Only one problen with that, jive...

Not all sunflower seeds have that ratio, just like not all humans have that ratio, they are close, but not EXACT. Plus, added weight along the midsection will make the navel sag, again throwing that off...

Still, that ratio is not 100% across the board exact for every living being. Hence...imperfection. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

still, who makes forces such as gravity and inertia? who created matter such as space dust, atoms, electrons and protons? space dust just comes along and explodes due to strong pressure, but does anyone stop to think where these things came from? they just existed? so how is this different from the perspective that God just existed and has no beginning? lemme know if im missing something here. <br>

Again this is getting to what kind of creation you believe in... if you believe in creation but an old Earth and Universe, this is a better fit with the evidence. Even I as an evolutionist have to consider that the Big Bang could not have come from nothing. Maybe it came from somewhere we have no comprehension or knowledge of, and this could include a divine being... but once the matter was there, the Universe as we know it could expand and gather into galaxies and stars... the movement and different stages of galaxy and star formation support evolutionary theories. We can see them with telescopes, they are right in front of our eyes in different stages of formation, from protostar nebulae to supernovae.

The idea of a young Earth, especially one thousands of years old, is made obsolete by science.

<br>

That's the thing...I can't see it coming anywhere from something else. What caused the Big Bang IMHO? The previous crunch--the big bang being the "point" in which the universe goes from collape to expansion--where density is infinite and size is infinitessimal.

Trying to keep this simple...

Where did everything come from? The answer I receive most often is "God put it there". Then who put god there?

I see no <i>Alpha Terminus</i> when you look at the way things are--everything that Is and was created, had to be put there by something, either to the point of infinity, or in a cyclic process--in that previous "stuff" (matter & energy) creates the current "stuff", and the current "stuff" creates the future "stuff", and that chain continues until you end up back with the previous "stuff". Think about it also along the lines of the food cycle. Plants take and nutrients from the soil. Herbivoires eat the Plants. Carnivoires eat the Herbivoires, When the Carnovoires, Herbivoires, and Plants die, Bacteria and Fungi decompose the remains into their basal components, and this providing plants with the nutrients they need to thrive, and so on, and so on, and so on. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Still fuzzy on how the matter got there. Just like, an object will stay in motion once it's put in motion. It still needs a force to get it started. Objects do not just move on their own, they move because of energy or gravity. So in order to start a cyclical cycle there needs to be a beginning force. Just like the water cycle hasn't always existed on Earth, first oxygen and hydrogen atoms needed to be present and become fused into molecules. Without water molecules the Sun could not evaporate the water. So yes today the water cycle is a continuing process, but there still had to be initial beginning of the process for it to start. Kind of like the food cycle example, it works today, but couldn't work without soil, plants, the sun, and animals. These objects did not just pop up simultaneously when the universe exploded. <br>

AnDaZZo wrote:still, who makes forces such as gravity and inertia? who created matter such as space dust, atoms, electrons and protons? space dust just comes along and explodes due to strong pressure, but does anyone stop to think where these things came from? they just existed? so how is this different from the perspective that God just existed and has no beginning? lemme know if im missing something here.

well here is something for you to ponder:

for those who say, "we didnt come from apes god said he made man, not that man came from ape"

1> god never gave his recipee for human in the bible, so therefore we truely have no idea how we were created.

2> God never said he made gravity, or protons, electrons and neutrons. in the bible he said nothing about virii, or bacteria, or prions. he said nothing about thermodynamics or energy or radiation. he left out alot of things that im sure he knew about. and why did he do this.. first off people then could have never understood and second why should he have to. therefore you have no grounds to say how god did anything.


on another note there have been alot of fossils found that showed man derriving from our primitive form. for exaple dozons of homo erectus fossils that were found near what we now call "beijing" in china durring WWII and were given to the marines for safekeeping and transport home.... guess what. they never made it. not to mention the good half dozon other examples i could think of where someone tampered with at times hundreds of fossils to make them dissapear. why? because people cant handle thier little safe reality to be challanged.

