Evolution. God. Faith. Belief. Sides.

[Change]

Actualy, the orriginal woman, Lilith was made from clay just as Adam was...she was kicked out of Eden beacue she was a bit to headstrong for him :P

[Vegitto4]

:rollseyes: at {SITH} Change

Lol. Anyway, my view's, and that is probably all I will say on this.

God created, man, earth, and universe. he did not kick start evolution as some say/believe. Soem telescope in europe(britain i think, not sure of location and name) has been keeping track of the sun's size. it is decreasing. By how much/how much time, i do not know, however, by whatever mathmatecial equation they are using, if the universe is as old as evolution says, then the earth was surrounded by the sun at the begining of time.

This is not to say that we dont evolve. We do, mentally, and physically. Personally, I dont think that we have a common ancestor persay(monkyes and humans), just similarities.

The account of creation is rather metaphorical, as my lovely ife pointed out, but thats because we dont know how time differs, if at all, between the spiritual and earth realms. 1 day could be a second here, or the reverse.


I am so uber. ( come on ppl, it's a joke, laugh)

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]Nobody says that monkeys turned into man. That's about as foolish as saying that woman derived from man's rib.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL! Thats awesome.

Anyway, as James said. Snow Hares are rabbits who adapted, or EVOLVED so that they could blend in more with the snow. Now all rabbits didn't evolve, only certain ones. If such is the case with man, the same does apply.

An Arangatange can almost be seen as an evolution of the monkey. Smarter, more mobile, community skills, etc etc.

And even if man was created by God, theirs proof we've, ourselfs, evolved into what we are today. You've heard of cavemen right? They were almost monkey in look. Covered in hair, Big, bulking, gorrilla type creatures. We don't look like that anymore... Did God create us how we are now, or did he create the Cavemen from which we evolved from?

[quote][b]Actualy, the orriginal woman, Lilith was made from clay just as Adam was...she was kicked out of Eden beacue she was a bit to headstrong for him :P[/quote][/b]

Lol, you mixed more than one creation story together there lol. The SPider Woman, Hpoi Indian Creation Theory I do believe, states that man was created from clay. And it wasn't Adam and there was no Eden in that tale.

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]You've heard of cavemen right? They were almost monkey in look. Covered in hair, Big, bulking, gorrilla type creatures. We don't look like that anymore...[/B][/QUOTE]

Looked in a mirror lately? ;)

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]And that, Ginny, only demonstrates that you don't know much about evolution. ~_^

color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Personally, I take that statment not to mean that Ginny doesnt know what he/she is talking about, but to mean that I don't know what Im talking about.

How do you know it is not possible that I said what Ginny also felt, only he/she was not at the moment able to express the same opinion in a "well written" way.

The fact of the matter is...

You pointed out the people who use holes in evolution to attempt proving there own points as if to disprove evolution and support the existance of god.

However, you didnt at all cite the people that support evolution as a "be all and end all" fact that disproves the idea of a higher power who is responsible for the creation of god.

I know based on your own post that you believe in a possible existance of evolution while still having a higher power responsible for our existance.

The thing is... evolution IS a theory.

I stated a point that I truely believe...

I believe that man and ape are two different entities and were never one in the same because of common ancestors.

However, I do believe in the idea that evolution can be seen in the development of man. (I.E. cro-magnum to present day man)

But two things need to be recognized...

1. just as you said, this is about personal opinions of faith and evolution.

2. evolution is a theory.

I support you having an opinion about this, but I dont support you writting of another persons opinion, as well as dozens of others, who do not support the idea that the concepts of "evolution" are fact.

Survival of the fittest is an excellent idea, and it can easily support a theory such as evolutiion.

But that same theory does not rule out or rule in, the idea that "evolution" is limited to humans and apes both evolving from 1 creature.

However, it does support the idea that both humans and apes were capable of adapting to their enviroments.

Bottom line, even if ginny doesnt know what he/she is talking about, they do have the right to say that my comments did a suitable job of representing their own.

And tn, the bible actually does have a creation story from clay.

Infact it has two creation stories.

However, the story of lilith is not from the bible... it is jewish folk lore and by chance, the woman was not cast off simply because of her "ways."

