Page 17 of 19 [ 293 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next


Did Jesus really exist?
Yes 74%  74%  [ 31 ]
No 26%  26%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 42

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,419
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Feb 2014, 12:07 pm

Max000 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Firstly you are wrongly attributing 'mainsteam Christians' to me. I was responding to kraichgauer's definition of 'his' type of Christian affiliation.

Secondly I would have thought that my explanation that whilst I might wish for a marxist revolution, my beleif that it is improbable and unlikely to succeed in its aims, would attest that I have a relatively good grasp of political history and culture.

I note that you are making no attempt to refute my claim that much of the bible consists pf either forged or wrongly attributed authorship and that this has led to a very man made cultural document. In other words the basis of christianity is human philosophy and politics rather than devine inspirations.


No, the religious right is not a numerically significant element in Christianity when compared to the mainline Christians


BS, pull your head out of the sand. 44 million Americans identify with the religious right. Thats about 20% of Christians in the US. 20% is significant number.


20% is small compared to mainline denominations. So BS right back at you.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,419
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Feb 2014, 12:12 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Firstly you are wrongly attributing 'mainsteam Christians' to me. I was responding to kraichgauer's definition of 'his' type of Christian affiliation.

Secondly I would have thought that my explanation that whilst I might wish for a marxist revolution, my beleif that it is improbable and unlikely to succeed in its aims, would attest that I have a relatively good grasp of political history and culture.

I note that you are making no attempt to refute my claim that much of the bible consists pf either forged or wrongly attributed authorship and that this has led to a very man made cultural document. In other words the basis of christianity is human philosophy and politics rather than devine inspirations.


No, the religious right is not a numerically significant element in Christianity when compared to the mainline Christians


BS, pull your head out of the sand. 44 million Americans identify with the religious right. Thats about 20% of Christians in the US. 20% is significant number.


Also not forgetting the 2012 Gallup Poll which puts the percentage of Us citizens who believe in creation and reject evolution at 46%, the poll does not differentiate which religious dogma the respondents followed. BUt religious affiliation in the US puts christianity at 79%. To my mind a rejection of evolution puts the believer outside the Moderate category


As silly as I know creationism to be, hardly everyone who rejects evolution believes in the hardline, politically motivated evangelicalism. I know that for a fact, because there are people in my home congregation who question evolution, but who are disgusted by the literalism, legalism, and bigotry of fundamentalism.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

18 Feb 2014, 12:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Firstly you are wrongly attributing 'mainsteam Christians' to me. I was responding to kraichgauer's definition of 'his' type of Christian affiliation.

Secondly I would have thought that my explanation that whilst I might wish for a marxist revolution, my beleif that it is improbable and unlikely to succeed in its aims, would attest that I have a relatively good grasp of political history and culture.

I note that you are making no attempt to refute my claim that much of the bible consists pf either forged or wrongly attributed authorship and that this has led to a very man made cultural document. In other words the basis of christianity is human philosophy and politics rather than devine inspirations.


No, the religious right is not a numerically significant element in Christianity when compared to the mainline Christians


BS, pull your head out of the sand. 44 million Americans identify with the religious right. Thats about 20% of Christians in the US. 20% is significant number.


Also not forgetting the 2012 Gallup Poll which puts the percentage of Us citizens who believe in creation and reject evolution at 46%, the poll does not differentiate which religious dogma the respondents followed. BUt religious affiliation in the US puts christianity at 79%. To my mind a rejection of evolution puts the believer outside the Moderate category


As silly as I know creationism to be, hardly everyone who rejects evolution believes in the hardline, politically motivated evangelicalism. I know that for a fact, because there are people in my home congregation who question evolution, but who are disgusted by the literalism, legalism, and bigotry of fundamentalism.


I suppose the educational system of the south has a lot to do with this. I know I never learned anything about evolution, all the way through college. I had to read about it on my own time.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,419
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Feb 2014, 3:07 pm

TheGoggles wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Firstly you are wrongly attributing 'mainsteam Christians' to me. I was responding to kraichgauer's definition of 'his' type of Christian affiliation.

Secondly I would have thought that my explanation that whilst I might wish for a marxist revolution, my beleif that it is improbable and unlikely to succeed in its aims, would attest that I have a relatively good grasp of political history and culture.