it's true that alot of pieces of the puzzle are missing but you can look when you see a broad range of fossils from the same species that come from a large range of ages you can see how they slowly derrive to what we are today.

not to mention mass extinctions. such as the 'KT' boundry and other natural extintions. such as the one that ossured 6-8 million years ago where the world turned from primarily forrested to savanna and grassland. we know this ahppened not only because of anthropologist but geologists are also in a agreement and many other. many many species died when that happened and 90 percent of the ape and hominid species. only speicies that could live in these harsher conditions made it and alot of changes happened then as well and can be seen. if species dont change or new ones werent somehow produced than there would be no life on earth. with all the geological changes that have occured every single keystone species would have died and we would look much like mars looks now.


<br>





.... and everytime i look within i recongnize the darkness; familiar to the image of the artist....

Still doesn't answer where everything came from. That's all I was questioning. I'm wasn't questioning God's process of creation. The Bible does state the man was more intelligent than a prehistoric ape. Man knew how to communicate, farm, and understood the basics like laws from the beginning. I'm not refuting the existance of fossils, but do we really know if they are men? They could be other species of animals that God created, and have long since been extinct. Similiar but not human. Wouldn't the entire race evolve at the same time? Ape into Man..not some apes evolving to man and others remaining apes? Today apes and humans are both present, if evolution was true there wouldn't be any apes, only humans. All apes would evolve into prehistoric man and prehistoric man would evolve into modern man. So since both ape and man are present today, prehistoric man should still be around today. Just as apes are present today with humans. It doesn't seem like evolution is uniform. <br>

actually many of them died, it's divergant, for example after the proliferation of apes then the mass extinction there were only a few species, many of those died and only a few lived. some came more our way genetically and others went another way genetically. so the apes you see today didnt exsist at all 3-5 million years ago either. even the human line was divergant. for example we did not come from homo neanderthal, that divergant line died as well, we came from the H. errectus, H. habillis line. and those are also non- exsitant now.

the ealierist primates emerged 55 million years ago and were rounghly 1-2 lbs and were actaully more similar in anatomy to Homo spaien and Pan gorrilla, Pan chimpanzee then to similarly sized modern primates such as gibbons and simangs. however they are also long dead. same with many others. they either slowly changed to live, or died. and that is why so many species are no longer aroung. about the only species that havent been so drastically changing is cartiliginios fish such as sharks and rays and bryophytes (ferns for example). many whole classes and phylems even failed to make it this far for example warm blooded reptiles and early bird, heavy bonned fish, platted fish ect ect.

so to sum up, these "remaining apes" are no longer with us, H. errectus dissapeared from exsistance around 250,000 years ago. that is the younget fossil. if you ignore the oddball aged 50,000 year old one that is even debated in anthropolgy to have been dated incorrectly. (it wasnt dated in Berkley because the country that owns it wont let them do it). so what that means... you can inferre the rest. we and other modern species our competed with them a nd they couldnt make it.

similarly to why you no longer see dinosaurs.


<br>





.... and everytime i look within i recongnize the darkness; familiar to the image of the artist....

See, Andazzo, I'm not saying you're wrong, but i see this argument coming back to a very simple way to put this...

Does everything have an alpha terminus?

You think--based upon your responses, yes, it does.

I think, no, it doesn't. A cycle may break down, but cycles cause other cycles, and a different cycle caused all the cycles that happened. In a way, the system is self-perpetuating.

See, from my perspective, whever i search for the alpha and omega terminii of everything--the point of beginning, and the point of ending, i end up in the same spot for both--infinity. Now, Infinity is a singular, but omnipresent entity--in that, if you go towards the extremely large and the extremly small (infinite and infinitessimal), it gets to the same point--in that the moment of creation IS the moment of destruction. Futher, since no energy/matter/stuff is ever gained or lost (even friction is dissipated as heat, and heat is not lost to anything, really, it affects some other system), the creation/destruction point (rather points) is simply a "mirror" point--in that events reverse at that point. I believe in some thread i did post that novel.

