Mike

This is the third time I have agreed with you, with stated reservations. Fundamentalism, as it is known today, is not so much characterized by it's definition as you make out. Most non-religious people think of fundamentalists as experts in sin condemnation. I'll be if you interviewed the man-on-the street they would think this way and have NO IDEA of the definition or the text. Definition fundamentalists are usually called Bible Thumpers. Can you remember anywhere Dana Carvy's churchlady ever made a big deal out of the Bible? NOT ME! I see her as a condemnation robot, and mostly sex.

How many times do I have to clarify. Sorry, you got it wrong. Please read my post to Bolshevik, and after that, please read the same idea I've posted about 30 or 40 times in 17 years. This past 12 months it's probably there 8 times.

FOUND IT! My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule. NOT GUILTY!

Oops! Did I call HER dimwitted? I can't find it now to see. I've learned to say things like THE IDEA was dimwitted, and not the person. Charlene, I apologize if I blew it there.

NO! What I am saying is if God gave the revelations to VPW's sources then God owns them. THEN, if God tells VPW to take this passage or idea, and not take that passage from Kenyon, that is NOT stealing at all. The copyrighting Kenyon might have done makes it his in the 5-senses realm, but God really owns it, overruling the 5-senses ownership. Of course the courts will not recognize this and it's not right there, and consequences might happen. But I'm not talking about what is right in the strict 5-sense LEGAL ownership, I'm talking about what is right morally in the SPIRITUAL sense and in God's eyes. None of what I'm saying would ever be recognized as right by a court. Consequences can happen there. But likewise, the same court is incapable of recognizing the ownership of God for anything. God can, though.

You are right... in general. But in my case there's more to consider than the courtesy factor you rightfully mention. I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me. If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.

Bolshivek, I like your sensitivity to the flimsiness of ownership of intellectual property. I like the idea of intellectual property, but it is not nearly as solid as ownership of objects. Maybe the REASON the US Constitution makes a place for it is BECAUSE of this flimsiness. It's a good concept, promoting thinking and commerce and progress, but because it's so flimsy it NEEDS the support of the Constitution. I've also noticed that real estate ownership is a little flimsy, in light of property taxes where that ownership must be rented from the govt, and in light of imminent domain where the govt decides it own it more. I've seen that the ownership of window cleaning routes (and many similar businesses) is flimsy, and for LOTS of reasons. I try to be very careful with customers of "mine" whom I "sell" to another window cleaner. What do those customers think of my ownership of "them" ? What happens if a customer of "mine" sells his business? Do I "own" that business still? What if one of "my" customers wants to get rid of me to help his nephew who just went into the window cleaning business? Is he "stealing" from me? What if a customer of "mine" hires a new manager and that person wants to start fresh with new bids from several window cleaners? It's endless. I wonder if the copyrights, to those who live in that world like I live in window world, have endless complications and nuances that broadcast that flimsiness to those in the know? Hardly ANYONE (especially here where copyrights are a major club used in hammering out the Pure Evil model) ever talks about all this flimsiness, so THANKS Bolshevik, for assisting me in this.

Now, after a few hours? I'm looking for the posts I missed responding to with bleary eyes, and only one beer.

I agree. Did you see where I explained that I was keying off the most offensive traits of fundamentalism which lack the needed flavoring of PFAL? It never occurred to me that you were keying off the definition of fundamentalism. Did you see where I admitted (when I saw our mis-communication) that TWI (and PFAL) was fundamentalist in the sense of the definition? That would make me a fundamentalist, I know. I see most fundamentalists as failing to live up to its definition, because of poor originals, bad translations, and blinding tradition. In that sense I am NOT one of them; not included in the areas that matter, just the beginning definition.

No. If I had elitist credentials THEN I'd be elitist in insisting on you taking me serious simply because of them. I am lowlife and not recognized. My only hope is that CONTENT of what I say has integrity above the best credentials. If I had credentials, that would be just present a little wrinkle to the strategies of those who so desire to resist the idea that we were given light, and like all other humans but one, we lost it.

