XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
LOLA bunch of stuffIt is clear that you and I will never see ey to eye and that you just love every chance you can get to down play the role the United States plays in the world and tell us how bad we are. It is also clear that you will simply ignore anything I say that doesn't fit what you want to think and take my words out of context to try ad prove your anti-American agenda, Therefore I tip my hat and say Good Day sir. I have nothing more to say to you.
I call SOCK PUPPET!
|
As a personal aside I would like any attempts for the Christians to get Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving to be met with a fine, and before Halloween to be considered a felony. Not really a part of my plan, but it’d make me happy.
I agree with the bolded part. I'd also extend Easter produce before Valentine's Day into the criminal sanctions list.
I think many of us who are Christian can agree with this as well.
I want Mithras to take back what is rightfully his.
|
|
I call SOCK PUPPET!
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
LOLA bunch of stuffIt is clear that you and I will never see ey to eye and that you just love every chance you can get to down play the role the United States plays in the world and tell us how bad we are. It is also clear that you will simply ignore anything I say that doesn't fit what you want to think and take my words out of context to try ad prove your anti-American agenda, Therefore I tip my hat and say Good Day sir. I have nothing more to say to you.
Ok so your a sock puppet and?
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it. But a democracy isn't about me getting what I want always or you always getting your way. Sure maybe you hate that tax money goes to a tree but there are plenty of things the government spends money on I would perfer they don't. Like healthcare right no in the USA. The majority have it, so we will all pay more so the minority can as well. Sometimes you don't get your way but that doesn't make it tyrannny it actually makes it a democracy. Unless the majority always includes the same people, which it doesn't, there is no tyranny there is simply democracy.
(I'm not sure what tax money since the tree or whatever is provided by the group that wants it, the spot on the park/land is owned by the locality and it is a tempary use thing so you get it back later.).
Bah! December 25th was his. It was stolen! STOLEN, I TELL YOU!
I want Mithras to take back what is rightfully his.
I still want someone to explain to me who/what Mithras is.
I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.A distinction: Matthew could be justified in claiming that he knows this, without any claim to omniscience. He might not be saying that his knowledge is infallible, just that he knows it. I sure wouldn't want someone coming to my door saying that Buddhism might be the way to liberation. ;)
If he believes that he knows that there is a God, then he must say that nonbelievers believe that there is not a God, not that they know it. In the same way, if someone believes that they know there is not a God, they must say that believers believe in God, not that they know God. Their claims are necessarily exclusive, without a need to claim that they are omniscient or infallible. I take this to be why it is so important for us to make space for people who are wrong, whenever and to the greatest extent possible.
I may be wrong but I think that Matthew may be confusing "believing very strongly" or "being confident that his beliefs are true" with "knowing." I don't know the philisophical ins and outs, but it seems to me that "knowing" is a different beast than "believing." For example, I know that 1+1=2 in base 10 in standard arithmatic blah blah blah. I know what the name of my hometown is. I don't know the current distance to the planet Mars. However, I *believe* that Niel Armstrong walked on the moon (very strong evidence, counter evidence is not credible, but I wasn't there), and I *don't believe* that god exists (evidence for and against exists, but evidence for is not very credible by modern standards and evidence against seems stronger and more direct). Unless Mathew claims that he can actually experience the divine with his senses, in other words, that he is a visionary, he cannot "know" that the divine exists.
I want Mithras to take back what is rightfully his.I still want someone to explain to me who/what Mithras is.
If you can afford the bull, I'm sure someone will tell you. I'd wear old clothes.
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it. But a democracy isn't about me getting what I want always or you always getting your way. Sure maybe you hate that tax money goes to a tree but there are plenty of things the government spends money on I would perfer they don't. Like healthcare right no in the USA. The majority have it, so we will all pay more so the minority can as well. Sometimes you don't get your way but that doesn't make it tyrannny it actually makes it a democracy. Unless the majority always includes the same people, which it doesn't, there is no tyranny there is simply democracy.
(I'm not sure what tax money since the tree or whatever is provided by the group that wants it, the spot on the park/land is owned by the locality and it is a tempary use thing so you get it back later.).
an an atheist I don't mind the government paying for trees and tinsel snowman decorations. Those aren't religious symbols. Besides, I celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas too. I also don't mind Christian groups setting up creches in the the square as long as they pay for them plus the setup and takedown, to me that's part of free speech (and don't the courts allow that?). I do, however, insist that Jews get to set up menorahs and Hindus and Muslims and Satanists get to set up whatever it is they set up on their holidays, and us atheists get to set up anti-religious displays when we think its appropriate and maybe a pro evolution display on Darwin's birthday.
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
Bugley,
You're missing the leafy one's point. "Evidence" requires some underlying beliefs to be true. That reality is an objective fact. That our senses reliably capture this fact. That our brains can comprehend what our senses tell us. None of those underlying assumptions can be proved because without those assumptions there can be no evidence.Granted, this is going further into philosophy of thought than we probably want to go. But atheism does have some asserted beliefs that have no evidence for them, largely around what constitutes evidence.
True - but 'm not sure how relevant this part of the philosophical debate is. Since all sides essentially agree on the idea that there is a physical universe we can pretty much skip over the step where you have to prove that there is a physical universe.
After that we end up arguing over evidence and procedure but I suspect most Atheists would contend that we have the tools for the job and that these tools where mostly thought up by great thinkers of the past (though some may be alive today) who came up with such concepts as Occam's Razor.
I think many of us who are Christian can agree with this as well.As a personal aside I would like any attempts for the Christians to get Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving to be met with a fine, and before Halloween to be considered a felony. Not really a part of my plan, but it’d make me happy.
I agree with the bolded part. I'd also extend Easter produce before Valentine's Day into the criminal sanctions list.
Depends on the decorations. All and all as far as its holiday hijackings go the Christians did a pretty poor job with Easter. I mean it’s still named after Eostre for crying out loud. Anyways, if the decorations are to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then yes it should be closer to the date they chose. But Easter bunnies and baby chicks and eggs keep more to the traditional meaning of Easter being a festival of Spring. Therefore I only find such decorations ridiculous if it is not Spring yet.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)
Assuming we can agree that we aren't brains in a vat, I can't make my position any clearer than Russell's teapot.
I prefer Dawkin's Fairies at the bottom of the garden. One can attack Russell's point because he is talking about a physical object - Fairies though, well they exist in the same kind of conceptual space as Gods. They are both mystical ideas with a long and rich tradition.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)
And I would say Kirth's example is a classic example of a straw-man. ;-)
And I would say Kirth's example is a classic example of a straw-man.
How so? It's an example that is equally applicable, in exactly the same way. It may be an example that you personally don't like, but that in no way makes it a stawman.
And I would say Kirth's example is a classic example of a straw-man. ;-)Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)
I disagree.
And I would say Kirth's example is a classic example of a straw-man. ;-)Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)
And I would say you're wrong. Kirth's example is hardly superficially similar to Thurgon's proposition; it was a pretty direct example of it.
But of course, in the absence of logic police, I can only encourage people to read the definition of a straw man and then decide for themselves.
|
|
Since I don't think everyone seems to know what a strawman is.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
Since I don't think everyone seems to know what a strawman is.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
What is unclear (to me) is whether you think Kirth's analogy constitutes a straw man. I do not believe it does.
Original position: Majority Christian, use tax dollars for Christian-specific displays.
My example: Majority Muslim, use tax dollars for minarets (a Muslim-specific display).
Now, looking at the definition helpfully provided, how is this in any way a straw man?
And I would say Kirth's example is a classic example of a straw-man.How so? It's an example that is equally applicable, in exactly the same way. It may be an example that you personally don't like, but that in no way makes it a stawman.
Well considering, your suggestion is not even possible given the US constitution and nothing remotely similar was suggested at all. So your suggested Muslims would not only have to passes laws in their city, they would have to change the constitution itself. So what are you really arguing?
Also, I find it strange that the answer to religious speech, is a suggest to restrict speech, not to engage in more speech. The courts have pretty consistently sided in favor of more speech is better than restricting speech.
|
|
What is unclear (to me) is whether you think Kirth's analogy constitutes a straw man. I do not believe it does.Since I don't think everyone seems to know what a strawman is.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
that wasn't my point. One of the two seems not to grasp what it is. I will not make the distinction but rather just pull up the explanation and allow people to come to their own conclusions.
Well considering, your suggestion is not even possible given the US constitution and nothing remotely similar was suggested at all. So your suggested Muslims would not only have to passes laws in their city, they would have to change the constitution itself. So what are you really arguing?
That's a lot of words for a response that doesn't contain an answer.
Also, I find it strange that the answer to religious speech, is a suggest to restrict speech, not to engage in more speech. The courts have pretty consistently sided in favor of more speech is better than restricting speech.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand: Is Kirth guilty of employing a straw man argument. I fail to see what bearing the tendencies of the court with respect to free speech have on this question.
Well considering, your suggestion is not even possible given the US constitution and nothing remotely similar was suggested at all. So your suggested Muslims would not only have to passes laws in their city, they would have to change the constitution itself. So what are you really arguing?
Also, I find it strange that the answer to religious speech, is a suggest to restrict speech, not to engage in more speech. The courts have pretty consistently sided in favor of more speech is better than restricting speech.
1. The Constitution in no way favors Christianity over Islam.
2. You've misread my posts, or mis-stated my position. I'm in favor of allowing Christmas displays, most especially privately-funded ones. I'm against tax dollars being used for Christian-specific purposes.|
|
Original position: Majority Christian, use tax dollars for Christian-specific displays.
My example: Majority Muslim, use tax dollars for minarets (a Muslim-specific display).Now, looking at the definition helpfully provided, how is this in any way a straw man?
Was there not a ban on minarets in a European country recently?
Original position: Majority Christian, use tax dollars for Christian-specific displays.
My example: Majority Muslim, use tax dollars for minarets (a Muslim-specific display).Now, looking at the definition helpfully provided, how is this in any way a straw man?
That wasn't the totality of your argument, here let me quote it for you since you've forgotten.
want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police[/b], or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
And why couldn't minarets be build into state buildings? It is an architectural style that, yes happens to be common to muslim mosques, but flying buttress is are common to many churches in europe. Do we outlaw flying buttresses if some community wanted to use them for a state building?
Was there not a ban on minarets in a European country recently?
Their system works a bit differently from ours, and the validity of the ban is far from settled in any event. Besides, my example was the use of tax dollars to build minarets, not banning minarets in general.
Was there not a ban on minarets in a European country recently?Original position: Majority Christian, use tax dollars for Christian-specific displays.
My example: Majority Muslim, use tax dollars for minarets (a Muslim-specific display).Now, looking at the definition helpfully provided, how is this in any way a straw man?
There was. And assuming the ban included privately funded minarets on private property, it was a load of horse-s@++.
Was there not a ban on minarets in a European country recently?Original position: Majority Christian, use tax dollars for Christian-specific displays.
My example: Majority Muslim, use tax dollars for minarets (a Muslim-specific display).Now, looking at the definition helpfully provided, how is this in any way a straw man?
Aye, the Swiss did it.
And why couldn't minarets be build into state buildings? It is an architectural style that, yes happens to be common to muslim mosques, but flying buttress is are common to many churches in europe. Do we outlaw flying buttresses if some community wanted to use them for a state building?
Nice try. The implication, which you've conveniently ignored, is minarets [to be used specifically for Muslim services rather than for any secular purpose]. The fact that you're pretending not to realize that suggests that you're not so sure of your standing anymore.
And why couldn't minarets be build into state buildings? It is an architectural style that, yes happens to be common to muslim mosques, but flying buttress is are common to many churches in europe. Do we outlaw flying buttresses if some community wanted to use them for a state building?Nice try. The implication, which you've conveniently ignored, is minarets [to be used specifically for Muslim services]. The fact that you're pretending not to realize that suggests that you're not so sure of your standing anymore.
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses? I just want be clear that the only use of a minaret can only ever be for religious purposes, is that true?
Also I find it totally reasonable that a community that is primarily one ethnicity and perhaps immigrants/decendents from one region would like architecture in public buildings that is reminiscent of that region.
And why couldn't minarets be build into state buildings? It is an architectural style that, yes happens to be common to muslim mosques, but flying buttress is are common to many churches in europe. Do we outlaw flying buttresses if some community wanted to use them for a state building?Nice try. The implication, which you've conveniently ignored, is minarets [to be used specifically for Muslim services rather than for any secular purpose]. The fact that you're pretending not to realize that suggests that you're not so sure of your standing anymore.
Sorry, but I might have missed something coming into the middle of this.
Other than stating that is the implication, where is the implication?
Just asking for clarification...
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?
I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware. I'm suggesting that the use of tax dollars to fund a minaret which is only to be used for Muslim services would be inappropriate. Use of them to fund a minaret which would be used for other purposes (a decorative feature on a government buidling, for example, that is not reserved for religious use) would be a totally different case.
Also I find it totally reasonable that a community that is primarily one ethnicity and perhaps immigrants/decendents from one region would like architecture in public builds that is reminiscent of that region.
Forget the minarets, then, and suppose they were explicitly building mosques (which was clearly Kirth's intent).
I think the United States should quite borrowing money, right now, today. There should be no more votes to raise the debt ceiling "just one more time." Yes, it would be EXTREMELY painful, but less painful than what is to come if we don't.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Canada had a debt problem that was completely out of control 20 or so years ago while we currently are one of the more fiscally responsible members of the G7. This was managed without excessive hardship by simply adhering to some level of fiscal responsibility until the deficits turned into a surplus and then maintaining a small surplus for a long enough period of time. Truth is Canada's actual debt is about the same as it was 20 years ago...but the countries economy is far larger so the debt represents a small percentage of the countries overall wealth.
The really nice aspect of this (at least in Canada) was that once one party did a good job on balancing the budget and managing the country in a fiscally responsible way it became imperative for the other major parties to prove that they too can behave in a fiscally responsible manner as good government management is a huge voting issue for most people.
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware. I'm suggesting that the use of tax dollars to fund a minaret which is only to be used for Muslim services would be inappropriate. Use of them to fund a minaret which would be used for other purposes (a decorative feature on a government buidling, for example, that is not reserved for religious use) would be a totally different case.
Strawman: Not guilty. Don't hold your breath for an concession, though.
ZOMG I must be Kirth's Sock Puppet! ;-)
Other than stating that is the implication, where is the implication?
Forget the minarets, then, and suppose they were explicitly building mosques (which was clearly Kirth's intent).
In context, the implication seems to have been clear to everyone except the people who seem to feel that tax dollars should be used for explicitly Christian purposes, but not for Muslim ones.
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware. I'm suggesting that the use of tax dollars to fund a minaret which is only to be used for Muslim services would be inappropriate. Use of them to fund a minaret which would be used for other purposes (a decorative feature on a government buidling, for example, that is not reserved for religious use) would be a totally different case.
I asked for clarification because I wished for it.
I did not lie and ask for some other reason.
I expect that you will not make such claims again. They are not appreciated.
For your reading pleasure...
|
|
I think the United States should quite borrowing money, right now, today. There should be no more votes to raise the debt ceiling "just one more time." Yes, it would be EXTREMELY painful, but less painful than what is to come if we don't.I don't think this is necessarily true. Canada had a debt problem that was completely out of control 20 or so years ago while we currently are one of the more fiscally responsible members of the G7. This was managed without excessive hardship by simply adhering to some level of fiscal responsibility until the deficits turned into a surplus and then maintaining a small surplus for a long enough period of time. Truth is Canada's actual debt is about the same as it was 20 years ago...but the countries economy is far larger so the debt represents a small percentage of the countries overall wealth.
The really nice aspect of this (at least in Canada) was that once one party did a good job on balancing the budget and managing the country in a fiscally responsible way it became imperative for the other major parties to prove that they too can behave in a fiscally responsible manner as good government management is a huge voting issue for most people.
This is nice. It gets us back on target for this thread and leaves the other stuff for another thread.
Did Canada get the Budget balanced, so as to pay off the debt?
Personally I think that America could do so much more in so many ways if we just have the federal budget under control.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Canada had a debt problem that was completely out of control 20 or so years ago while we currently are one of the more fiscally responsible members of the G7. This was managed without excessive hardship by simply adhering to some level of fiscal responsibility until the deficits turned into a surplus and then maintaining a small surplus for a long enough period of time. Truth is Canada's actual debt is about the same as it was 20 years ago...but the countries economy is far larger so the debt represents a small percentage of the countries overall wealth.
<SNIP>
I think it's too late for that to work for us; I hope to be proven wrong, though. :)
I asked for clarification because I wished for it. I did not lie and ask for some other reason."pres man"[/b]] Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware.
I'm confused. Are you pres man? If not, leave him to his own answer, and I'll give you your own: I initially provided three examples of the use of tax dollars and/or civil authority for expressly religious purposes. The fact that the minarets example was not fully detailed in a three-sentence clarification was then used by Pres Man as an attempt to ignore the ititial point entirely, claiming it was a "straw-man."
You're pres man, then?Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware.I asked for clarification because I wished for it.
I did not lie and ask for some other reason.
I am sorry, that makes no sense and I have not spent much time reading his posts to do anything other than guess.
I explicitly stated in my original post that I had come into the conversation in the middle and asked for clarification. I explicitly stated that I was just asking for clarification.
You implied that I did not need clarification. But, the simplist interpretation of my question was one that did not imply maliciousnes: I wanted clarification. However, you refused to go by the principle of charity and chose to antagonize me.
If you actually wish to debate, I believe that the principle of charity is important to follow.
I'm confused. Are you pres man? If not, leave him to his own answer, and I'll give you your own: I initially provided three examples of the use of tax dollars and/or civil authority for expressly religious purposes. The fact that the minarets example was not fully detailed in a three-sentence clarification was then used by Pres Man as an attempt to ignore the ititial point entirely, claiming it was a "straw-man."I asked for clarification because I wished for it. I did not lie and ask for some other reason."pres man"[/b]] Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware.
That works. I responded to you because you quoted me. So, I'm not sure where the leave him to his own answer thing is coming from.
Edit note: I mistakenly thought I was being responded to.
@ KG
I offer my red faced apology.
That is what I get for quickly responding.
I offer my red faced apology.
None needed, I assure you (except maybe for the accusations of lack of charity). I'll concede that I should have left off my discussion with pres man and answered you more completely to begin with.