Speaking in 'tongues'

[OH MY WORLD!]

Floo,
Having nothing better to do, that's what it's got to do with it. The Brother Doli poltergeist hoax for example.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdy Straw Boy,

No You are stuck aren't you.

Hic!

You say the beauty of things owes that to the fact that these things exist physically or materially.

I'll give you this, you're multi-skilled in your deep obtuseness and stupidity. Making men of straw and clutching at them at the same time. Wow!

"These things" don't independently "exist physically or materially", but people do. And it's people who apply judgments to the phenomena we observe, and sometimes some people find some things cause them to describe those things as "beautiful".

Good grief! 

Beauty should therefore be measurable since you are arguing it is a property.

Stop digging FFS! You cannot reach a "therefore" when your premise is so fundamentally wrongheaded.

You (presumably) describe some things as "beautiful". How so without a book of look up tables or some such according to your latest wreckage of a thought on the subject?

Secondly...

Am I right in assuming that you're never actually going to trouble us with a firstly? Ah well.

Why are so many finding the mathematics of the multiverse beautiful when these universes apparently have no existence in this universe and whose existence is not provable?

Groan. False premise, failure to understand "multiverse" and the reification fallacy all in one sentence. Full house!

Why on earth wouldn't some people find some mathematical formulae to be beautiful regardless of what they concern?

Instead of shouting and cussing like a maniac......

You seem to forget that the only person "shouting and cussing like a maniac" here is you. That's why you're the one the mods have make tone down the abuse remember?

try and find solutions.......

I have - many times. That I've explained them to you endlessly only for you variously to ignore them, misrepresent them, throw abuse at them or me, respond with logical fallacies or just flat out lie is the behaviour of a disordered mind entirely unwilling or unable to offer arguments of any kind of his own. 

...or admit you are wrong.

Readily, the moment you finally attempt a counter-argument of your own - preferably one that's coherent, rational and unanswerable.

Here, I'll show you again. Your hopeless schtick of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you and here's my misdescription of philosophical naturalism that I'll mis-apply to you all the while completely ignoring the problem of my "just-popped-into-my-head-ism" offering no method of any kind probabilistically to sort the true from not true" is easily shown to be the crock it is when I turn it back on you and you go all quiet. So here it is for the fourth time now:

Do you think that babies more probably come from tummies or from a stork who just makes it look that way?   

How do you pick whichever you choose without recourse to (you're misunderstanding of) philosophical naturalism?

What units of probability do you use? Show your workings out.

Oh, and it just popped into my head (or, as you would have it, "intuited") that Stan the Stork does it - so that's an objective truth for you then.

Here's your choice - finally attempt an answer, or retire bruised and battered and never darken our door with you "philosophical naturalism" eructation again.

No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;
I know the depth of questioning you can endure and it is extremely shallow.

You are mister philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.
Is beauty a property of nature or not?
If it is How beautiful are the stars?......SI units please.

If it isn't that sort of property then what is it?

How probable is philosophical naturalism if it is as you say probabilistic?

I'm enjoying watching you floundering in the face of these questions and watching you throwing things out of a pram.

I know I am not going to get suitable answers from you because as they say Antitheism is the carbon monoxide of reasonable debate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdy Straw Boy,

Oh blimey - he's back, the suppository of all wisdom. Let's see what addled incoherence you're going to attempt this time in the absence of an argument of any kind then shall we?

No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;

"Intellectual fascist" eh? Here's the real problem - there's nothing to stick my fingers in my ears for. if you finally attempted an argument rather than your endless diet of evasion, distortion, running away, ad hominem etc then maybe there would be, though my preference would be to argue a rebuttal if it's all the same to you.
 

I know the depth of questioning you can endure and it is extremely shallow.

You "know" no such thing because even though the questions you attempt are incoherent I always do my best to guess what you're trying to say and answer them anyway, and that's a bit rich in any case isn't it from someone who never, ever, ever, answers questions that are put to him? What would you say the score is of answered questions - 10,000 to 0 in my favour maybe?

You could always prove me wrong and stop running from the tums vs stork question though.

Something?

Anything?

Thought not.

You are mister philosophical naturalism and philosophical materialism.

