arthur

Hello Qfwfq, Let me assume that you, Qfwfq, the only person who claims to, I quote; *"find your arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non-sequiturs"* and who refuses to divulge them are not being silly, provocative or trying to be emotionally augmentative, and, let me assume that you are familiar with the concept that information read from the word (writing) is an interpretation, also, let me assume, that you are familiar with trying to be objective. (The art in being an intellectual an so objective is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice) therefore on the above assumptions I will address your post. "I won't go through other non sequiturs" you wrote. Why not? an explanation might be helpful, and what did you mean by 'other'? and you also wrote, "and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here" I'm not sure what is meant by fat but like the assumptions I made about you, above, they were the result of my objective interpretations of their posts, as opposed to, what I assume and so suspect, your tacit assumptions about me are not objectively compiled, but are interpretations based upon, and so influenced by, your subjective/emotional/hormonal feelings towards me. This will certainly result in, as can be seen throughout this thread, perversions and misinterpretations of anything that I might say. So, Qfwfq, If I were to make the effort to reply to your slanted and rather silly questions would the relies only be used as a springboard to launch more irrationalities at me? Have you read my proposition?, Have you read it with a view of understanding it or have you read it with a view of continuing this B/S by selecting, maybe, non sequiturs or snippets that you can make use of to ask me similar questions to use to satisfy you emotions rather than to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry? If the reason was not to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry what are posting on this thread for? and if it was, why did you not politely respond to my hope that, on the basis of understanding it, it will receive a just and honest, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits. Well Qfwfq, why didn't you??? Arthur

You wrote: "Nasty is as nasty does, arthur. And totally subjective, too. I do not find any of my postings nasty - up to the point where you point-blank refuse to address the point I raised. Which I will do again: Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world, so, if Christianity were to dissappear, how could it have an impact on civilization? Do you understand my question? Stop dodging the question". OK, Boerseun, moderator. let me start with "Nasty" spiteful, mean, malicious, horrible, malevolent, wicked, foul, horrid, revolting, offensive, bad, disgusting, nauseating, sickening, vile, unpleasant, repugnant is your threat to close this thread solely on the grounds that I am unable and unwilling to accept your ludicrous and ridiculous, illogical ideas and your aggressive demands that I answer them. For example, let us, that is you as an individual and not you as a *we* and I, look at your; "Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world, so, if Christianity were to disappear ( not dissappear, we are not on 4what ever) how could it have an impact on civilization? Do you understand my question?" This is not a question; "Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world" but it is an unsubstantiated statement. But, by your referencing it with the word "so", meaning "therefore" or "hence" or "subsequently" to your rather silly question of "if Christianity were to disappear, how could it have an impact on civilization?" you have created a unanswerable question, which in effect is a non question. Even if one were to remove your loaded referencing, and try to redefine the question to relate to my proposition you would have difficulty because Christian and Roman Catholicism's influences that have allowed this sophisticated civilised society to exist and function are integral, therefore inseparable, read the proposition. so ,Will you close this thread because I am unable to answer one of your non questions??? And my answer to your second question is "No I don’t" Quote: (Laughably) "We probe any hypothesis raised here", Who is this *we*? Is this the moderator *we's* who have done little but to display their prejudice and abject lack of objectivity? Is this the moderator *we* who demands I define two obvious and simple words of the title with an implied closure threat? Is this the moderator *we* who by obvious inference related my proposition to the Klu Klux Klan? Is this the moderator *we* who accuses me of montanmans lies? Is this the moderator *we* who posted pictures of kids supporting a hate campaign? is this the modeator *we* who with objectivity? careful consideration? and with academic integrity, who wrote the Blah, Blah, Blah post? etc, etc. And, are you the moderator *we* 'who, not by implication,' claims that all of the millions of people who accept and have a Christian faith are intelligently and intellectually inferior to yourself? and who presented the above two questions to show the type of intellectual prowess used for probing a hypothesis?. Come on, Boerseun moderator, even you must recognise that all of that, is nothing more than mitigated prejudicial tosh as is the rest of this *we* and *us* claim. Other than one of the *us* or the *we* you's have not displayed an iota of integrity or objectivity or good will related to my proposition and most of the you's and the *we's* have preferred to indulge in bias provocative subjective piffle as in this post rather than display good manners and give me an objective critique of a sensible and pretty obvious proposition or ask me non loaded polite questions related to my proposition. Have you read it?? (and have any of your *we's* or *us's* read it??) it seems not when you deliberately?? or, through not understanding?? write "Christianity is the source of morality - which you claimed" when in fact what I claim is no more then the following. It is because we developed and grew up in this environment where the laws, the kind of morality, that have given us our concept of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, etc which has allowed us, that is you and me as well as other people to evolve a psychological dependency on an expectation of us having a future, etcetera, etcetera. I am sure that any *reasonably intelligent person* could extrapolate for themselves the importance of and the *impact that Christianity has had on, directly and indirectly, developing moral or ethical values* that they them selves might have. I am also sure that *any reasonably intelligent person* could not recognise that there is nobody unaffected by the influences of Christianity and its effects. Consider what it is that has held the (westernised) Sophisticated "Christian" Civilised Societies that 'we' are all a part of together. Consider firstly from your own personal perspective the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to *the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets of "Christianity"*. The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. The laws and rules that you have never really questioned, the ones that you have absorbed and which have become an integral part of your being, from being that young child and screaming "But that’s not fair" to the maturity of becoming spontaneously distressed by the evil or immoral activity of others who do not respect the same values Was that an example of you probing a hypothesis??? Why are you and your ilk so emotionally uptight that you put this thread under threats? You's and your ranting bigoted cohort have done nothing but try to discredit any value of this thread from the out set, Will there be any point in asking why? If you don’t like it why participate? (don't give me the tosh that you have to) Why haven't you and you ilk done the job of moderating instead of encouraging the prejudice B/S that you have. Why have you and your ilk not displayed the qualities of a moderator, good-will, honesty, objectivity and action to facilitate a flow of intelligent debate from the beginning instead of what you have created. As I have said before, you should hang your heads in shame. If you KNOW that something is incorrect then, axiomatically and logically you will KNOW why it is incorrect. Boerseun, moderator, when you claimed emphatically that I was incorrect I politely asked you, 'then, what is correct? where did the morals, ethics and values that allow millions of free people to live together in comparative harmony originally come from? Will you use this question as an excuse to close this thread as an attempt to save (your) 'face' or will you try to answer with a view of having a honest and sensible debate?? If you do, think why then did you not do it from the beginning, a simple and honest request, give me a critique. *It is not part of a religious debate. It has nothing to do with the veracity of The Bible, of God, of ones religious convictions or of Christianity per se* Why did you as a moderator allow and encourage a obvious religious bigot to dictate how 5 or 6 editors/moderators/staff should respond to some thing that they and you had no understanding of by joining in his bigotry, Have non of you minds of your own??? Finally Boerseun moderator. THE questions; Will the decline of goodwill, honesty, good manners, and politeness by the participants result in the demise of this thread? Could the intensification and the increasing growth of hate, bigotry, disenchantment, violence, greed, selfishness, and such amongst the citizens result in the demise of acquiescence to the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society? Will the decline in the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society promote its demise? Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation? I think, Boerseun moderator, as well as your *we's* and *us's* you should, particularly for this last question, make use of an English language dictionary and a 'New Testament'. Arthur.