In many accounts of her story, she spoke a unknown name of god that is 72 letters long and instantly dissappeared to become the concubine of the devil.

But like I said, that is all folklure.

[Juu]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]Hmm... I'm not really sure what to believe.

I mean, we've had this huge lesson on Evolution in Social Studies during the first semester. I actually started believing that, but then we began learning about Babylonia...

My SS teacher is absolutely amazing. She decided to teach us both sides, so we would be able to choose which we believe in, so we have proof on both.

There has been biblical evidence, yet there's also very much scientific evidence.

I think some biblical events might've occured in real life, but some things might have...'stretched' a little, like how humans were created, and how God created all those things in seven days.

...I haven't been to church for a while, so I forgot alot. ^_^;;;[/color] [/size]

[TheShinje]

[size=1] [color=blue] It is apparent that i have [i]yet[/i] to see a reasonable counter argument against the creation theory, Everything i typed in that long post was either ignored or conveniently left out.

if I said a tornado ripped through a junkyard and came out with an f 15 fighter jet, and then showed you a bunch of junk in it's various stages to accomplish the jet, would you believe me?

As for the "what size was the earth" Did you not read my full argument about Noah's ark? I said that the build up of ocean sediments point to a noah's flood. moreso, would every civilisation remember them great flood? they do!

It's found in islam, even through to aboriginal tribes in Australia, there are enough civilistaions that remember a great flood, with a boat full of animals (or vessel to similar extent) that it must've happened. and the people in the boat, they number the same, and are supposedly the only righteous people on earth to survive the flood.

Back to Babylon. I said i would revisit this ;)

This is where God confused the tounges of people and mixed the races. This is where our chromosones come in. Through a string of x and y chromosones coming together in different ways, we get, skin tones, accents, and languages were evolved to an extent from thousands of years of separation and wprd of mouth lanugage repititon. Chances are [i]no one[/i] speaks the original tounge anymore.

I have given you the proof, you say prove it, and then i do, take time to consider my points, theyre not a stupid as you think.[/size] [/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]Looked in a mirror lately? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL. I don't look like that. Obviosuly I was refering to a more extreme version of "bulky" and not just muscular or big.

[quote][b]The thing is... evolution IS a theory.[/quote][/b]

Evolution ISN'T theory. Evolution of man from monkey IS theory. Please be more exact on your statements.

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]That one joke about evolution: if we evolved from monkeys, then why are they still here?[/quote]

DAMNIT!!!
Show's how much you really know on the subject. Can I make this very, very clear.
[i][b]WE DID NOT EVOLVOE FROM MONKEYS![/b][/i]
Get it in to your heads people; it?s a very easy concept!

If you had taken notice of what the theory states, "Man evolved from a common ancestor."
And that also answers the joke; do you see that common ancestor hoping around? NO.

It?s just the same as the American's using that line from the constitution to say they can have guns, to bad their not smart enough to read the next ten words.

Eps ? Correcting every ones corrections?

[Kent]

Im not going to further this beyond my statments now, but evolution is theory.

No matter how much you dont want it to be or how much you believe in certain elements.

Evolution is a theory to be taken by the intellectual community as it is stated and not just the parts that one of us likes.

the common dog to a wolf or humans and monkeys having the same unknown ancestor, both are part of the theory of evolution, and although I agree with parts, that doesnt change the fact that it is a theory.

I do agree with elements of it and I will start to be specific about it, but no matter what, the idea of evolution is theory by all standards.

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]I'd like to say that I do not say that creationism theory is incorrect. I also don't say that evolution is incorrect. I don't discredit any theories that [i]I[/i] don't think are wildly stupid.
I do put Creationism down to a less mature culture trying to grapple the complexities of existence. As I put evolution down as being incomplete but the best thing we have at the moment.

The simple fact is until time travel is invented there is no way to be sure and with all the paradoxes that time travel involves it will most likely never happen, so we will never be 100% sure.

I'd like to say to all these people that are saying that it?s a theory and therefore not true. Look at your TV. It is all based on theory. It works, yet there is not proof that the theories that it is built on are correct for the simple fact that we cannot see the electrons that it is producing the picture with to prove the theory.
So by your statements your TV doesn't work.

