TVAA it’s my understanding that Great Debates are supposed to center on the issue at hand. Since you insist on returning to absurd personal insults, I don’t consider your posts worthy of response.
In what way is TVAA’s last post an insult? Seems to me he IS addressing the issue at hand.
What other types of knowledge could there be? Hypothetical, abstracts that have no grounding in life?
So, what is there that isn’t logic, empericism and science? You people love to talk smack about logic because it bites you in the ass, and instead of saying “my arguments lack coherency”, you attack logic itself. Why don’t you posit a system that can be considered valid and useful that doesn’t use logic or the aformentioned methods. Religion’s tenants themselves have historically been the very things that have set the foundations for what we understand as rationality, logic and such.
Instead of attacking logic, why not look it up and see what it is. Get a good solid background in philosophy and work on ways of improving it. Attacking science because you have a banner to fly does nothing good but make you appear to be a quack. An educated and articulate quack, yet if it walks like a quack, ducks like a quack, it is still a quack.
I think you will find that a majority of posters on this message board come from highly educated backgrounds. Many are scientists of some sort, a doctor or two, quite a few lawyers, and many more that have degrees in philosophy. What does their background have to do with anything? Me personally? I am still a student doing Pre-Pharmacy.
Sorry, but nobody I know “worships” science. We do defend it from the cranks that pop up now and again preaching about how we should eat tubers and worship some fire and be afraid of ghosts. Those people feel threatened about science because it attacks something they believe and hold dear, and instead of learning that science doesn’t threaten it, the possiblity of it not existing is what threatens it, they attack it. Most of the time, these people don’t even have the foggiest idea of what science, as a method, consists of.
It so happens I studied quite a bit of philosophy way back in my undergraduate days, and did very well at it. Of course the existentialists were my particular favorite - not so much a fan of Locke, Berkeley and Hume.
How about all of your dreams and most of your memories? Your morals. The way you feel about your girlfriend, your mother, your dog. The plans you have for your future. Your confidence in your own intellect. The words that form in your head before you type them into your computer. The inner dialogue that keeps each of us company. Pretty much everything about our inner life is non-empirical by its nature. Plus spiritual knowledge, the truth and guidance gained through prayer and meditation - darn tootin’ those count. You may not find it useful, but plenty of other (smart, respected and accomplished) people do. So have plenty of primitive people whose cultures lasted a good long while.
And then there’s art and music and literature. Not their manifestation, obviously, but the process by which they’re created. The perception of order and meaning and form on a blank canvas where it hasn’t been created before. It’s synthesis rather than analysis and the whole equals far more than the sum of its parts because the artist perceives the whole in its entirety and works down from that. It’s a difficult process to put into words, but it’s definitely not logic-based. You couldn’t run a computer this way, but you can’t paint the way you program, either. It doesn’t work to say “I’m going to paint this, and then this, and then this”. One must just paint the whole thing in its entirety. Yes, I know that those utter morons on PBS painting shows do it methodically, logically, step-by-step. They don’t know what they’re talking about and it shows in their work.
You guys still keep insisting that I’m blasting science in a way that I’m not; with your propensity for dualities you want to cast me in the role of science heretic. It’s simply not true - I’m not declaring the whole business a fraud. I’m just pointing out that it has limits. Can’t you accept some grey, or does it really all have to be black and white?
Science is great for what it does. But it’s constantly being revised, even TVAA noted that; what’s “truth” today may not be so tomorrow. Because people often practice it poorly. That makes me skeptical. That makes me think our confidence in our “knowledge” is limited by our ability to perceive, such that we’re convinced we’ve got the answers only because we’ve limited the questions to those that can be answered.
A lot of logical, persuasive arguments based on empirical data have been put forth to substantiate ignorant things like racism. You might argue that they were “doing it wrong” with their methodology, but at the time they sure thought they did have it down, and who’s to say our current understanding of the world won’t look equally ignorant (in at least some respects) a hundred years hence.
It is becoming increasingly clear that fessie does not understand what logic is; she seems to confuse logic with conscious thought, and non-logic with unconscious thought.
This paragraph in particular demonstrates her problems with understanding:
** Science revises itself not because people practice it poorly and thus fall into error. It revises itself because the information available to us changes.
Science recognizes that reality and our ideas about it are distinct and separate things. It regards those ideas as attempts to account for our observations accurately, not as immutable and holy “truth”.
