Music Composers Unite!
What Fred said does have some merit. There are many cases where this is true.
I don't think he is saying that it is an across the board occurrence. That would be a fallacous
( fred - please check spelling here) interpretation of his generalization.
I know someone who got out of a DWI 5 times and didn't lose his license. But each time
he payed the lawyer more money. Money obviously made the difference.
As I understand it, there are 4 types of law at work in the world today.
1- the law of the jungle
2- common law
3- maritme law( this is the most misunderstood and insidious)
4- mother-in-law (also at times insidious)
note; with regards to #3- this is the one superimposed over the world today
and is the one least understood - if you are curious about it, do some looking
into it on your own- I certainly don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but
you really have no idea of the depth of this. Laugh at me if you want,
but over the years, corporations and 'the bar' have basically taken over the
legal system. I personally have no doubt about it. You can decide for yourselves. RS
Hi Roger, you said,
"Ondib, I think you have made some good and valid points here,
and agree that they, the 10 ideals/statements, could be beneficently employed;
As long as free will and the freedom of choice is preserved for
every individual, regardless of wealth, race, color or musical preference."
Thanks for that. We can probably agree on all that much.
Of course, I am still waiting for a comment on the issue of "the greatest symphony in recent history," which might be one by Hanns Eisler. I am speaking of his Deutsche Sinfonie Op. 50, which is said to be his greatest work.
Roger, you commented, "What Fred said does have some merit. There are many cases where this is true. I don't think he is saying that it is an across the board occurrence."
Fred himself said,
"all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins."
He didn't say, the litigant with the most money usually wins. He didn't say the litigant with the most money nearly always wins. He allowed for no exceptions. I take him at his word. He also said, to make his point more emphatic, "ALL you need to know about the law" is this fact. If he wants to modify his point he can do it. I am not sure either you or I can say whether Fredrick believes this is an "across the board occurrence."
"I know someone who got out of a DWI 5 times and didn't lose his license. But each time he payed the lawyer more money."
Now you have added a new complication to the discussion about the law. Fredrick spoke of litigants. Litigants are, by definition, involved in lawsuits in a civil court. A person charged with a DWI is not involved in a lawsuit. He is being formally accused of a crime in a criminal court (not a civil court).
This seems to suggest that there is (at least) one other thing "we need to know" when talking about law. We need to know there are different types of law, for instance, criminal and civil law.
"Money obviously made the difference."
That is simply one example, and it constitutes what is usually referred to as "anecdotal evidence," which, absent some additional statistics evidence does not prove anything. The question is about the general statement, and how often it is true. We may have some general sense, or vague idea, that the more money you have the better you will do in the law courts when you are prosecuted for a crime. But that isn't exactly the same proposition that Fredrick is arguing.
As I understand it, there are 4 types of law at work in the world today.
1- the law of the jungle
2- common law
3- maritime law ( this is the most misunderstood and insidious)
4- mother-in-law (also at times insidious)
What about municipal law, county law, state law, federal law, Trans-Pacific Partnership Law, cantonal law, continental law (as exists in the European Union), Napoleonic law, scientific law, local law within the solar system, trans-stellar law, galactic law and universal law?
What about "fathers-in law?"
"note; with regards to #3- this is the one superimposed over the world today and is the one least understood"
In order to understand it, do we have to know more than the fact that "the litigant with the most money wins?"
"- if you are curious about it, do some looking, into it on your own- I certainly don't want to be a conspiracy theorist ..."
Why should we look into it more? What do you think we are likely to learn? Also, why don't you want to be a "conspiracy theorist?"
There is nothing wrong with believing that conspiracies exist. The problem, in many cases, is this: People discover one conspiracy, or conspiratorial group (for instance, the the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Bilderbergers—which do exist), and then conclude that THEY, and only THEY run the world. It should be obvious that there are hundreds of groups all around the world, in many different places, conspiring to bring about specific results in the economy, in the financial sector, in politics, and in wars; and it should be equally obvious that even within these groups people don't always act in concert with one another, but sometimes at cross purposes.
"but you really have no idea of the depth of this..."