Is beauty a property of nature or not?
If it is How beautiful are the stars?......SI units please.

If it isn't that sort of property then what is it?

How probable is philosophical naturalism if it is as you say probabilistic?

You know that old one about leading a horse to water and all that? I've corrected you maybe half a dozen times now, only for you endlessly to repeat your same mistakes in response. What would be the point of doing it again do you suppose?

I'm enjoying watching you floundering in the face of these questions and watching you throwing things out of a pram.

Of course Vlad, just keep comforting yourself with that notion. Nursey will be around with your Horlicks soon no doubt...

I know I am not going to get suitable answers from you because as they say Antitheism is the carbon monoxide of reasonable debate.

You really, really must try looking up "irony" some time. You're given reasonable debate all the time but - as someone else said - it's a bit like playing chess with a pigeon: you just knock the pieces over, crap all over the board and then fly off to claim your victory. On your way now - your schtick has been well and truly taken apart and I have no further use for your ramblings.

Disordered mind? Go and fuck yourself with something rusty.

Thanks for the correction - I should of course have said badly disordered mind.

Just to be clear here by the way - it was you accusing me of "shouting and cussing like a maniac" a while back wasn't it?

Priceless!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdy Straw Boy,

Oh blimey - he's back, the suppository of all wisdom. Let's see what addled incoherence you're going to attempt this time in the absence of an argument of any kind then shall we?

No you are now speaking like an intellectual fascist with his fingers in his ears going la;la;la;

"Intellectual fascist" eh? Here's the real problem - there's nothing to stick my fingers in my ears for.!

OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdy Straw Boy.

OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.

Your misunderstanding of it or the actual one? (I can do either by the way)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdy Straw Boy.

OK, so what is the probability of philosophical naturalism if it is, as you say, probabilistic?............show your working.

Your misunderstanding of it or the actual one? (I can do either by the way)

At last. If you can do either why didn't you.
Go on then hot shot.

PS sorry about the typo on the last word.

[Spud]

For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story, it would take a genius to invent it to begin with. Job 9:8 is one of these passages. "Passing by" (Mark 6:48) alludes to Moses on the mountain (Exodus 33-34) where Moses was not permitted to see God's face as God's glory passed by him. "Don't be afraid, it is I (I am)" (Mark 6:50) alludes to the name God gave Moses as a guarantee that he would rescue the people of Israel. Then there is the disciples' amazement at Jesus walking on the water 'because they hadn't understood about the loaves'; this makes us look at the context, in which Jesus has just fed Israel in the wilderness as God did (Exodus 16). Would Mark really tell us all the way through the book that nobody recognized Jesus' divinity? Lastly, the subtle inclusion of the sentence "they thought he was a ghost, because they all saw him" indicates eyewitness evidence, and again, none of the disciples could be forced to confess they had invented this and other reports about Jesus, according to the book of Acts.
We have then a new Exodus in which  God, in Jesus, has finally come to rescue his people.

In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.

These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.

[Spud]

Hi Floor,
I did offer some proof. Say you lived in the west end and were told that the houses of parliament would be blown up within 40 years, as well as the entire city, and you weren't sure whether to trust that person, but decided to move away just in case. Then a few years later it happened. Would you listen to what that person who warned you, said in future?
This is the way people could discern whether the old testament prophets were speaking the word of God or not. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and Romans, both times advance warning was given. Now if Mark had been written well after the destruction of Jerusalem, it wouldn't have been a very useful warning, would it? Would Christians have continued to confess Jesus as Lord if they knew this was written after the event?

[jeremyp]

The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story,

So you are saying that he invented the story using a passage from Job. Seems a reasonable hypothesis.

In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.

It seems to me that you are claiming that Mark invented most of his gospel by using passages for the Old Testament.

These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.

Yep, by lifting and changing material from the Old Testament, as you yourself are claiming.

[Gordon]

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.

As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!

Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.

Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.

As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!

Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.

Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?

Please cite sources for your assertions.

[~TW~]

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.

As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!

Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.

Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?

 Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.

  ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

...scientifically verified.

Say what now?