We do not claim to “have the answers”. We practice the means by which answers can be reached.
Why in the world would we concern ourselves with questions that cannot be answered?
I only paint you heretic because of certian traits that you seem to share in common. Like talking about “worshiping” science as your latest example. Or your insistance that ghosts and reincarnation is true and logic cannot prove otherwise, etc. We can only make assumptions on you based off your arguments.
How is thoughts, conciousness and dreams and such non-empirical? Can they not be tested for? Is there not ways to infer if something contains these things or not? Memories ARE empirical, or can be very easily. Same with conciousness. After all empirical merely means it is based off experience or experiment, depending on the observation of phenomena.
Certainly we don’t know alot about human consiousness at the present, or can we examine a persons dream. We do know more than we did 10 years ago, and we are learning. I certainly agree that science has current limits. It’s potential is not so limited however.
Epimetheus, I don’t think I said anything about ghosts or reincarnation at any point. Ever. Well, I did post in a ghost thread a while back to relate an experience I had with some friends at a haunted restaurant, but I’m not building my life based on moments like that, and I’m not putting it into a GD thread. I did get into a big donnybrook about the soul some time ago, but that hasn’t been part of this discussion.
I used the phrase “worshipping” to describe someone’s reliance on science as the only way of understanding life, as a perfect methodology. Because IMHO single-minded devotion to a particular dimension of reality, in lieu of other means of understanding, is a type of worship. Any time you shut your mind to other possibilities in order to hang on to the one that makes you feel certain, any time you defer your own intellect to a system or methodology that promises all the answers, well that counts as worship in my book.
I guess if you want to say that you can measure mental activity, then you can say you have empirical verification of activity. But it’s just the part of the activity that is measurable, it’s the “markers” that the machine is able to capture - right? I don’t think a machine can tell what you were dreaming about. Perhaps there are correlations between certain brain waves and certain types of dream content, but the machine can’t play your dream back to you. The other meaning of dreams, your dreams for the future, have no empirical reality at all but are going to be strong determinants in all of your choices.
Memories - I think you’re mistaken. Have you ever gone back to an old neighborhood and seen how different it is than what you recall? Or, have you ever been one of several witnesses to a crime? The “reality” of those moments is seen individually, not as a fixed thing but as a subjective one. The memory entity that exists is different from person to person, its content is just not the same. Heck, that’s true of a lot of Christmases, too.
When you consider how much of our sense of the world is based on what we’ve stored in our minds and how we interpret it, it seems to me that “reality” is extremely non-empirical. We carry it in our heads. “Observation of phenomena” is an extremely individual choice - people simply do not see things the same way. Check with a divorce lawyer if you doubt me on that one.
TVAA there’s that old saying, if the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Credentials: I have a BS in Business, I’m a computer geek by trade (a “Software Product Specialist” which means I demo software, explain it, install it & troubleshoot it). I was raised to be an engineer by an engineer father. My sister is a software engineer as well.
I’m also a musician (guitar, voice, keyboards, flute, trumpet, trombone) and I have 6 kids, including 2 teen-aged girls. Logic has nothing to do with the way my household is run.
What, I need credentials now?
My only credentials are not that I believe that “science” explains everything – our consciousness, free-will, et al, but that of all the things it doesn’t explain none of the non-science “explanations” persuade me in the least.
Whatever, if we could send a computer or even a car back in time a few centuries even the best of scientists would have been baffled (and not just in the “Hey, Gallileo, where can I plug this thing in?” kinduva way), and some may have wanted to posit some supernatural mechanisms to explain the behaviour.
So today “we” look at the human brain, we can observe its amazing behaviour. Scientists posit that the brain functions in a systematic way (and indeed massive headroads have been made in understanding the architecture and chemistry and system of the human brain). Like every other question that science has ever addressed I believe we will one day have all the answers (epistemological impossibilities excepted) – indeed, I expect that one day (and maybe even in my lifetime) we will have developed undeniably conscious machines.
There are those who claim that the brain operates in some “mystical” manner. If we were to pin them down, they might say that science could never explain how memories are stored (for instance). But you can bet, that if science were to adequately explain this phenomenon, the myticists would move the goalposts and claim that it is intentionality or free will* that science cannot explain.
