Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you pick which one of those verses to follow at a given moment? I like how you pick the one that lets you be a pussy about what you believe in, afraid to make any real attempt at answering the question, "HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT" in any valid way. I tried a while to engage you in a way conducive to conversations, you're not interested, you've made zero honest attempts at proper conversation. "Do you believe reality is real?" is just deepity nonsense, even you know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
First Peter 3:15 is the point, isn't it? It's good to see the Christian persecution complex is something all denominations can agree on though. Jesus said you'd say I was dumb, and you are saying I'm dumb, so Jesus is real, I guess is your argument?
I'd be interested to see you have a fruitful conversation with anyone, full stop. It looks to be a real challenge for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you go to a roadhouse in Alabama and do a survey, then I'll believe you. But if you get any "Naw, Ah don't beeleeve in no God", then your theory is rendered void.
The other two, I notice, you have no objection to :). There's plenty of places to find people who believe in god getting into brawls, you know. A very large percentage of this country claims to be Christian, so chances are pretty good if you're seeing a brawl, then more than one Christian is involved. I bet most of the people at that Colorado little league game last week that got into a brawl over a 13 year old umpire's call were Christians, doesn't that prove my point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Cool, then you should be out there telling all of the other Christian adherents to get on board for demonstrable reasons X Y and Z, because they all say the exact same thing about their own churches, and they should see it's true so easily that they're convinced and your dumb ass church can grow exponentially overnight, all thanks to you! Why are you here? Is it to continue to reduce your ratio of "information to words"? Because bang on, brother. You're killing it that way! Argumentation, persuasion, meaningful contribution, not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If only there were a sure fire way to know which of the many different denominations is practicing it properly. I don't notice anything being a 'deviation from Christ', I just see a bunch of flawed humans who all think, with the exact same level of evidence, that they have divine cover to do shit that goes against decent human behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
you may want to take a Buddhist tour of Asia sometime and see the brawling monks in Korea, the Buddhist scam artists in Thailand, violent and religious intolerant Buddhists in Burma, etc
Wow, is that on TripAdvisor? :-) How do you find these tours?
You know as well as I do you can replace "buddhist" with "Christian" and see all the same behavior, right? And you can keep the money in America by doing so. Want to see a bunch of brawling Christians? Go to a roadhouse in Alabama around 1AM on a Saturday, chances are pretty good. Christian scam artists...like the ones flying around in their private jets living in mansions they call pastoral centers? Violent religious intolerant Christians...they're a dime a dozen nowadays.
Created:
Posted in:
I find them rigid and boring, like doing homework. If you want a conversation about it, I'm here for that!
Created:
Posted in:
Why not just have a Noah's Ark topic and present your evidence or argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your interpretation is right to you
Are you saying every interpretation of the bible, including that it is merely one of thousands of mythology collections from an ancient culture, is correct? How is that possible?
There isn't really a position that's "right" to unique individuals. It's either correct or incorrect, it can't be both at the same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I was kidding, I knew the answer was no, you couldn't demonstarte any of that stuff, sorry. I'm surprised the ultimate truth didn't make an appearance. "We're old" and "All the other that I think are wrong started out with my old religion, and somehow we're not to blame for apparently birthing bad religions," these are less than compelling.
I say HIS is the true church, not yours. How about THAT?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can support your claim how, exactly? Can you, say, demonstrate conclusively that the holy spirit is with 'the' church? Like "here's a church that doesn't have the holy spirit, here's mine, the difference is clear, anyone can see the holy spirit there, in row x of the pews?" Or alternatively, can you say why your interpretation SHOULDN'T be treated the same as all the others, or how you know yours is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An interesting and concise rebuttal, Brutal. Let me counter by saying:
Nuh-uh.
