[Closed] Pentecost...........well i never.

You have to read the paper.

You cannot estimate the validity of any of the experimental work that the statistical study is based upon by reading that paper, so I'm not sure what you imagine anyone would achieve by doing so.

Charlie - does anyone else back her? I have never seen another piece of research that shows any evidence for ESP. Was it peer reviewed?

Yes, and it's not a one off, she has published and presented work in preparation of that paper.

[b]pypdjl [/b] Just what is it you are questioning? You mean the component studies in her meta-study are unsound?
What are you looking for?

I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.

Didn't Jim Davidson have a black mate called Chalky?

Oh try this

http://videolectures.net/icots2010_utts_awab/

Charlie - what peer reviewed journal was it published in then?

Proceedings of ICOTS-2010, as per video link

Exploring Psychic functioning: Statistics and Other Issues
- 1996 - STATS

An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning
- Journal of Parapsychology, 1995

Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology
- Statistical Science, 1991

and others, no doubt

There is nothing random about the responses generated in anomalous cognition experiments; in other words, there is no way to define what they would look like "by chance."
Notice that standard statistical methods cannot be used in these cases because there is no standard for probabilistic comparison. But evidence gained from applied remote viewing cannot be dismissed as inconsequential just because we cannot assign specific probabilities to the results

In other words they don’t seem to have an appropriate control or base measure to compare this to and yet they talk about chance but accept they cannot fully establish it.

They further compound this by using [after time] people who are better at this than other people [ they are therefore no longer a random selection of the population] then measure them compared to other normal people. Surprisingly this is significant. Surprising that isn’t it. Take people who can perform above chance and lo they perform above chance. We could debate why [ would be quite interested as to what is happening here tbh why would people be better at a seemingly random task - they dont seem to offer an explanation ]. Other than a vague description of what sort of experiments [ types not individual details]were performed there is not enough information to comment on individual methodology but they seem to have been very aware about reducing cues /task demands etc/
It may be worthy of study as to how the people perform above average but finding people who perform above average at random is not that surprising.
Interesting will have a re –read tomorrow as quite heavy going for this late on a Sunday I am about half way through who knows if it will sway me but I am open enough to read it.

They further compound this by using [after time] people who are better at this than other people [ they are therefore no longer a random selection of the population] then measure them compared to other normal people. Surprisingly this is significant. Surprising that isn’t it. Take people who can perform above chance and lo they perform above chance.

Sure, but just what is it they are better at? If you are not surprised that some people are better at remote viewing than others, then maybe you already believed in ESP.

the very fact that there are people who can perform above chance is evidence in itself.

Some of these people who perform above do so in a statistically consistent way. They don't specifically say 'so it must be ESP' because as statisticians, that is not their role. TBH I think they are just being coy and forcing us to use that word, because no other will do.

Interesting will have a re –read tomorrow as quite heavy going for this late on a Sunday I am about half way through who knows if it will sway me but I am open enough to read it

And that is why I have respect for you, despite just about always disagreeing with you

evidence that people can perform above chance is evidence of a bell shaped curve.
Good subject V average control = difference
no shit
I could take 2 SD's above the mean for anything and show you significance between then and the average control in anything.

It would be interesting to know why we would get get a spread of results for this task but I assume you accept that random will give us a bell shaped curve - do a large enough sample do we actually score above average at this...we may be quite good at guessing/predicting stuff but i cannot see how we would be reading someone remotely tbh.
they also accepted that no individual could do it every time. Compared it to baseball and saying you could not guarantee a hit just that they hit more often. Again interesting to know why it would be so unreliable. An explanation of why this would occur would be nice as well as it is just a description of what happens though i have not finished the article.
What happened if the sender did not try did this affect the good people as well did they try that?
EDIT:cheers for the above personally I think there is little point debating if you are not willing to be swayed in your view or consider other viewpoints and look into them. yes we rarely agree but we dont fall out either.

evidence that people can perform above chance is evidence of a bell shaped curve.
Good subject V average control = difference
no shit
I could take 2 SD's above the mean for anything and show you significance between then and the

Yes, but why are the subjects good? It's not as that subjects are just those from the RHS of the curve in this experiment. These guys are consistently on the RHS of the curve.

Proof that the bible is factual....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13560247

Again interesting to know why it would be so unreliable.

Well, i guess because it's hard to do. And the effect is a weak one, but the point made in other publications is that we approve medical treatments based on weaker effects than the ones demonstrated here.

So, heart medicine is not 100% effective, yet we believe in its efficacy well enough to call it medicine

An explanation of why this would occur would be nice as well as it is just a description of what happens though i have not finished the article.

Hmmm, i prefer if they leave it open. Ultimately, there is no know effect so for them to call it ESP might be presumptuous, especially as that is so poorly defined. I guess the thing is you call it what ever concept you have that fits the bill.

seems clear the stats suggest we perform above "average" [ or they measure above it] but i have issues with the measure but accept it will be hard to establish a base line for the norm.
will ead the links if i get a slow day at work

seems clear the stats suggest we perform above "average"

we?

But i guess you knew I would say that.

edit: The video is easier to watch, it also shows that even statisticians are sceptical when the evidence contradicts their beliefs

TandemJeremy - Member
Geetee - I [b]loathe and despise[/b]religion and [b]the religious[/b], I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

TandemJeremy - Member
Belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is not a rational position.

Religion and [b]teh religious[/b] [sic] cause such huge problems in our society thena [b]they are only a to be[/b] pitied and [b]despised[/b] for the3 harm they cause.

TandemJeremy - Member
I'll accept intolerance - the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering. It is not a harmless delusion.

Geetee - no it is not and that is not what I am doing.

[b]I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god[/b].

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you loathe and despise the people you care deeply about?

Or are you so "feeble minded" that you can't even keep track of what you're saying?

You are a bigot, and worse that that, you are a bully, which given how much you've complained about others bullying you on here, makes you a hypocrite as well.

I used to feel somewhat sorry for you and the flak you sometimes take on here. Now I see why it happens.

There's a lot of truth in what you say Kenny Senior, but there is nothing particularly new concerning TJ's hypocrisy and deeply insulting attitude towards people who have religious convictions. In that respect he isn't much different to Woppit's obsessive intolerance, other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.

Last year I posted this :

[i]"You judgemental arrogant ****.

I have worked with and known people with a whole range of religious beliefs ..... Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, more obscure Christian denominations, etc. I have found talking to them about their religion absolutely fascinating.

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.

And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so."[/i]

In response to this comment by TJ :

[i]"I find ALL religious views contemptible, ridiculous and offensive. If you express them you will find the piss taken from you."[/i]

Yes he is prepared to mock ridicule and insult, people who 'express religious views', but he is deeply intolerant of those who mock ridicule and insult him.

That baptazia vid always puts a smile on my face 🙂

TJ, either you're about to declare the Edinburgh defence, or you're just a bigot. I'd like to think that it's the former, but sadly I don't believe that's the case.

I've been one of those who's supported you and refrained from commenting even when I thought you were wrong. No longer.

For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views. There's nothing wrong with opinion, but the sheer forcefulness of your incessant desire to prove everyone else wrong is simply unedifying. I can only hope that you're not as unpleasant off-screen, and wonder (in all seriousness) whether you need some professional help.

You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise. That was a much more pleasant TJ; if I see you on a thread I simply look away now. I urge you to take another break and ask yourself whether you really need to be so combative to everyone, on pretty much every subject.

Well while it is probably useless to attempt a defence I will do then leave it alone.

Ernie takes my comments somewhat out of context. I will only take the piss out of the religious if they attempt to use their beliefs to prove a moral superiority or to make a point in the secular world. The religious keep their beliefs private I will as well. Use your beliefs to claim your superiority to me then accept that I will not tolerate that.

It is not hypocrisy as I do not say one thing and do another. It is not bigotry as I will not treat them less. Its not bullying as I will not hold it against them personally.

I am intolerant of those who use their religious beliefs to claim a moral superiority or in support of a particular position. Keep it in private and I will respect your views and indeed on many occasions on here have said so.

Kenny is right to pick up on the inconsistencies in what I posted. Hopefully this post has explained it a bit more.

If someone want to worship then I will respect that. I am respectful in a house of worship of any sort. However if they want to use their belief to claim a moral superiority then they have brought their beliefs into the public sphere and as such their beliefs can and should be challenged. With my friends it is never discusssed.

Edit - nickf - crossed posts. I hope this gives a bit more context.

An example would be Muslims and alcohol. I respect their right to refuse alcohol and employed some Muslims in a nursing home who did not want to hand out the Sunday sherry. That was respected and I found ways around that. I would not tolerate them telling me that to hand out the Sunday sherry was wrong however - but they did not so there was no issue. its a live and let live
.

Ernie takes my comments somewhat out of context.

Keep it in private and I will respect your views

No you won't. You have claimed on this thread -

TandemJeremy - Member
Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe [b]all people[/b] who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

Not much grey area there. Certainly no distinstion between private and public declaration of views. Utter contempt seems a more apt description of your opinion than "respect".

Kenny is right to pick up on the inconsistencies in what I posted. Hopefully this post has explained it a bit more.

In truth, all it's really done has brought into sharper relief your inability to recognise your own bigotry.

Time to put the shovel down TJ.

trailmonkey - its the same as folk who believe in astrology or fairies.

In the edit above read about the past Muslim employees of mine. Bigotry would have been refusing to employ them or making or making them choose between their beliefs and their job. As it was I accommodated their beliefs. However if they had attempted to tell me I was wrong to serve alcohol I would have challenged them. If they had said anything to the people in my care then that would not have been tolerated at all.

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.

And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so."

Prince Philip actually asked the question to a highly successful Aboriginal businessman - he was clearly taking the piss. I like pisstaking.

BOOOOM

But what about the religious people in your care TJ ? How would they respond to your views ? I find it hard to equate your usual liberal and mostly tolerant viewpoint with the abusive comments (and lets not pretend they were anything else, please) you've posted on here. To label ALL religious people as feeble minded and worthy of your loathing is a step too far, in my opinion. It's sad really, allowing yourself to get so wound up by what was, initially, just a crappy troll by ton.

😯

Bigotry would have been refusing to employ them or making or making them choose between their beliefs and their job

Bigotry would be calling them feeble-minded when you know nothing else about them other than that they believe in a God

I will only take the piss out of the religious if they attempt to use their beliefs to prove a moral superiority or to make a point in the secular world.

Use your beliefs to claim your superiority to me then accept that I will not tolerate that.

Keep it in private and I will respect your views and indeed on many occasions on here have said so.

CM will get back to you on this later tonight have been giving it some thought...had a dream about it [ NOT YOU] how odd - interesting though. I have som eideas for some experiments

we can run the experiments on here!! Maybe one of us has powers!!!

had a dream about it [ NOT YOU] how odd

I think you've overstepped a line on this 'respect' thing there.

I will answer barnsleymitch point.

I would never ever let it affect my dealings with those in my care. same as I would not let their views affect my care of people if they are racist or believe in ufos or astrology.

I have taken people in my care to church and sat in the church with them. In my own time not while being paid.

I have taken people in my care to church and sat in the church with them. In my own time not while being paid

...and some of your best friends are black?

other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.

Phew!

Makes me feel better about being attacked by TJ for being a bit of a b'stard (apparently) during that previous marathon-length combat er, must be over a year ago by now...

Have a nice day, everybody! 😉

Have a nice day, everybody!

Oh right, Woppit! Impose you're value system on every one else! What if there are people out there who don't want a nice day. Do you still command them to have a nice day. Or maybe you were wishing it on them! Not very considerate or inclusive there. Up till you said that I would have said TJ was worse than you! Now you've just pipped him at the post!

😆 😆 😆

The fairies at the bottom of [i]my[/i] garden tell me that the tea leaves have said that it's in the stars that my personal god is rather displeased at TJ's attitude, but she'll let him off this once.

1) Why is your god(s) the true god(s) and other gods are false gods
2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists?

Is there a reason you hold such strong views TJ? A direct experience?

I do find it amusing that being religious is linked to irrationality in a negative context. As though being irrational is completely unforgiveable! Clearly all humans are irrational so we should celebrate those differences like religious belief or always wearing green socks, and everything inbetween 🙂 FWIW, to me it seems perfectly clear that the dangers of religion stem from its rational applications, like using it as a tool for power and wealth.

the possibility that there is a controlling principle behind it

"No. That's just ordinary paranoia. Everyone in the univesre has that." - Slartibartfast.

No molgrips - the attitudes of [s]the [/s] [b]SOME [/b]god bothereres is an absolute disgrace.

The attitude of SOME atheists is a disgrace too. In fact, being a good person seems independent of religious affiliation in my experience.

TJ you are going to have to think a bit more carefully on threads like these before posting.

I would never ever let it affect my dealings with those in my care

I would suggest that by despising them and assuming they are feeble minded, you already have. IF that is indeed what you are doing.

I suspect you are gobbing off though in the abstract though, rather than accurately communicating your views though.

I suspect you are gobbing off though in the abstract though, rather than accurately communicating your views though.

I quite often find there is a big difference between the views you hold and the way you end up feeling about someone once you're confronted with their humanity.

I think TJ is getting carried away with a philosophical ideal and in reality the views he's expressing here probably aren't followed up by his actions with people he actually meets.

He wouldn't be the first person to misrepresent himself with ill communicated views on the internet....he won't be the last either.

I quite often find there is a big difference between the views you hold and the way you end up feeling about someone once you're confronted with their humanity

Exactly, and well put. When you're 15 or 16 you form these views in a bit of a vacuum, so they can be quite extreme. However as you grow older, meet lots of different people and have various experiences, you are confronted with lots of humanity and you can begin to see things from other points of view. And then you start assimilating lots of different points of view which is vital for a proper understanding of the world imo.

Ten quid says TJ will be praying on his deathbed, even for a split second.

Tolerance is the net result of the experience and emapathy for another person's humanity.

People who struggle with the experience of empathy often find it harder to accept other peopels' perspectives.

Those who are utterly devoid of the capacity for emapthy end up being sociopaths.

Junkyard - Member

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.

And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so."

Prince Philip actually asked the question to a highly successful Aboriginal businessman - he was clearly taking the piss. I like pisstaking.

[b][i]So which are you an idiot or a hypocrit ?[/i][/b]

😕 Eh ? Yes I take the piss.......I am "a pisstaker", everyone who knows me knows that. And I wouldn't for a minute attempt to deny it.

But I don't take the piss out of someone's religion, I don't take the piss out of someone's mother, I don't take the piss out of someone's children, etc.

How difficult is it for you to work that out Junkyard ? Do you not understand the concept of "common-sense" ? Can you [i]really[/i] not see the difference between having a laugh and a joke, and being offensive and obnoxious ? ...... TJ in the example quoted, was talking about taking the piss out of someone's religion in a [i]deliberately[/i] offensive manner.

Are you pretending to be stupid by suggesting that it's all the same thing ? Or as a fully paid-up member of the PC Brigade can you genuinely not see the difference with a harmless joke and a deliberate attempt to be insulting and offensive ?

BTW unlike TJ, I'm perfectly happy for you to think I am [i]both[/i] an idiot and a hypocrite, so there's no need to chose between the two......'cause I quite frankly couldn't give a monkeys 😀

TandemJeremy - Member

I am intolerant of those who use their religious beliefs to claim a moral superiority........

However if they want to use their belief to claim a moral superiority ..........

Twice in one post you claim that your [i]only[/i] issue with someone who has religious beliefs is when they "claim a moral superiority". Which would probably be a valid claim if it wasn't for the fact that it's complete bollox.

No one with religious beliefs comes on here claiming "a moral superiority" and yet that doesn't stop you frothing at the mouth about religion. Furthermore I very much doubt that anyone in your real life ever claims to you to have a moral superiority over you because of their religious beliefs.

I don't think I can ever recalled anyone ever telling me, that they were morally superior to me because if their religious beliefs. And if they had, I would have just shrugged it off. Your whole justification for your offensive and insulting rants concerning people with religious beliefs is actually a non-issue. And for that reason I reckon it's bollox......just a feeble excuse.

Ernie - I have been told on here that all morality comes from god and as a non believer I cannot have any morals. Just one of the more overt examples and as I said I will never be offensive and take the piss until they are offensive to me by pushing their views onto me.

Leave me alone and I will leave them alone.

Leave me alone and I will leave them alone.

Except that loads of them probably are leaving you alone - you don't even know they're religious most of the time.

Again - the ones that proselytise are annoying, yes, but they don't all do that. In fact most don't. Many of them don't feel that they are superior.

I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

+1, especially the second paragraph. In this day and age the thought of people believing in religion is beyond me. I would agree with everyone to their own and all that, except that religion has such a negative effect on the world.

Leave me alone and I will leave them alone.

[b][i]"Why's everybody always pickin' on me"[/i][/b]

[img] [/img]

Ernie - I have been told on here that all morality comes from god and as a non believer I cannot have any morals.

But not in this thread,
nevertheless you have been offensive and taken the piss even though no one has pushed their views onto you, despite what you say

I said I will never be offensive and take the piss until they are offensive to me by pushing their views onto me

Charlie - you have done it several times.

"2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists"

Love and happiness

so love and happiness can only come from God - how patronising.

CharlieMungus - Member

"Not only do I not believe, i positively reject your gods and I enjoy wonderful love and happiness"

But they give it to you anyway, that's just how nice they are. That's more evidence for you.

More patronising

Some religious people spreading love and happiness, earlier...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html

so love and happiness can only come from God - how patronising.

Nope, didn't say that. So..not patronising.

But they give it to you anyway, that's just how nice they are. That's more evidence for you.

More patronising

How so?

Charlie - you have done it several times.

done what? Pushed my views on to you? You asked me a question!

with every passing post, tj gets nearer in his quest to prove the non existence of hell

[img] [/img]

So TJ, just to be clear, if someone loathed and despised you for no other reason than that you were an atheist, you would have no problem with that? Alternatively, if we look at your post-backpedalling position, if you told someone that you did not believe there was a god, and they thereafter ridiculed you for that belief, that would be ok with you?
If so, good for you. If not, you are indeed a hypocrite.
How does your hatred (and lets not pretend loathing and despising is different to hatred) of religious people differ from the catholic that hates protestants, or the muslim that hates jews? It is the hatred of those with different beliefs, which you have admitted that you hold, that causes all the problems you blame on religion, not the religions themselves.
You need to take a good look in the mirror my friend. I hope you do. All the best.

EDIT And I'm well aware of all the wars that have been started in the name of religion, and not aware of any that have been started in the name of atheism, so don't try and shove that red herring into the argument. It is the hatred and intolerance of others that causes the problems, not the specific beliefs of the haters.

No kenny - you are missing (deliberatly?) the point. You are consistently distorting my words - and yes I have met many people who think of the non believer as a lessor being. I hate religion for the harm it does. I do not hate the individual.
As I said my words that you picked up on were far from clear. I did attempt to clarify. However its clearly useless to discuss religion on here and I am sorry I forgot that and got involved.

I'm not distorting your words TJ, I'm reading them, on page 4 of this thread - "I loathe and despise religion [b]and the religious[/b]".

If you are retracting what seems to me a very clear statement, then I revise my opinion of you (favourably), and accept that you did not convey yourself as you intended. There are no hard feelings from me, be assured of that.

However its clearly useless to discuss religion on here and I am sorry I forgot that and got involved

Everyone else seems to manage OK.

Kenny - yes I was not clear and attempted to clarify further down on page 5.

The individual I do not loathe and despise of necessity. The religions I do because of the harm they cause. However without followers the religions have no power to do the harm so all adherents are culpable but the extent of their culpability varies.

so all adherents are culpable but the extent of their culpability varies.

Just like all citizens are responsible for the actions of their government?
All care professionals are responsible for the abuses in the news last week?
I don't know, but I suspect that you would find an awful lot of people, of various religions, who utterly despise some of the things done by others in the name of that religion as much as you do.

The religions I do because of the harm they cause.

Surely it's the people that do the harm, not the religion.

Some people seem fixated on getting a sound bite out of people and when they have one that suits their belief or their side of the argument (or just gives them a cause), they will hammer the that point to death.

It's like listening to John Humphrys interviewing with on Radio 4 trying desperately to get a headline for the next hours news.

so all adherents are culpable but the extent of their culpability varies.

So what are you trying to say now.......that how much you loathe and despise also varies ?

How charitable of you.

Some people seem fixated on getting a sound bite out of people and when they have one that suits there belief (or just gives them a cause), they will hammer the point to death.

The issue here is TJ. TJ is constantly alleging that he has been misquoted/quoted out of context/had his words distorted, so people can be forgiven for insisting that TJ explains exactly what he means.

As far as I can figure out what TJ exactly means tends to be highly variable.......its dependant on whether it makes him look bad or not.

Some people seem fixated on getting a sound bite out of people and when they have one that suits their belief or their side of the argument (or just gives them a cause), they will hammer the that point to death.

Not sure if that's for me or not?

I don't have a side or cause in this matter/argument. I do read the threads with interest though.

Everyone is welcome to their view as far as I'm concerned, it would be boring if we were all the same.

Hypocrisy gets my goat however, which is what I challenged. TJ has since clarified what he meant, and I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning, but see above.

[b]Prince Philip actually asked the question to a highly successful Aboriginal businessman - he was clearly taking the piss[/b]. I like pisstaking.

So which are you an idiot or a hypocrit ?

Eh ? Yes I take the piss.......I am "a pisstaker", everyone who knows me knows that. And I wouldn't for a minute attempt to deny it.

But I don't take the piss out of someone's religion, I don't take the piss out of someone's mother, I don't take the piss out of someone's children, etc.

How difficult is it for you to work that out Junkyard ? Do you not understand the concept of "common-sense" ? [b]Can you really not see the difference between having a laugh and a joke, and being offensive and obnoxious ?[/b] ...... TJ in the example quoted, was talking about taking the piss out of someone's religion in a deliberately offensive manner.

Oh dear. 😕

How difficult is it for you to work that out Junkyard ? Do you not understand the concept of "common-sense" ? Can you really not see the difference between having a laugh and a joke, and being offensive and obnoxious ?

can you genuinely not see the difference with a harmless joke and a deliberate attempt to be insulting and offensive ?

The individual I do not loathe and despise of necessity. The religions I do

That is most definitely not what you said originally!

proper can of worms i opened here...............sorry.

It is the hatred and intolerance of others that causes the problems, not the specific beliefs of the haters.

This doesn't take into account the hatred of others because of membership of a different set of superstitions though, does it - the Crusades, for instance. If there was no religion, the one group would not hate the other - there being nothing to spur the hatred...

[i]proper can of worms i opened here...............sorry[/i]

Hmmm, like you didn't know...... 🙂

not sure it is that simple Whoppit. Tribes can war over many things such as respurces [ oil] and none of the recent wars were religious in nature. The end of religion wont stop war or hatred or intolernance.
It is fair to say [ unless we all join one it has not brought about world harmony but neither has anything else either.

crikey, i am to thick to to have done what you are suggesting.

pah that bit is a lie anymore of that and some fist pie is coming your way

Nope, just cos you're big doesn't mean you're not clever...

Junkyard, I take your point.

Look into my eyes ... look into my eyes ... follow me ... I am the one .... call me yourrrrr .... Deeaaarrr Leader. I am lovvveeeee! 😈

*Small print* - membership is only for fit female only so male & ugly people need not apply and will be treated as slave to be stepped on.

Jesus saves. He must be well annoyed with the poor interest rates on offer these days.

If there is one thing to be said about Prince Phillips humour it is is certainly the fact it is neither offensive nor obnoxious good call ernie an excellent point well made

Thanks 8) ......... although perhaps you could have made that point on the appropriate thread ?

.

ton - Member

proper can of worms i opened here...............sorry.

😀