dr krauss has a good book... which exists and doesnt exist.

also in todays world:

"An outbreak of measles tied to a Texas megachurch where ministers have questioned vaccination has sickened at least 21 people, including a 4-month-old infant — and it's expected to spread further, state and federal health officials said. 'There's likely a lot more susceptible people,' said Dr. Jane Seward, the deputy director for the viral diseases division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ... All of the cases are linked to the Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas, where a visitor who'd traveled to Indonesia became infected with measles – and then returned to the U.S., spreading it to the largely unvaccinated church community, said Russell Jones, the Texas state epidemiologist. ... Terri Pearsons, a senior pastor of Eagle Mountain International said she has had concerns about possible ties between early childhood vaccines and autism. In the wake of the measles outbreak, however, Pearsons has urged followers to get vaccinated and the church has held several vaccination clinics. ... 'In this community, these cases so far are all in people who refused vaccination for themselves and their children,' [Steward] added. The disease that once killed 500 people a year in the U.S. and hospitalized 48,000 had been considered virtually eradicated after a vaccine introduced in 1963. Cases now show up typically when an unvaccinated person contracts the disease abroad and spreads it upon return to the U.S.""

@oritteropo

The reason you didn't know these things is because your thought-leaders intentionally hide information from you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden:

Immigrants were five times more likely to commit sex crimes.[3] A report by the Sweden Democrats published September 2010 and compiled from 114 of 253 court rulings from around the country, stated that 48% of convicted rapists in Sweden in 2009 were born abroad.

"In Linköping, central southern Sweden, police responded to 120 incidents as cars, caravans and two schools were set alight. At one point a blazing truck was rolled into a building, which caught fire."

But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. ”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.

”We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait,” elaborated Lars Byström, the media relations officer of the Stockholm Police Department. ”If we see a burning car, we let it burn if there is no risk of the fire spreading to other cars or buildings nearby. By doing so we minimize the risk of having rocks thrown at us.”

The year I was doing my study abroad in Japan... didn't recognize most of the music though I did catch a couple of the films.

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

HA! miss you ya goober.

i dont subscribe to everything this video pontificates on.i thought it was an interesting point of view from a christian perspective.

ya know what i find even MORE interesting?
that during the bush years all my liberal/progressive friends needed medication for the rage and offense they took to the :illegal wars,wiretapping,torture etc etc.

even here on the sift the politics channel was busting with video after video of the malfeasance and outright destruction of civil liberties perpetrated by the bush administration.

and rightly so i might add.

go look at the politics channel now.
notice anything?
its dead jim.
empty and devoid of any real substantive discussion concerning obama.(or anything for that matter,its a ghost town)
who..lets be honest..is on his way to surpassing bush jr on:destruction of civil liberties,assasinations,expansion of more illegal wars.

now why is that?
when bush did it everybodies panties got knotted up but when obama not only expands executive powers but starts killing amreican citizens abroad.no trial.no jury..executes them.
and not a peep.
not even a slight foot note.(i may have just made that up but i havent seen much,and thats the truth)

so here we have a former constitutional lawyer.smart and photogenic pushing through some of the most heinous legislation and my liberal friends are silent.

so lets be clear here.obama is a product.
just like the pilsbury dough boy or the MGM lion.
and he has OWNERS.
they tell him what to do and what is in THEIR best interest.

our government has been purchased and is now a owned subsidiary of the multi-nationals and the financial industry.
and obama is the face of that subsidiary.

do i think a "new world order" is the goal?
well..naw....i think it is a select few who wish to perpetuate their own dominance and the rest of the world be damned.
they are only interested in governments in order to get what they want and what they want is to commodify everything.
they want to own it and sell it as they see fit.
water,air,food,energy...the whole kaboodle.

so if they have to purchase a government to make stealing legal or pay off a commitee in order to be able to sell poison as medicine or make GMO foods secret and non-litigious.
thats what they will do.

some right wing folks call it oligarchy.
i find that to be inaccurate.

the correct term is plutocracy.

so if you think the government under obama has become some benevolent uncle who just wishes to pass out smiles and hugs.
well....i dont think you have been paying attention.

obama is smarter and his administration far more clever but this government has EXPANDED on what bush did years ago.

so where the FUCK are my liberal friends????
has our society become so polemic that we root for "our" team like slacked jawed zombies?
look at how those teams are voting!
they are practically indistinguishable from each other!
republican..democrat..pffft..same fucking cookie.

are we so enamored with the IDEA of american politics that we cant see the reality?
its broken kids.
busted and banged up and rotten to its core.

i just dont get the silence..i really dont...
because i think thats what bothers me the most.
the silence.

/rant off

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

I was attempting to say that people should not be fanatic on either side of this argument, as not all scientific research is the most efficient topic or use of resources and not all research deemed "insignificant" is actually insignificant.

The fact that people reacted so strongly to ANY criticism of current research or justifications for it shows just how fanatic some people are about the need to defend any and all research.

It's the nature of a scientist or science minded people to find value and merit in almost any scientific pursuit. But in a world of limited resources and with many other problems, we have to accept that there is an opportunity cost to any and all research, no matter how important.

For some the valuation of this opportunity cost will differ.

Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs.

Then watch them give you the look of "thats great but why do I care about that now?" and understand that they are part of the greater good too.

"A Tramp Abroad" sits by the reading material in the bath

Ok so the first time I encountered the duel-syllabic pronunciation of "squerl" was with Brits. Sounds more like "skwee-rill" when my mates from Clapham said it.

What i can't figure out is why, "Al-u-Min-i-um?" An extra syllable AND but no extra vowel. I love it though-at least the Brits leave room for coloratura....pas comme les monstres de grammaire de la France

Here we go, level 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

"I can understand German as well as the maniac that invented it, but I talk it best through an interpreter."
- A Tramp Abroad

“Those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own.”
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I got onto a Ricky Gervais kick about 2 years ago. Watched The Office, Extras, listened to all his XFM broadcasts, his audiobooks, Guide To's, watched An Idiot Abroad, etc.. The problem I have with seeing him play Derek is due to the face he makes; I've seen him do that face too many times in other media (Extras as Mr. Stokes for example) so I keep expecting him to break character at any moment with that trademark laugh of his. It's so disconcerting that I have trouble suspending my expectation of it, so that I can actually see and enjoy the character.

I'll watch the show and I'm sure it will be a hit. But I don't think I'll be able to enjoy as much as someone who's new to him.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

People, people, people. Walmart is not the REASON the entire civilised world is finding itself in this situation - walmart is a symptom of the problem.

Walmart is an organisation motivated by profit just like any other.

I heard energy companies posting record profits year in and year out before the recession. There's people at the upper ends of those kinds of companies taking wages, bonuses, pensions and god-knows-what that some people couldn't make in 10 years. They don't deserve it, they don't work 10 times harder then the next person down, but there is a culture of taking what you can.

People don't need that kind of wealth, they just want it. Now, in times of hardship, energy companies are demanding more money for their services because they are no longer making the profit they used to. Instead of relying on the wealth that they have amassed during times of good, they rely on us to give them more.

So they cut a load of jobs to maximise their profits, but now the people they fired can't afford their energy bills. And this is going on all over the place - it isn't just the energy companies, it's also walmart with whatever schemes they've got. It's the oil companies and the politicians with whatever schemes they've got.

And all these schemes intermix, people losing jobs, people unable to afford this here and there because we've stagnated our money, there was no trickle down wealth, it's stagnated so much that there's not enough available anymore to share between the people that need it.

So now the government starts giving out handouts to the elderly or unemployed - £300 for your winter heating bill. But that's a huge amount of money so we need to raise taxes - which is a solution to nothing but puts the problem further ahead and maybe you can work harder later to make up for it.

Meanwhile, half the jobs that are getting taxed are now moved abroad because production is cheaper there. So entire markets of jobs no longer exist, we lost all of our car manufacturers, coal mines (it's cheaper from china), etc. which amounts to millions of jobs, and there's not a lot left to tax. What's the solution now? Which country do we bail out with borrowed money that is earning interest? If the untold billions in profit was returned to the customers back when times were good, we wouldn't be in this situation. But instead it went towards making let's say 30 individual people a lot richer.

Do you see where i'm going with this? It's a culture of greed, and each point down the line there is just enough intentional maneuverability for people to take more than you deserve and/or need; you either are in the clique, in the power scheme, taking cash - or you're not and you're holding up the facade. This isn't what a society is meant to be - it's meant to be a group of people working for their own common benefit because when we don't we all suffer and no one is happy.

This model has a short life-cycle; the eventual result is a few people having a lot of little bits of green paper that don't mean anything because they've forced everyone into abject poverty.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in."
It doesn't get any simpler than that. Until these old men start planting some trees and giving a LOT back, we will stagnate and you don't want to learn this implied lesson the hard way.

>> ^spoco2:

One minute in and I'm with P1ggy... Wow, LOL's shared to fulfill a missing part of your soul?
Fucking hell.
I'll never share the world view of people like this. Always looking for the negative in everything.
YES there are negatives to EVERYTHING
But you know what? There's also fucking awesome things in everything too.
Does he realize how many people use Facebook to organize real world events and meeting with REAL people to interact in a REAL sense?

Does he not get the irony of starting the video with promotion for his websites?
Does he talk with that depressing monotone all the time?
I'm all for interaction with real people, but I'm not for looking on the world through shit coloured glasses.


here here!

i think the OP must have a HATEON for hand written letters too then... or wait, maybe he romanticizes them

i only FB people I know in real life
FB is used almost like a bulletin board system, to organize events, keep in touch with people when I'd otherwise get absolutely no contact with them due to time constraints

and what about all the people i've met abroad, who i've formed friendships with that I would have little to no contact with without online social media

what about all the activism/political information i'd probably either not receive or at best receive in a non-timely fashion if not for social media (arab spring anyone?)

what about being able to see pictures or videos of relatives too sick, too old, or too newborn to travel conventionally... let alone being able to communicate with them

the OP falls into the cliche "everything was better the way it was as opposed to how it is or will potentially be"... shit colored sunglasses indeed

stop using it if you dont approve of the changes to your lifestyle social media makes
but it is IRONIC you are using social media to spread your message don't you think? wouldn't it be truer to your message to do door to door/face to face meet and greets?

and every opinion expressed in this video is hardly... HARDLY universal
let alone original

Blimey, that just looks like playing for easy laughs. Maybe his foreigner abroad routine is a bit crude this time around.

>> ^messenger:

@A10anis
You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.
As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.
Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.
You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?
Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...

I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.