Neither stance is not wrong in the general--because we can't ever prove it. The only way we could is to somehow mark this point in space/time, and reach the omega terminus, and see if things repeat, this point in time ever comes about again--even if the circumstances are different. <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I have already made my argument for "the first cause" so I will copy and paste it in.. discuss as you may..

Do you believe, as science has shown, that the universe is finite?

If so, then it has a beginning. If it has a begining, then something had to cause it to happen. The universe could not cause itself. Newton states, that things will tend to remain as they are unles they are acted upon by an external force. The universe, therefore needs a cause. Einstein has shown that time is relative.. Relative to what? Matter and space. Matter and space did not exist "before" the begining of the universe, therefore time did not exist either. If there is no time, there is not "before". That leads to a universe that needs to be caused, and the cause must exist outside of time and space. If that cause exists outside time, it needs no cause, because nothing can be "before" something that exists outside of time. So the cause that caused the universe to exist could not have been acted upon by anything else because nothing can exist "before" it, so that thing must have caused itself to cause the universe. Therefore the "first cause" must be self aware, because it acted upon itself, follow?

If you disagree, then you tell me what other option there is. I have seen no better description of what must have happened given the evidence we have. Sure, we could be wrong, but this is a combination of logical process and physical law.. Pretty good if you ask me.

Woo hoo.. a chance to defend the existance of God.. I'm getting used to this.. I have already done it in "The Greatest Thead ever", (not the thread called that, but the thread it refers to)...

I will use bits and pieces of previous arguments...

"there cannot be anything before God, there cannot even be a "before", there isn't even time. A God transends time, there can be only one beginning... This is an inescapable conclusion in a finite universe. OK, fine, you can despute the idea of a finite universe, but then you have to disprove the laws of thermodynamics. I'm not up to the task, that's for sure.

OK, so, there is nothing, then there is time, space, and all of the matter and enegy in the universe. All at once, it had to happen that way because the transistion from no matter or space to the beginning of the universe had to happen simultainious to the beginning of time. Nothing can happen before the begining of time, and time cannot exist unless there is matter, because time is relative.

That's pretty cool stuff there ^^ and it has to have a cause to happen. Same as with anything the non-existing universe would tend to remain non-existing unless something acted upon it, causing it to exist. That thing which caused the univese to exist had to exist itself, but outside of space-time, after all you cannot dwell in space-time if you are the cause for space-time existence, otherwise you exist inside something that does not exist, that is obsurd.

So, so far.. The universe has a beginning. The beginning of the universe needs a cause. Whatever caused the universe to exist, existed outside of space and time.

moving on.. Nothing can exist before time. If there is no time, then there can be no "before". Everything that has ever happened has happened after the beginning of time, OR simultanious to the beginning of time.

So, something caused the begining of time and all of the matter and energy in the universe to happen simultaniously, and did it in a manner that resulted in a nicely balanced system the supports life, and that life exists and eventually formed itself into a bunch of sentient beings that have the skills to build machines that enable them to connect to a network and share ideas even ideas about the denial of the very thing that caused all of tis to happen.

That, IMO, is GOD."

As far as where is God from.. Sorry man, God existed when there was no place to be from, and when there was no time, to ask about "before".. See When God created all of it, that means all of it.. Everything, all of space time, if there are other dimensions, God made them too.. There is no place, and no time, before God.. God pre-exists everything.. Umm, I'll think of more ways to say it, if you still don't get it. You seem to have trouble comprehending "all-powerful creator of all things"
Remember, I am quoting other aruments I have made, none of this stuff is targeted directly at anyone on this site.. I had this war over the last couple days on a different site...