Sorry, but the complications are there already. There are lots of places where mis-copied texts, bad translations, and blinding tradition complicate the ancient scriptures. THAT's one way the Bible interprets itself. We can use the principle (if we believe it) that the originals were perfect, and that all contradictions are either in our understanding or in the transmission of the text. In that way the consistent parts help us iron out the inconsistent parts. And the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones. And... there are several more ways the Bible helps us fix errors and understand the original text. Penworks, IMO, used a broad brush to hide all that from her readers. I thought is was a serious weakness of bias right at the start of her work. I'll still read it, but it lowered my expectations that I'd see much. *** You wrote: “I think one can infer from many passages that God does indeed help seekers to get a better understanding of his Word...” I AGREE. One of the coolest ways He can do this is planting keys right in the text that sail through the adversary’s obfuscations. What we can find in the text this way God expects us top find. THEN, of course, He can also give direct revelation when needed. I think the parts of the ancient scriptures that get the most sophisticated scrambling (lost originals, mis-translations, blinding tradition) are not the emotionally soothing parts (which most flock to) but the power passages that inform us how to EFFECTIVELY rock the boat on the adversary, and threaten his grip.

This is about the 1942 snow storm and Lifted Up's post on a rogue snow storm he saw, and the many posts on it. It came up over and over. I don't want to bother looking. It's low priority for me. It wasn't the key to my statements. I had posted a lot on the science of rogue waves a few times, and then, out of the blue (like HCW's anti racism post), it came in to surprisingly support me. I then referred back to it for a few years a few times when the snow storm show job came up as it still does over and over. I just wish you remember and posted the oppositions to some of the things you think are solid. Anyone here should be able to find these things IF they are still here. Keywords: rogue, wave, rogue-wave, snow, snowjob, snow job, running. *** Has anyone ever tried to restore the pruned posts? There were a lot. I have copies of ALL of the pruned threads that I posted on, possibly some are not complete, though. I can send my copies to any programmer who wants to restore the pruned threads. Maybe someone can contact Lifted Up. I'm pretty sure that was his name because I re-posted it a few times like Oldiesman's post on how he found VPW's caveat that he hardly originated any of his teachings in WLIL.

Hold your interest... it's a boring explanation.... again.... scarcity of time, plus difficulty reading. That's my life now. I may someday get macular surgery someday, etc. The two factors work together to slow me down and loose lots of posts, and the need to totally ignore some for various reasons, and priorities for what TO spend time on. Then on top of that, when I open GSC I have a collection of posts I missed last session, and new posts, and the scramble makes it hard to know where to begin. I am done with my style of Rock-n-Roll-get-my-message-out-blasting-thru-all-opposition posting , where dodging is an honored art form. I ended that. I gave up on it here. Gosh, I'm tired of explaining this over and over. I should copy and paste this from now on. My whole mode now is NORMAL, like I interact with other people, customers, strangers at Starbucks, etc. But lots get lost in the shuffle mostly unawares to me. I apologize for it and try to engage. As for the first two paragraphs of your post [ I find it interesting that you skipped... thru ... , Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, etc.] either I did not have the time to even read it, didn't totally understand it then, or something? Net result is I don't understand all the references contained within it. Again I apologize. If those two paragraphs are important to you, let's start fresh, and I'll try. Pretend you are pitching it ALL to someone for the first time. (not far from truth; I'm juggling about 5 complicated issues I've been corresponding with to several other friends, and my brain is a little overloaded.) These are the honest facts. I wasn't fogging then, nor now. But maybe just a tiny for fun below. That said, I thought it was interesting (becoming a common idiom lately?)... I thought it interesting that you opened up those two paragraphs with: " I find it interesting that you skipped the plainest discussion to fog the issue with sesquipedian concepts that had nothing to do with it. " In addition to interest upon interest, I see that sesquipedian is delightfully self-referential. That makes it self-referential upon self-referential ! My favorite self referential word is embelishmentationalism. I made it up. If those two paragraphs are high priority I'll try again if you will.

Yes. If his lyric means the only way to be accepted and loved by God, then I'd place that lyric the TVT (Twi Verbal Traditions) that drifted from the revelation into exclusive fundamentalism. If his lyric means the only way to get to that maximum believer, Christ formed, going all the way in love.....THEN it is in line with the revelation. I hope you read my essay again with our miscommunication on fundamentalism in mind. I was tilting at different windmill than you thought.

I find this philosophically interesting. If it WAS given by revelation then how would that acceptable degree of authority compare to the authority of the revelation. It begins to sound like the Ford explaining Henry. I don't have time to chase down this Godellian hunch, but I thought i'd throw it out there. I also noticed on your link that you seemed to not mention the digital reams of debate that swirled around that issue 15 years ago here. Do you remember that? Do you remember how Lifted Up (Pretty sure name accurate) testified finding himself SUDDENLY enveloped in a rogue snowstorm while running in New Knoxville? It happens on the Oceans all the time with water waves. A rogue snowstorm is usually very small in area, and would not be detected with 1940s technology. I'm just wondering why you left out Lifted Up.

I have it and am slowly reading it. My first objection, though, is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here. It slowed down my reading, but I still intend to finish it. That interpretation issue lowered my expectations and the book's priority in my schedule. In a nutshell: Imagine how quirky it is for God to issue His Word to communicate to us, but then He FAILS to put cues, keys, and signposts in there to guide sincere seekers. That sounds like a bad way to get a message out. It's like Him saying "I want you to know something but I will not help you understand it." The phrase "The Bible interprets itself" is an extreme abbreviation of a complex idea. She did not do that justice IMO. The criticism this idea got here 15 years ago I thought was similarly lacking. My impression was that she was leading uninformed readers into thinking God is supposed to be mysterious, an old Catholic idea. Maybe her book will get better later. If you can recommend a spot to skip ahead to I would appreciate seeing what you feel is an section important to me.

I think we slightly miscommunication on what aspect of fundamentalist organizations TWI was not. After several readings It looks like (possibly) you were thinking of where fundamentalism starts. It starts with a fundamental authoritative text that is inerrant. Oh, yes, TWI was fundamentalist there. End of story. What I was thinking of was where fundamentalism usually ends up: only Christians go to heaven. Usually, to most people I've talked to, this is the most objectionable aspect of fundamentalism, that of great exclusivity and loss of love in the process. *** If my guess is right, I'm wondering why the idea of an authoritative text would bug you more than the exclusivity. I went into my essay because you expressed an objection to fundamentalism in TWI. I like the idea that God issues words and that they can be found, or delivered to seekers. This is EXACTLY what Science is all about, with recent secularization replacing God's Word with the Laws of Physics. Newton was a theologian. Maybe your dislike of an authoritarian text would subside if you saw that it enables freedom, rather than prohibiting it. I find uncertainty fine in the atomic realm, but not so useful in charting my course through life.

I’ll try with my limited time to answer this as fully as possible. For years I too had the weakened version of that record. I use the word “record” because Mrs. Wierwille was a mentioned witness and she corroborated it, even to the point of producing pictures of the event. HCW posted here about this. He was no kiss-up to VPW, but he did defend this event as well documented. I think he even mentions how she showed him the picture. HCW also gained my respect when he TOTALLY shut down some of the minions here developing the Pure Evil model back then 10 or 15 years ago. They were working themselves into a lather trying to make VPW out as a racist. HCW is black, and he testified that he KNEW that there wasn’t any racism going on at all. It was a fascinating thread to me. HCW did not like me and my thesis, yet he testified to the facts as he knew them, and not as an ideology guided. *** I too, had in my head the idea that PFAL p. 31 was mostly “someone of the Hindu culture and religion praised him.” What I accurately remembered was that there was an inclusion of Hindus in the category of God’s people. My inaccurate memory was I thought there were quotes around this inclusion and that it was the Hindu master and servant who said it. That gives the accuracy of this inclusion merely according to the authority of the Hindus, which was zero according to the subculture I was in: the TWI Verbal Traditions. So I thought that inclusion of Hindus in to “God’s people” were merely the words of a Hindu. This was many years ago. I did not like that aspect of our subculture then, but I had no idea then how much that subculture had drifted from written PFAL. I too had drifted in many areas, but not this one. I did not like how it was going on exclusions of all not TWI. I loved witnessing. When someone totally rejected my green card witnessing, and clung to their pagan religion or churchianity, I always remembered how many times I had rejected having Jesus Christ as the dominant figure in my life. I remember how God drew me and made changing my mind a delight. When a Hindu or a Mormon or an Atheist rejected the green card I tried to still love them and be patient. Tomorrow they might believe. I was repulsed at how we were supposed to eschew unbelievers, and then we’re supposed to suddenly love them if they suddenly believed. I knew lots of people could suddenly believe after a long list of rejections (I was one), but it did not ring true that we had the ability to suddenly go from hate to love. If God loved a believer from before the foundations of the world, all through their prior rejections, that would put us at odds with God if we rejected those who rejected green cards, but later would believe. That’s just crazy! I hung onto the passage on PFAL p 31 as a place where at least VPW didn’t eschew the JC rejecting man with the withered arm, and he didn’t eschew the praise of the master and servant. VPW also included this positive event with super blessed pagans in the class; another non-eschewing stance. That’s all still a pretty weak form of anti-fundamentalism and anti-bigotry. *** One of my more pleasant surprises when I came back to PFAL was this passage. When I brought this up I posted: “I share your concerns on fundamentalism. I’ve seen problems come up constantly in grads regarding this. It often involves forgetting what we were taught about this in the first session of the class.” When I actually looked at the passage I saw there were no quotes surrounding his inclusion of Hindus. Still, he said it, but VPW repeated it IN HIS WORDS. He added his authority to the Hindus saying it by paraphrasing it and not negating the inclusion. “… The member of Parliament then came to our compartment to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had seen in Jubbulpore was the most tremendous Christian event he had ver witnessed – that a man of God would bless all God’s people irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindu.” A dyed-in-the-wool bigot fundamentalist would also (if they had to include the Hindu praise) put quotes in there to distance themselves from the “Hindu inclusion” as opposed to a default endorsement of it. Imagine you were quoting me. You definitely would want quotations marks to separate yourself from my ideas, I project… ah …er …I guess. Wouldn’t you? I often see things like this when I come back to the PFAL text and not rely on memory. I learned from Eve’s mistake. *** Next, you wrote: “Further, the Mormon subculture is built on the diligent practice of tithing.” Yes. And in the CSBP he shows how these people are included in God’s blessings in a big way, not because they signed a green card, but because they believe and act. *** I know less about the Janes, but the way VPW praised them in the AC did not fit with any fundamentalist mode of eschewing I’ve ever seen. *** My impressions are that how God blesses those outside green card status or Christianity in general are hidden in “the secret things” mentioned in Deut 29:29. He told ancient Israel to eschew those who were out to kill them, which was everybody then. He told ancient Christians to minimize their fellowship with pagans to avoid diluting their pure doctrine. These are practical measures, not heart matters. Didn’t David live in hiding from King Saul with some Pagans who were seed boys, bent on destroying Israel? I forget. I know the woman who lived on the Wall of Jericho was blessed. In Acts 17 Paul went to a Pagan alter to preach not against it, but with it. The Mystery was that all those terrible Pagans were suddenly allowed into the fold. More that I learned since 1998 was that before filming PFAL his radio broadcast of “The Love Way” has some interesting spots. In there he talks about “going all the way with love” and daring to think that way. Later in the 79 AC he talks about the idea of being a maximum believer. I think these ideas are related to the “Christ Formed In You” topic I’ve brought up her often. What I think we have over the Pagans, is not exclusive inclusion in “God’s people.” What we have in true Christianity is this possibility of going ALL THE WAY just like Jesus did. THEN, once we do that, it’s our job to teach and help the Pagans to rise up to thrir highest potential. However, we have not quite done that, and neither have any other Christian groups in the past 2000 years. We wonderful Christians still got this little hang up, preventing us from blessing ANYWAY those who “don’t believe in your Jesus.” I think this hangup on all Christians is that we all still have a natural man mind AFTER the new birth, and SIT does not help it. That next stage of forming Christ in us has eluded us since Paul decried it with the Galatians. Sure, a tiny few break through, just like prophets in the Old Testament, but it’s rare. Those few who get a taste of going all the way in love are usually extreme oddballs, just like in the OT. And they are ALWAYS individuals who still have nasty old man mind flaws. God wants flawed people to aim at and hit the mark of love all the way IN SPITE of that old man nature and is willing to teach even the most flawed. As long as we Christians operate mostly from our old man nature, and fail to get Christ formed within, we are no better than Pagans, and in some cases worse.

Cool! Another thinker.

Thanks, T-Bone and Boshivek ! I wish all posters could be conversational and thoughtful like that. These three posts are the kind I want to read again, and maybe ADD to them as opposed to attacking whatever points I could to discredit the whole post. Again, I'm super short on time, but I will return to these posts to understand them better after a first fast read. I've noticed you both to be thoughtful, and I'm not surprised such posts came from you. I'm only still slowly getting to know who is who here.

Thanks Rocky. I too am getting late for work and rushed. I share your concerns on fundamentalism. I’ve seen problems come up constantly in grads regarding this. It often involves forgetting what we were taught about this in the first session of the class. Those who can’t control their emotions should not read this, but this is what PFAL page 30,31 says: “At the next stop a man came to our compartment in the train saying that he was representing his master who wanted to come and meet the man of God. He said his master was so-and-so, a member of Parliament in New Delhi, who was also riding on the train. The member of Parliament then came to our compartment to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had seen in Jubbulpore was the most tremendous Christian event he had ever witnessed – that a man of God would bless all God’s people irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindu.” How many times have we thought highly of the Hindus? Also mentioned with praise in “Christians Should Be Prosperous” are the Mormons; not exactly cherished as good neighbors by most fundamentalists. I find Mormons to be wonderful customers and people. In the AC we heard of the great devotion and discipline of the Jain Dharma, one of India’s oldest religions. I also like hanging out with Deadheads, an ancient Hippie religion.

I like honest questions from you. I'm learning to trust you. It's late and I need to work in the morning, so this is pretty much all I have time for now. About 20 years I did. I really thought that when I found the last (the really last) teaching it would bring us all back together. But I soon found out that the reason that teaching was so lost was because top leadership only had lost their way. The last teaching had the BIG solution for me, and I really thought it would be a rush back to PFAL to master it for the first time for us all, me included. That was dashed, not only here, but everywhere I went. Then I settled for just a few to come back and then we could work on helping the rest. That did happen. I made some lifelong friends and we work the written PFAL texts. Then that petered out to a large degree, and now I'm settling for just fellowshipping and exchanging data with whomever I can. There are still many out there I have never reached...yet. But my recent complaints are that you folks, instead of settling down and getting back into SOMETHING positive, only want to "celebrate" the errors and abuses. I understand the captives and refugees of current TWI need help, but I am convinced that the positives of written PFAL would topple TWI's deathgrip on people a lot more than the fighting evil with evil I sense here. HOWEVER, this is less and less the case every year as most TWI peopel never even took the film class. It's all ending with a whimper and not a bang. I think most TWI refugees (who did talk the PFAL class) want to think that there was SOMETHING good in PFAL (because there is) and will find this place way overboard on the negatives, and delusional about what really did bless us all, that they mostly can't trust this place to help them. I see these kinds of grads from time to time. There are many more PFAL lovers (and confused by TWI) that you folks will never see. They will avoid your negative "ministering" of negatives and seek help elsewhere. About the only thing I think I can do here nowadays is work some small issues. But even that is made impossible by those hungry to fight villains. Do YOU, Rocky, hunger for fellowship with God? What's happening in your life? I got to get some sleep. Thanks for listening.

Hi Twinky, I am familiar with Steve’s posts from 15 years ago. I didn’t like his attitudes then, but I don’t remember why. I vaguely remember him as reminding me of a male churchlady. I could be wrong. I know he didn't like me. BTW, there WERE quite a lot of posters with whom I did have good debates, and they went on for years. Even now I've seen a few who are quite civil; and understanding. I did not get that from him. Anyone ever heard the story of how Dana Carvy came up with that character? He’d entertain his siblings in the car riding home from church with what they all saw that Sunday. That churchlady character is out there in droves. I had to endure many churchlady Nuns until I was14 years old. Imagine going through puberty with Nuns guiding you. Or maybe not. I may be confusing him with someone else, but I definitely don’t remember him standing out as much different than most of the present crew here. Re-post one of his super posts and I may have more to go on. Did I read correctly that he has fallen asleep? I did not know that. It just registered after my second reading or your post. *** You mentioned my thesis, but I am done with my campaign (here) to promote that, because actually doing in the face of great opposition here means I have to get tough and hurt a lot of feelings and possibly re-open old wounds not totally healed yet. THAT is what I apologized about months ago. It’s pretty difficult for me to post anything substantial or even tiny here without a firestorm. I have two topics I'd like to slowly work here: one a tiny bit, the other a lot. The tiny one is Job and negative believing that's already a thread in Doctrinal. The big one is all with/out distinction. There are lots of other things I'd like to talk about. That "neural pruning" thing I brought up should have gotten the attention of anyone with young children or grandchildren. Why did I only get one interested peep, and one poop saying it was BS or distracting or something? Why doesn't something like that cause a flurry of interest? I think I know. What are my chances of an actual civil, enlightening discussion in front of rabid wannabe deprogrammers? I know, no matter how many times and how many posts and points I make on the two bigtime topics here (sex and plagiarism), they are all ignored except in how they can be turned against me. I tried once or twice on sex, and MANY, MANY times on plagiarism. Most here cannot produce a civil, lucid recounting from memory even portions of my arguments. I repeat them over and over, and the only things people lok for are targets to shoot at. So_crates acts like congressmen who tags pork onto needed bills. On nearly any topic he wants to jam in the sex topic. So even on a plagiarism thread that’s what he wants to talk about. Is there a way to block one poster? I’m ready to do that. He doesn’t even want to read my answers to others posts. I can’t answer the same topic 3 times here to 3 different posters. I can’t keep up with all the demanded responses of me. Having a simple conversation is impossible due to the demanded volume of me. If he can’t get it, why I’m moving towards simply ignoring all his posts, someone put yourselves in my shoes and tell him top get real. This paragraph is a test to see if he really ignores my responses to others, or just immediately forgets them. I don't have the expertise to deal in public with the sex issues, but I do have enough points in my head to make my mind up after 45 years of hearing stories. Long before any posters here (even Ralph) were worried about sex stories and TVT doctrines floating about. in the ministry. I was bothered by it, but by that time in my life that was the norm for me. Everywhere I go I worry about it, so that was nothing new to me in 1972. I’m definitely not looking for ANY moral guidance here on how sex works, and how it is abused. JUST NONE! That kind of trust needs to be earned not demanded (another huge Corps error). I spent lots of time 15 years ago in private chats with some of the women who posted that they were hurt, because I CAN RELATE TO THEM! You see, when it comes to sexhurts I’m actually a MeToo person, myself (of a different variety). I just don’t want to talk anymore about it with antagonistic posters in public. I find here the same kind of dismal ability to relate and understand to things like this that I saw in the Corps and I hear in all the bad stories. The insensitivity that’s often complained about to be exclusively belonging to VPW, LCM, and company I see in people here, just a different variety and lacking any real power (thankfully). Twinky, if you like researching old threads you should see how I was treated when I tried to post any of the primitive understanding of sex I have 15 years ago. People here like to think they are immune to being as big a jerk as LCM. My sure understanding is that we all (WITHOUT EXCEPTION) are capable, properly provoked, of invading Poland if we had the troops. That is a figure of speech illustrating that the old man nature is really stinky and we all suffer from it. People here think that if they bring up some really disgusting stuff that will break me. It wont. I went through that decades ago. But there is no way I want to get into the details, only to see those details trashed. I see how the MeToo victims have to endure lots of trashing of their thoughts from the insensitive. No thanks. I have not had an extensive personal education in sex, and it is a troubling issue to me. It's difficult to fight aggressive, unrelenting (and sometimes) the exact kind of attitudes that I had to endure as a child with the Nuns at school.

I'm sorry but I've run out of time for now. Things to do.

No! I explained all my ways of handling your post in my response to you and in the most recent responses over the night and morning. To be intellectually honest in my opinion, you could go back to my response to you and my recent pertinent responses to others (do you even read them?). Hint: multiple posters, multiple points, limited time, priorities, etc. I think you are capable, but only if you want to understand me. Do you? Or are you only interested in influencing readers with your posts to me, and care not about the data and logic? Just wondering?