In fact this has been the whole history of knowledge, the unknowns explained by appeals to ineffable gods or forces, until a satisfactory scientific model “supercedes”, and supercedes crushingly (consider the Copernican revolution and how laughable geocentricity seems now).
But it seems that generally the non-science public are only prepared to believe so much, the ongoing and bizarre objections to current theories of evolution are illustrative of the resistance of some to the flaming obvious.
I can’t see this is a failure of science, but maybe a failure of science education. And, with regards the OP, maybe that is the crux – in the West there are cultural disincentives for women to enter science, and certainly they are under-represented in higher-education (of science). (On page one Bryan Ekers said “Outside of Westernized countries, I’ll bet the belief in all kinds of hokey things run about equal between the genders,” and I would make the same bet, but also I’d bet that this correlates strongly with the level of science eduaction in those non-Western countries.)
I am not claiming that a solid science education is a panacea for all the whackos, some people will be bloody-mindedly whacky in spite of all the evidence.
*for the record, I believe that we are" just" machines, and if so it might well follow that free will is “just” an illusion
What does a nail look like if you don’t have a hammer?
Back to the OP - perhaps it’s a matter of evolution. For the species to continue, women have to believe men when they say “honey, I’ll be there for you.” All the rest follows.
On a more serious note, I have a vague memory of a magazine artice on a study of personal superstitions. The main conclusion was that superstitions arise most often when there is no solid link between cause and effect.
The example that stuck in my mind was a baseball one. Pitchers and hitters can do everything exactly the same and either be in a slump or on a roll, depending on things beyond their control and often also beyond sensing or quantifying. Fielders, on the other hand, will have a good game if they do everything right and if they lose anyway it’s for obvious reasons. If the ball goes over the fence it goes over the fence. If you drop the ball, it’s an error.
So pitchers and hitters develop more personal superstitions than fielders do. (All of which is unsupported by good cites - feel free to debunk - I just thought it was an interesting idea.)
Now, women have traditionally been responsible for:
The Happiness of their Home, and
Bringing up Children to be Moral and Productive Adults
(and Being Attractive - but I won’t address that)
I could probably think of tasks that have less connection between doing the right thing and good tangible results, but I’d really have to work at it.
(sometimes, if you have a toolbox, the nail is obviously a screw - and sometimes, if you don’t have a hammer, a nail looks like a picture hook, just in a rather creative position)
Women have biochemistry that positively predisposes them towards seeking states of emotional comfort. To this end, they create or believe in mythologies that cultivate emotional comfort, along with all the imaginary agents that such necessitates.
Men have biochemistry that positively predisposes them towards seeking states of victory. To this end, they manipulate the world, symbols representing objects therein, or symbols representing idealizations thereof, in order to achieve predetermined objectives. That’s why men love hunting, fighting, games, toys, numbers, equations, logic, and tinkering whereas women rarely do.
transitionality, do you have cites for the biochemestry part of this? It would be gratifying if the cites had some comments about the “nuture” part of the equation as well. As I said, my sister is a software engineer. She loves tools (toys?), numbers, equations, logic and tinkering (but not hunting or fighting).
What a delightful question.
Well, here’s one option
and here’s another one.
Or how about this
and this way of looking at it,
and this.
Here’s another one
or perhaps over here, or over there, or maybe this clown.
That might be interesting.
This is a little out there. This one we all know.
And of course, the obvious.
Hi fessie
I think I understand what you are talking about.
Knowledge can be obtained in more than one way.
You can use the scientific method and measure, weigh, analyze, etc., to gain knowledge.
Or
You can let the knowledge come to you through intuition, insight, inner senses.
Women have more of this spiritual insight than men, because they are closer to their feelings, they have babies, they nurture, they notice the small stuff, etc.
Men tend to downplay their feelings and shut off this avenue of knowledge.
You can’t really explain spiritual knowledge to people who are not aware of their inner feelings. They think they are superior, when actually they lacking this source of knowledge.
I wrote a note earlier in another thread on seeking this knowledge, it will be ridiculed here but someone may be helped.
If this is not anything like you meant, then I apologize.
In the calm and peace of solitude you will find the Creator’s love. It is unmistakeable, unique, instantly knowable from the beginning. God’s love is within you, it has always been there, waiting for you to notice.
You can’t force it, grab it, order it, or get it from someone else. You can only allow it to come forth and be experienced.
Calm and clear your thoughts, analyze nothing, judge nothing, just allow yourself to be in truth. Forgive the world, forgive all others. Be yourself and only yourself, no posturing, no rationalzation, no preferences, and no expectations.
From the midst of emptiness will come the fullness of God’s love and compassion flowing through you to others, and you will never need to ask for guidance to God again.
Love
Leroy
Fessie, others have more than ably pointed out the various problems with your arguments since my last appearance here, so I’m going to go further back to make sure you start off on a good solid track. I say that after reading your recent claims on memory, which suggest to me some of the basics need to be covered first.
Martyrdom is not a very productive activity. Anyway, my problem is that I see little of value in your “fun subjective/anecdotal” points, which simply promote ignorance of topics such as epistemology and science.
You haven’t meaningfully addressed my objections, instead you’ve drawn up a strawman. The scientific method–which you can call a logical system–has absolutely no problems dealing with the physical world, and in fact I wager it does so orders of magnitude more successfully than you do. When was the last time you split a nucleus, reversed a particle’s spin, or detected a neutrino? When was the last time you launched hundreds of tons into orbit? When was the last time you cured a heart condition? Investigated the history and make-up of the Universe?
Logic and the physical world are in no way incompatible or even distinct from each other. Indeed, you could say the way the physical world functions is a strictly logical affair, described by scientific and mathematical models. It’s those with a less than clear grasp of information that come along and muddy the waters, for example by treating anecdotes as fact, or by treating entirely unproven, unobserved hypothetical phenomena as deserving of a place next to phenomena that are proven, observed, etc.
Another strawman, since no one has claimed infinite knowledge. What is “infinite knowledge”? Perfect and complete knowledge about a given subject? That’s a scientist’s pipe dream, probably unachievable. The trick is to achieve as close an approximation to perfect knowledge as possible, which is what the scientific method is used for.
You are trying to describe the limitations of something, though I am not sure what.
No on both counts, which are, again, strawmen. I don’t see how anyone informed could translate a position that relies on demonstrable evidence to qualify knowledge into the suggestion that I am claiming to “know it all”.
What I do know is that, in spite of all the prognathous jawing from people armed with uninformed opinion, we know that all examined claims to date of the “spiritual and supernatural” have turned out to be a big fat zero. There is nothing whatsoever that indicates anything supernatural or spiritual even exists. That may change tomorrow, someone may actually demonstrate a real instance of a ghost, or telepathy, or whatever. They haven’t even come close yet, and there is no indication whatsoever that the status quo is about to change.
I now refer to an older thread, and quote myself:
" science sometimes works on the basis of provisional agreement as well as open-minded investigation. After all the effort that has gone into parapsychology, and especially considering how poor the arguments of its proponents are, it is fairly safe to provide provisional agreement that parapsychology is crock until reliable evidence to the contrary is presented."
From parapsychology-Legitimate Science or Pseudoscience?. A discussion I recommend reading, since the much-trumpeted evidence for the efficacy of prayer quoted therein later turned out to be false, just as the scientifically literate suspected it would. I may need to post an update on that thread.
I wasn’t being superior, but you must understand there is little tolerance for smug unsupported posts here, particularly the first ones you made in the thread. Hence my challenge. And, really, I don’t have to assert superiority to demolish an argument that is ethereal. You may think I am being superior, but I am just irritated by appeals to ignorance.
Now you are mixing terms. You suggest that the study and investigation of the physical and the natural laws that describe the physical is in any way comparable to wishful dreaming about the power of crystals, tarot cards, dowsing, or ghosts? Well, as I said we do know an awful lot about the paranormal, it’s been investigated thoroughly and it would be erroneous to present as fact what is thus far nothing more than fiction in the purest sense.
Again, demonstrable versus non. Predictable versus non. Quantifiable versus non. Results versus anecdotes.
Should you at any time delve substantially into this topic, you will probably realize that if there is an “easy way” it is the psychedelic one, where one can convince himself of anything at all and live happily in his own little sphere of uninformed opinion, untouched by facts or arguments. It takes serious effort and time to become conversant with a scientific topic, even an entirely hypothetical one like the investigation of the spiritual and the supernatural. Unlike the road to psychedelia, the path of critical thinking is not about feeling better, rather it is a matter of satisfying curiosity, expanding one’s knowledge, recognizing and working with the limitations of human knowledge, perhaps even contributing to the sum of such knowledge while keeping bias as far away as possible.