No, I don't. Neither do you. Nor does anyone. Why? Because people change sides, groups alter their goals and improvise. Powerful groups make alliances at one moment, and then break those alliances in favor of new agreements. If you read and study history (or if you've read just a few newspapers over the past several decades), you will know that you really don't know, or "have any idea of the depth of this," or any idea of the "shallowness, width, breadth or length of this." In fact, you might not even be able to tell us what "THIS" is, because "THIS" constantly changes, and that fact appears obvious because no one can consistently tell us what 'THIS" is. One minute it might be "income inequality," another moment it might be "big government" or even "maritime law."
"Laugh at me if you want, but over the years, corporations and 'the bar' have basically taken over the legal system."
I won't laugh. Why should I? You merely state in a very general way what appears to be perfectly obvious, or at least one part of what is obvious.
"I personally have no doubt about it."
About "it?" I think it's dangerous for you not to have any doubt. Didn't you suggest that certain "facts" might lead to the discovery that alien beings from other planets might have control over our government, and therefore, over our legal system? Or perhaps I misunderstood. When you said, "corporations" have taken over, did you mean, alien corporations from other worlds?
Perhaps angels, archangels, the celestial powers, and/or God himself controls our legal system, but only indirectly and in the long run, until we can learn to handle it ourselves.
I think it is good to remain open minded on these questions.
Hello Fredrick, Roger, Peter and other interlocutors,
Even though this is a Fantasia for Organ by Bach, I still wonder if this would qualify as the "greatest symphony in recent history," for the purposes of the discussion [not] taking place in this thread.
You said, Fredrick,
"No. the litigant with the most money wins, not once and a while, not now and then, but always ( or close enough to "always" to make exceptions prove the rule)."
You provide no data whatsoever to indicate that this statement is true, in the U.S., in the Americas, in Europe, or even on Earth, much less on the majority of planets in the universe. Your statement, since it has no evidentiary support, simply falls to the wayside. I would challenge you to prove your proposition is true in a single jurisdiction in the United States. Prove, if you can that "the litigant with the most money wins," generally, when we are talking about all litigants. This would have to include litigants involved in lawsuits where small, medium sized and large sized claims are at stake. I doubt seriously it is possible to prove it. Surprise me.
"Its easy. Suppose we go to court and you win the case. I have more money so I appeal the decision and I keep appealing it until you, the supposed victor, run out of money and can no longer litigate."
You might have more money, but not enough to appeal. Again, you fail to see the limitations in the argument you are trying to make. If one person has "more money" that does not mean they will necessarily win. According to your logic, if X has 11 dollars and Y has 10 dollars, then X will automatically win. The problem with your reasoning is that you rely on a simple general notion that has no specific support in statistical data whatsoever (or you cannot find the data). If you want to assert "the person with more money wins," you have say how much more money he has to have than his opponent (10 dollars more, 100 dollars more, a 1,000 dollars more?) Most importantly, you have to actually prove that a certain number of people with more money ACTUALLY have won, amongst a larger set of cases, compared with the number who have NOT won (in spite of having more money—because there will be such cases, where the monetary difference is small between the two litigants.)
It may seem logical to say, a person with 10 million dollars will win against a person who has no money at all. But that is not what you are arguing. You are arguing that "the litigant with the most money wins ...always" ... though now we have the qualifier "or close enough to 'always,'" whatever that may mean.
If you really think, amongst all the cases litigated in the United States, with small, medium sized and large claims, "the litigant with the most money wins ...always" ... you cannot simply assert it as if it is divine truth. Unless you are saying, "I believe this as an article of faith," since your reasoning has several holes in it. One of these is you ignore the possibility that actual arguments made in court may influence the outcome.
Another hole is this. Can you prove when both litigants are fairly rich the one "who has the most money" will always or nearly always win? How often exactly? For example, if one litigant has 7,000,000 to spend on a case and the other litigant has 7,000,500 to spend, can you say the second litigant always wins? I don't think you can prove this. Please try, if you think it is possible. What about litigants involved in medium sized claims, spending medium sized amounts of money? Can you prove that the litigant who has 10,050 to spend on his legal bills will always beat the person who has only 10,000 to spend?
The problem is you have no data or evidence at all, much less evidence even to suggest any rough correlation that would apply broadly to all litigations. We've heard one anecdote from Roger about a DWI, which does not even involve "litigation" in a civil court. He did better than you did, though. You haven't even provided a single anecdote.
There is one species of case where the poor might "win", that is when a corporation decides to pay the plaintiff chump change to get rid of the case. In these circumstances the case may get settled without a trial.
That doesn't clarify anything at all, since you don't say how often that occurs in relation to other cases. It just muddies the issue.
"One other thing to consider. Judges do not like having their decisions overturned. Sine the wealthy litigant is likely to appeal a decision against them there is therefore the likelihood of a reversed decision, you can count on the judge to tilt things in a way that will make them look good."
This raises a further problem for your argument, since you don't tell us how many litigations even end up being appealed out of the total number of cases brought into the court in the first place. Nor can you say how many cases are appealed precisely because one litigant or the other has more money, or because he or she thinks she can win on the merits, even while having slightly less money. Do you have any statistics on that issue? I am genuinely interested in seeing what they might reveal, if such statistics exist.
Of course, the issue of judges "states of mind," the issue of their "not liking to have their verdicts overturned," is not something about which you can easily find data. If you have found and read broad studies about the psychological states of judges, in relation to their thoughts involving appeals, I would be very surprised indeed. Another factor would involve elected judges versus unelected judges, and the extent to which they might be playing to a constituency. These social and subjective factors are too complex, and I would warrant, not studied thoroughly enough for you to draw any general conclusion that would support your view.
I also wonder if you make a distinction in your reasoning between how much money each litigant "has to spend" versus how much they "actually do spend?" You speak of "the litigant with the most money," without saying precisely what that means. Does money refer to liquid assets, loans taken out, or some other form of money? I doubt the data even exists to make such determinations. Isn't it more likely that for a majority of cases we won't even know or have sufficient data to know "which litigant has the most money?" Or that there will be so many cases in which we don't know that a broad inference cannot be drawn? If that is the case, you are making an assertion about something that is really unknowable. Of course, you may (in theory) be able to answer these questions by providing at least something that you consider to be a fact in this argument, rather than a conjecture, a guess or simply an unsustainable opinion.
It may be that you can prove your point, but I would like to see you at least take step one, and give us one piece of research that sheds light on the issue.
"I think it is good to remain open minded on these questions"
You chide a person for being open minded. But your mind appears entirely closed to the idea that your thesis might broadly be incorrect, or at the very least something you cannot prove. (Even though the conversation so far moves in the direction of indicating you have no proof). In spite of all this, you don't show a modicum of open mindedness, and you assert your belief as if it were one of the first precepts of a religious catechism, a dogma that you must embrace without a single fact, and that you must adhere to for the sake of your soul (though I think any priest, lawyer, logician or even saint would say, such a belief isn't necessary, for good of the soul, or for the sake of reason).
Please explain the nature of this faith you insist on embracing.
"Why would I provide any 'proof'?
I don't suppose anyone would, if the proposition were being held as an article of faith. That's what seemed to be the case with your statement: "the litigant with the most money wins, not once and a while, not now and then, but always ..." Thus, I concluded my last post with the polite request, "Please explain the nature of this faith ..." It seemed to me you were asserting something that amounted to much more than a mere conviction, though this was not so clear as it is now. It's still not as clear as it might be.
It doesn't matter whether you think you are explaining this "to me," or not. Or "especially to me," or "especially to anyone" in particular. This is a forum, I believe, and comments are made for and to any members of the forum who are reading them. They are not, in my opinion, made "especially" for any single person. If they were, they would probably be sent only by private means to the other party.
You say, "Either take my word for it or don't."
I don't see why anyone should "take your word for it" or refuse to do so, without a careful examination of the arguments for and against the proposition. If a forum is a "meeting place ... for the discussion of questions of public interest ... [also called an online forum, internet forum, or web forum]," then what may we conclude? Isn't it preferable here to discuss the issue more fully than it is simply to ask people to take your word for it?
I don't think this is merely a bar, or a place to say whatever simply comes into one's head. Discussion requires some thought, and the formulation of logical points about the issues being considered. When you stooped to an attempt at an insult, and spoke about an open mind versus an empty head, perhaps you would have done better to think of restraining yourself. That undermined your position somewhat, since you could have provided a valid point instead.
You end by saying, "I don't care either way."
If you don't care, then a question arises. I wonder why you re-emphasized your point in the last post. Why did you try to suggest the statement was unequivocally true in all cases? Another question arises. Did you really believe the statement, or do you believe it now? If you do, it seems to me you could either provide some evidence, or you could simply insist that it is an essential postulate, an axiom that is necessarily true, or a tenet of your personal faith or belief system. The latter seems to be the case. But as I say, I am not drawing any hard and fast conclusions, and I remain open to several possibilities.
Whatever the truth may be, I would invite you (not to provide an answer "especially for me,"), but to edify the readership of the forum, regarding your manner of distinguishing between "articles of faith" and knowledge gained from facts or from observation, studies, data and research.
Go ahead Fred, take the bait... This will be interesting.
I would bet that you will lose tho' because the
' debater with the most words always wins ' :+} RS
Fredrick zinos said:
Why would I provide any "proof" especially to you? Either take my word for it or don't. I don't care either way.
Well Fred, it has been my experience and observation that the truth is there for everyone
and is owned by no one. The only way that anyone wins therefore, is if the truth, which
usually turns out to be simple, is evidenced and brought to the light for all to see and share.
This perspective is a bit too humbling for many, and I offer it only as the opinion of an amateur
for consideration and contemplation. Yet insist that it is the truth...... RS
Fred, I am not implying that there is only 'one truth' but 'a' truth to and about any subject.
So it really isn't a matter of perspective, as in religious perspective for example. Belief
systems are a whole other discussion. Another example would be 'the big bang theory;
which I hold to be a farce personally, and I don't literally believe the bible either.
But from our perspective the universe does exist and maybe one day the truth will be
understood, if we all worked together and lost the, no... I'm right-your wrong attitude. RS
ps- I never read much by Niels.... he was such a Bohr
Fredrick zinos said:
Roger I respect your views. Where we differ on the subject of "the truth" is related to the word "the" and not "truth". I don't think there is any such thing as "the truth" which would imply that anything that is not compliant with the prevailing notion of "the truth" is false or a lie. To me there can be "a truth" but I think its a bit parochial to claim that that truth is the only one. I think it was physicist Niels Bohr who said that the opposite of a very great truth is frequently another very great truth. But then, what we are discussing here is a matter of perspective.
"Well Roger, The importance of winning or losing I suppose is reflective of ones mental health."
This conversation has nothing to do with "winning or losing." There is no score card; there are no judges. This is a forum, where conversation takes place. But conversations should involve some willingness to understand what another person has said, or to have at least read what has been said, before one replies.
'Being "right" might actually be important in come circumstances except that OO implies that he and he alone is the the sole adjudicator of what "right" means.'
This suggests you did not read what I wrote, since I clearly stated, "I am not drawing any hard and fast conclusions, and I remain open to several possibilities." I have said that, and made similar remarks throughout this conversation. Nor have I said or implied anything that would indicate I or anyone else has a special role as any kind of adjudicator, much less as "the sole adjudicator." It was you who came out and derided the notion of having an "open mind." In addition, you were the one who made the dogmatic assertion, accepting no meaningful modification of the thesis: "the litigant with the most money wins, not once and a while, not now and then, but always ..."
Twice you made personal attacks, rather than focusing on the issue. What is the purpose of your personal attacks, and your attempts to analyze another person's character rather than addressing the issue under discussion? They have no place in the discussion.
Now on a similar and related issue, you make the seemingly nihilistic and legally inaccurate statement to the effect that "McDonald's only responsibility is to its shareholders, not to its customers or employees." This has been found to be false in a court of law. It was proven to be wrong in the rather famous case of Liebeck v. McDonalds. The Court ruled that McDonald's DID have a responsibility to its customers, and it was faulted for heating its coffee up to 180-190 degrees (when guidelines say 135 degrees is the reasonable limit). "it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle." The plaintiff was hospitalized, suffered third degree burns and had to have skin grafts at a cost of 20,000 dollars. The Court eventually awarded 2.7 million dollars to Liebeck in punitive damages. Later this was lowered to 480,000 dollars. The judge clearly thought McDonald's had an obligation NOT to burn its customers, and discovery revealed that MacDonald's had done something similar to at least 700 other customers, and was aware of the harm.
Now Fredrick asserts in a recent post that I did " wildly leap to the conclusion that my statement based on faith." Consider the statement about litigants and money, as well as this statement to the effect that "McDonald's only responsibility is to its shareholders, not to its customers or employees." If unsubstantiated claims or erroneous assertions such as these are NOT based on faith, then Fredrick need only say what they are based on. I drew the likely conclusion that they are based on faith, because no evidence was provided, and after several questions about the first statement, the "faith proposition" was merely re-asserted as if it were absolutely true, without qualification or any need of support. Perhaps Fredrick does have some evidence about one or more of his recently stated propositions. But until then, it does seem reasonable to conclude that, because he does not show himself able to prove either of these two most recent assertions, he may simply embrace them as if they were statements of faith. If he wants to explain upon what basis he makes such statements, other than on the basis of faith, he can do so. I already said, I am open to a number of possibilities.
Fredrick also says,
Roger I respect your views. Where we differ on the subject of "the truth" is related to the word "the" and not "truth". I don't think there is any such thing as "the truth" which would imply that anything that is not compliant with the prevailing notion of "the truth" is false or a lie. To me there can be "a truth" but I think its a bit parochial to claim that that truth is the only one.
It's an interesting view, and I am not entirely averse to it. However, we can say in certain cases "the truth is," and the statement will be in accordance with logic, facts and reality. "The truth is members of the administration lied about Iraq." When deliberate lies are made, and then uncovered as lies, it's not at all unreasonable to say, "The truth is ..." using the word "the." On the other hand, in more complex philosophical, scientific and historical matters, it is right to say, about many particular statements, as Fredrick does, "its a bit parochial to claim that that truth is the only one.
I like the Bohr quotation which Fredrick provides, which states 'the opposite of a very great truth is frequently another very great truth.' It allows for multiple perspectives, and the possibility of movement within thought, in ways that are reminiscent of dialectical analysis and Buddhist logic.
So this is, in part, why I am puzzled that Fredrick does not apply his own criteria, to the statement he made before:
"McDonald's only responsibility is to its shareholders, not to its customers or employees."
" ... all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins."
Such statements do not appear, in their context, to have been made as if there was more than one perspective allowable on the issue. Rather, they seem to have been stated as absolute claims, put forward as postulates or axioms.
If we use the "opposite rule," then the statements could become,
"McDonald's only responsibility is to its customers and employees, and not to its stockholders."
"... the only thing you will not be able to know about the law is whether the litigant with the most money wins."
These statements might represent greater truths than those originally proposed.
Hey Bob, Thanks for 'getting' the main point and focus.
Judging the merit of energy drinks was totally off point.
There is another group working on a similar solution but
the presentation would be way too far out for most of
this crowd, judging by the reaction to this one.
So I won't post it. If you or anyone is curious and
interested in these types of developements, you can go to
You Tube and type in Keshe Foundation.
What Mr. Keshe claims he is doing will 'knock your socks off '.
He is a Belgium physicist who understands the simplicity of the truth,
and is working, he says, with governments, to release his new technology.
It is based on an understanding of plasma which he explains in very simple
terms. No chalkboards full of math and calculations, just a few words and
a glass of water. RS
Peter, don't you understand, you cannot tell him anything!!!
Even when he says he agrees, he goes on to add variables
or do some one-upmanship. Every time.
Is this any way to run an airline?( old commercial slogan for those who don't know it)
The legal system that we believe is in place... is not. It has been hi-jacked
In America, the government we believe is in place... is not. It has been hi-jacked
The financial system that people think is solid and safe... is not. It has been hi-jacked.
I think for the most part you and I know this, but many/most are in a word, clueless.
How many of us actually have even heard about Maritime Law. .0000000003 % ?
And yet it is prevasively working and alive in the world today to a degree that is
mind-boggling.( and recently, more and more exposed) but then again, who cares,
and that is how it goes. I guess, if no one cares, then it doesn't really matter; but
it is a rigged game, a money making machine, and left unchecked, it gonna get woise.
Wise up or pay up my friends... there are more laws on the way. RS
ps- I'm either crazy, ahead of the curve, or possibly both- time will tell
"Hey Bob, Thanks for 'getting' the main point and focus. Judging the merit of energy drinks was totally off point."
Why is the question-- Is Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms "the most beautiful symphony in recent history?"—not considered part of the main point, or at all related to the main point, given the title of the thread? Roger, do you really think the Energy Drink King's video is a more beautiful symphony than any or all of those composed by the symphonists mentioned on this thread so far? I continue to invite you to make the specific comparisons. Is the video better than Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony, which is rated quite highly, above a large number of infomercials and commercial soundtracks?
While the merit of "energy drinks" in general may not appear to be on point, the subject actually is relevant. This is because the highly dubious value of "Five Hour Energy," in particular, IS on point, and it's been avoided.
Three deaths were linked to energy drinks, according to this article, in just one instance.
According to another article,
"The federal government and the New York Attorney General's office are investigating after the Food and Drug Administration received claims that the drink 5-Hour Energy may have led to 13 deaths and 33 hospitalizations over the past four years."
"Emergency room visits tied to energy drinks have been on the rise, according to a report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Researchers found that the number of emergency department visits involving energy drinks jumped form 1,128 visits in 2005 to 16,053 in 2008 and 13,144 in 2009."
Why is this important? Because the video produced may easily be seen as a kind of white wash or laundering of a product brand. [Please respond to this point]. (If Five Hour Energy is NOT the issue, then why is this product mentioned in the video. Why is the CEO himself trumpeting his supposedly charitable deeds, if not to make improve his own reputation which can easily be considered tarnished as the product itself is morally questionable?). [Please respond to this point].
Roger ignores the issue. Fredrick provides a few stats, and implies it's not much worse than coffee, but if the CEO of a specific coffee brand were promoting himself and his supposedly beneficent charitable work, he might be subject to a similar inquiry to the one I am suggesting here.
Think about the energy producing bike. I have mostly asked, where is the evidence that any of the projects are really of any value, and good for society? What about the target "purchaser" or user of the product, who cannot afford it, or really benefit, when he already works 12-14 hours a day in the fields of rural India. He doesn't need or want the exercise. We might ask how and why poverty stricken Indians, rather than being put on the electricity grid, are being treated like slaves, who wave fans over their masters and carry them in divans. [No response to this question has been provided]. Now the master would appear simply to say, "we won't give you access to the electrical energy we have; we'll simply make a show of being generous, and we'll have you bicycle for it—that will make me look good, anyway, for people who don't think about it or question it deeply."
"There is another group working on a similar solution but the presentation would be way too far out for most of this crowd, judging by the reaction to this one."
I would like to hear not just "the reaction of this crowd" (whatever small number that may refer to). I would also like to hear the reaction of Dalit (or lower caste) Indians to this kind of project, independent of the Youtube PR and corporate propaganda. The idea that this sort of thing challenges the corporate state has yet to be shown to have any validity. The fellow in question is, after all, a corporate CEO. Meanwhile, there is news about an engine developed by a German scientist which is several hundred per cent more efficient than the current standard car engines. BP allegedly bought the engine and the patent and then buried it.
"If you or anyone is curious and interested in these types of developements, you can go to You Tube and type in Keshe Foundation. What Mr. Keshe claims he is doing will 'knock your socks off '.
Probably each "development" should be evaluated separately. If these others resemble the "electricity generating bicycle," I would have to ask whether they part of another PR campaign, and whether they have any real demonstrated benefit. I already have a device at home that I can use to take my own socks off, and if someone wants to have their socks "knocked off" they can simply stick their hands in the wall socket (if they have one, that is).
"No chalkboards full of math and calculations, just a few words and a glass of water."
You mean nothing like this:
God forbid we have real mathematics or genuine thinking going on in any visible or verifiable form. I suppose that is what we want. Something "simple," with no data or real information. Apparently, we just want a commercial advertisement because it's easier to understand than a workable solution to energy problems. For our personal energy needs, the best solution is simply "a drink." It all fits together so neatly that we don't even have to use any part of the brain to grasp it. Now, rather than working towards a 35-hour work week (as they have in Scandinavia in France), we can actually make people labor longer than 40 hours, because all we have to do is give them one or two of these drinks.
OOOOOOOOO... I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.
you now even try to say that energy drink use is the same as energy
People die from S#it all the time. You have no point and do not seem to
comprehend the gist of the thread. Please give the rest of us a break,
or start another thread at the level you prefer. Thank you, RS