In your FACE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
A rather liberal view of the bible, one with which I bet many believers disagree. How do you counter their arguments? TO me, the entire bible is just a fiction book of myth. Since that's my interpretation of its texts, am I also correct? If not, why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
All of what are correct? How does that work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I can interpret any way I want
Yeah, it seems pretty obvious...so how do we (those unconvinced of any of these propositions) tell which one of you believers is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
I know you struggle with this, so I'll help: the joke is that he's already given your comment its due consideration, because there's nothing at all to consider, really. "THen move" doesn't include your patented fuckface cunt liar bigot move, though, so I'm wondering if it's actually you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
All the other somewhat odd content in your post aside :), I'm curious about this:
And evolution by the way has a huge role in American cinema. It's deeply invested in our pop-culture. So it would stand for reason that it has a similar influence as cultural religion.
Can you give me some examples of the science of evolution is deeply invested in our pop culture? As far as it having an influence, can you give me the 'cultural religion' analogue to, say, evolution's "influence" on medical science?
I'm sorry, I'm just not entirely sure at all what point you're making. Evolutionary science is by no means a trend, it seems like you want to put it in the same category as the atkins diet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It would have to at LEAST be evidence of the physical effect Obi Wan has had on all of us.
Created:
Posted in:
Really? There's a whole website where people can make fun of this guy? What's the URL?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There's at least two words in there that you don't know how to use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Can you provide an example, or explain why you love this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
People build things?How do you explain this giant thousand year old cathedral?
How do you explain me?
Product of sexual reproduction by two human parents?
Created:
Posted in:
Poly, do you ever ask yourself why you're at a website like this? I know I've asked before. I take it you have a passion for spitting childish epithets and basically sticking your ass in a thread to fart into it, but it's difficult to understand what sort of enjoyment you get out of not interacting in any meaningful way. I mean who DOESN'T enjoy calling faceless strangers on the internet lying bigot cunts all the time, and avoiding any intellectual engagement on every possible topic so as to protect our own perceptions of the world around us, but do you think it'll ever get old?
For you, I mean. For me your act got old after like two posts. Which is a shame, because your perspective (the "all gods are real" part, not the "everyone is a bigot cunt liar fuckface" part) is pretty unique, I think you'd have some stuff to say about how it helps you make sense of the life you're living.
Created:
Posted in:
Can you define what you mean by 'deification' here? Would you say the 'alpha male' hero character from 30's movies was also a deification of that archetype? And do you mean the CHARACTER was named Eggbert Hofenmeyer and the CHARACTER was named Tex Jones? Cary Grant was an alpha male actor...named Cary.
Without a question, I'm left to only imagine what you might be getting at here. Did you like it better when "Scientists" were nerds who got rescued by the former high school quarterbacks? I don't understand what you're objecting to. Also I don't understand what your boner over 'evolutionists' (these are typically called BIOLOGISTS if they're actually in the science community) is, I mean can you give me an example of where this ever even comes up in movies? I'm thinking of like Jurassic Park, where they talk about evolutionary components of dinosaurs, etc., but no one says "Oh yeah, because Darwin rulez!" in that movie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I've never seen anyone develop successful bee wings.
Except bees, with all evidence pointing to natural selection, because they work. What makes you think bee wings are designed, if you've never seen anyone develop successful bee wings? Clearly you think something developed them, they weren't formed by billions of generations of short-lived insects and trillions of combinations of DNA pairings through sexual reproduction. Why do you think they were designed, and designed so strangely out of sync with so many OTHER winged creatures?
What good would perfect design be if we all die? Perfection would imply immortality. So the real question would be why aren't we immortal?
So this creator intentionally designed something to fail at an 80% rate (human backs) because...well why? Why would perfection imply immortality? What if we're designed to die? This is the essential problem with trying to teach anything out of intelligent design: all answers can be stunted by "it's designed this way."
Do you include mortality as poor design?
I don't have any reason to believe we're designed, so I don't consider mortality a flaw. Nothing gold can stay, you might have heard that one. The more I think about it, I think mortality is why being human is so awe-inspiring. It's a feature, not a bug.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
And yes, I know why you brought up children with cancer.