You people that are saying that evolution in Humans is not proven. Look at your brains. They are a mess. Coursed by you guessed it, evolution. Have a bit of read in to how the structures of the brain are and when the certain parts came in to existence.
Just one example, in the centre of your brain you have an extremely primitive part, which is considered to be the first part that all the others have added to. It controls instincts and basic body functions.
([url]www.google.com[/url] has some very good sites to read up on. Try to get one that isn?t bias.)

As for God, how can I deny that there is no God?
"God" could be anything from an alien that decided to make a planet to the figment of an Egyptian Phero?s(sp?) imagination to what most of you think God is.
(That Egyptian made Monotheism. He was the first person recorded to believe in the ?One god? theory. Oh and guess who the Jews where enslaved under, and hmm when the escaped from Egypt they believed in ?One God?. How strange. I?ll leave that for you to think about. :P)

I myself am a Christian, though I would rather believe in facts (or the best facts at the time) than a book(s) that has been changed so many times in history and is basically a story to explain things.
So I am damn confused as to whether I believe in "God" or not.

One final thing. Hope is the reason most of these things exist, weak minded people need hope to continue. The idea that there is this big guy up in the sky that is looking out for you and helping you is a massive help for those types of people. You can see it in "born again" Christians who have found Jesus, they have normally needed hope at a time in their lives and it was just there for them to grab.

Most of this has been my opinion but the parts on the TV and Brain are true. The last paragraph is what I have observed and I?m not calling [i]all[/i] the people who believe in god weak minded.

Eps - Now I'm more confused than I was...[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]Im not going to further this beyond my statments now, but evolution is theory.

No matter how much you dont want it to be or how much you believe in certain elements.

Evolution is a theory to be taken by the intellectual community as it is stated and not just the parts that one of us likes.

the common dog to a wolf or humans and monkeys having the same unknown ancestor, both are part of the theory of evolution, and although I agree with parts, that doesnt change the fact that it is a theory.

I do agree with elements of it and I will start to be specific about it, but no matter what, the idea of evolution is theory by all standards. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but thats absolutely, 100% false.

Evolution has been a proven fact. The horse is a fine example, the elephant another. Shall I show you pictures of what a horse and elephant looked like during the paleolithic era? The horse was about as big as a dog, the elephant about as big as a modern day horse. Due to what you just stated, the horse didn't evolve, but was magically created to look like what it does now out of thin air. Thats absolutely proposterous.

Evolution is the very reason we have different sub-species. If evolution weren't a fact, ALL dogs would look the same. If evolution was just a theory there wouldn't be a difference between the African Elephant and the East Indian Elephant. We wouldn't have white and orange tigers. If evolution was theory, we'd all still be living in caves eating Sabretooth Tigers (another example of evolution) GRUNTING at each other asking ourselves why we can't invent fire yet!

You simply cannot say Evolution is theory. Evolution is prooven. You are a result of evolution of the human race. You can debate from what we evolved from (a theory indeed) but you CANNOT say that humans haven't evolved from Grunting cavemen to intellectual business men of today. thats stupid. I mean, use your brain, which is the most incredible example of evolution. If you can believe that man was created by something never proven to be existant, and that woman from the simple rib of that man, how can you not believe in the SIMPLICITY that is prooven evolution.

To me thats saying not that you don't believe it, but that you don't accept it.

I'm not saying man evolved from monkey. I'm just saying evolution exists in this world, whether or not you're too blind to see it.

If you want it in simple terms:
God = NOT prooven
Evolution = Prooven

I ask a simple question here as well. If it's alright to laugh at the concept man evolved from monkey, then why is it offensive to laugh at the thought of God existing?

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]Transtic Nerve you are walking a very fine line there.

Evolution has been proven under certain circumstances, but it is in no way a complete theory. It is still massing massive links. And could be proven wrong.
For example we were doing the Fungi Kingdom today in Bio and I asked well how did they evolve? (They are a mix between the Animal and Plant Kingdoms.)
The teacher said that they basically don't know.

Although I agree with you I don't think its right to say some one is completely wrong when you are using some thing that could be false to back yourself up. It's just like saying that the bible proves god exists. (And yes that is a fair comparison.)

Eps - Oh wait, I'm backing up Gokents... o_0 /del post. :P[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

Exactly. You don't know how they evolved, but the knwoledge that they DID evolve is there. I'm not sayign that How or from where something evolves isn't a theory, I'm saying the basics of evolution have been prooven. THINGS EVOLVE! it happens, it's not theory, IT HAPPENS, whats so hard to understand about that?

[James]

[color=#808080]Once again, the term "evolution theory" is misunderstood. Gokents, it is common knowledge that evolution occurs.

All you have to do is look at the publicly available fossil record and the various carbon and radioactive dating. And nobody can tell me that somehow scientists misinterpret fossils -- similar bone-study techniques are used in forensic science for identification and dating purposes. There's just TOO MUCH evidence to start doubting the truths of evolution in mankind.

In addition, I would remind you once again about things like viruses. Viruses are living organisms who evolve over a period of generations -- once again, look at how the AIDS virus adapts to our anti-AIDS drugs with each passing generation. They build up a resistance through a process of evolution; just as human beings and other creatures evolve through each generation.

The idea that monkeys morphed into humans is laughable. And using that as a way of arguing against evolution only PROVES a 0% understanding of even the most [i]basic[/i] elements of biology and evolution.

There are many unknowns about evolution; we don't fully know how it happens in all cases, although there are many cases where processes are documented and studied. But make no mistake, the term "evolution theory" doesn't mean that evolution is some airy fairy textbook idea. It's very much a proven scientific fact -- without knowledge of evolution, we'd have no doctors, we'd not be able to drill for oil and we certainly wouldn't be able to engineer certain anti-virus drugs. So simply saying that evolution doesn't exist is laughably ignorant.

Now, we could sit here and debate this back and forth forever. But I'm not going to let that happen. We've ALREADY had a thread that was IDENTICAL do this; it was no different. And everyone says the same old stuff every single time. Yes, I do keep bringing up "Telling Lies for God", as Sara points out. But nobody who is a creationist has bothered to read the book. And thus, a debate can't progress -- there is no effort to actually learn about science and nature. And really, anyone who tries to explain evolution is only asking people to actually [i]learn[/i] about nature. That's all.

I really hope that we can start creating some new threads -- at least, something that isn't frequently identical. It's a self-defeating exercise and it only stagnates Otaku Lounge. It's always great when a fresh, new thread pops up and where we can really see people's views on a wider variety of topics. We're in danger of really limiting ourselves here, I think.

As I always say, if anyone wants to sit there and debate evolution/religion any further, I'd ask you to do it on your own time and within your own space (maybe a Yahoo or MSN group). I want to try and avoid this kind of repetition in Otaku Lounge, where possible. The same goes for all the Iraq threads and stuff; one discussion is fine...maybe even two in a long period. But a handful in a matter of months is going a bit too far.

Obviously, nobody (including Moderators) listened to my original post in regard to the course of this thread. And that fact in particular is what gives me far less hope that we can conduct serious conversations in the future.[/color]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]
I'm a little bit disappointed that Mitch couldn't find something else to start a thread about, but I do accept the original intent of the thread...that it wasn't a flat out debate situation. I hope that it continues in an appropriate way.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=red] Well James, excuse me for thinking. I was a little hesitant myself to start this thread, but I felt I needed to hear what others think. And don't blame me for the way this thread turned out, I said right in my post that I [i]did not[/i] want this thread to turn out like it has. Gah. Ah well...

I will tell you that I don't completely agree with the closing of this thread. I am so sick of a few people ruining an entire thread. I and the other people here shouldn't suffer for someone else's opinions and wrong guesses at something they do not know. But these are your boards, so I do see why you would close this thread. But I and all of the others that contributed positively to this thread [i]don't[/i] deserve to be punished for what a few have said. It isn't fair.

Again, though, I see your standpoint.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080].