“I want to believe” isn’t just an X-files gimmick – it might as well be a credo for some people out there. A serious problem, this bias.
Well, I don’t know if these are strawmen or if you are just veering off-course. “Multidimensional nature of human reality”? What are those terms supposed to mean?
Fighting ignorance is very simply disabusing people of beliefs they treat as facts, and perhaps providing a better level of information than what was previously available. It’s not a question of black and white at all. Some issues are black and white, others are not. One issue that is black and white is the paranormal: there is zero evidence to support paranormal claims – that is certainly a matter of black and white, though some people will never accept that and will fly in the face of all evidence simply to validate their beliefs.
Fighting ignorance is certainly not about picking and choosing which elements of ignorance to remove and which to leave in on the chance that they may have therapeutic effects.
Whether or not superstition is useful (and it can be, occasionally), it remains superstition, or excessive credulity. Around the middle of the last century, B.F. Skinner proposed that even pigeons entertain forms of superstition. It may be a normal learning mechanism hardwired within many living creatures, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to rise above it. At the very least, one’s unsupported beliefs should be treated as such, and not paraded as fact the way far too many people do…
Yes, and the nature of the system corrects the errors that pop up: peer review, for one, helps ensure that fraudulent claims get shot down, and the emphasis on independent confirmation means that fraudulent claims are easily exposed when results can’t be replicated. The fact that even scientists make errors is NOT any sort of indictment!
Notice that scientists do wrong on traditional topics but also on the more fringe ones: You will recall the hullabaloo there was a few years ago on the efficacy of prayer on bacteria. Bad science, the same bullshit that happened with cold fusion: one unsupported claim, no peer review or verification, media sniffs the big story dollars and recklessly treats claim as fact.
Put it this way: there are good scientists and bad ones. There is good science and bad. The above statement of yours is the equivalent of raging against religion in general simply because a very few of one religion’s bad apples carry out suicide bombings. That is a promotion of ignorance. Similarly, pseudoscience, or science conducted without proper parameters, methods, controls, etc., is not science, it’s just rubbish.
Cold fusion, as others have kindly explained, was hardly the matter you (or your husband, apparently) think it was. Besides, I beat you to discussing cold fusion in the context of the paranormal by at least two years. Once again quoting myself from the thread linked above:
“The example you provided makes certain claims concerning the power of prayer, citing X results as evidence. I hate to repeat it one more time, but that evidence is barely of academic interest until it is verified by an independent and impartial party. Confirmation is needed–as the media and the public ought to have learned from the 1989 cold fusion fiasco of Pons and Fleischmann, when the two U. of Utah scientists made a claim to the effect that they had discovered a method to achieve fusion at room temperature using table-top apparatus. Their work was studied and replication was attempted. Nothing. The media ate crow, the public was disenchanted, the pseudoscientists cried foul.”
Cold fusion was not a failure of science, but a failure of uncritical and ignorant humans, particularly those among the media. The cold fusion claim should NEVER have been popularized the way it was, because it was an unverified claim. Pons and Fleischmann are to blame for their dishonesty and/or their incompetence, to be sure, however if the media had treated their claim with more scepticism, if other scientists had been listened to, the entire cold fusion fiasco would have been just one tiny footnote in the history of pseudoscience. However the cold fusion story certainly was sold to a lot of eyeballs – that, sadly, is an observable pattern when it comes to sensational news of questionable veracity.
How about this one: an eminent doctor “cures” a lady suffering of migraines by bleeding her temples to relieve the cranial pressure; when that doesn’t work and the patient looks none too healthy, the doctor cuts open the skull and cleanses the patient’s brain with salt. That one is from the crusades, Arabs reporting on the state of Christian medical science. I can give you more examples of inaccurate science (especially old science that predates the scientific method) than you can possibly begin to imagine, but what will it prove?
These are issues of 1) experimental design and 2) bias, and certainly need to be addressed whenever they crop up. It would help you to refer to a hard science as opposed to a soft science, lest you give the impression that you wish to be deliberately confusing. It’s a simple matter to measure the mass and velocity of an object (keeping in mind things like the Uncertainty Principle on a quantum level, of course), or establish the DNA of a tissue sample; quite another thing to attempt to quantify via verbal response the level of erotic arousal in a subject shown a set of pornographic photographs, etc.
When dealing with the soft sciences the numerous, often intricate, and sometimes obscure variables can indeed pose more of a problem. But in the hard sciences it is a relatively simpler matter, and oversights are somewhat more easily corrected in the peer review phase if not earlier.
Yes, that is sometimes a problem with some publications. That’s why scientific literacy is so important, more so now than ever since the Luddites seem to be getting more numerous. The following is also a problem, one that recently made the news:
You can see the error-correcting system addresses many of the issues that arise. No one claimed that science was as perfect as it is going to get. It’s a constantly evolving system that is more credible than anything else we have available because it has within itself the ability to recognize and correct errors made in its name. And because, frankly, it works. Can’t say the same for the spiritual and the supernatural.
No pedestal here, fessie, on the other hand you have made the attempt to tower pretty high earlier in this thread, without the necessary arguments or a clear position.
Now, one of my initial points was that intuition is nothing inscrutable or mysterious, it is simply a shortened form of reasoning based on immediately available stimuli and cues, such as eye movements, appearance, voluntary and involuntary gestures, voice modulation, most likely even pheromone emission, etc. In other words intuition builds a quick picture for fast processing, it erects a temporary gestalt that is useful if sometimes less than accurate. There is about as much of the magical in intuition as there is in the fact that we perceive high-colour and high-definition images with the balls of jelly we call eyes. Both are remarkable phenomena, to be sure, but nothing beyond our understanding.
So if you want to argue that women are smarter or that they are generally better at intuitive thinking than men go right ahead, it’s a fascinating subject. But don’t insist on massive hypotheticals (myths) such as the supernatural or spiritual in a discussion about intelligence and the sexes. I repeat once again: of course reason and logic are inherently, necessarily even, better than supernatural claims.
Now I strongly recommend this thread to anyone who may not be entirely clear about what science is and isn’t, what it does and doesn’t:
in which Mr Svinlesha plays devil’s advocate and Blowero, Dseid and I engage him in one of the finest discussions on the nature of science round these parts if I say so myself, that I have seen anyway. That remains my favourite and most coherent thread on the topic of science. In it you will find a lot about falsification (a key ingredient of the scientific method), the philosophy of science, the evolution of psychology and behaviourism, evolution and creation, science and religion, epistemology, Einstein, cosmology, and so forth. And, of course, plenty of juicy links.
Cute, now are you going to actually answer his question without taking his analogy as if he were really talking about nails?
In other words, what does a claim/argument look like if you don’t have logic, reasoning or an organized method of organizing thoughts and ideas?
Epimetheus, hon, I did. First by taking a contextual look at the meaning of “nail” (liquid?), then “hammer” (air gun?). The next links gave alternate uses of nails, which robbed them of their common meaning; as objects painted on, as art themselves, and as tools used by artists to apply paint. No hammers involved. Lastly I provided several alternative meanings of the four-letter construct that is represented by the letters N A I L. Could stand for people, places and other things, none of which require hammers. Now since this is a verbal forum and I can’t post visuals or express myself in physical form, I suppose you could argue there’s some “logic” involved, just in order to communicate in the English language; I had to make it somewhat relevant. But this is still a pretty good example.
Abe I’ve written three different responses to you, none of which seem satisfactory at this point. It seems we agree that science can be performed well or poorly (as is true with religion), and I’ll grant you that your methodology makes far more sense as applied to the physical world.
In your analysis you’ve keyed in on a few of my statements and I’m not sure that you got the picture - I think my facetious statement about female superiority lit your fire & you haven’t been able to see straight since. However, my examples of the female role centered on human relationships, so I’d think you would realize I’m talking about knowledge as it applies to human beings and relationships. Not tarot cards or crystals. The majority of my interactions with the world concern people and the arts, not neutrons.
I’m looking forward to reading the threads you cited when I have the time. When I figure out how to explain my fondness for mysticism and spirituality and their usefulness (at points when logic just doesn’t get the job done) I’ll do so.
Don’t feed the troll.
No, you didn’t. You are cleverly avoiding your own lack of solid examples of what could be valid but not logic. Re-read my previous post and figure it out, and quit avoiding the issue.
Sorry TVAA, had to bite.
That’s okay. Sometimes, it takes flame to kill trolls.