I brought it up simply because it doesn't make sense in any intelligent design: what is it DESIGNED TO DO? It's not a moral question necessarily. You said you can't think of anything in Christianity that doesn't make sense, THAT brings in the moral component of the inquiry. If you don't want to talk about it in terms of CHristianity, no problem, but you still have an intelligent design question to answer. Is childhood cancer "intelligently designed" as all viruses and bacteria must be? If so, then what is the aim of this design?
The reason the AIM of the design is important is because that is our current standard for designed-vs-occurrence: we can figure out what the designer wanted us to do with whatever it was that's designed, what purpose it serves, and how well it serves that purpose. A soccer goal, for example: it's simple, it's designed to mark out an area where the ball is supposed to end up, and it has netting on it to stop the ball from going too far into the stands as well as confirm the ball did indeed pass through the goal mouth. It's reasonable to assume this structure is DESIGNED because we can tell what it's for. We don't happen upon a bunch of perfectly rectangular netted structures meeting these dimensions on a field somewhere occuring naturally, right? By your logic, childhood cancer is designed. Much like the soccer goal, what can we conclude childhood cancer designed to do? Why?
I don't get why you get your panties all in a wad and jump right to where god is evil (as opposed to not real, which is what I think). I was responding to how you can't think of anything that doesn't make sense either in Christianity (counter: loving god creates childhood cancer doesn't make sense, does not have anything to do with evil) or ID (counter: bee wings do not make sense from a pure design perspective). You're getting all worked up and putting someone else's arguments on me, man, that's not right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That's not the objective of an intelligent design instructor.
Cool, because according to you, intelligent design doesn't belong in science class, it somehow shouldn't be limited to comparative religions courses, so you think it belongs in philosophy class (post 121, 163), which it now seems you might be rethinking. That's the premise I was working under: you're a philosophy instructor (who apparently has a good understanding of string theory, quantum physics and biology) and I'm the philosophy student. I didn't realize you were playing an intelligent design instructor. What IS the objective of the intelligent design instructor? And we still have a more central question now that you've moved this intelligent design discussion from being a component in a philosophy class, or a unit in a comparative religions course, to its own class entirely: what is the EDUCATIONAL VALUE in "because it's designed to do that"? How do you differentiate design versus non-design?
Inevitably there would be various answers to the question.
Agree, but you seem to say you wouldn't want to follow up on this answer. Why? It is a legitimate response to your question.
I'm not going to go around the revolving door of evolution is science, therefore an ID course should only use the term in a science class.....but ID isn'tscience so it can't be mentioned there either.
Okay, so we're in intelligent design class, got it now, not a general philosophy class. In that case I will amend my answer about the creator with his yellow shirt that says creator on it: "Yes, it's possible that it started evolution. It's also possible that there isn't a creator, though, right? And then, wouldn't that creator have created everything, rendering it impossible to distinguish between what's designed and what isn't?"
Maybe we're wasting space here and this is a different topic. I'm actually more interested in your OSAS take. Here's my question from earlier in the thread.
Now imagine how a believer who wasted their whole seeking and engaging in pleasure might feel when having to face the savior who just so happens to be the creator of the universe?Did he believe in Jesus? Then he's in, right? At least under OSAS, I guess it depends denominationally. I like this game, though. I have one for you. Imagine the Native American who'd never heard of Jesus, but lived his life righteously. He did charity with other tribes. He told the truth all the time. He loved his fellow man. He helped those in need. A European missionary finds him during colonization, and tells him about Jesus. This Native American says "No, that doesn't sound right to me, thanks, but no thanks." He lives a long, prosperous life and passes away having heard of Jesus and denied the truth of the tale. How do you think he feels when faced with this person of whom he's never heard, the creator of the universe, says "Off to the lake of fire with you, sir"? For there is no way to heaven except through Jesus, right?