"What kind of action does it take for you to see God?!?! Starting space and time and filling it with matter and energy all simultaniously isn't enough? Something had to cause the very first event ever to happen. Something had to be uncaused, therefore if had to cause itself so to speak, in order for something to cause itself, it has to be aware of it's self, and itself. So the something is a being, it is self aware. it's name is life itself, the breath of life, the cause of all things. God.

PAX"

"The God that created all matter and space and time would create other gods? Angels maybe, but there can be only one God. I don't really know of any other way to say it, but the isn't really a way to share the all-powerfullness of being God.. After all a God is not subservent to anything so the first cause would have to somehow be equal to something that came after it, but the first cause, caused time, and the after things could never equal that, so... IMO, I have no authority. It just seems logical.

I have not tried to convince you of the validity of the Bible what so ever. I believe in the Bible, what you believe is your path, be it to God or away. You have free will acording to my beliefs

PAX"

"I believe we have example in other systems we see... Cold is the absence of heat energy, darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of goodness? Hatred the absence of love?"

"The level of perfection within the known universe should be enough for most, but.. Let's deal with a few angles..We covered one.. Motion, all things are in motion and must have (Newtonian stuff here) been put in motion by some cause.. We have pretty much established that.

Next up.. Reason for the first cause. Things do not happen for no reason, therefore there must be a reason. Reasoning requirs intellegence and a need for existance.. The argument goes alittle like this. If there is a first cause (there is) then it must pocess within itself a sufficient reason for existance..

Contingent beings.. Beings exist and the possibility for there non-existance is recognised as possible as well, this implies the existance of a necessary being, the being is God.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God. This is to say that we strive towards an ideal of perfection that is within our mindset and yet has never been achieved by humankind. The benchmark that we are all aware of intuitively is God.

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself. Of course many would against that. All I can answer is that it does not stand alone, and when you put all of these things together, you have your proof, but hey, I'll go on...

Common consent of mankind.. IE morality. Why would a child feel bad when they see a dead bird, or kill and ant by mistake. If we had no moral standard inherit in our nature, we would be like the rest of the animal kingdom and care only about preservation of the self, and the species. We care about much more than that, and we judge ourselves against an unknown moral scale. Why? God, whether you know him or not, he knows you.

connected arguments include

from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument)

and

The existence and perception of beauty in the universe. We can recognise beauty. This is very much like the ideal of perfection. We always strive to improve, to get closer to the percieved perfection.

I can go on and on and on....

PAX"

Good luck with all that...

This is my friend Gibby:

So...I don't think i've ever written this or told any people about my theory... the main reason being I haven't completely thought it out. But, I figure I should at least, document it before I forget it, and move on.

Here's the thing...i'm a Christian, it's okay, i'm fine with it. But i'm wondering..what's the point?

The whole bible, church, eternal damnation, blah blah blah, and then, there's the divine plan. Fate you can call it I suppose.

But here's the thing.

If there's a divine plan, how can you possibly expect God to change this divine plan, simply because you want it. Or in other words, most of us are doomed, and there's nothing we can do about it.

By simply praying, do you honestly expect God, to just up and change the world for you?

Just...follow me, i'm going somewhere with this.

Okay, so, there's a divine plan, that follows along with this...who says that maybe, you weren't supposed to pray, and beg forgiveness, blah blah blah?

THERE! Did you catch it?

What i'm getting at is, there is no such thing as free will, on the divine level. On the human level, I can choose, to shoot this guy, or screw this chick, kill my cat....ya know, things that affect me, and those around me directly. However. On the divine level, apparently I'm meant to do these things.

If you can think far enough ahead you can see where i'm going with this.

Wait...

I don't feel like typing it my whole internal argument out. So i'll just get straight to the point.

Some of us, are destined to go to hell. So what's the point to divine providence? Who cares about his endless patience if you've already been preselected to go to hell?