In addition, I would remind you once again about things like viruses. Viruses are living organisms who evolve over a period of generations -- once again, look at how the AIDS virus adapts to our anti-AIDS drugs with each passing generation. They build up a resistance through a process of evolution; just as human beings and other creatures evolve through each generation.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

James, viruses are considered [i]non-living[/i]. :p[/color]

[Charles]

Hmm, although I'm not James, I feel that I shoul step in and at least try to clear this up. No one said that the deterioration of the thread was your fault, Mitch.

The fact of the matter is, we've had a string of threads dedicated to almost [i]exactly[/i] the same subject matter in one form or another. On top of that, these issues seem to creep up in the context of other discussions.

Very few of us make life altering decisions, such as completely changing our belief system, in the period of a couple weeks or months. When topics dealing with political or religious issues are rehashed one after another, the answers are rehashed. It's that simple. The members that replied to similar threads in past weeks haven't grown enough intellectually, ethically, or spiritually to hold drastically different viewpoints since the last time they dealt with the same issues.

I replied to the thread and didn't close it because bickering wasn't encouraged under the way you structured it. It was obvious though, that by the time the thread was closed, that it was moving towards the direction of useless debate. What is the point in hosting endless bickering that will neither progress nor provoke understanding? This might just be my viewpoint, but I feel that the problem would have become bigger than just putting up with a few members that ignore your initial post and begin a debate. It would have built up.

I don't feel that anyone is being punished here. We've had many opportunities to express our beliefs. As James said, one may perform a simple search and find a wealth of material similar to that of this thread.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]Hmm, although I'm not James, I feel that I shoul step in and at least try to clear this up. No one said that the deterioration of the thread was your fault, Mitch.

The fact of the matter is, we've had a string of threads dedicated to almost [i]exactly[/i] the same subject matter in one form or another. On top of that, these issues seem to creep up in the context of other discussions.

Very few of us make life altering decisions, such as completely changing our belief system, in the period of a couple weeks or months. When topics dealing with political or religious issues are rehashed one after another, the answers are rehashed. It's that simple. The members that replied to similar threads in past weeks haven't grown enough intellectually, ethically, or spiritually to hold drastically different viewpoints since the last time they dealt with the same issues.

I replied to the thread and didn't close it because bickering wasn't encouraged under the way you structured it. It was obvious though, that by the time the thread was closed, that it was moving towards the direction of useless debate. What is the point in hosting endless bickering that will neither progress nor provoke understanding? This might just be my viewpoint, but I feel that the problem would have become bigger than just putting up with a few members that ignore your initial post and begin a debate. It would have built up.

I don't feel that anyone is being punished here. We've had many opportunities to express our beliefs. As James said, one may perform a simple search and find a wealth of material similar to that of this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=red] I made this thread so I feel it is piece of me and it is obligated toward me in everything fathom. But I know that isn't right. I did not say that the deteration of this thread was my fault, I am just very sick of threads such as these that hold good, liberal conversation just die. I thought I had made it specific enough in my first post that I just wanted what people thought personally of their faith, of what they thought [i]personally[/i] of evolution.

Basically, I went into making this thread because I am troubled and moved by trying to find my own level ground and understanding of where I stand. I came into this thread thinking that people would mind other's opinions and would give their reasons of why the believe in God, where they see him in their lives. I went into this thread not wanting discussion of what is right and what is wrong. I just wanted to know how and why people believe in what they belive. I didn't want to know if evolution was just a theory and if it should be seen as it is seen. I wanted this thread to be just about what other's think on a personal level so I could contrast it and try to dig something forth from it.

But none of this happened at all. Only in a few posts did I see what I had intended by what I had said. Most just seemed to jump in on this thread just asking to be hit and hit back and forth.

I'm really sick of threads dying like this. I thought that I made my instructions in this thread good enough. But I guess I've learned my lesson that the times when there was actually good debate are gone. That the times in the forum where everyone can hold an opinion and keep it even if it isn't educated are gone. Or maybe they never were here.

This thread did not turn out at all how I saw it. And I'm mad at myself, James, everyone. I'm just mad that threads like these can't exist. I'm mad.

I should've never made this thread I guess. That's where I see it now. Sorry if I'm over-going everything and over-reacting, but I moderate this forum. I live in this forum. I hate to see threads that hold so much good do so much wrong.

Everything you said is exactly right, Charles. Let's hope we can all learn something from this.[/color]

[James]

[color=#808080]

EDIT: For the sake of actually NOT continuing this discussion, I've edited out my response. I want to make it clear that this post is an explanation of my own decision making on this thread.

Firstly, it's always important to read my posts thoroughly. I never blamed you for the direction of the thread. I simply said that it would be nice if we could avoid repetitive threads -- and this thread, whatever its intention, is principally a repetition of several threads already in existence.

Obviously, I do allow some leeway for certain things. If people just talk about their opinions, that's fine. But I made it very clear that a debate was not to be repeated here. And what happened? The exact opposite of what I warned against. You yourself are not a contributor to that. However, other staff and members decided to completely disregard my warning about the thread's direction.

And so, I made the decision to close the thread. Don't hate me; hold those who are responsible for the issue accountable. I'm not the one who took the thread to an irrelevant place -- I'm simply the one who made a judgement on where it was going.

So, I'm as disappointed as you are. But I'm not going to sit here and micromanage every single thread just because a few people feel that it has merit -- if it's going way off course [i]despite[/i] warnings, it will be closed or deleted.

I don't make any apology for that decision. Whenever I do something, I'm always risking doing something that is unpopular. But that's what I'm here for; I bear the burden and the responsibility of that. I only ask that you remember what I've said and that you focus your attention on those who actually [i]caused[/i] the thread's decline. Those are the people who need to consider their behavior in future.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]Are you serious? Is the sky pink, too? lol

[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

He's actually semi-right James. From a scientific view, its debatable, but sticking to, the thought that viruses aren't living.

[url]http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Biology/Microbes/b00457c.html[/url]

"It is quite difficult to decide whether viruses are actually alive. They do not do a lot of the things that living organisms do , by definition, such as repiring, eating, moving, growing, etc, but they are more than very complex chemicals. We still don't know much about the origin of viruses and don't yet understand fully how viruses are related to each other, or to other organisms. Viruses do not fit into any of the five kingdoms of the well accepted classification system of living organisms."

The main reason they are considered non-living is because they cannot reproduce on thier own. They typically almost ALWAYS need a host to do anything (move, reproduce, etc etc) which typical living things don't need. Although it's still very debatable whether or not they are or not.

I know I made this topic go off course, no need to hold back names. I just didn't see a need for completely false information to be posted without having the truth told. Many kids read these boards and I would like it if I didn't end up having to answer some ridiculous question because billy here read it on some message baord. If false information is posted, I like to see it be turned so that the truth is said. Which is probably the main reason I'm responding to this and that virus debate you and Mitch are having.

[James]

[color=#808080]Ugh, there is no "virus debate". You will notice that I edited my post.

I wasn't very clear about my contention. Originally, I was talking about the idea that viruses are involved in the process of evolution -- whether or not they are living organisms wasn't actually my contention. I was talking about them in the context of their existence inside animals/humans.

But, yes...as I said to Cloricus, I wasn't very clear about that. So I apologize for that lack of clarity.

As you can see, Chris, I edited the "debate" part out of my post so that I was sticking completely to the thread's closure.

I would also point out that I wasn't actually wrong about viruses. I was as right as Mitch was; the classification of viruses is irrelevant. It's not an issue of classification, it's an issue of interaction with nature and the process of evolution. But once again, I didn't make that clear enough in my original post -- so Mitch obviously responded to the peripheral issue and not the actual contention.

So, your own post even says that viruses can't necessarily be defined as either living or non living. It's highly questionable (and pretty silly) to suggest that I'm posting something "completely false"; if you are saying that to me, then you can say the very same thing to Mitch.

[i]Anyway[/i], why is this thread continuing? lol. The only reason I'm even allowing your post to stand is the fact that I myself wasn't clear with my own words earlier -- but in the future, you, Mitch and all members are advised to take my warnings about such threads seriously. Staff in particular shouldn't be interjecting and circumventing my own decisions.

I expect that I won't have to repeat that ever again. And I trust that there will be no further posts in this thread. [/color]