Is there a way to heaven for the Native American that does not include his acknowledging Jesus as the savior? Can you keep the penitent pedophile out of heaven if he knows Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then probably just have to settle for that accusation (which is fine by me) because I can't even make out what you're asking here.
I'm asking you how to make sense of a benevolent and loving god inventing cancer that kills children, as the two things do not match. But you're better off leaving it, you're right, because I bet your answer is something like "that's man's fault," which then does not account for your god knowing without question that man would bring childhood cancer into the world and still let it happen. It's one of many things in Christian doctrine that don't make sense, we can do that all day, it'd get boring. Every one of them comes down to "God's only good and love and wisdom! All the bad things are because of the fall!" WHICH GOD DESIGNED guys. Please read the book :).
How would a first year engineering student design bee wings?
They'd likely start with successful wing designs and emulate them. Not scrap all of that and design wings that need to work way harder than, say, a condor's wings. There's just not very much intelligent design demonstrated in intelligent design. Another example: 4 in 5 people will eventually have some sort of back problem. If you designed something with an 80% failure rate, it's a poor design. I'm up for an ID topic if we can think of a good way to discuss it that isn't both of us going "nuh uh!" to the other one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Relevant to what?
How is if my parents are CULTURAL CHRISTIANS or BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS relevant to what I believe and why? You asked "What do I believe and why."
Like what? What would you consider compelling?
You're the teacher, present the evidence and let's figure out if it's compelling.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And I'm not sure what YOU'RE getting at. The question you asked was "could a theoretical creator of the universe have theoretically kickstarted evolution." As you have not detailed any property besides "can create at least one universe", it is literally impossible to find something that this unlimited, unnamed, and wholly theoretical character COULD NOT DO. I don't have enough information to answer it any other way.
I think what you're getting at is something similar to someone suggesting biblical scripture shouldn't be referred to in a comparative religion course, because biblical scripture is theology.In other words, how dare anyone mention that sacred word "evolution" in just a mere philosophy class!
What I'm getting at is very simple: you don't sign up for philosophy class to learn about how to calculate the square root of something, or how to swim, so it would be logical to ask why those topics would come up in philosophy. I don't really care whose legends and lore you discuss in comparative religions classes, I'm not sure why you italicize theology as you do (I don't see what you're separating that from). Actually my question is more "how is evolution, which is recognized as scientific fact, related to philosophy?" You're the one who brought it up, and I'm asking why. You're getting all upset. Just tell me why we're talking about evolution in philosophy and I'll have a better idea or a different answer.
Created:
Uh oh, looks like someone's on her way to another time out! Who could have predicted. Though it's ironic she's been banned more than a virulent racist who ruins message boards nearly single handed, not exactly justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, I would consider that litigiousness. I'm not sure what the particulars of the case are, but on its face, as you present it, If it's on private property (or I suppose on private property subsidized in some way by tax dollars, so maybe you could make the case that the ski resort is getting some sort of tax break because of this statue), it's private business. If it's on state land, it shouldn't be there. Pretty clear to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The ski resort isn't state property, is it? If so I'm not sure why anyone cares about it. I'd just ski someplace else. But if it's state property supported by taxpayer funds, then it's subject to separation of church and state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then you do not think 'militancy' = 'removal of ten commandments from land owned by the state'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you agree that it's not a Christian nation, or you think that painting somehow implies it's a Christian nation? As usual your statement is unclear. "This is what I think about the United states being a Christian nation," link to a painting in the Capitol wherein no Christian iconography is present, and indeed grecoroman icons ARE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can you define the difference between a cult and a legitimate religion? That'd help. Generally, isn't worship involved in a cult?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The problem with using quotes from the founding fathers is they get taken completely out of context in the modern era.
Slippery slope. Could not the same be said about the bible? Let's solve this issue: please give me the clause in the constitution that refers to where we're a Christian nation. One reference to the Christian god will suffice.
Hmmm...nothing, huh? Maybe it's in the bill of rights. Any references to any god there?
This is awkward. How about the Declaration of Independence...oh, here it is. One reference. To...'Nature's God." Why didn't they write the Christian god if they intended to create a Christian nation? They do refer to a Creator...is that specific enough to distinguish between, say, Jesus and Ra?
These are the founding documents of the country, and none of them refer to anything Christian...it seems a strange way to create a Christian nation, doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Just so I'm clear, are you using "atheist militancy" as interchangeable with "advocate for the separation of church and state"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In other words, "no," and "I don't."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Two questions:
Can you describe it in detail so we can understand its appeal?
and
How do you know you're right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, I don't see any problem. And I can't think of anything in ID (or Christianity) that doesn't make sense.By the way, do you by chance recall how many times I've mentioned to you that I wasn't raised in Christianity? I unfortunately lost count.
If you can't think of anything in the intelligent design proposition that doesn't make sense, or in Christianity, then I'm going to accuse you of having a closed mind. Explain a loving god providing children with cancer.
Maybe we should just start with the idea of 'intelligent' design. Because no organisms on earth look like anything a fist year engineering student would 'design.' Bee wings for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I might ask if they are Bible believing Christians (which would probably get me in trouble), or simply cultural Christians, similar to their ethnicity?
"The question was what do I believe and why, how is that relevant?"
What would you consider evidence?
"Something compelling that can be verified independently." (for both)
I might tell them a generic creator. Just to simply imagine a being wearing a yellow shirt with Creator written in black ink on the front.
"Such a character could have been involved in literally anything."
I might ask them if they think for some reason evolution shouldn't be mentioned in a philosophy class?
"Evolution is science, this is philosophy."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Animals seem to only do what is needed to do for them to survive.
I appreciate that you put the caveat "seem" and "appear" in this response, as it's impossible for us to figure out if a silverback gorilla is doing something other silverbacks see as 'art' for example. If we can't say for sure if they do have some sort of creative side, then we can't be sure we're separated along those lines. And as far as only doing stuff for survival is concerned, that's a fairly 'civilized' view of things. If you were in a jungle by yourself, I would guess the only thing on your mind would be surivival, food, shelter, etc. Our bandwidth for creative endeavours and other seemingly superfluous pursuits owes entirely to the fact that in most of the world, we've conquered the basic needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
By conscience, do you mean our ability to consider impact of our actions on others? Clearly animals are 'conscious' (as opposed to unconscious), but I'm not sure I agree with the ability to consider impact on others a strictly human trait. Our ability to extrapolate this consideration to much wider populations (i.e. future generations beyond direct offspring) might be somewhat unique, but all pack animals seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of this principle.
Thus far in this discussion, it seems we're having quite a bit of trouble discerning exactly what separates humans from animals. I think it's because the answer is "humans are animals." When I was in school, they taught us that one distinguishing factor was our ability to make and use tools, until they discovered apes using sticks to get ants out of anthills or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think the answer is no, cucumbers taste gross compared to grapes :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It helps not to think of it as "good" versus "bad," it seems a subtle distinction but try to think of it as "beneficial to the group" versus "harmful to the group" in terms of resources and reproduction. Good and bad are subjective terms, but beneficial versus harmful are far less so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It's impossible to say if animals have these same concepts, I'm afraid. Primates have demonstrated they understand the concept of fairness, as have dogs, so it's not outlandish to say they might have something along these lines. For example, if you're a lion and you start eating other lions, you're going to be punished by your pride by either getting killed or being cast out, which is essentially a death sentence for a pack hunter. It's impossible to say that lions do this because they think such behavior is 'evil' per se, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What I basically meant was, a professor who would know the difference between intelligent design and Biblical creationism, Islamic creationism, Hindu's rendition of creationism, etc. But able to relate it to anyone no matter their worldview.