lemit Do you really want to understand that God is nothing more than a human contrivance. Do you really want to understand that all of those beautiful human biological machines, including yourself have been and are being programmed to accepted a concept of a God as a rationale and reason for existing, leave this thread, go away, it really is not for you, unless of course you already know that God is just a figment of your programmed delusion, if you don't already know, understand that once it has gone you will be left with nothing, just an empty human shell. If you already understand all of this you will understand that any claims of any horrors perpetrated by any religious factions have absolutely no relevance to my proposition. But I am sure that a new thread would be welcomed by the Christian haters to ***** about stuff that they do not understand. Arthur.

Hello Qfwfq Very sadly I no longer feel concern about the impending plight of mankind as a whole or of 'this sophisticated civilised society'. My real interest in your post is that you find my "arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non-sequiturs". I am interested in what you mean. I accept that your familiarity with Freezer is as you write, but to understand my answer to your question you will need to understand, as I have said elsewhere, that I make 'no judgment about the nature of a creature' bigots do what bigots do, and with regards to my proposition, I don’t care. Your question; "On which grounds do you take the liberty of likening him to the parents of today's most ill-bred youths"? I am not sure about today's most ill-bred youths but I am absolutely sure of the destructive effects, not only to the children involved but to society at large of using and involving immature innocent children to encourage and perpetuate a regime of adult hate for any particular defined group within a particular society. To help you understand let me tell you of a recent trip. I was invited to take to Africa as an observer. A formerly self sufficient Christian desert village, ten dwellings, twenty five decapitated babies and children being consumed by fly grubs and cockroaches, the stench of ten women's, mothers, carcases, some with arms, feet, breasts and legs macheted off, Four stinking carcase of old men etc, etc. I was given the opportunity to question one of the perpetrators of this horror, a 19 year old boy who at the age of thirteen was forced by 'bad men' to hack his father to death with a machete to save his mothers life. He told me that he was told that these people worship the devil and they should die.---- I cant be bothered to continue, I don’t even know if you are interested or can even understand. I wouldn’t consider, per se, that an adult who uses young kids in "T" shirts to advertise that they or their god hates homosexuals, niggers, Jews, Arabs or who ever, is a "bad" parent, but I can and will say that any adult who uses kids to advertise their bigotry to boost their egos is definitely not concerned with the survival of their society or is just too thick to understand. You wrote; "It strikes me that in the past few decades it has been the bigots that caused more social problems". I agree whole heartedly, see above. Please don't forget the non-sequiturs, Arthur.

Hi, What a beautiful picture of the parents of the next generation, are they your children? I wonder if they understand the meaning of what they are advertising, and I wonder if you will-are-might encourage them to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation and themselves together they must understand that all they are, are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being or existing will have to be psychologically contrived or faked in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should thes children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses, which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do? Because in a world controlled by nothing more than expediance love, beauty, charm and such stupidity does not exist, but as what you wrote implies 'what do children or indeed any body need all of that stuff for' Perhaps there will not be a next generation. Very sadly ...Arthur Webb As I said in my post to you. "No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition" so why did you reply with "Your last several posts have had nothing to do with the title or your proposition?" So let us, Freeztar, that is you and I, discuss a ramification of understanding the proposition You didn’t honour me with the courtesy of replying to my response to your post, the one with the picture of the children. But that is ok, I'm sure that you have a lot more important things to consider than the future of mankind. Having, because of your interest in my proposition, considered the psychological effects of children being taught as, I explained in the post. Which one of them might be the suicide because they are a thinker? because like so many young people who are trying to understand, when they realise that they have nothing to live for because there is no meaning to their life because they have not managed to contrive a meaning and because they understand that we are all just a pile of dead, lifeless, and inert chemicals. Which one/s will become junkies because there is no right or wrong? Expediency irrespective of any consequences other than avoiding causing themselves pain, just like many of the rapidly increasing number of disenchanted violent street gang kids, who have no empathy, no care, no love, no respect for anything, just greed, hate, anger and violence to support self gratification whether it be their ego or dope or sex. What will be the situation when these kids breed at a faster rate than the Law enforcement agencies and the diminishing number of caring agencies can cope becoming over whelmed, as is increasingly happening as more and more parents have no concern or no idea of giving their kids any example of morality other than might is right, get what you can because there is no intrinsic honesty, because you have never learned it, it doesn’t make sense. Freeztar, will it take being gratuitously robbed and beaten up, will it take the car, the house, the family being vandalised, robbed or stolen to let the pseudo intellectual religious bigots like your self and other staff on this thread to recognise that the parents of the next generation need to be given, by example, a decent morality and not be given the foulmouthed rhetoric of people like you friend moontaman. I would be interested freeztar in how long do you think that you have before this sophisticated societies cracks start to adversely effect you to the extent that you see no hope?? just like the kids who will go through the type of education the I suggested in my post to you. So where do you think the standards of decency come from and why are humans the only animal to manifest such values that allow a free democratic civilised society to exist?? Looking forward to hearing your considered opinion. Arthur. As a P.S.If your motive is to shout "persecution" and never actually discuss the topic,