I note that you are making no attempt to refute my claim that much of the bible consists pf either forged or wrongly attributed authorship and that this has led to a very man made cultural document. In other words the basis of christianity is human philosophy and politics rather than devine inspirations.


No, the religious right is not a numerically significant element in Christianity when compared to the mainline Christians


BS, pull your head out of the sand. 44 million Americans identify with the religious right. Thats about 20% of Christians in the US. 20% is significant number.


Also not forgetting the 2012 Gallup Poll which puts the percentage of Us citizens who believe in creation and reject evolution at 46%, the poll does not differentiate which religious dogma the respondents followed. BUt religious affiliation in the US puts christianity at 79%. To my mind a rejection of evolution puts the believer outside the Moderate category


As silly as I know creationism to be, hardly everyone who rejects evolution believes in the hardline, politically motivated evangelicalism. I know that for a fact, because there are people in my home congregation who question evolution, but who are disgusted by the literalism, legalism, and bigotry of fundamentalism.


I suppose the educational system of the south has a lot to do with this. I know I never learned anything about evolution, all the way through college. I had to read about it on my own time.


Actually, I'm a life long native of the Pacific Northwest. There aren't as many creationists here as there are in say the south, but they do in fact exist here. The difference is, the anti-evolution faction here tend to be a lot less radicalized in their religion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

18 Feb 2014, 3:56 pm

appletheclown wrote:

Marx may not have liked North Korea's policy, but Stalin would.
It goes Communism, Marxism, Leninism/Trotsky-ism, Stalinism, Maoism.


Does it really? You quite sure about this? Or maybe you might like to reconsider

appletheclown wrote:
North Korea is Stalinist, and not Marxist.

Oh and here was I thinking it was a totalitarian family dictatorship that had removed all mention of Marxist/Leninism from its constitution.

appletheclown wrote:
The fact is Karl Marx inspired more death than The Bible ever has,
and there fore is not any less peaceful than Marxists are.

Fact is it? so you are going to dismiss all the social forces that led up to events such as the Russian revolution and the fact that the revolution itself was comparatively peaceful and it was in Fact the arrival of armies from western powers in support of the tzar that caused the counter revolution and war. But of course people trying to improve there lives and the interference of european powers is all the fault of the murderous Marx :roll:

appletheclown wrote:

You keep saying it doesn't matter that Communism killed millions of people


EVIDENCE PLEASE.

And anyhow as I have already stated in this thread as much as I would like to see a Marxist world I do not think it is plausible because people would f**k it up. I understand the reasons why stalin gained control of Russian revolution and how he screwed up the chinese one, and the reasons why the german workers state was overthrown in a counter revolution and the implications of this. Even so, I still dont think given the correct set of circumstances Marx's economic system would come to being.

So unlike you I understand the issue's involved with my preferred system, you on the other hand sit in a cloud of delusion.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

18 Feb 2014, 4:23 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
appletheclown wrote:

Marx may not have liked North Korea's policy, but Stalin would.
It goes Communism, Marxism, Leninism/Trotsky-ism, Stalinism, Maoism.


Does it really? You quite sure about this? Or maybe you might like to reconsider

appletheclown wrote:
North Korea is Stalinist, and not Marxist.

Oh and here was I thinking it was a totalitarian family dictatorship that had removed all mention of Marxist/Leninism from its constitution.

appletheclown wrote:
The fact is Karl Marx inspired more death than The Bible ever has,
and there fore is not any less peaceful than Marxists are.

Fact is it? so you are going to dismiss all the social forces that led up to events such as the Russian revolution and the fact that the revolution itself was comparatively peaceful and it was in Fact the arrival of armies from western powers in support of the tzar that caused the counter revolution and war. But of course people trying to improve there lives and the interference of european powers is all the fault of the murderous Marx :roll:

appletheclown wrote:

You keep saying it doesn't matter that Communism killed millions of people


EVIDENCE PLEASE.

And anyhow as I have already stated in this thread as much as I would like to see a Marxist world I do not think it is plausible because people would f**k it up. I understand the reasons why stalin gained control of Russian revolution and how he screwed up the chinese one, and the reasons why the german workers state was overthrown in a counter revolution and the implications of this. Even so, I still dont think given the correct set of circumstances Marx's economic system would come to being.

So unlike you I understand the issue's involved with my preferred system, you on the other hand sit in a cloud of delusion.


The communist manifesto was written by Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels.

Here is your proof of Marx inspired atrocities:

The Holodomor - Stalin's Ukrainian Holocaust

The Cambodian Genocide - Pol Pot's Cambodian Holocaust

The Great Purge of Stalin

Mao's Great Leap Forward - The Cause Of The Great Chinese Famine

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

The Mass Killings Of Communism


_________________
comedic burp


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

19 Feb 2014, 2:30 am

My goodness apple you really are quite naive when it comes to political history. Firstly you wrongly state that communism leads to Marxism, if you had the slightest idea of the concept you would know that from Marx's viewpoint communism is the final expression of the dictatorship o the proletariat. After workers have taken charge of the means of production we have socialism which is facilitated by a proletariat directed state, communism comes later. is the removal of the state apparatus, it describes a level of social awareness where everyone is working for the good of each other and the state is no longer needed. You mention the Communist Manifesto, good on you, you even correctly name its authors, well done. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ IT? and if you have read it do you understand it? Judging by your level of competence on the subject I don't think so.

Read the manifesto, and then look at all of the examples you have given of communist regimes and tell me exactly how they are the same thing. What you fail to understand is that I am questioning the validity of the gospel, the epistles of Paul, and all the other false documents in the bible for exactly the same reason as I am attacking your assertion that pol pot was a Marxist. People bend and shape the truth to fit their own ends, they lie about the authenticity of their claims, they present false evidence, they warp and manipulate ideas. It is quite possible that a really decent teacher existed, that he taught a new way to behave, that he taught non judgmental behavior. But it is well well recognised that much of what is said and written in his name and those of his close followers has been manipulated and changed and forged to suit other agendas. For pities sake it is going on right now, I do not have the link to hand but there is a group in the US asking for submission on how to rework the biblical teachings of Jesus so they are not so "socialist"

Oh and by the way I am still waiting for your evidence that I have repeatedly stated that it does not matter that communism has killed millions of people, either present your evidence or apologise for the slander


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

19 Feb 2014, 5:31 am

@ 91 I don't really see why are you getting into such a flap about me questioning the veracity of the NT authorship? You are behaving like a barrister who has just been presented with evidence without prior notice.

Ehrman is hardly the only theologian to raise these issues, he is but a long line of biblical scholars who have questioned the authorship of some of the canonical texts in the bible. You berating me for raising the spectre of biblical forgery as if it is the perspective of a select, marginalised few, is really disingenuous. I have not discussed his views on Jesus, or his issue with god and suffering, nor have I talked about the Jesus seminar of which, in my reading of him so far, he has only criticised. I have simply put up the widely held view that many of the canonical stories in the NT are of dubious /forged authorship.

I did this in response to Aghogdays statement that nothing bad has come from the gospels. I submit that there was a concerted effort by the Christians during the disputes between the jews and the Christians to have all of the Jews blamed for the death of Christ, and that this claim of deicide has led to many hundreds of thousands of deaths. The gospels of Mathew and Luke are most definitely anti-semitic, the broader question is why and on whose authority were they written.

From what I understand there is no historical evidence to back up the claims of the christians that Pilot tried to save the life of Jesus and that the gave way to placate the a jewish backlash. So the question why? arises. This is fairly easy, the charge of deicide and the idea that god had forsaken the jews for this, helped give Christianity the edge it needed. As to the authorship of these texts as you know quite well, 91, most biblical scholars agree that the claimed authorship of the accounts of Jesus' trial are forged or at the very least questionable. Does the authorship matter? of course it does. If I, Dent, claimed Pilate was aghast at the demands of the jews and gave way only to prevent a riot, who will give it credence, if on the other hand I state that I am writing as an apostle or a close companion then my testament gains far greater credibility.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Feb 2014, 7:12 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ehrman is hardly the only theologian to raise these issues, he is but a long line of biblical scholars who have questioned the authorship of some of the canonical texts in the bible.


That is certainly true, the Bible has been repeatedly smashed into by people looking to undo its historical reliability. The fact that it has emerged quite in tact is pretty important to keep in mind. Ehrman much like Craig has two personas, one public and the other private. In the public line he uses terms like 'forgery' and puts nice sexy titles on his work so it sells lots of books. In his academic life he is much more conservative in the conclusions he reaches. As Craig pointed out, there is a fair degree of rubbish in his book methodology. mostly so he can give the impression of a big debate where in many ways it is mountains and molehills.