Would "something created the universe maybe" then be the extent? Because there aren't many professors who would worry about intelligent design that weren't from someplace like Liberty University.
As an example, common descent between humans and monkeys may seem logical due to similarity ofappearance, genetics, and high level for an animal intelligence. The octopus is a bit of a mystery (thus a problem however large or small ) becausethey exhibit a high level of intelligence without the similar genetics and physical appearance. So maybe the monkey is an example of designed high intelligence having common design with a human, and an octopus is an example of the same without common design with a human.
I don't understand why this is a 'problem' with evolution. The octopus's unique DNA sequence is still DNA, which all living things have. You're basically saying "Well, the octopus is also intelligently designed, but not the same design as a human." I know you're keeping it sort of high level, but there's no educational meat to that statement. Octpui and humans don't look alike...will that be on the test? More importantly to the topic, yeah, there's examples like this, but we've had television sets longer than we've had any idea about DNA. The Beatles White Album predates the human genome project by 25 years. My point is that we've seen these challenges before, and science works to figure them out, much quicker than you give it credit for. We invented airplanes less than 70 years before we set foot on the frigging moon. With all the history behind intelligent design theory, why can't anyone confirm even one tiny part of it?
And I don't recall ever saying it wasn't science. If oneof our powerful telescopes picked up a row of planets literally materializing right in front of us every 5 minutes, would we call the phenomenon supernatural, thus not science?
"It can't be tested" = "It isn't science." And no, we'd say "Isn't this strange, let's figure this out," not "The creator is making new planets over there that we'll never see up close and never get to for some reason, right guys? PRaise be!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Obviously from your position, God can't win because either he's an unmerciful tyrant, or unjustly too lenient.
From my position there's no god, this is just discussion for the sake of discussion. It's not this character I take issue with, it's your categorization of people who don't believe in him as people who only want to pursue some hedonistic lifestyle without consequence, that we want to "sin without having to be accountable" or something along those lines. It's nonsense.
I explained to you that no, a Christian does not get away with sin. The earthly punishment is the same that anyone else experiences. So while when a minister has an affair with a woman other than his wife, and is found out, don't you think that's painful? A lot of ministers would sure love to go backin time and avoid the pitfalls I'm sure.
So we agree that this experience is painful just the same for the minister as it is for the atheist: hurting someone you care about sucks. When the minister does it, he can say sorry to the god he imagines as a way to soothe his guilt. Atheists don't get to do that: they have to deal with their mistake in real world terms ONLY. There is no supernatural "it's okay" coming. There's no punishment except what you go through here on earth, which according to you, is exactly the same as the minister. One wonders, then, why add the supernatural element if it isn't just some pacifier to help you feel better, or to leverage your spouse into forgiving you ("Jesus has forgiven me, you must one day too, my love, because that's what he wants, what he'd do and has done, right? RIGHT??"). Without those things, you can only deal with the hurt, and accept your responsibility however you can in order to move forward.
Now imagine how a believer who wasted their whole seeking and engaging in pleasure might feel when having to face the savior who just so happens to be the creator of the universe?
Did he believe in Jesus? Then he's in, right? At least under OSAS, I guess it depends denominationally. I like this game, though. I have one for you. Imagine the Native American who'd never heard of Jesus, but lived his life righteously. He did charity with other tribes. He told the truth all the time. He loved his fellow man. He helped those in need. A European missionary finds him during colonization, and tells him about Jesus. This Native American says "No, that doesn't sound right to me, thanks, but no thanks." He lives a long, prosperous life and passes away having heard of Jesus and denied the truth of the tale. How do you think he feels when faced with this person of whom he's never heard, the creator of the universe, says "Off to the lake of fire with you, sir"? For there is no way to heaven except through Jesus, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This article doesn't describe the real reason. It gives partial reasons. Some of the other reasons include those you're claiming are not reasons.
That's yours from post 104. I'm just saying.
Created: