOOOOOTS) of logical fallacies. So you can avoid falling into a trap of discussing strictly-religion, if your purpose is to examine true science, and how it is that we are absolutely 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% (only because science doesn't have a "full" 100% as a result of its definition) that the world is *not* 'just' 4000-6000 years old. The fact creationists try to make us fall into this trap doesn't mean we can't avoid it ~moo

Finally. See? Was that so hard? Red Herring (wow you have a knack for those) and False Analogies.. I think there's some False Continuum in there, too. I'm getting better.

I know you are not familiar with "Decency" and "Debate" - specifically linked together - so allow me to give you a helping hand: The "argument" above is a mixture of "Red Herring" (Trying to insert a brand new subject having nothing to do with the original subject, for the tactic of saying what you want instead of dealing with the REAL issue), and "Ad Hominem" (personal attacks). There are probably more, but those two are the first to pop up, so I thought I'd give you a hand spotting them. It's a good exercise. I supplied links for the definitions, but I know how you like definitions. Cheers, man. ~moo

What is wrong with you.. Reported.

*sigh* No, Science has, in it, observations, but saying science "IS" observations is quite lacking Science is: Philosophy, in contrast, is defined as "understanding", that's a BOGUS definition, because Science is "understanding" as well, in the stricter sense. Philosophy, if you would have cared to check the definition, is: Your desire to make up your own definition is noted.. but it doesn't make those definition something they're not. Don't straw-man us, it's unfair, and is also a violation of the rules of this forum. I already showed what Science is, read above. What we would "Like" science to be is irrelevant. The word means something VERY specific. Open a dictionary. Indeed. For that, we have the Scientific Method, which is a method that defines the set of rule on "HOW" to conduct experiments, collect data, and infer on the results, etc. The Scientific Method, unlike what anyone would LIKE to define it, is defined as: It's a set of rules - a "body of techniques". No more, no less. And it works. Another thing that the Scientific Method is defining, and also another thing that works. This, btw, is how the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" was first discovered. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, I know I promised everyone that I'll restrain myself from answering you, specifically since you don't seem to be honest enough to actually care, but your repeated attacks on the true meaning of science in a science forum while repeatedly ignoring the forum's rules against logical fallacies, trolling, preaching and incredulity is ridiculous and demands an answer. God forbid (pun intended), someone who actually DON'T know what science is and comes here to *learn*, sees your twisted definitions and thinks them true. So I'm sorry if I dissapoint anyone by answering this troll, but I do this in the name of protecting the innocents. Seriously. ~moo

Look, without definitions we have no language, and definitions are accepted in the world because they are definitions. That's the definition of definition. Don't like it? well.. invent your own language. The fact you openned another thread with the SAME question as the one that was closed without changing your methodologies of debate is borderline deceptive, if not minus the 'borderline'. You still haven't answered any of our questions to you, or related to any of our answers, so I can't help but wondering, Fred: What is your agenda? You seem to repeatedly try and convince us all that Science is a belief system, that observations are not real data, that Evolution has an 'agenda' or an 'agent' behind it.. You're using falacies to ignore what you don't want to answer, and you tend to troll, though we do our best to be patient. I think, however, that there is a deeper agenda here. Perhaps my vast experience with creationists made me paranoid, but looking at your methodology of argument and the way you ignore what you don't feel like answering, *and* seeing your attempt to define science as a belief with some entity behind it, I think you owe us an answer about this. I really -- REALLY -- do. ~moo Don't condescend. You didn't understand what he said because you didn't read the entire post, or chose to ignore it. What the heck is "beleive in the post"?? He answered you in those posts. He answered the same question you asked. Geesh. If you think a dictionary is a collection of opinions, you have a serious problem in understanding the usage of language. He posted definitions, Fred... instead of condescending, you can try to specify what, exactly, you didn't agree with in those *definitions*. Yah, we all acknowledge it, over and over again, that's the point. Are you afraid of dealing with the *entirety* of a subject? Is that why you consistently nitpick the points you want to answer? ~moo

That does it. Reported again. Somebody do something.

Yup, Particularly in light of the DEFINITION of what a "scientific experiment" actually *is*, which I posted too. ~moo

Should I be surprised he attacked Sancho back instead of relating to any useful subjects? Seriously, Fred, are you AFRAID of dealing with certain issues? Your evading the questions and throwing Red Herrings around along with infinite non sequitors, straw men and some generous amount of personal incredulity. Scared much?