The divine plan cannot be changed right? After all, we're only human...It's already been decided before we were born. Which makes me wonder, why should people TRY to be good, or TRY to be evil. Where's the sense in it?

But then it makes you wonder, why go through the trouble of producing a bible, giving us signs, blah blah blah. But then, you could turn that around...some people need convincing. And those people become his children.

The easiest way to see this is, there's supposedly only a hundred thousand plus people who are supposed to be allowed in heaven. And hell is supposed to fill up before the end of the world.

There's no way to plan that, unless, you restrict, and pick and choose previously who you want in, and who you want out. With 4 billion people in the world, that's VERY few people.

I was very much better at voicing this last night, then I am today...I guess thats what hangovers do for you...which, as a note, everclear redbull...bad idea. HOWEVER, if you make tucker death mix, (www.tuckermax.com/bd.html, theres a story on that page about it) Which is, everclear redbull gatorade...it's Golden. Actually, it's blue...it changes colors if you mix it right. Tastes like kool-aid, and is incredibly deceiving. You'll be blitzed before you realize it.

But anyway, back on point. You get the idea hopefully. There's no point in trying to be good or evil. Theres no sense in praying if it's painfully obvious that you're going to hell anyway. There's a plan put into place, and that pisses me off. What's the point? Free will is a joke, and we've all been lied too.

But then again...we're forgetting purgatory. Which...is where I suppose my friends, most of us, or most of the people so far, have gone. Which, I suppose can't fill up, since it's just you floating around in nothing. But then again, how can you give a human, three dimensional physical designation to such a place as heaven, or hell. Even if there was such a thing, we as human could not hope to ever touch it. So, what is it?

But I digress.

This requires more thought then i'm willing to put into it, and i've already begun rambling. I go now. Drink everclear, help melendez move, drink more, find bitches, get some. Repeat.

Here's another thought for you though, before I leave. Oh, and don't think that this thought makes me any less christian, or dissolves my faith, or lack there of, any bit.

Here's the thought.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you've been put here as an example for others? Look around you. If you keep trying, and you keep failing, things come back at you worse and worse, yet, the people around you still manage to succeed on all levels...maybe they've been learning from your @!#$ ups. Maybe, you've been set in his/her/its divine plan, to fail.

Get over it, read what I just said, quit trying, be satisfied, and live your life.

"You had to give it to him: he had a plan. And it started to make sense, in a Tyler sort of way. No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide. "

<br>


Oh and by the way, Julia from Uranium is f***in' beautiful!

hahaha: you could go on and on...and so could I--and we wouldn't get anywhere.

See, when you see my argument, you see fundamental flaws, as i see in yours.

See, the universe, in all practical purposes is infinite despite our limited perceptions. Time, is not the final dimension, it's only 4. In order for us to see warpage based on gravity, we need to look to at least 6.

So, how many dimensions are there? Infinite.

Matter, space, time, et al are relative only towards perceptions that hold them--As creatures that have trouble seeing into 3 dimensions (most people), do you think aspects beyond 4th dimension (time) could be visible. Hardly.

And the argument of reason collapses on itself in one aspect: If everything happens for a reason, like even the universe:

Then what's the reason for God?

I cannot see god's existance (in the judeo-christian sense) because of the cyclic nature of my thinking. God cannot exist outside of all of the infinite dimensions, because he would exist in one--not outside because the very basis of infinite means that it includes the selection set that includes everything, and nothing at the same time... <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Well Gibby I see what you are getting at. To say though that we are some puppets on the stage of life doesn't make sense. Why would God go through all the trouble of creating us? Though in the Bible it does say God knew us before we were created. God doesn't exist in the same ddimensionas we do. He know us before we were born bbecauseehecan see us out of the realm of time. Thus know us but not controlling us. He can then affect us or time as needed. To say that we are being controlled and that God is still within the constraints of time limits God and doesn't make him all powerfull. Why then would he need to control us if he can see outside of time? He can affect things as needed and when we ask.

I see some blind statements about science being made in here which I would like to address. The purpose of this post is to clarify the state of mainstream science and the motivations behind it. I believe it is beneficial for everyone to take a look at this open-minded perspective which is free of bias and personal opinion.

The most important issue right now regarding science is it's relationship with materialist philosophy, not religion. Scientific materialism is the philosophical doctrine that everything real has a material basis, that the path to objective knowledge is exclusively through the methods of investigation accepted by the natural sciences, and that teleological conceptions of nature ("we are here for a purpose") are invalid. Is this fair? Here's what Darwin, the man who's theory reigns in today's scientific community has to say in his introduction to The Origin of Species:

Quote:

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...

In order to get fair results it is required that we distinguish between the doctrines of scientific materialist philosophy and the conclusions that can be legitamately drawn from the research methods employed in the natural science. Simply put we need to recognize what is philosophy and what is science. Philosophy is based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods of observation.

Materialist philosophy has a louder voice than metaphysical philosophy when it comes to interpreting observational evidence for the public to understand. When you hear things like the emergence of complex plants and animals from prebiotic chemicals, that's not science. Rather this has been assumed as a matter of first principle by the majority of the scientific community. For mainstream "science" the only question open to investigation is how this process occured, not whether or not it happened. This is clearly close-minded and mainstream science could only gain from the rise of the theistic science movement. Until both sides evaluate the data evenly and fairly with respect for opposing ideas all you'll see from science is a bunch of philosophical propaganda thrown into the mix of observations.
<br>



<img src="http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/lancer/conarshe.jpg">

To lighten the thread up... <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Can god make a rock so big he/she (gotta be PC) can't lift it?

^^^^^^

I've been waiting for someone to make this stupid comment. Thanks. <br>

Andazzo:

It's not so stupid if you think that on both sides of the argument here, it's all going into theoretical.

However, the question begets...ig god could make a rock so large that he/she can't life it....why whould he/she do it?

Besdies, i think he already did--it's called "Fred Savage's Acting Career" <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I just think it's dumb becuz it's a totally intangible feat. It's not just impossible it's intangible. There's a difference. If he can't make the rock then he's not perfect, and then if he does then he's not perfect because he should be able to lift it. It's just an intangible request, thats why I find it annoying. It's a lose-lose situation. It's just a feeble attempt to discount the religion when there are much more important things to discuss than "well my god can lift bigger rocks than your god." <br>

Actually, according to George Carlin (the sage of this age), it's "My god has a bigger penis than your god"

It's about right if you think about it in the abstract.

It may be lose-lose, but it's a prime example of cyclic logic. Look at it this way. God is said to be omnipresent--everythig to all things, thus there is a piece of god within us. If god could make that rock, thus the rock is god, and god is still perfect.

Or god just becomes the rock. Since when can a rock lift itself

Still, the concept holds a cyclic spiral towards infinity--if god in his infinite strength creats a rcok he cannot life, then god must make a rock infinitely massive within a infinte gravity well. only in infinity could that happen

Then all god had to do is eliminate the infinite gravity well and he lifts the rock. So perfection is maintained.

Besides, I'm just a hairless ape and I thought of that-surely god would have thought of that or a simpler way to make both sides of ther equation true <br>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

true dat
<br>

This seems to have come up again so I thought you guys should see the first 35 pages of the debate so you can avoid repeating yourselves

PAX

<br>

lol i'm sure it will come up again even after the other thread dies out. <br>

quit your whining and Run, what you brung
<img src="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7ybq0/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/sig96cav.jpg">

aw c'mon hahahaha...you don't want to type all of that over again?

Pretjah wrote:lol i'm sure it will come up again even after the other thread dies out.

...and again and again and again.

It's just one of those debates that no matter where it occurs, you usually have more intellectual stimulated comments rather than uneducated blather...for the most part.

I don't plan on repeating myself that much anyway...I didn't say too much in this one.
<br>