OK, Boerseun, moderator. Let me start by commenting on your "Expecting Arthur to defend his position" What does this mean?? What is there to defend? What is my position? Maybe all that this is, is just another bit of stupidity that you demand that I agree with. So, again?? There is no competition, there is no fight, except that I do know that is what you are on this thread for, because you have no interest in understanding my proposition. Why on earth would you expect any one to willingly comment or answer you when you not only express complete and utter B/S but express it in such an aggressive and provocative and demanding way. (So very different from two of your posts to me, what happened to turn you to be so nasty?) only two of the many. Arthur, I have now twice explained to you that Christianity cannot, logically, be the source of any morals that civilization might be resting on. Christianity evolved to enable trade and colonization. You are not addressing any of the very valid points raised against your assertions. Please start doing so, or this thread will be closed. Here, if any one with a degree of honesty were to look they would be hard put to find any valid points related to my proposition that I haven't' politely answered

I don't believe so. He has been asked many times and continues to ignore the questions asked. I do think this is a cool topic, but there seems no one willing to take the 'pro' side of the original proposal (including Arthur). I'll give it yet another shot though. Arthur, how do you measure the 'demise' of civilization. Are there any examples you can give us where Christianity declined where the civilization declined at the same time? Zythrin As I have pointed out to "The moderator" and all of the contributors to this thread and I quote; No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition. I will accept that you had no intention of being sarcastic by posting. Quote: "I don't believe so. He has been asked many times and continues to ignore the questions asked. but there seems no one willing to take the 'pro' side of the original proposal (including Arthur).I'll give it yet another shot though. And I will accept that your 'impossible to definitively answer question' was not intended by you to be a loaded question, ie. "Arthur, how do you measure the 'demise' of civilization."? The answer is simple, I DON’T and I don't believe that any one could measure an non-defined entity. Do you? if not why did you ask me?? Now to the second question, the answer is also no, But, if you read and understood the proposition which does not contain the word *civilisation* and if you had read and understand my earlier post that I sent to you with good will and in good faith, which was not reciprocated, objectively you would be able to extrapolate that *if the use of the morals, standards, and values, etc which a society is dependent upon it for survival, decline enough, the society will fail. It doesn't take a PhD in the bleeding obvious to recognise the veracity of such a statement, but it would not necessarily be bleeding obvious to your disagreeable pals who display little but religious intolerance. Part of the reason for being bothered to answer your post, in spite of its provocative and accusatory tone, is to give you enough information to show you that one of these bosom buddy pals is not only completely ignorant of European history, ignorant of the meaning of my proposition but displays an ignorance of good manners that can only be matched by an insecure frightened egocentric bully who is desperate for people to recognise his vast intellectual prowess. Quote: However, as to Zyth's question above - quite the opposite, in fact. Christianity's fastest growth phase to date coincided with the Dark Ages - or, as it can also be described, the First Collapse of Western Civilization. Coincidence? I don't think so Without giving you, and any one else who might be reading this, a basic history lesson, (you would be able to find it some where on the web) but the European, Mid East and North African invasions by Huns, Goths, Vandals, Arabs, Alans, etc, etc, and the chaotic vacuumed of disorder left by the collapse of the Christian Roman empire, and so its power to maintain order. Death through pandemics of small pox and such nearly matched by the deliberate slaughter of people brought the only chance of survival of most of the proletariat was for them to become rural subsistence farmers, etc, etc, etc, where eventually one could say that was the Dark ages compared with now because for something like 1500 years Roman Catholicism brought about an element of order etcetera, see my proposition. So Zyth' if any ignoramus tries to convince you that "Christianity's fastest growth phase to date coincided with the Dark Ages" Or that secular Law in not influence the tenets of Christianity, Or that morality, justice and honesty can come about in a society that is run only on expedience. just politely explain to them how ignorant they are and explain to them how immoral and childish it is to demand agreement of their illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims to threaten to stop the game by "It's my bat and my ball, so there" I admit that I got a little enjoyment from writing the above but not nearly as much as I would have got if you had asked me your questions with the good will I have shown you. Arthur

Ok Boffy It is about time that I gave you a little info about me to save you any more speculation. I am a 94 year old Jew, son of a scientist, paternal and maternal grand son of scientists. Brother, a industrial physicist retired, sister, a mathematics lecturer slaughtered by Boesan's ilk in Belson. I am dying of cancer hence the difficulty of typing. My religion would be Judaic if my mother had not been ostracised by my uncle Nick, a rabbi, because she refused to accept a rabbinic butcher genitally mutilating her youngest son, me. Please don’t give me any stupidity about understanding science, unless you mean the kind of science that you manifestly do understand and that your fellow moderators and your friend Moontainman uses. There is no need to continue embarrassing yourself by your digging the hole to save face your credibility as a fair moderator, as is your cohorts credibility, as low as it could be. Nobody with an ounce of integrity would have treated me or my thread with the despicability that you and you ilk have, and by any standard you should be embarrassed, although sadly I know that you wont be. In answer to your last post I offer you the following examples of "scientific" posts sent to me by your moderator friends and which you supported. Originally Posted by arthur (Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?) Hi, 60 + years ago I developed the following deceptively simple proposition which I am presenting here in the hope that ... Blah Blah Blah Blah ... Good Grief! What a long winded sales pitch on your personal beliefs there. Carl Sagan said it best when he said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." and there's nothing in your extraordinary blathering that supports or proves your extraordinary claims. Maybe you can find someone interested in them here. Clay Editor and Forum Administrator Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! The Knights Party, USA Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate! Clay Editor and Forum Administrator Here's another "Love thy neighbor" influence on civilization brought to you by the Westboro Baptist Church... clay Editor and Forum Administrator My regards. .arthur...