... What? Okay, first off, you're being unfair again. You quoted my sentence cut-off, which isn't really fair. Please stop doing that. I cut off qutoes too, but not in the middle of a sentence, specifiically not when it changes the meaning of it, or 'hides' a point. Second, make a LINK to the POST from which you bring this quote. We've been debating for a while, and this isn't from my LATEST post, it takes me a while to find the ACTUAL context. Be fair and have some respect to the people you're debating with. Now. As for an answer: OBVIOUSLY, you don't know what Astronomy is. Astronomers look at the sky (THEY OBSERVE!) and their "results" are things they FOUND out there-- by LOOKING. Astronomers searched for Pluto, for instance, by looking at lots and lots and lots of pictures from space and trying to spot changes. It's OBSERVATIONAL. They didn't run an experiment. Second, you OBVIOUSLY ignored my link to what a scientific experiment IS or you wouldn't have tried to define observations as experiments. It's nothing to do with MAGIC. Astronomers use equipment (that they don't build themselves, mind you!) to LOOK. Just look. It's like you take a binoculars and look up at the sky, or at birds. You don't "experiment" whether or not you SEE something, you take that binoculars *for the purpose of looking* and your "results" are *what you saw*. OBSERVATIONAL DATA. AND: You're being unfair again. Misleading, and very frustrating. If this keeps up, I'll just stop answering you; obviously you don't quite listen. Okay, seriously, stop twisting meanings whenever you feel like it. Your context of "producing" results was under EXPERIMENTATION -- in an experiment, you CONDUCT a trial -- *active* trial, trying to figure out the result -- hence, the result is *PRODUCED* from the trial. Yes, you can say that observations are "produced" when people observe, but that's a play on words. Observations are observations. They're NOT experimentations. Not the way Experiments are DEFINED. Read the definition! Stop twisting meanings, too. It's very frustrating. Start respecting your debating partners, Fred, or I'll just end up ignoring you. I put a lot of time and effort into debates because I love the quest for knowledge and to be challenged in my personal beliefs. You, however, keep twisting my words, ignoring half my points and throwing continously Red Herrings and Non Sequitors. ~moo

Okay, I wanted to see how widespread the pictures are. I must say, I couldn't find them -- and I'm not a noob to google. I don't quite WANT to see them (those of you who know where I originally lived, could probably imagine seeing gruesome pictures is not something I enjoy doing, though done quite a lot before) but I wanted to see how BAD it is. I did find a few blogs that had an article condemning the posting of these pictures, and then putting a link to "If you want to see the pictures click here", which led here (or similar point): http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2006/10/crash-photos.html So it seems that the net community is up on the immorality of this. I think that within a very short time, the pictures will go away, or at least the harassments will. Oh, well, I didn't mean "Castrate him!" severely.. I meant "Make sure he pays damages because he knew what he was doing is wrong and he caused damage to that family!" Severely. I would say he is responsible, because he knew it's wrong, he knew it's graphic, and he probably had enough experience to know that these TYPE of very graphic photos very quickly make their way accross the net (my search for the extent of the 'damage' also showed a bunch of other stories about gruesome pictures, so this is hardly the first time). In any case, "Severely" is such an objective term, wouldn't you say? ~moo

Yeah but even these don't work, iNow, the pictures still exist in remote servers where they can't be removed from, and resurface every now and then. But the Hollywood stars, unlike the family, are "prepared" to deal with lack of privacy, they have teams of people answering their phones, etc. Also, what they usually deal with is not quite the same.. "nude pictures" or some other exposing paparazzi stuff is not the same as watching your daughter get ripped to shreds in your new car.. I think that there are three different things here -- moral decision (is it RIGHT to take it off the net) and practical decision (is it POSSIBLE to take it off) and what *CAN* be done (as in, the "least of all evils" choice.. compensation, switch phones, move.. etc). Horrible story, though. The guy that did this needs to be severely punished. ~moo

Should they be able to? Probably, yeah, morally-speaking, sure. It's their daughter, they're being hurt by these photos being online, and the removal of the photos won't hurt ANYONE else, just help them. Can they!? I doubt so very very much. The net is too open for that; even if court judges that whoever publishes these pictures is liable for compensations or whatever, then the pics would be published on some off-US server. There's no way to stop it other than ignoring it. Eventually, like everything online, it will go away. Sad, but I think there's not really anything else to do to *stop* it. The family should get compensation for their misery from the guy that sent these in the first place. But stopping it? Too late. Well, again, that's inside the USA. This blogger can just post the pics on some European server, or Asian server, or another place where this rule doesn't apply. And then what? Who are they going to sue to ask for this to be removed? No one. What might be a good idea is to just actively ban these places, so they don't get the attention they want. the only reason this guy goes on - and is probably successful - is for the 'controversy' he's creating and the traffic that comes to his blog. Not supporting this and not going there might be the only way to make this fade out. ~moo

Hm, yes, but we're trying to consider the morality of this, not necessarily the legality. Laws don't necessarily correspond with morality. And how do you measure "sencere belief" is another problem, but I guess that gets into a slippery slope argument, so I'll have to ignore that problem for now. Again.. I am not sure if it is that simple morally.. To think I can *ask* for whatever I want befor eI die, but then my family may ignore it (or do something that is DIRECTLY contradictory to *my* belief system) is alarming. On the other hand -- why is it alarming, if I don't believe in life after death? Egh. I need to think about it.

Exactly. My point was that the scientific method was created *because* humans are , in their 'core', not objective. We devised a system to maximize the production of objective results - and that is the Scientific Method. Thanks ~moo

Hehe, sure sure, I need that for myself as well.. these 'enlightening' questions just bursted out of me unexpectedly.. I need to digest But yeah.. uhm. worth thinking about. ~moo

Uhm, I learned about this a while ago (very LONG while ago ) so I am not quite sure, but since no one else answered this post, here are a few links I found, hope they help: http://www.abc.net.au/spark/scienceof/storms.htm (for kids, but.. it explains ) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/science/29stor.html (this is about scientists attempt to 'outwit' storms like Katrina) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=10&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfloridahouse.gov%2FFileStores%2FWeb%2FHouseContent%2FApproved%2FAnnouncements%2FUploads%2FDocuments%2Fins%2FScience%2520of%2520Storms%2520presentation.pdf&ei=TjpcR7uZEZuUggKR8pHtDw&usg=AFQjCNGJEYoSfngAuJZpUBwRHovs3Zd3yw&sig2=-SWswuBCeysTGYNsZ9kHrA (The science of hurricanes) from "FirstScience": http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/earth/weird-weather_1265.html (Weird Weather) http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/earth/the-hidden-life-of-thunderstorms_1271.html (Thunderstorms) ... hope these help. Maybe you should be more specific? What kind of storms? Thunderstorms? Hurricanes? In sea? In land? I am not sure how accurately we *know* how storms operate, otherwise we would be able to predict them better, but I guess the "how they're created" is pretty sorted out.. ~moo

That actually sounds very interesting. I started doing a "series" in YouTube called "GODMOS" -- I take creationist-astronomy books and explain what is the *true* science behind the phenomena they're ignoring. It can stay under science as long as no creationist decides to spew nonsense at it. Plus.. I'm going to continue with episodes 2 and 3 right after the final-exam week, so I could probably use some help from you guys, some of the text there is very confusing with all these logical fallacies and red herrings thrown inside. Anyhoo, if you do open one, I'll be joining for sure. ~moo

I personally do PHP/mySQL these days, I find it VERY fruitful, because of the growth of Web 2.0 etc. But I also know VB and C.. the thing is that you need to find what you like doing. C and the likes of it are used primarily for Software programming. PHP/mySQL and the likes are for Internet programs (it's not quite 'web sites' anymore, with the integration of websites and personalization etc..). I know Java was going strong too, but I'm not sure if it still is. AJAX is 'da bomb' these days, but it's just an 'upgrade' over javscript and php (or javascript and other server-side languages). Do some research online on what's "going strong", or, I would actually recommend checking what those companies that openned up *do* and what they request from their employees... then start studying it. Good luck.. ~moo

According to their beliefs.. it will give them agony, suffering, etc. I'm not quite in agreement with this point of view, but I guess I *could* see the logic behind it.. the person in question is already dead. The family still lives. He has nothing to "suffer" over, they do..? Right, but then how is this different than any other decision after a person's death? I mean.. we have court cases where the family sued the beneficiary of the will (and won!) 'despite' the person's written will, etc. The point of these things is that the person has already died, while the family lives.. if you count - morally speaking - the level of consequent 'suffering' over a decision, the familys is greater. That's another thing. I agree with you completely, but I have to wonder.. why? I mean.. he's dead. What 'wishes'? Somewhere in time we (humans) decided that a person's decisions during life should be done after death as well, but I really wonder -- wasn't that decision done when humanity still vastly believe in "life after death"? Think of all those myths about the "displaced souls" -- dying without having their bodies buried, or with something more to do, etc. These are fantasies about our hope that after death the person isn't *truely* dead.. I don't believe in the afterlife, so I am trying to think - as a rational being and someone who values rational thinking - how can I 'excuse' this pick of a dead person's "wish" -- when my belief is that he's completely gone, and not 'in some other better place' -- over that of the family? I can state that the family's decision is immoral, but that is REGARDLESS of the decision of that person. It's immoral, in my eyes, to deny other sick people the chance to get better over mythological thinking of life after death, or some twisted morality about the integrity of one's body (which rots anyways).. but that has nothing to do with the person's CHOICE before death.. Yeah, he's also no longer alive to care... or to have this "matter" to him. It is of no consequence to HIM, but it IS to the family.. Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say that the person's wish wasn't something we seem to consider 'moral' anyways, but rather something else: the person requested that after death, his entire possessions would be burnt to ash. He has family and children, but he's the one who actually possesses the house (whatever.. his wife was poor and married him insanely rich.. bear with me here). The point is this: Yes, it's his wish. But he's no longer HERE. There's no consequence for HIM. To his children and wife, however, there are dire consequences: They will be left homeless and with NOTHING to live with. You see what I'm saying?

......... Okay, you're missing the point. As I said -- you seem to have a knack in animating inanimate objects. Science is an endeavor, but it's not DOING the endeavor. Don't pick what you want from what I say so you have better chances of replying, Fred, that's not fair. ... Okay, first off, be FAIR and bring EXAMPLES of what you're saying. Off the top of my head, no, I can't seem to *think* of any experiments in Paleontology, other than Jurassic Park, which is an experiment in BIOLOGY. *But* Even if there are experiments in Paleontology, that doesn't make it an *experimental science*. Astronomy probably has experiments. It's *not* an "Experimental Science". Biology and Chemistry aren't consisting ONLY from experiments,but they *ARE* considered "Experimental Science". K? The results are not produced they are OBSERVED, which is the reason Paleontology is not an experimental science. Astronomy, as well, is the same. You don't experiment in Astronomy, you observe, and give out OBSERVATIONAL FACTUAL DATA upon which you can devise theories and explanations as to how things WORK in the universe. The fact that a branch of science is not "Experimental Science" but rather "Historical Science", for instance, doesn't take off from its IMPORTANCE. It's not that one is 'superior' over the other. They're just DIFFERENT by the methodology used. There are no active experiments to get the actual 'data' of Paleontology; Paleontologists 'find' their data, and then analyze it and build theories. Chemists and Biologists TEST and Experiment in order to get their bottom-line results, which is why Biology and Chemistry *are* Experimental Science. Here's an explanation of what a Scientific Experiment is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_science We call something an "Experimental Science" when the majority of data comes FROM experiments. Paleontology is not one of these, even if it sometimes USES experiments (and I still require example for an example of one, please.) If you want to make a statement, back it up, don't just assume that because you THINK it is so, it is. I've given you some resources, references and links, which you seem to either ignore or not return the favor by backing up YOUR statements, specifically when relating to things that are *terminologies*. This is getting REALLY annoying. ~moo

I am not implying, I am flat-out saying that you are right now *mixing* philosophical questions (What is awareness? How do we define our awareness? *ARE WE AWARE or is it just an 'illusion'*) with Scientific questions, and that's unfair. The discussion to define human awareness is not that simple, it's ongoing in philosophy, and it actually can be quite an interesting one to start on this forum as well ("I think therefore I am...?") but it has nothing to do with the CURRENT thread talking about *Evolution* as a Scientific matter. Quite frankly, Fred, when you just state that an answer is obvious to a subject that is *not* so obvious (hence, it has ongoing discussions in the philosophical community, no definitive answer, and no possible way *of* definitely answering because it's a matter of psychology and philosophy and definitions of terms), it's a bit condescending. I understand what you *mean* but that doesn't mean that consciousness is so obvious. I'll ask again, btw, because I can already see how you're only replying on the above sentence, that you give me the same respect I give you and read the *entire* point I'm making, and not just nitpick whatever is nice for you to answer. It's getting quite confusing. And, as for doing or not doing with evolution: Evolution is the *CHANGE* of an organism through time. If you want to understand why certain changes occured instead of others (for instance, why do we have eyes at the front of our heads instead of at the sides) you use Natural Selection to examine the environment in which we were developped and see which attribute could have been 'selected' as a beneficial one and which "died" out. Consciousness is a philosophical matter. What is consciousness? Where does it come from? Is it "external" to our bodies or is it inside our brains? What happens to people who die and come back - do they have their consciousness "on hold" ? when is consciousness "happening" - at birth or before? And when "before"? at consception? then what happens if there are twins? Is consciousness the same for all humans? Are 'smart' people the ones with 'better' consciousness or are the 'spiritual' people the ones with 'better' consciousness? Can you be sure that the way you see yourself in the mirror (hence,your perception of yourself) is the same as the way others see you? Those are not simple questions. If you want to ask *HOW IS IT* that we developed a brain that is capable -- and actually struggling with -- asking these questions, then it's a different matter. Some scientists define this as a "side-effect" of another biological attribute that has evolved. For instance, the fact that children very suseptible to brainwashing is a question that we can TRY and see the answer to through Natural Selection. I heard Richard Dawkins explain it in a nice way: In nature, young children need to obey their parents because if they start wondering what is "right and wrong", they'll ignore their parents' order to not pick up a snake in the tail, and end up dying. Children who ignored advice, therefore, died. Children with a tendency to be more 'obeying' towards their parents, lived, and this tendency ended up in the entire population. This tendency, however, also creates a situation where the child is obeying and listening ot his parents regardless of the truth behind their words, so a child is more prone to brainwashing. Is this absolutely true? I don't know. It's logical, so it may be, but I am not sure if a definitive answer exists on the matter. In any case, in order to see what "developed" that attribute (of being 'prone' to brainwashing) I defined it first, and I knew what we were talking about. *ONLY THEN* I could start checking how it was developed. Consciousness is a vague term because YOU mean one thing, I probably see it differently, and others COMPLETELY differently. First we need to define *WHAT* attribute of what we generally call 'consciousness' we wish to explain, and then see how it came about.. saying just "consciousness" is void. It's not a well-defined term, and so trying to figure out where "it" came from in the evolutionary process is not a valid question. ~moo

--I'm having computer troubles, posted mixed stuff.. will sort it out and repost, sorry for that -- -- Okay, I must appologize in advance -- I had some FireFox issues while replying. I ahd to take the post off and re-edit, but I hope I didn't slip in something from another forum... if I did, point it out to me..-- precisely! You might USE one functionally. Functionally implies that someone/thing USES -- actively -- the 'tool'. That's not what's happening. Evolution is not a conscious or targetted process, and it's not "using" Natural Selection --> therefore it's not quite right to say it's a function. That's the only disagreement I have with that term, but to be honest, I think this isn't the right argument.. it's not entirely important what you decide to call it (I still disagree because of the connotation, which I find important in itself, but still) -- it's how we define it. I keep getting the feeling that you view Evolution through Natural Selection as a sort of 'directed' process, and I think that this is where our disagreement lies in its core. Am I wrong? Yeah, I don't see how this has anything to do with Natural Selection.. it doesn't describe the "function" of Natural Selection in Evolution *at all*... Unless I again didn't understand you. Okay, technique is not the same as function. I have less problems with "technique" but even that is not entirely accurate, because technique ALSO implies that someone/thing is DOING this technique... Natural Selection is another way of saying "How Biological Evolution Works". That's it. It's nothing more than that... Indeed. But Natural Selection is not that at all; there are no "options" to Evolution, and Nature "picked" this one. Natural Selection is the *EXPLANATION* of how Evolution works in biological beings. I don't understand what you're saying here.... The fact something uses a tool doesn't change its being, yeah, I agree, but that doesn't mean that if it is causing a change it must be "using" a tool. It's all about the language... again -- I think we're arguing the wrong thing. You seem to think of Evolution as an "animate" thing with a purpose and a target, as if we - humans - are this "peak" of its function.. That's not the way things are at all. Yeah, that's a bit generalized, but okay, yes, Science is the method of gathering data and figuring out how things work. Notice that Science is not JUST gathering data. Theories that connect data together are also essential, and in Science they also have a 'set' of rules how to be done. Nothing is truly objective, which is why we HAVE the scientific method, to try and eliminate objectivity as much as possible. The fact you run a "Double Blind" experiment, for instance, is not quite because you don't trust the scientists running it, but because you want to eliminate their unconscious impact on raw data, which is a human thing to do -- even if they don't WANT to impact anything, we're human beings. Scientific Method defines what we can see as fact and theory so we can explain our world better. Now.. is it just me, or is this last part about Science supposed to be in our *other* discussion? I don't quite see how it fits in here. And one last thing -- Fred, I understand that you have a convinction, I have another, but you seem to completely disregard 90% of what I'm saying, and then pick only one point I make and answer that.. As a result, we keep going in circles, when you later pick the OTHER points which I already answered or addressed at some way or another in that post. I respect you and read all you are saying, as you can see. Do the same for me, please. It's getting *quite* frustrating, to answer thorroughly, and get a half-paragraph-long question that addresses only a *PART* of my point. ~moo