[Outrider]

For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

The book of Job tells us that God treads the waves of the sea (9:8 ). Ask yourself, if Mark wanted to convince us that Jesus was divine, could he by common sense, chance or scriptural knowledge come up with the story of Jesus walking accross the sea of Galilee and intending to walk on past the disciples as they strained at the oars? Whereas the reader of Mark who knows the OT can locate several passages from it which Mark uses in the story, it would take a genius to invent it to begin with. Job 9:8 is one of these passages. "Passing by" (Mark 6:48) alludes to Moses on the mountain (Exodus 33-34) where Moses was not permitted to see God's face as God's glory passed by him. "Don't be afraid, it is I (I am)" (Mark 6:50) alludes to the name God gave Moses as a guarantee that he would rescue the people of Israel. Then there is the disciples' amazement at Jesus walking on the water 'because they hadn't understood about the loaves'; this makes us look at the context, in which Jesus has just fed Israel in the wilderness as God did (Exodus 16). Would Mark really tell us all the way through the book that nobody recognized Jesus' divinity? Lastly, the subtle inclusion of the sentence "they thought he was a ghost, because they all saw him" indicates eyewitness evidence, and again, none of the disciples could be forced to confess they had invented this and other reports about Jesus, according to the book of Acts.
We have then a new Exodus in which  God, in Jesus, has finally come to rescue his people.

In the case of the feeding of the 5000, this fulfills God's promise in Ezekiel 34:23 that there will be a great king (cryptically called 'David') who will be shepherd over the sheep of Israel. Mark 6 has several allusions to this in his narrative which show he is claiming that Jesus is that shepherd. One allusion is where Jesus sees that the people are 'like sheep without a shepherd', a quote that comes from the OT; so when Jesus begins to 'teach the people many things', Mark is claiming that Jesus is the one whom the prophet Ezekiel said would be shepherd over Israel.

These are just a few of the hundreds of OT stories and prophecies that Jesus fulfilled - unless you think the NT authors made up the New Testament stories.

I can't help but feel that using some of the Bible's extraordinary claims to validate other of the Bible's extraordinary claims in order that we can accept the extraordinary Biblical claims is more than a little circular.

O.

[~TW~]

An interesting question, and having listened to a talk on how we know the Bible is the word of God (by Brian Broderson) I think we can answer it in a similar way. Brian said that there is internal evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be- the (true) word of God- his main evidence was predictive prophecy. The Old Testament points to Jesus.

Well there is your first problem, Spud. 'Prophecy' is just another of these unfalsifiable religious claims that without a method to explain it can be dismissed. Once you exclude lucky guesses, logical deductions and calculated future events (such as eclipses) the reality is that people cannot predict future events. Therefore, this guy's 'evidence' is just another supernatural claim: not 'evidence' at all.

As for the other stuff in your post about the OT/NT what you have are a bunch of ancient claims, and from how you described them they are gloriously imprecise and where you include elements of interpretation (you mention 'allude' several times) - so not exactly clear, precise and concise predictions then!

Then you note that these rather woolly OT stories then get referenced in the NT in order to show that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecies. An obvious risk, and since as you seem to suggest people in that culture may well have been familiar with these old prophecies, is that claiming Jesus fulfilled said prophecies is exactly the sort of thing that would make effective propaganda.

Given that propaganda is a risk how have you guys addressed this?

 Also Gordon you forget {Very Convenient} the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified.

  ~TW~

Oh dear!

I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.

 ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.

Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?

I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?

Ta everso.

[~TW~]

TW,

I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.

Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?

I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?

Ta everso.

 You want it done again and then again are you like floo a trolling time waster,Tell  me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.

  ~TW~

[~TW~]

TW makes statements which he can't support!

I see the parrot is back and bhs has gone into hiding that says it all 

 ~TW~

[Outrider]

TW,

I see the parrot disagrees maybe the parrot might explain why.

Do you not think that the person who declared first that "science confirms" his religious faith should demonstrate that remarkable claim to be true?

I'm not saying that it isn't true you understand - maybe I missed that edition of Scientific American, or possibly the neighbour's dog snaffled my copy of Nature before I could read it, so if you wouldn't mind awfully could you perhaps cite your source for the claim?

Ta everso.

 You want it done again and then again are you like floo a trolling time waster,Tell  me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.

  ~TW~

BHS is probably away having a life. Whilst he is, it wouldn't hurt for you to at least suggest where we can go and find this scientific proof you're alleging is out there.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

You want it done again and then again...

No, just once would be fine thanks.

... are you like floo a trolling time waster

How very Christian of you.

Tell  me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.

Oh I see, so when you said "scientifically proven" what you actually meant was an argument from personal incredulity: you don't understand the science that explains why the earth isn't "burnt to a cinder" so, um, a god must have done it then.

Shame - I had the Nobel prize committee on hold on the other line ready for your groundbreaking finding, and it turned out to be gibberish after all.

Ah well.   

[~TW~]

TW,

You want it done again and then again...

No, just once would be fine thanks.

... are you like floo a trolling time waster

How very Christian of you.

Tell  me just as test what is it that stops this earth being burnt to a cinder,see if you can sort out an answer.And then I might just give you some time.

Oh I see, so when you said "scientifically proven" what you actually meant was a argument from personal incredulity: you don't understand the science that explains why the earth isn't "burnt to a cinder" so, um, a god must have done it then.

Shame - I had the Nobel prize committee on hold on the other line ready for your groundbreaking finding, and it turned out to be gibberish after all.

Ah well.

I have not mentioned God and you have not answered what is a very easy question so we need go no further you have a small mind as with floo lots of bark but no teeth.  so subject done and ---------------dusted.

     ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

I have not mentioned God and you have not answered what is a very easy question so we need go no further you have a small mind as with floo lots of bark but no teeth.  so subject done and ---------------dusted.

You wish. As you seem to have forgotten it, here's your claim again: "...the structure of the creation account,scientifically verified."

When I asked you for this scientific verification you replied with an argument from personal incredulity - a basic logical fallacy. That you don't understand the science that explains why the earth doesn't burn up does not mean that science does not explain why the earth doesn't burn up (it's because we have an atmosphere by the way).

As you seem to have left the world of science (and its prize committees) entirely untroubled with your - well, let's be charitable and call it a mistake shall we? - I'll leave you to your private ramblings I think.

 

[~TW~]

atmosphere by the way).      Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with  scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of  Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.

                                     https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll                                  try page 261 educate your self

                ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

atmosphere by the way).      Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with  scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of  Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.

                                     https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll                                  try page 261 educate your self

What on earth are you talking about? Genesis is full of mistakes as literal explanation - if you want to read it as an early and crude creation myth that's fine, but claiming that science has verified it is mistaken at best and flat out dishonest at worst.

Moreover though, your understanding of what scientific verification means is hopelessly wrong. For the methods of science to verify anything you need an hypothesis, some evidence, testing, formulation of a theory with predictive power and a falsification test, peer review and publication. What you had on the other hand is just your personal incredulity and ignorance about why the earth doesn't "burn up".

This is so desperately poor I wonder if you aren't just trolling here. Sadly though, I suspect that you actually believe the lies you've been fed.

How very sad.

 

[~TW~]

TW,

atmosphere by the way).      Brilliant and science confirms the movement of the stars and science agrees with  scripture that as we see the Sun in position on the 4th day because the maker tells us earth had no atmosphere in the opening days also we can add the testimony of  Johaan Kepler. When you have evidence to the counter it, get back to me.

                                     https://archive.org/details/scriptureoftruth00coll                                  try page 261 educate your self

What on earth are you talking about? Genesis is full of mistakes as literal explanation - if you want to read it as an early and crude creation myth that's fine, but claiming that science has verified it is mistaken at best and flat out dishonest at worst.

Moreover though, your understanding of what scientific verification means is hopelessly wrong. For the methods of science to verify anything you need an hypothesis, some evidence, testing, formulation of a theory with predictive power and a falsification test, peer review and publication. What you had on the other hand is just your personal incredulity and ignorance about why the earth doesn't "burn up".

This is so desperately poor I wonder if you aren't just trolling here. Sadly though, I suspect that you actually believe the lies you've been fed.

How very sad.

 Go away and play with your toys you are clueless why not start a thread and post the mistakes in Genesis I am waiting go for it allow me to wipe you clean.I am in the mood for you.Get posting the mistakes--waiting.

    ~TW~