J-Mac vs phoodoo

J-Mac thinks that parasites are “designs gone wrong” via adaptation, and phoodoo thinks that such things are required so that we can have free will.

These two positions are incompatible. And yet all phoodoo and J-Mac wants to do is pick holes in evolutionary theory rather then resolve these blatant differences in their position. Only one of them can be right, after all. This thread is an opportunity for them to resolve said differences and then they can turn to their righteous work of destroying evolution with a united theistic front.

148 thoughts on “J-Mac vs phoodoo”

  1. OMagain Post author

    Fundamentally the issue is that they want their arguments to be taken on their merits (those that actually make arguments) but they don’t realize that there is only one reality based community. So that single community has to deal with untold random ideas. It would be far more efficient for the theists/IDists to come together, decide between them what their position is and then attempt to engage with the enemy. And in it’s own poor way the OP was trying to achieve that. Don’t they see the irony when they are making their claims that the person next to them is making claims incompatible with theirs but they both want what they are claiming to replace our best understanding of reality?

    It’s why it’s such a big tent. And boy does it stink inside.

    And for the record, the OP stands as-is as neither phoodoo or J-Mac have disputed my characterisation of their positions after I supplied supporting quotes.

  2. phoodoo

    I know we are not supposed to out people here, but since Omagain has made it no secret, I would just like to ask, how do people here feel about Ilya Sidorov posting here on TSZ?

    I am just surprised he still has time, with all his legal trouble.

  3. OMagain Post author

    Would you give relief from pain with painkillers phoodoo? Or not? Why so scared to answer? Afraid of what people might think of you? Well, let me assure you that’s nothing at all to worry about.

  4. RobinRobin

    phoodoo:
    keiths,

    Robin is complaining of God’s treatment of them.

    Your comprehension needs a tune-up, Phoodoo. Nowhere did a complain about any supposed god’s treatment of anything. What would be the point? There is no such god. Why complain about the fictitious?

  5. RobinRobin

    phoodoo: You mean God shouldn’t have created keiths, and Omagain and Rumraket and Robin, because its an atrocity?All of them complain that God hasn’t done enough for them.

    Good gravy, Phoodoo…you really need to take a remedial reading course.

    The mockery is pretty easy to unravel: given the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world, rational people can pretty easily and accurately conclude that god concepts such as yours are completely invalid.

  6. petrushka

    Robin: The mockery is pretty easy to unravel: given the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world, rational people can pretty easily and accurately conclude that god concepts such as yours are completely invalid.

    But this line of argument has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of god.

    It does, however, address the sanity of people who claim that they have knowledge of god. That’s really what the god argument is about. Whether theists are worth listening to.

  7. Pedant

    petrushka:
    That’s really what the god argument is about. Whether theists are worth listening to.

    They keep us mindful of the absurdity of theism.

  8. RobinRobin

    petrushka: But this line of argument has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of god.

    It does, however, address the sanity of people who claim that they have knowledge of god. That’s really what the god argument is about. Whether theists are worth listening to.

    Ehh…fair enough. I’ll concede to the slight, but legitimate, correction…

    The theists hereon have an internal contradiction they can’t seem to address.

  9. phoodoo

    Robin: given the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world

    How do we know this, since it seems anyone can decide what is necessary suffering and what is unnecessary. So if someone decides its all necessary, then God has done perfectly.

  10. phoodoo

    petrushka: It does, however, address the sanity of people who claim that they have knowledge of god.

    I agree, no one should claim they have knowledge of God. Intuition yes, knowledge no.

  11. newton

    phoodoo: How do we know this, since it seems anyone can decide what is necessary suffering and what is unnecessary.So if someone decides its all necessary, then God has done perfectly.

    If it is then to alleviate suffering is sin.

  12. RobinRobin

    phoodoo: How do we know this, since it seems anyone can decide what is necessary suffering and what is unnecessary.So if someone decides its all necessary, then God has done perfectly.

    Your hand-wave of the issue is nothing more than an Argument of the Beard coupled with an erroneous Argument by Generalization, and lightly dusted with some question begging, Phoodoo. Basically your argument boils down to, “hey..since you can’t pin point what constitutes a beard, there must be no such thing as beards.”

    The real issue that you can’t seem to deal with is that any god as defined by Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) as “good” creates an internal contradiction given the suffering there is. So unless said god for some reason not only condones rape, but actively instills the desire to engage in it, there’s no reasonable argument for it to ever occur. But then, if said god does condone and promote such suffering, why call it “good”?

  13. phoodoo

    Robin,

    Haven’t you read what the other posters have been saying, SOME suffering is good, some suffering is necessary in a mortal world-its just that no one can define what is necessary and what isn’t. So its up to anyone to define apparently. So if someone defines rape as a necessary suffering, you can’t say God is condoning something bad, he is condoning something good.

  14. RobinRobin

    Here’s another example that highlights your fallacious thinking, Phoodoo:

    By your argument, automobile accidents cause necessary and perfect suffering, presumably (according to you) resulting in some greater gain for mankind. So…did your god just hate the folks who lived before the automobile, since clearly they did not get the benefits of that particular form of suffering? Or does your god delight in developing new forms of suffering? Or is it that your god feels mankind needs more suffering over time because…well…who knows why? Or, are automobile accidents and the subsequent suffering actually unnecessary?

    What did mankind do to gain whatever benefit there is from plane crashes or bomb dropping? If it wasn’t a necessary part of the physical, mortal world in 1755 or 23 BC, why is it now? Why would there be any new suffering ever if at the beginning of mankind your god found the amount of suffering to be just right? Why would there ever be lulls in suffering if all suffering is perfect and necessary? Why don’t we all suffer from exactly the same things if it’s all perfect and necessary?

    Seems there an awful lot of inconsistency in your position there Phoodoo…

  15. phoodoo

    Robin,

    Haha, I am not the one who came up with the concept of SOME necessary suffering and some not necessary suffering, so I am not the one who has to defend it. You haven’t got that point by now.

    Talk to Rumraket.

    You think a great God would make a world with no suffering at all, right? But you can’t seem to describe what that would look like.

  16. RobinRobin

    phoodoo:
    Robin,

    Haven’t you read what the other posters have been saying, SOME suffering is good, some suffering is necessary in a mortal world-its just that no one can define what is necessary and what isn’t.So its up to anyone to define apparently.So if someone defines rape as a necessary suffering, you can’t say God is condoning something bad, he is condoning something good.

    Well, I disagree. I don’t think ANY suffering is necessary. In any way whatsoever.

    I think that suffering is an inherent product of the ability to experience any type of reality. It serves no purposes of itself; it is simply a product of experiencing change in a material only existence. If there were any omni-gods of any kind, there could be no suffering of any kind because by definition, omni-gods do not change and cannot experience change.

  17. OMagain Post author

    Would you give painkillers to a dying person phoodoo? Are you scared to answer.

    Haven’t you read what the other posters have been saying, SOME suffering is good, some suffering is necessary in a mortal world-its just that no one can define what is necessary and what isn’t.

    I refer to you to phoodoo who had this to say about necessary suffering.
    phoodoo:

    In what way would being naked and killing puppies infringe on someone else’s idea of their own free expression?

    Alan:

    Alan Fox: It’s the causing of unnecessary suffering to sentient creatures that is immoral.

    phoodoo:

    What do you mean by unnecessary? Its for my pleasure.

    Seems to me you’ve decided that suffering in the name of your pleasure is necessary.

  18. RobinRobin

    phoodoo:
    Robin,

    Haha, I am not the one who came up with the concept of SOME necessary suffering and some not necessary suffering, so I am not the one who has to defend it.You haven’t got that point by now.

    Oh, I get that point Phoodoo. I get that you believe in a god who apparently sees no difference between stubbing a toe or getting bitten by a mosquito and rape or butterfly skin disease. A rather pathetic god that, but I guess some folks are just comforted by any invisible friend…

    Talk to Rumraket.

    Don’t have to. He’s not the one proposing a god that has no power over or concern for any suffering, let alone an inability to even remotely categorize suffering.

    You think a great God would make a world with no suffering at all, right?But you can’t seem to describe what that would look like.

    A great god could easily make a world without suffering, because a great god would not be inhibited by things like time, space, matter, physical laws, and so forth. Any and all consequences anyone didn’t likecould be instantaneously undone. All catastrophes could be survived and/or people could be instantly brought back from the dead or the event could just be rewound. Literally ANYTHING could be done to rectify any inconvenience by a great god. There would never be a toilet without toilet paper. Heck…no one would ever need TP; such a god would just instantly wipe everyone perfectly clean. And the people of such a world would just drink, eat, fuck, drive, walk, run, whatever fun they desired, without any concern or negative consequence. Don’t want a baby? No problem. Don’t want an STD? What’s an STD? Don’t want to gain weight. Feh…done! Want to gain weight? How much?

    It would be a world of nonstop miracles, but it would be as normal waking up in the morning. No one would know any different.

    And such a god would say, “it is very good!”

  19. phoodoo

    Robin: Well, I disagree. I don’t think ANY suffering is necessary. In any way whatsoever.

    That great Robin, but your argument is then with those who say some is necessary and some isn’t. That’s a different argument than mine, so don’t ask me to defend THEIR views.

    I will however question YOURS. You think a loving God would give everyone heaven, just because that would be loving. So, no morality, and no mortality, just heaven for all? Just because.

    And then how many souls should there be in Heaven? 1 Billion? 1 Trillion? Well, he is God you say, so he can make as many as he wants. So an infinite number of souls given infinite joy, infinitely. Short of this, God is a failure to you.

    Gee, you are greedy, huh?

  20. dazzdazz

    phoodoo,

    Is there evil and necessary suffering in heaven, phoodoo? Or perhaps no free will?
    Also, if evil is necessary for free will to exist, and in the beginning there was only God, was there any evil back then? And if there wasn’t, how could God have freely willed the universe into existence?

  21. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,
    If you simply answer the question, would you give painkillers to relieve severe pain, we’d know if you were one of those people that think some suffering is necessary and some is not.

  22. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    I will however question YOURS. You think a loving God would give everyone heaven, just because that would be loving. So, no morality, and no mortality, just heaven for all? Just because.

    So presumably you believe that some people will go to heaven and some people will go to hell when they die? And in hell there will presumably be suffering, and in heaven there won’t.

    So seems to me you are someone who thinks there is necessary and unnecessary suffering. It’s unnecessary in heaven and necessary in hell.

  23. RobinRobin

    phoodoo: That great Robin, but your argument is then with those who say some is necessary and some isn’t.That’s a different argument than mine, so don’t ask me to defend THEIR views.

    Um…no, not really. Since their argument is actually no different than my argument that some levels of suffering simply make any notion of god questionable. My argument is still that any notion of a god is incompatible with suffering unless your god is just “the god of suffering”. But then I come back to my question of “why call such “god”” in the first place and why are you question begging such an entity?

    I will however question YOURS.You think a loving God would give everyone heaven, just because that would be loving.

    Well, if said god is defined and characterized as All-LOVING, then yes, by definition such a god would give everyone absolute and unconditional love – including everyone getting heaven. That’s what such a characteristic means.

    Now, if you want to say that your god is not All-Loving and is instead sometimes a complete prick or jerkass or monster, we-heeellll then…your god can then be a complete prick and torture some folks for pure pleasure. Why you’d call such an entity “god” let alone “all-loving” seems rather bizarre to me. I mean, you can’t have it both ways.

    So, no morality, and no mortality, just heaven for all? Just because.

    Just because? Everything and anything such an entity did would be “just because”. What horrible, terrible, unforgivable thing…the ABSOLUTE WORST OF THE WORST THING could a mortal human do that could even remotely have some kind of effect on a god? What kind of terrible crime could a human commit that a god could not instantly right and use a teaching moment for the perp(s) and the victim(s)? How would any form of godly punishment ever come close to be appropriate, let alone useful or just, when put against a mortal human? How could any action of some god ever possibly matter to mortal folk anyway, unless it was simply to show how humans could actually right their own wrongs.

    A truly perfectly good, all-loving entity would give all of its creation the exact same reward for existence because said god would care equally for all of it’s creation.

    Now a partially loving or an unloving entity…yeah…that kind of entity could act capriciously and whimsically.

    I mean really…what’s the point of even using the term “all-loving” if you don’t really think “all-loving” has anything to do with behaving with love.

    And then how many souls should there be in Heaven?1 Billion?1 Trillion?

    Why, does heaven have a capacity? God can create only so many chairs? The bartenders get too overwhelmed if they don’t put the rope up?

    Well, he is God you say, so he can make as many as he wants.So an infinite number of souls given infinite joy, infinitely.Short of this, God is a failure to you.

    I wouldn’t say a failure…I’d say misleading and dishonest though.

    Gee, you are greedy, huh?

    Yeah…color me silly. I expect entities labeled as “one 12-ounce can of omni-god” to behave accordingly…

  24. phoodoo

    OMagain,

    Unlike many materialists, I don’t try to draw conclusions about worlds which are outside our ability to comprehend.

  25. phoodoo

    Robin: A truly perfectly good, all-loving entity would give all of its creation the exact same reward for existence because said god would care equally for all of it’s creation.

    Yes, this is what I said Omagain demands, you share his entitlement. He also wants to just lay in a pool of whip cream, and watch people play croquet with baby heads that can’t die. Such an evil God that won’t grant him that.

    Robin: Why, does heaven have a capacity? God can create only so many chairs? The bartenders get too overwhelmed if they don’t put the rope up?

    I just said a God wouldn’t have to be limited, he could just make infinite souls, with infinite pleasure, infinitely. I think that is the same result as making absolutely nothing.

    Maybe Omagain would let you lay in his whip cream bath, whilst he masturbates indefinitely, in your next world.

  26. RobinRobin

    phoodoo: Yes, this is what I said Omagain demands, you share his entitlement.He also wants to just lay in a pool of whip cream, and watch people play croquet with baby heads that can’t die.Such an evil God that won’t grant him that.

    Evil? Not necessarily. Weak, ungodly, and not omni anything? Sure.

    I just said a God wouldn’t have to be limited, he could just make infinite souls, with infinite pleasure, infinitely.I think that is the same result as making absolutely nothing.

    I am totally perplexed by this claim. “Infinite” isn’t even remotely a synonym for “absolutely nothing”? It’s actually a contradiction in terms.

    But more so, I just think you aren’t considering the implications about such power, let alone creatively. Why not infinite instances of heaven with every possible configuration that mortals can chose to visit (or not) as their hearts’ desire? What difference would it make to an omni-god?

    Maybe Omagain would let you lay in his whip cream bath, whilst he masturbates indefinitely, in your next world.

    Or maybe an omni-god could make two (or more) whipped cream baths. We are talking about an omni-god here…

  27. dazzdazz

    phoodoo:
    OMagain,

    Unlike many materialists, I don’t try to draw conclusions about worlds which are outside our ability to comprehend.

    You just did when you said heaven for all means no morality. In fact your position amounts to abandoning morality altogether.
    You believe in this God, you believe he designed viruses with the purpose of killing people. You believe all the evil in the world must have an explanation in God’s mind but one you can’t comprehend.

    If any and all evil is part of God’s plan, then on what basis are you entitled to make any moral judgements? Why not start by not judging those “evil materialists” you hate so much? God wants it that way, who are you to complain?

  28. dazzdazz

    phoodoo: Yes, this is what I said Omagain demands, you share his entitlement. He also wants to just lay in a pool of whip cream, and watch people play croquet with baby heads that can’t die. Such an evil God that won’t grant him that.

    No, you fucking idiot. All we’re doing is questioning the consistency of your ideas. Ever heard of the expression “for the sake of argument”? We don’t want or expect anything from a nonexistent spook

  29. dazzdazz

    Also if you’re nobody to question your God for the evil stuff, you’re also nobody to deem him good, let alone all-loving.

  30. newton

    Robin: My argument is still that any notion of a god is incompatible with suffering unless your god is just “the god of suffering”. But then I come back to my question of “why call such “god”” in the first place and why are you question begging such an entity?

    The concept of omnibenevolence is the problem, a deistic version of God would be compatible,as would an evil God.

  31. OMagain Post author

    Soooo, phoodoo, do you agree or disagree with Mother Teresa on the value of painkillers or not?

  32. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,

    Yes, this is what I said Omagain demands, you share his entitlement.

    Would you like to quote me regarding that? It seems I can quote you in support of my statements regarding you but you never seem to be able to do the same. Care to try it this time? Or shall I have a meltdown like a certain couple of snowflakes recently had who then never said another word about it?

  33. Pedant

    newton: The concept of omnibenevolence is the problem, a deistic version of God would be compatible,as would an evil God.

    It’s an evil god in either case.

  34. MungMung

    Robin: Why complain about the fictitious?

    I curse lady luck all the time. There’s plenty to complain about when it comes to fictitious entities failing to come to our rescue. Just ask keiths.

    Atheists would bitch and complain even if there was nothing to bitch and complain about. Just look at you with your recent OP. Bitch. Moan. Christians. God.

    I know, let’s have more posts that just assume that there is an ultimate moral arbiter! And if there isn’t one, there ought to be!

  35. phoodoo

    Robin: Why not infinite instances of heaven with every possible configuration that mortals can chose to visit (or not) as their hearts’ desire?

    No, no Robin, you don’t want people to chose. You don’t want people to have preferences and consequences, and do good or not do good. What you are asking for is a world completely void of any choice-its just that you don’t understand that is what you are asking for. You want a logical contradiction.

    There is no such thing as a hearts desire in your scenario-that is what I am pointing out to you. If God just made an infinite number of brains, and put them on infinite pleasure (which is what you and Omagain are advocating), where is a choice? There isn’t one. You can’t chose to love someone. You can’t chose to do the right thing. You can’t chose something better or something worse, because ALL is better. You wouldn’t love your children, because there would be nothing the opposite of love. You wouldn’t miss them if you didn’t see them, because missing doesn’t exist. You wouldn’t want to do anything, because wanting doesn’t exist without not wanting.

    What does satisfied mean, without the concept of unsatisfied? The only way to have a Heaven is by first having things that aren’t Heaven. That is your logical problem. Perhaps even omnipotent beings can’t solve unsolvable problems.

  36. OMagain Post author

    phoodoo,
    It seems that the subtle points raised in this thread are not visible to you. Questions regarding the fluctuating level of suffering over the ages are apparently not of interest to you, nor are questions on how your deity ensures the correct level of suffering is present at all times, nor indeed questions regarding what that correct level of suffering actually is.

    Rather then introspect you just repeat the same thing over and over, pretending that people are complaining about how the world is rather then just asking questions that specifically follow from your worldview.

    . If God just made an infinite number of brains, and put them on infinite pleasure (which is what you and Omagain are advocating),

    Could you demonstrate your reasoning? Go from something I’ve said (and quote it) and get to that? As I fail to see how me asking you if your god is creating in real time malaria changes is advocating for that.

  37. OMagain Post author

    Mung: I know, let’s have more posts that just assume that there is an ultimate moral arbiter! And if there isn’t one, there ought to be!

    Why have more posts when you theists are unwilling or unable to answer the most basic questions regarding your position. Does your god creep around making malaria more infectious as treatments are developed? Simple question, hard scary answer.

  38. newton

    phoodoo:
    OMagain,

    Unlike many materialists, I don’t try to draw conclusions about worlds which are outside our ability to comprehend.

    Like the supernatural?

  39. Pedant

    newton: Disinterest is not evil

    Creating a world of woe and ignoring it isn’t evil? A deist god is still responsible for its flawed creation.

  40. Pedant

    OMagain: Why have more posts when you theists are unwilling or unable to answer the most basic questions regarding your position. Does your god creep around making malaria more infectious as treatments are developed? Simple question, hard scary answer.

    Their silence speaks volumes.

    It’s easy to trivialize a disease like malaria if you’ve never had it or seen it.

    The trivialization of agonizing suffering by these bozos is sickening.

  41. petrushka

    Robin: Ehh…fair enough. I’ll concede to the slight, but legitimate, correction…
    The theists hereon have an internal contradiction they can’t seem to address.

    It was. An observation, not a correction.

  42. RobinRobin

    phoodoo: No, no Robin, you don’t want people to chose.You don’t want people to have preferences and consequences, and do good or not do good.What you are asking for is a world completely void of any choice-its just that you don’t understand that is what you are asking for.You want a logical contradiction.

    Phoodoo, you’re just blowing smoke here. Nothing in what I’ve written inherently leads to the removal of choice. You are simply ignoring logic and making nonsense up.

    There is no such thing as a hearts desire in your scenario-that is what I am pointing out to you.

    No, you’re not pointing it out; you’re simply making an assertion without any substantiation. There’s nothing in what I’ve stated that leads to your conclusion. You may well believe such is the case, but your belief is hardly based on anything logical or conditional.

    If God just made an infinite number of brains, and put them on infinite pleasure (which is what you and Omagain are advocating), where is a choice?

    Where’s the choice in the explanations of some supposed heaven for those who supposedly end up there? Oh…right…you’re a “Christian”; you don’t actually pay attention to the bible. Let me help you out:

    Philippians 2:10-11
    so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Daniel 7:14
    “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

    Revelation 14:3
    And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

    Revelations 5:11-13
    Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen ” And the elders fell down and worshiped.”

    Psalm 145:21
    My mouth will speak the praise of the LORD, And all flesh will bless His holy name forever and ever.

    Welcome to your future in robotics, Phoodoo.

    There isn’t one.

    Well, if an omni-god actually existed, no particular configuration of reality would prohibit choice except a specific configuration of robotics. An actual omni-god could create choice with all sorts of redemption clauses. Alas, apparently most theists can’t envision anything better than a really powerful human with all the limits and foibles.

    You can’t chose to love someone.

    You can’t choose to love someone now, so what’s your point?

    You can’t chose to do the right thing.

    Of course you can. This makes no sense.

    You can’t chose something better or something worse, because ALL is better.

    Again, this makes no sense. seem to be under the impression that if some omni-god changes the outcome of something down the road, there was no road to begin with. But omni-gods are the ones unhindered by time, not us. And omni-gods changing rules willy-nilly doesn’t change our being hindered by space and time.

    You wouldn’t love your children, because there would be nothing the opposite of love.

    This is laughably absurd. I think you broke my irony meter.

    You wouldn’t miss them if you didn’t see them, because missing doesn’t exist.

    Again, this makes utterly no sense. How does some omni-god creating localized events somehow remove all qualities of reality.

    Apparently the god you believe in is pretty powerless…

    You wouldn’t want to do anything, because wanting doesn’t exist without not wanting.

    Ok…so a whole bunch of assertions about how such omni-godly creations and temporary experience set-ups would utterly backfire and remove all possibility of existence, but oddly other than your declaring your opinion correct, you can provide no actual basis for the validity of your claims. I therefore dismiss them with equal authority. Because…they are just nonsense.

    What does satisfied mean, without the concept of unsatisfied?

    Why would pleasure remove the concept of satisfied. It doesn’t now, so even if pleasure lasted for an eternity, there’s nothing about that the removes the concept of continual satisfaction. There’s nothing inherent in enjoyment that diminishes enjoyment. You seem to be under the impression there is, but you’ve not demonstrated why anyone should accept your claims.

    The only way to have a Heaven is by first having things that aren’t Heaven.

    Why? There’s no law, principle, axiom, or logical entailment for this claim. Why do you believe it to be the case?

    And here’s the thing: if there were such things as omni-gods, by definition they would be powerful enough to break such principles anyway. That’s what claims of raising folks from the dead, walking on water, feeding 5000 people from thin air are supposed to establish.

    If your supposed god is so wimpy he can’t even create an heaven of pleasure without pain, why do even bother with it?

    That is your logical problem.Perhaps even omnipotent beings can’t solve unsolvable problems.

    Do let me know when you get around to actually demonstrating this.

Leave a Reply