Well Donk, What could possibly be the reason for what appears, to me, to be your distressful manifestation of emotional pique, which I suppose might be called a display of your abhorrence of me? Does all of this emotion stem from being politely asked for a critique of my proposition? (note not a critique of the title of the thread but of the proposition) I'm not sure what you mean by people have disagreed with the title. I am not sure how one can agree or disagree with a question and particularly with a question that is not understood. Of course I would not have used that particular title if I even imagined it would prompt people to display their horrible, vicious and sad religious hatred that it did. But having said that, if any one were to understand the proposition the title would make absolute sense and they would also understand the destructive nature of such, or indeed any, hatred to the stability of a society. And even your girls would understand that enough of it and society would collapse. I genuinely am at a loss to understand why you and others cannot see that. I expect that you have heard the adage "when hatred and bigotry rules common sense and justice withers" well I suspect that is what is happening on this thread, sad, but that's life. Anyway Donk if you are not interest in sensible and honest discussion or non-competitive debate don’t you think that I would fair and honest of you not to contribute to this thread? still in spite, my regards ..arthur..

Donk, you wrote; Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings. Hello Donk, Close but not quite, You might be correct in that I'd find that just about everybody posting on this thread would agree with your 23 words. as I would almost certainly be correct in claiming that if those just about everybody posting on this thread were to logically and with out prejudice consider there meaning, they would disagree with your 23 words. To understand this all that one really needs to do is to read my proposition with a view of trying to understand it rather than trying to find in it things to criticise. You will of course have noticed that the word civilisation does not occur in the proposition. Our/this Sophisticated Civilised society is inextricably bound up with (the tenets, or the creed,of) Christianity and Roman Catholicism. This I propose, is true. Its history, Yes. its laws, No. its morals, No. its very mindset, This I don’t know on account of I don't know what is meant by it. are all based directly or indirectly on Christianity's teachings, Yes. There are many laws, legislative and legally binding requirements, rules and regulations that are completely out side of any Christian influences of morality, ethicalness, fairness or justice, etc. Morals are the standards and principles that determine how a person behaves, and are dependent upon their responses to developmental influences. Supported by the maxim that 'all of biology is a product of the results of its responses to environmental stimuli'. Therefore if a person is not exposed either directly or indirectly to influences of Christianity their morals will not be related to Christianity. Donk, you will see that in regards to the proposition there an enormous difference. quote: Consider firstly from your own personal perspective Donk, the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity". The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. A bit of a silly question 'Why subject us to all this unnecessary verbiage? If you and the rest of the all had understood it, it would not have been verbiage, and I am subjecting no body to anything. To read it and to be here is your choice. You choose to be here as you choose to be rude to me, which might be the same as, you choose to be here for the purpose of being rude to me, which if that is so, to me, it seems all pretty sad, So Donk, again, why don’t you stop your competitiveness and try to understand my proposition of which you have only been presented a précis of, the particular work that this proposition is a small part of extends to over ¾ of a million words. I have visiting me at the moment a very old friend, a professor from the old 'Nanking university.' After reading this thread he exclaimed "No wonder the 'West' is falling to pieces". He also said that "this kind of behaviour would never happen in China because as you explain, he said, the process of absorbing values and standards as a meme, we absorb respect for age and experience as well as a fear of loosing 'face' which would happen if we were to be rude and if we were to aggressively argue about things we don’t understand". Another remark he made after reading some posts was that these people aught to understand the saying that " Beware, the hole you dig to save face my end up being your or some one else's grave" Interesting don’t you think? You may not like me Donk but cannot you not honestly see the immorality and injustice that supposed moderator have committed to save face? Why did you not speak up? I would like to continue this dialogue but only within the realm of sensible debate. In the hope that you agree, my regards …arthur..

So Boerseun are you really saying that if I don’t deny all that I believe and know and If I don’t concur with your illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims you will close this thread? who did you get your moderatorship from, Stalin?? Never in my life have I heard of or experience such a threat pompous and arrogant misuse of power, you are a disgrace and should be ashamed of your lack of common decency. You don’t have to be here so why are you?

freeztar No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition, the title of which is "Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?" and "not the decline in Christianity being the demise of civilisation". I would like to do it with out moontanman inspired inaccurate criticisms and accusations from moderators and with out all of the aggressive off topic religious prejudices. And out of interest what was the point in asking me "Is that to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious"? And is there a rule that I cannot use sarcasm and moderator can? And is there a rule that I must answer every loaded question presented to me? And what is the reason for your intention to close this thread? And why are you censuring me when I been nothing but polite and honest and not censure your friend who has no interest in my proposition other than using it as a platform to spout his crude, rude and disgusting bigotry?

Well Buffy, After reading this, your, obviously sarcasm towards me (sardonic, ironic, mocking, satirical, cynical, derisive, caustic)(rude, discourteous)(crass, irrelevant, provocative and unintelligent) Quote; By assuming that I am persecuting you, you do nothing but reflect upon your own behavior." I decided to read no more. Why did you feel a need to write such a silly unfounded thing????? Could it have been because you want to take the credit of forcing me to leave this thread??? Do you want me to leave this thread??? If so, Why??? Could your response to me be because you feel a certain inadequacy by a threat of being confronted with something you don’t understand???? For me just out of interest these are genuine questions, but for you, answering them may offer some important help in understand yourself, Now Buffy, Was that a display of mendaciousness? or a display of what one would expect from some one who poses questions with the expectation of an answer? or was just a little jest by me in the hope that it would be a spring board launch for intelligent debate between us? or was it an educational ploy to help you understand sarcasm? What ever it was will be determined by your interpretation of the words with regards to your attitude of me, but unless you ask me, you will never know And then my eye caught "Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately" After reading this and because I am interested in reciprocity I felt impelled to establish if there was a hint of hypocrisy involved here, therefore I add the following posts in the hope that you will either corroborate or refute my suspicion. Quote from an earlier post: Buffy who was responsible for putting my post under 'silly claims' and how can I go about have it moved????? All that it needs to show how un-silly the claim is, is for it to be read carefully with out religious prejudice, objectively, and with good will. I have no religious affiliations and I am not a bigot. I am astounded by the amount of religious prejudice and bigotry displayed by people who almost certainly have experienced Christian good will by people who have been influenced by Christianity to become doctors and nurses, aid workers, home and abroad virtually every do good organisations in the 'western world' are run by volunteer Christians, hospitals, clinics, Aid's, drugs, drink, home less-ness, marriage guidance, orphanages, youth centres, sports clubs, hostels for battered wives, wayward children, free food 'kitchens' and family free food distribution centres, the enormous number of educators of children were trained, as were many doctors, social workers in Christian colleges built run and financed by Christian donations and churches it goes on and on and on. If you or anyone is still in doubt just consider the influences that resulted in ethos of the UN and WHO and other global organisations, and if you or any one is still in doubt as to the influences of Christianity consider the influences of Easter and Christmas present production on global fiscal distribution in, for example China and the far east who manufactures more that ¾ the worlds 2007's Christian religious festivals presents.and it goes on and on and on. One does not have to like some thing to recognise its important. All that is needed to understand my proposition is the display of common decency of treating me with, at least, the respect that I expected from this forum as in my request for *just and honest, sensible, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits.* Not for one moment did I expect a display of stupidity and bigotry and at no point did I expect that it would be put into a 'silly claims forum' by some one who couldn't either be bothered to read or to try to understand what I wrote. *It is not part of a religious debate. It has nothing to do with the veracity of The Bible, of God, of ones religious convictions or of Christianity per se* It seems to me to be written with my normal politeness, did you notice the fundamental and important question? And another earlier post which makes reference to caveats that do not exist in " So if I read your caveats to Judaism correctly, you're saying that if Christianity went away but we still had Judaism that society would be okay?" My reply to Buffy quote "where are the caveats"???? Do you remember Buffy? So Buffy will you corroborate my suspicion or will you refute it? So what is required of me to continue with this thread other than politely and with objective unargumentativness trying to have other members understand my proposition? Your post hints at an element of your distaste towards me. if this is true why have you bothered to engage with me? Could it possibly be for a reason other than to discuss the merits of my proposition in a sensible and polite manner? I know that this is the case with some other posters who like me also don't have to be here. All that I have done is to present a pile of honest words for a review, which is giving a group of people an excuse for venting and or creating particular aspects of to their emotional dispositions. I am not upset, I am not irritated, I have no complaints, as I said to your friend, "I don’t have to be here" like you Buffy, you don’t have to be here unless you want to. Why do you want to. I do feel an element of sadness at the low quality of intellect displayed and the small numbers of intelligent responses as well as to the vehemence of and the aggressiveness of the mostly illogical and irrational attacks on what the attackers select to call Religion or "the Church" etc. How can one, Buffy, blame any creature for its nature? One doesn’t blame a 'mozzy' for sucking ones blood, one may not like it but one cant blame it for doing what it does. I cant blame a racist or a bigot, (what is the difference?) for the way they express their nature, I may not like it but who am I to judge? and what criterion could I use to judge? What criterion is there but the religious criterion of unfairness, immoral, unethical and unjust. the same criterion that the bigot uses to condemn that which gave them the criterion. There is no other universal criterion for anything. Unless you Buffy using the same kind of logic, the same mode of rational, ie, your, "to me this means" which gives no weight to the fact that you had absolutely no understanding of the subject of my proposition to use as a criterion for determining its value, which is without any doubt what so ever a reprehensible act of intellectual prejudice that, in my opinion, should cause the perpetrator to be embarrassed. are you? Was the point of this post to be a threat because you personally didn't understand, or was it just a reminder that in your bias opinion ie, "which places me in violation of our rules" but not you. Do you think for one minute that I joined this thread to experience all of this b/s that you are supporting and encouraging ? If you intend to use your power to unjustly cut this thread and deprive any body who might come to recognise how academically far reaching this proposition actually is, on the basis that you don’t understand, or on the basis that you made a crass mistake by putting this thread or agreeing that this thread should be put in 'silly clames' do so and wallow in and enjoy your misuse of power, or display some integrity and let the people who want to be hear be here and if you want to moderate do so but do it justly and don’t attack me as an innocent party with emotionally inspired inaccurate silliness's. Quote: Now *I* have taken considerable time to address your post, in spite of the fact that you appear to continue to want to avoid direct questions put to you--which places you in violation of our rules--and I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately. I surmise that your request; "I'd ask that you show me some respect and respond appropriately" means answer your question. The answer to your question "Is to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious"? is, absolutely, without any doubt what so ever, yes, that almost any literate person will recognise the meaning or even a definition of the word decline and also will recognise the meaning and definition of the word demise arthur

If you were able to see more clearly you would see that the contents of his posts are closer than any of your own, Arthur.

Hello lemit Again, with a tinge of sadness (maybe unwarranted, but still sadness) I read your post, Sadness because it seems that you have taken no consideration of the time and effort it took or of the motive for replying your post 'ref; other civilizations. Sadness because (unless I have completely misinterpreted the meaning and the reasons for you bothering to participate in a thread, the subject, of which is of no interest to you. And (because it seems) I can see that you are gradually being drawn into supporting the bias behaviour of antagonism) It seems that you are unable to see that all I have wanted from this thread, and I am now utterly sick of repeating it, sensible, objective, rati……….---------........... Lemit I have no faith that anything I write to you will be meaningful, unless like the other antagonists, you are able to select a word, a snippet or something from my post to use solely as an excuse to continue or to create antagonism. Maybe (?) as an example: It seems that you took my obvious little joke about smoking and decided that it might be used. (of course I might be wrong) Quote: "nor do I need a particular historical interpretation of my religious experience. One of my greatest fears in life, one that I considered when I first replied to you, which is ' the planting of the seed of doubt', your above statement should have read "nor do I need to understand the source of my faith" because lemit you must know that 'Analysis kills Spontaneity'. Quote: "I don't need psycho-active drugs to inform my mystical nature", Now here is an interesting little fact lemit. but you do, they come under the name 'hormone', with out them, you would experience nothing not even a sensation resulting from reading this post. So lemit Go forth and use your faith and by example encourage the doing of 'good' works and encourage the continuation of the creed of the inaugurator of the faith for without them there *will* be Armageddon. With genuine respect from my love of Mankind I wish you well. .arthur..

Your actions here show that you cant rationally debate, only rant about things that you dont understand, you should try discussing things with clear minded highly intelligent non bigoted 15 year olds, you wouldn't be able to but if you did you would learn how not to bully, but then you seem unable to even be polite so they wouldn't listen to you. again with sympathy. ..arthur....

Hi Boerseun, The reason I suggested that, you offer me a more likely source of the morality the ethics and the values that you personally use to help you to harmonise within your society etc, and then, objectively consider an alternative to what I say holds this comparatively stable, free and democratic, sophisticated civilized society together. was because by doing so you would discover as I do say that the moral values, codes, and taboos which we use to allow us to live in comparative harmony this sophisticated society initially came as the result the tenets of Christianity. And I am sure that if you read my proposition you will find it so. That is not really a challenge to prove you wrong, for you know that proof is in the mind of the believer and that to prove some thing to the "I don’t care what you say I wont believe it" would be a non-starter. your remarks vis-à-vis dead hookers and homosexuals would be related to Judaism and the old Testament which has nothing to do with the creed and code of the passive loving and gentle Christianity. (too far off topic to discuss) I know this and I have no religion, and I do know that the morals code that I accept and generally follow come from the same sauce as yours. All the best ..arthur…

Donk quote: I assure you I can see every step of your reasoning, even those you haven't put before us yet. 1. Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings. Oh, dearie me deary me Donk, and when I saw your post and only read the sentence "Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity" I excitedly rushed off to make a cup of coffee and rushed back, on returning saw "I assure you" my excitement evaporated when realising that the "I assure you" indicated silly wasteful competitiveness which was confirmed by reading the whole post. From me, there is no competition and I suspect that it is your (emotional) subjective interpretation of what I have written which is preventing you recognising what 15 year old's recognise as obvious. So Donk, what is happening is, you are being emotionally driven to contriving biased questions and then with an emotional disposition of wanting to win, answering them. This is the basis of irrational argument. And it is all of this which is preventing you from overtly understanding what I and 15 year old's see as obvious. Having said all of that I will comment on you "suggestion" of your "understanding" of my reasoning, although any understanding of any reasoning that I haven't put before you would be completely amiss as you would obviously understand if you had understood anything that I have previously put before you, and as you will see, if you are able to rid your self of the emotional competitive encumbrance to logic, rational, and objectivity, when you read my reply. OK, Donk, Close but not quite, in that, It is the unconscious psychological absorption and acceptance and the unconscious/spontaneous utilisation of morals, ethics, values and standards that influences the mode of subsequent behaviour which has become an integral behaviour trait of enough people to maintain the degree of harmony that makes their/this civilisation possible. It is academically the case that these behaviour traits have evolved from, directly or indirectly the influences which primarily are/were conscious and subconscious interpretations of the tenets of Christianity which via the above process have permeated virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" influences and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable. It is having grown up in an atmosphere of security and protection of benevolent laws which allows one the freedom to, within the bounds of, for example, decency and morality, to say what we want and to do what we want, it is the universal acceptance of these (morals, ethics, values and standards) and laws which has influenced us to expect from our neighbours the kind of decent and polite treatment that they would expect from us. (except in this forum) It is because we developed and grew up in this environment where the laws, the kind of morality, that have given us our concept of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, etc which has allowed us, that is you and me as well as other people to evolve a psychological dependency on an expectation of us having a future, etcetera, etcetera. I am sure that any reasonably intelligent person could extrapolate for themselves the importance of and the impact that Christianity has had on, directly and indirectly, developing moral or ethical values that they them selves might have. I am also sure that any reasonably intelligent person could not recognise that there is nobody unaffected by the influences of Christianity and its effects. Consider what it is that has held the (westernised) Sophisticated "Christian" Civilised Societies that 'we' are all a part of together. Consider firstly from your own personal perspective the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity". The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. The laws and rules that you have never really questioned, the ones that you have absorbed and which have become an integral part of your being, from being that young child and screaming "But that’s not fair" to the maturity of becoming spontaneously distressed by the evil or immoral activity of others who do not respect the same values. Now, and here is the nub, consider that we all, you, me and every person who we know and every person who we have ever known or met and every person who we have ever seen, and, every person who we have ever heard of who lives or has lived in a Sophisticated Civilised Society; AND, Everything that you or I and any of these other people have ever done, thought, wanted or owned as well as every judgement and decision that you, I or they have ever made has been, or is, directly or indirectly influenced by or is the product of the tenets of Christianity and the Judaic ten Commandments irrespective whether you, I or they are conscious of the fact. It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists. It is because of them that you, me and anyone else, whether you or I or they are clever or thick, intellectual or not, has the freedom to pander to their or our expectations of and enjoy the freedom, the security and protection that the society affords, irrespective of any contribution that any of us has made to it. And Donk It really is that simple, quote: 2. Therefore, if Christianity's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if the tenets of Christianity are not true, it's still our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect it. No Donk, But, if enough of societies behaviour is carried out with no reference to the morals, ethics, values and standards and laws which evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity" anarchy, starvation and for any one who remembers what it was like before, hell. quote: I've demonstrated, it doesn't fly. . Plus, you rather queered your pitch by making #2 the thread title - kinda gave the game away I am not sure what you intended by the above but I assume that because it was bases on a false premise I guess it now doesn’t apply. I will tell you, the title was going to be 'will this proposition explain a potential demise of civilisation'? After my last foray into this sort of thing and receiving as much religious bigotry I was going to give up. Various friends who are more familiar with this sort of forum stuff kept telling me that I am wasting my time because all they (the forum members) are interested in is, and I quote, ' in masturbating their aggression egos' I said that I cant believe that there isn't some one who would understand the basis of the proposition which resulted in a 100 Euro bet that I have just won after nearly 200 posts. It was the chap who bet me who decided the thread title. It is a shame that your post was not sent with a view of intelligent discourse and I hope that I haven't caused you any embarrassment. still with my regards…arthur..

Hello Buffy, I am not sure if or not I should take your sudden involvement in this thread as a genuine desire to understand anything given that you haven't yet displayed the common cutesy of replying to my earlier post. As I posted to Z and which she (?) apparently and with no display of apology successfully did for a reason I don't know. Maybe it was because she now realises that all of the music she has listened to is a *product from religion*. again of course, the assumption being that she doesn’t listen to Oriental or native aboriginal, or early Islamic music. Which by the way was also influenced by a different religion. Quote: I have been sucked into responding to posts in the past only to be gratuitously abused, misquoted, and suffering the tedium of reading inaccurate tirades of bigotry etc after spending a great deal of time and effort on the responses. As can be seen in this forum, and by having this put into Silly claims and having an administrator display crass disrespect and rudeness to me with their Bla Bla post. which also with out any sign of embarrassment or apology has disappeared. Was this also your intention, If it was not, and I quote, I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept. A situation that has not really happened. The answer to what I might have intended a reader to understand can be found in my proposition, if I understand your question. Quote: Can you tell us exactly what those words mean within the context of your proposition? Did you mean *us* or should it have been *me*, ie, you buffy? ..arthur…

Anyone care to admit what the world was like before Christianity? It is some thing that not one of the contributor other than my self and may be one other have considered. Thanks for the sensible question. arthur...

Lemit I am not sure of your last post to me, I have enjoyed and welcomed your posts and had no intention other than to be a little larkful and there was no intention what so ever to cause any thing other than a smile. ..arthur..

Well my dear Donk At last you have found (If you didn’t already have them) your diatribic feet for that really was a humdinger of one, Wow, do you feel better? It has it all, invective, unjust criticism, false accusations, accusatory inventions and a display (may be real, may be not) of prejudice indicating an extremely high level of anger producing hormones that only something like this is capable of relieving. I am not an MD but I am willing to offer you some advice, keep calm for not only does such activity impinge upon your credibility of being a rational person but it really is not conducive with the retardation of dementia or with helping to maintain a harmonious society because it is, in effect, an invitation for a bombardment of prejudicial commentary from others who may only give lip service to 'the golden rule'. Quote: Where we differ is in your belief that Civilisation means Us. There are many ways to be civilised, and they don't all involve dark suits, SUVs and skyscrapers. Now that you have that out of your system let us consider a couple of the more sensible point that you brought up. Nearly every were in my rambling I have emphasised this, our sophisticated civilised society as the prime reference to civilisation of course one can argue what the words mean but I am sure that an unbiased reading of them in context would produce an acceptable all round meaning of them to allow intelligent discussion to be carried out. I am not sure who you mean by your use of the word 'we' in your statement but If you recognise this as being the case why do you think that it has failed? The references in the proposition are to this/your/the person next doors sophisticated civilised society never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system or universal suffrage. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of their faith. Now Donk, (Where we differ is in your belief) Do you personally, rather the your 'we', differ in my belief that what I have expressed is what I believe to be, with regards to my proposition, a reasonable summation? quote: Nobody (apart from you) believes that civilisation will die without Christianity. Why should it? Donk, how do you know that nobody etc, etc.? If you had understood my proposition you would not have needed to asked that question. I have never said that I believes that civilisation will die without Christianity I have asked the question and offered a proposal that R Catholicism and Christianity and this (see above for clarification) civilisation/society are so intertwined as to be inseparable which means, I think, (hence the request for a considered opinion) that if they could be separated neither of them would be the same and the combination of them would not exist, so Donk why don't you give me a considered opinion instead of all of this hormonally induced silliness. as I have said, I understand that it might not be so emotionally thrilling as all of this attacking, abuse and rudeness must be but, to be able to take this proposition seriously and consider an academic aspect of life that you have never even contemplated could possibly exist must surely be intellectually exciting enough to compensate for the other, No? quote; You won't, of course. You won't even consider that everyone else might be right and you might be wrong, because you know you aren't. If we misunderstand you it's because we're stupid, not because you haven't explained things properly. Donk what is this right and wrong stuff and if you mean "know I aren't right" why on earth would I say any thing, unless in humour, that I know to be 'not right'?? There is the *we* again, are you a spokesman for "them", anyway, I state categorically that nobody is less intelligent than any one else so how, if your statement is not you opinion, could I consider any one as stupid? People driven by, for example, the desire to experience the emotional satisfaction of defeating some one in competition very often say unthought-out things that are obviously stupid and so by doing create a situation that is stupid and futile but that does not mean that the person is stupid, may be silly or ridiculous but not stupid. What I am trying to do is not get into a subjective argument that will lead absolutely no where towards gaining an objective critique of my proposition. Here is an important axiom I *suspect* that you have never considered "an explanation is *only* so when it is understood" quote: A little humility might help Donk remember that it not what is written that has meaning but what is interpreted. Ahh, that magic thing 'humility' 'for it is they that will inherit the earth' Help what? or help who?, If you mean that in some way it might help you to look at my proposition logically and rationally and logically and rationally offer me a critique I will willingly try it, But, and here I have a problem, how can I patronise you with you out knowing, how can I pretend that I don’t know what I am talking about for if I did you would spend all of your time correcting me. I don’t know how to display humility other than, as I am by, being polite and respectful and taking the time and putting in the effort to sensibly respond to sensible posts, with the ulterior motive of receiving an objective opinion, I have no motive to ingratiate myself to anyone only to interest people in my proposition. My father said that "before you start a project start on the basis of how little you know not on how much you think you might know" And I say of all of the gazillion things that there are to be known just look at how few of them we know, and Donk as a reminder There is nothing clever in knowing what one knows; There is nothing clever in being able to do what one can do; There is nothing clever in an idea spontaneously coming into ones head; No creature is more intelligent than any other; The art in being an intellectual is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice; in the hope of having encouraged you to review my proposition and give me a sensible critique my kindest regard ..arthur..

Hi Boerseun, Putting aside your rather aggressive display of your dislike for what you feel or consider Christianity actually is, objectively re-consider the quote and offer me a more likely source of the morality the ethics and the values that you personally use to help you to harmonise within your society etc, and then, objectively consider an alternative to what I say holds this comparatively stable, free and democratic, sophisticated civilized society together. With interest..arthur.. And please remember There is nothing clever in knowing what one knows; There is nothing clever in being able to do what one can do; There is nothing clever in an idea spontaneously coming into ones head; No creature is more intelligent than any other; The art in being an intellectual is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice;

Hello lemit quote: You aren't going to find much support here. You may be right, but support for what? I'm not sure if I am looking for support, hoping that some one might have the time and the inclination and curiosity and be willing to flex their brain cells to give me an objective evaluation of what I consider is a profound concept maybe considered as looking for support. quote: If you look at the posts attacking you, you will see that a lot of them are attacking all religions, the people who wrote them not realizing they also have some supporting belief system that informs their life. I can agree that for some, on the face of it, it may appear that these people are actually attacking religion per se but, *if*the attacks are genuine, what they are attacking is some aspect or other of their knowledge or, more likely than not, their lack of knowledge, of what they selectively "think" religion is or, what expediently, for the sake of arguing, what it represents to them. I suspect that you know as I know that it is much too big to verbally attack any more than little bits of it. Many of us have seen umpteen examples of this sort of stuff and have even read it when Saul became Paul. A friend who must have been the world most vehement anti Islam bigot. Whilst cycling though France at a camp site we met a Moroccan family which included the most beautiful 18 year old daughter that Allah had ever created, on seeing her my friends knees went weak and it was instant love. Years later they were married and as a Muslim he died a happy man. Another friend, a drunken violent anti Christian bigoted recidivist who after being released for the tenth time made his home in the gutter, drunk, un-washed, smelling of urine, ill, sad and an emaciated alcoholic the Christian Sally army saved him and as a devout Christian he also died a happy and grateful man. Belief is a strange word particularly when people make claims about what they believe, as the 'boy' knew, "kick em on the shin and you will soon find out what they believe" or as the inquisitors new put them on the rack and you'll soon find if they believe, or as Constantine discovered put then in the arena and see how willingly they die for their belief. Belief is manifested by what one does not just by saying the words as is disbelief. quote: We can find comfort in lots of things, such as the eternal truth of an isosceles triangle. We can construct a civilization on such simple as that parallel lines will only meet in infinity. We can meditate on the question, "Where do the parallel lines go after that?" You lucky man, I have never known anyone who wasn't smoking who would find comfort thus. quote: Sorry. I know Christianity was pretty directly involved in Sir Isaac Newton's physics, but the numbers he used were, after all, non-Christian. And the impulses he was avoiding were apparently non-Christian. Was that the same Newton, Newton the theologian who spent most of his life convinced that the world was created as per Genesis? regards. .arthur..

Hello Donk, quote: I would not see that process as using posts as a conduit for critical, patronizing lectures, trading stories, spewing emotion or admonishment. My sentiment exactly, will you be passing on the sentiment to your chum's? quote: The problem is that you, in turn, don't read our replies and just use them as a springboard for another wooly diatribe. Now come on Donk, that is blatantly not true, it is true that I don’t read your friend moontainmans diatribes because of their aggressive and rude nature and them having little or no relationship to my proposition but not for any one else's posts. As for me using diatribe as a method of destroying debate that is just plain silly for I have done little more than attempt to encourage unemotional rational debate in an attempt to elicit an unbiased, logical critique of my proposition, my proposal, my suggestion of an explanation, my idea and nothing more. I do, I believe, In your post, detect an element of annoyance and I feel that it is towards me as a person. (In your case, Arthur, I'm not so pleased) If this is true would you also be annoyed if a friend of yours said "Hi Donk, what do you think of this idea"? even if the friend then cited my proposal. I suspect that you wouldn't consider such a request as any more than an honest request for you opinion, and I suggest that your self respect would guide you to be polite, tolerant and accommodating and if your friend corrected a misconception that you might have concerning his idea I suggest that again your self respect would deter a hormonal response of anger, irritation or annoyance thereby maintaining your tolerance and politeness'. That is of course unless you have a psychopathic tendency which I don't believe that you do have. So Donk, if you see the principle of the above as true would you un-accusatorily and politely explain how I can tap into the obvious intellectuality and intelligence of forum members to achieve a polite, rational and honest response to my request for a critique? It really is pleasant to receive such posts, for the few that I have received, thank you. Donk I do apologise for any inconvenience, hurt or pain that, what I now see as unfair, the suggestion that by default you understood my proposition, might have caused you. If defence is necessary, I have non, I can only put my action down to naivety, you see Donk I wasn't fully cognisant of the competitive nature of your posts, being only familiar with sensible and academic debate and so with out too much thought I just took it as an opportunity to try and encourage you to positively respond to the proposition, which sadly failed, but which I feel would have succeeded if you had been able to view it with good will and objectivity. Dementia is not really a problem for me, yes I do forget botanical names and such, but have lost little of my powers of analysis (I think). The problems comes with the carcase and the subsequent minor frustrations, for example it has taken me three and a half hours to type this letter which is ridiculous when in the past it would have taken 5 or 6 minutes and this is all happening whilst I should be picking my sweet corn. Clear logical thinking with intellectual integrity and passivity in ones early life acts a bastion against future dementia as opposed to the futility of becoming dependent upon the hormonal rushes causing knee jerk aggressive responses to things in live that have no real significance what so ever to improvising the quality of ones own life. I suspect Donk that you know all of this. and that you also know the saying, "the proof of a pudding etc" But having said that, there is a lot of luck involved or it might even be just the result of a roll of a dice by the god's, but whatever….. My regard. .arthur..