DentArthurDent wrote:
I did this in response to Aghogdays statement that nothing bad has come from the gospels.


I can never understand what he posts, although he seems to be a earnest person.

DentArthurDent wrote:
From what I understand there is no historical evidence to back up the claims of the christians that Pilot tried to save the life of Jesus and that the gave way to placate the a jewish backlash.


Well I would wonder what sort of evidence, besides what we have, you would expect to find? I mean it was the Sanhedrin that convicted him and I don't really see any issue with the idea that Caiaphas really wanted him dead. If life has taught me anything, it is that people can read sinister motives into anything. If Caiaphas had wanted to spare his life, someone who hated him would alternative claim that he was a pawn of Satan, in the vein of Peter's transgression, because he was standing in the way of salvation. I mean, if they hate you, then you're already guilty and the evidence will always be made to fit. I met one chap who supported the Kim family and Juche ideology on the grounds that they were resisting the Jewish banking conspiracy.... You just can't win against that kind of stupid. Where we disagree is that you think the evidence that has been twisted is in because it was subsequently twisted, I approach it differently and certainly not so retroactively. I can look at that narrative in the Bible and lament that Blood Libel was drawn from there but as a thinking person see no reason to think that it was twisted because people intended hatred to be found there. The early Christian movement, especially before AD 70, was profoundly Jewish, it was only the dispersal of the followers that occurred with the destruction of the temple, combined with the efforts of the Apostles that really triggered the movement to go gentile in a big way.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,541

19 Feb 2014, 8:42 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
@ 91 I don't really see why are you getting into such a flap about me questioning the veracity of the NT authorship? You are behaving like a barrister who has just been presented with evidence without prior notice.

Ehrman is hardly the only theologian to raise these issues, he is but a long line of biblical scholars who have questioned the authorship of some of the canonical texts in the bible. You berating me for raising the spectre of biblical forgery as if it is the perspective of a select, marginalised few, is really disingenuous. I have not discussed his views on Jesus, or his issue with god and suffering, nor have I talked about the Jesus seminar of which, in my reading of him so far, he has only criticised. I have simply put up the widely held view that many of the canonical stories in the NT are of dubious /forged authorship.

I did this in response to Aghogdays statement that nothing bad has come from the gospels. I submit that there was a concerted effort by the Christians during the disputes between the jews and the Christians to have all of the Jews blamed for the death of Christ, and that this claim of deicide has led to many hundreds of thousands of deaths. The gospels of Mathew and Luke are most definitely anti-semitic, the broader question is why and on whose authority were they written.

From what I understand there is no historical evidence to back up the claims of the christians that Pilot tried to save the life of Jesus and that the gave way to placate the a jewish backlash. So the question why? arises. This is fairly easy, the charge of deicide and the idea that god had forsaken the jews for this, helped give Christianity the edge it needed. As to the authorship of these texts as you know quite well, 91, most biblical scholars agree that the claimed authorship of the accounts of Jesus' trial are forged or at the very least questionable. Does the authorship matter? of course it does. If I, Dent, claimed Pilate was aghast at the demands of the jews and gave way only to prevent a riot, who will give it credence, if on the other hand I state that I am writing as an apostle or a close companion then my testament gains far greater credibility.


Woah..dude..you are putting words in my mouth here..stating that i stated "nothing bad has come from the gospels."

I never said anything like that on this website..in fact i have over and over again..stated that there was crap added in with the New Testament..that one must discern out of it..and that yes people have died and committed suicide.. as a cost of the crap in the New Testament..and the way it is interpreted...as well as the Old Testament MOREOVER...

If i stated IT you could quote IT but NO..i DO have close to a photographic memory..and hell no i ain't never said this anywhere.. not here on this site or anywhere else...AND YAH..that's pretty impressive (the photographic memory and all of that) considering i've written about literally 5 million words on this website..in the last 3 years or so..if ya care to count
em..

i am able to discern the crap out of the new testament since i was a small child..

It's almost like i was a true author of it..or some METAPHOR..like that...
;)

Dude use common sense..PLEASE..IF YA CAN OR IF YA WILL..AGAIN...
i'm more of a free lance Zen Master than anything else...AIN'T THAT FRIGGIN CLEAR YET..:)

and no
human ideology or
cultural form
controls
me..

not even
ZEN


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

19 Feb 2014, 10:35 am

91 wrote:

That is certainly true, the Bible has been repeatedly smashed into by people looking to undo its historical reliability. The fact that it has emerged quite in tact is pretty important to keep in mind.


By what standard does it remain "intact?" Because it seems to me that the vast majority of people accept the divinity of the Bible simply because society taught them it was divine, not because they ever conducted any kind of critical analysis (if they ever read it in the first place). If they had been born in a place where another religion was predominately practiced, they would adhere to that one in all likelihood. Every baby is born an atheist. Your psyche is shaped by your parents and the people who interact with you.

I mean, does no one else find it strange that the God of the entire world never bothered to introduce himself (or Jesus) to the populations of North and South America, who basically made up their own theologies? The Bible never even mentions that there's anything but Africa, Europe, and Asia. Which is funny, because that's exactly the sort of book you would write if you had no clue there were other continents with people on them.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Feb 2014, 11:16 am

Jesus really existed, but he was just the son of a carpenter and house builder.

ruveyn



Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

19 Feb 2014, 11:17 am

TheGoggles wrote:
91 wrote:

That is certainly true, the Bible has been repeatedly smashed into by people looking to undo its historical reliability. The fact that it has emerged quite in tact is pretty important to keep in mind.


By what standard does it remain "intact?" Because it seems to me that the vast majority of people accept the divinity of the Bible simply because society taught them it was divine, not because they ever conducted any kind of critical analysis (if they ever read it in the first place). If they had been born in a place where another religion was predominately practiced, they would adhere to that one in all likelihood. Every baby is born an atheist. Your psyche is shaped by your parents and the people who interact with you.

I mean, does no one else find it strange that the God of the entire world never bothered to introduce himself (or Jesus) to the populations of North and South America, who basically made up their own theologies? The Bible never even mentions that there's anything but Africa, Europe, and Asia. Which is funny, because that's exactly the sort of book you would write if you had no clue there were other continents with people on them.


Your logic will of course be totally lost on those who believe. I guess gods are like gangsters. They all have their own territory. :lol:

It does show that religions are spread by word of mouth. Not by any great powerful god, who could just as easily make himself known to all people, all over the world at the same time. If god really existed, he wouldn't have to rely on humans to spread the word about him.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Feb 2014, 11:24 am

TheGoggles wrote:

I mean, does no one else find it strange that the God of the entire world never bothered to introduce himself (or Jesus) to the populations of North and South America, who basically made up their own theologies? The Bible never even mentions that there's anything but Africa, Europe, and Asia. Which is funny, because that's exactly the sort of book you would write if you had no clue there were other continents with people on them.


Have you read the Book of Mormon?

ruveyn



Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

19 Feb 2014, 11:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:

I mean, does no one else find it strange that the God of the entire world never bothered to introduce himself (or Jesus) to the populations of North and South America, who basically made up their own theologies? The Bible never even mentions that there's anything but Africa, Europe, and Asia. Which is funny, because that's exactly the sort of book you would write if you had no clue there were other continents with people on them.


Have you read the Book of Mormon?

ruveyn


Yeah 1800 years later, after believers had already moved to the new world. That proves nothing.

Answer one simple question. If there is one true god, then why is belief in them, so geographical? An all powerful god should be able to make himself known to people all over the world at the same time.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,419
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2014, 12:06 pm

Max000 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:

I mean, does no one else find it strange that the God of the entire world never bothered to introduce himself (or Jesus) to the populations of North and South America, who basically made up their own theologies? The Bible never even mentions that there's anything but Africa, Europe, and Asia. Which is funny, because that's exactly the sort of book you would write if you had no clue there were other continents with people on them.


Have you read the Book of Mormon?

ruveyn


Yeah 1800 years later, after believers had already moved to the new world. That proves nothing.

Answer one simple question. If there is one true god, then why is belief in them, so geographical? An all powerful god should be able to make himself known to people all over the world at the same time.


I'm pretty sure ruveyn is being a bit flippant here.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer