tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2104108160804326623..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Blogging as a path to self-knowledgeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20186536190849585342012-09-05T21:33:59.734-04:002012-09-05T21:33:59.734-04:00I should have mentioned about fields, a photon is ...I should have mentioned about fields, a photon is clearly emitted and absorbed as an object, adding something to the topography of the universe by its participation. Your problem may be with what is abstract and what is real, and intepreting L & R using the final paragraph quoted by Massimo in Part 2. L & R are more secure if "structures" are real, and not secure if structures are abstract, which is the position you prefer. Read my book to see how it all fits together www.thehumandesign.net and then we can chat some more.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72383727001106058672012-09-05T21:13:49.638-04:002012-09-05T21:13:49.638-04:00Your first point is clearly wrong if you read my c...Your first point is clearly wrong if you read my comment again. I allowed for the reality of the neuro-physical pocess and the consequences of that in human behavior (also real). The obvious issue is whether the abstract in thought is real beyond the fact that it exists, which it isn't. I would call that a poor attempt at finding a contradiction, which sets a bad tone, but I sall continue.<br /><br />The second is an issue of absolute measurement and nothing to do with whether the electron has properties of motion and position. How do you freeze frame an electron and at the same time measure its motion? Don't try to answer that, but its an interesting question, and a different issue from what is abstract and real. Perhaps one day we will figure out a way to do it and complete a TOE, or perhaps not. A totally irrelevant point.<br /><br />The third answers your earlier contradiction about dualism being material by limiting matter to nothing more than dualism, and saying dualism is our only concern. You have not explained how matter, a real thing we can touch, is abstract at its most fundamental level. Reallity based on abstraction is not a faith I hold. My position is nicely balanced, as I allow both real objects and real properties (or real properties to have real objects in a safe interpretation of L&R without abstracts). <br /><br />The topography of the universe is more than simply variation across a state of abstract spatio-temporality. The variations are from distinct objects adding something to their shared spatio-temporality in their real measurable aggregations. You will need to show how Relativity & QM also hold your view, if they hold your view, rather than purport to use a reference scholastically. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57361979574040059582012-09-05T19:11:26.522-04:002012-09-05T19:11:26.522-04:00@ Marcus Morgan
> Yes, abstracts would not exi...@ Marcus Morgan<br /><br />> <i>Yes, abstracts would not exist independently of the mind that abstracts, and they would exist in the mind of the abstractor, as an abstract concept (whether closely or not at all connected to reality)</i> <<br /><br />If abstractions exist in the mind of the abstractor (and if abstractions are deemed to be immaterial - a point you have conceded), then it logically follows that immaterial entities or objects (for lack of a better word) really exist.<br /><br />> <i>They are real properties of an electron, which has a motion (space & time ) and position (space or time). Don't worry about wave-particle duality or probabilistic wave functions, just basic motion and position measured spatially & temporally would be fine as examples.</i> <<br /><br />But an electron does not have <i>absolute</i> motion and position (the uncertainty principle). <br /><br />> <i>These are real properties of real objects (particles & fields). Three dimensionality is a reality, as is temporal periodicity, in my view. They are not abstractions when applied to the properties of particles & fields to describe or define them. Space & time are abstractions when considered independently of those particles & fields rather than as the dimensionality & periodicity of those particles & fields</i> <<br /><br />There's nothing inherently physical about a field; it's another abstraction. <br /><br />The <i>part</i> (particle) has no independent existence except as it relates to the <i>whole</i> (field).<br /><br />The bottom line is that both the <i>theory of relativity</i> and <i>quantum theory</i> have rendered the original materialistic idea of the world being comprised of permanent solid particles obsolete. There's an objective material world. We can measure objective properties. But the only permanent "objects" or "structures" appear to be mathematical abstractions.<br /><br />By the way, time is symmetrical on the quantum or micro-level.<br /><br /> Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63391632661406413012012-09-04T11:57:58.109-04:002012-09-04T11:57:58.109-04:00I just noticed a contradiction in your post when s...I just noticed a contradiction in your post when saying that in contemporary physics, matter is dualistic. Matter (particles & fields) is dualistic (or spatial & temporal in my simpler example), thus you recognize matter and that it is dulistic (or has the properties of space & time in my example). One cannot really escape that logic, as hard as Tegmark, OSR or you might try. Work from four forces across 20 constants, and their properties. Its more secure than properties with matter absent. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25194695019854803272012-09-04T10:02:25.341-04:002012-09-04T10:02:25.341-04:00Yes, abstracts would not exist independently of th...Yes, abstracts would not exist independently of the mind that abstracts, and they would exist in the mind of the abstractor, as an abstract concept (whether closely or not at all connected to reality). But as for OSR, I wouldn't say that "any measurable property of these thingless abstractions would be a mathematical abstraction in and of itself", whether or not they would put it that way.<br /><br />I would say that the spatial and temporal forms of particles & fields (whether described as a temporal wave pattern or as a state that has three spatial dimensions) are real, not abstract. They are real properties of an electron, which has a motion (space & time ) and position (space or time). Don't worry about wave-particle duality or probabilistic wave functions, just basic motion and position measured spatially & temporally would be fine as examples.<br /><br />These are real properties of real objects (particles & fields). Three dimensionality is a reality, as is temporal periodicity, in my view. They are not abstractions when applied to the properties of particles & fields to describe or define them. Space & time are abstractions when considered independently of those particles & fields rather than as the dimensionality & periodicity of those particles & fields.<br /><br />I wouldn't worry about the status of the spatiality and temporality of things, I would say it is secure even if we cannot yet define all things spatially & temporally in a TOE or GUT. Space & time are accompanied by cause & effect, as interactive sequences binding particles & fields by their properties for cause & effect, also. These, likewise, would be real properties of things even if we cannot yet define them with precision for all things in a TOE. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42615483515524820922012-09-04T01:06:18.621-04:002012-09-04T01:06:18.621-04:00@ Marcus Morgan
> My brief analysis above was ...@ Marcus Morgan<br /><br />> <i>My brief analysis above was to show that any abstract (mathematical or moral) is not real except in the mind of the abstractor. However, real objects have mathematical patterns (and moral ones too in human form) as properties of objects.</i> <<br /><br />Okay. Then you basically agree with my argument - namely, that abstractions (mathematical, moral, formal, logic, etc.) cannot exist independently from a mind that abstracts.<br /><br />> <i>So, abstractions are by definition <b>immaterial</b> (being abstract)</i> <<br /><br />Agreed. But you do believe that these immaterial abstractions exist in the mind of the abstractor. Right?<br /><br />> <i>Mathematical patterns would be real properties of particles & fields (rather than vice versa), and would not exist independently of those objects.</i> <<br /><br />I believe the basic argument for OSR ("ontic structural realism") would be something like the following: According to contemporary physics, matter is dualistic (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave/particle_duality" rel="nofollow">wave-particle duality</a>). The wave aspect is a "probability wave" (abstraction); the particle aspect is a geometric point, having location in space (abstraction) and time (abstraction) but dimensionless (abstraction). There are no "things" (just abstractions). Of course, any measurable property of these <i>thingless</i> abstractions would be a mathematical abstraction in and of itself. (Information is an abstraction too. And to "in-form" is to "give form.") Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79794859993337680632012-09-03T22:08:11.047-04:002012-09-03T22:08:11.047-04:00A distinction between arguing from a position and ...A distinction between arguing from a position and being true to your position. Its irony (on the basis that irony reveals hypocrisy) is in the distinction between principle and practice. By practising what we preach, we can sometimes give up preaching before we start (I'm not sure if Socrates applied that base-level objection to peoples' arguments relying on self-knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised).<br /><br />Its a good execrise in knowing your position well before embarking on argument. This base-level dovetails with Kant (although, like my reference to Socrates, he might or might not have stated it as I do). As our positions are our own construct, we need to treat them as such and not as secure statements about "reality", so the first question should be to oneself as a constructor of that reality.<br /><br />The way to use Kant rather than wallow in his ideas is to say that I reason in my construct, and my constrcut informs me that my eyes detect light waves off objects accurately etc, and I have evolved to construct something corresponding to reality. So one can treat a position as a purportedly accurate construct and argue the purportedness of it all, if one can stomach the Socratic irony.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16548414881547232232012-09-03T18:39:53.996-04:002012-09-03T18:39:53.996-04:00I don't understand how Tegmark can say reality...I don't understand how Tegmark can say reality is mathematics, rather than reality is mathematical, getting back to my comments in Parts 1 & 2 of Massimo's's article. I would say particles & fields are mathematical, rather than mathematics. My brief analysis above was to show that any abstract (mathematical or moral) is not real except in the mind of the abstractor. However, real objects have mathematical patterns (and moral ones too in human form) as properties of objects.<br /><br />Consequently, neither physical objects nor their physical properties (including the physical patterns they have - measurable mathematically) are abstract. However, we can create abstractions about them by putting the cart fractionally ahead of the horse in drawing a blueprint for house construction without ever really making a perfect straight line or a perfect right angle (which are abstractions about reality). Same with moral ideals. <br /><br />So, abstractions are by definition immaterial (being abstract), but that would be a red herring to the point that objects at the base level of reality (in my view) have real mathematical patterns that are not abstract. Mathematical patterns would be real properties of particles & fields (rather than vice versa), and would not exist independently of those objects. So, I cannot go so far as Tegmark (independent reality) or L&R (base level of reality).<br /><br />Independent reality (Tegmark) would be abstract, and maths at the base level (L&R) would be taking information too far, as in my view maths informs us "about" particles & fields (the real objects). Tegmark would be in greater error, as L&R remains useful in describing fundamental mathematical reconciliations of real objects (reversing their emphasis back to mine). I propose in my book that there is a fundamental reconciliation of particle & fields by their mathematical properties, as a Design, GUT or TOE.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47732273682779124932012-09-03T10:45:20.360-04:002012-09-03T10:45:20.360-04:00Tom,
ahem, sure. No idea what this list is about....Tom,<br /><br />ahem, sure. No idea what this list is about...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15007653444255596372012-09-03T10:25:39.872-04:002012-09-03T10:25:39.872-04:00@ Marcus Morgan
> Objects are material, so the...@ Marcus Morgan<br /><br />> <i>Objects are material, so the evidence would be in the subjective mind that forms them as abstracts, but nowhere else. I suppose that makes them material in one sense (part of a neuro-physical process)</i> <<br /><br />The point is that Massimo argued that mathematical abstractions are immaterial - a point that I agree with wholeheartedly. In fact, he argued that "everything" reduces to and/or emerges from mathematical abstractions or structures (a view known as "ontic structural realism" and formally expressed by physicist Max Tegmark as the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">mathematical universe hypothesis</a>").Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11868854977512693062012-09-03T08:54:41.812-04:002012-09-03T08:54:41.812-04:00Massimo, I was planning to do some blogs of my own...Massimo, I was planning to do some blogs of my own: <br /><br />* I was going to do a FOUNDATIONALISM blogsite, but I didn't know where to begin.<br /><br />* I was going to start my own blog for SOLOPCISTS -- but I didn't know how other people would feel about that.<br /><br />* I was going to start a blog about CONTEXTUALISM, but I thought that conditions weren't right.<br /><br />* I did start a website about MOORE'S PARADOX, but I don't believe I did. <br /><br />* I decided against doing a DIALLELUS blogsite, because I decided not to.<br /><br />* I was going to do a blog about CONSEQUENTIALISM, but I wasn't sure what the ramifications would be. <br /><br />* I was going to start a blog about PANPSYCHISM, but I thought my local computer servers might not like it.<br /><br />* I was going to do a "philosophy of HEDONSIM" blogsite, but I thought it would be more fun to go get drunk.<br /><br />* I was going to start a blog about DETERMINISM, but then I decided that it's really not my decision to make. <br /><br />* I was going to start my own blog for hard-core SKEPTICS, but I felt that I didn't really know anything about it. Then I realized that knowing that I didn't know was ITSELF a piece of knowledge, so I doubted THAT. Then I realized that knowing that I didn't know that I didn't know was ALSO a piece of knowledge, so I doubted THAT too. Then I got a headache and gave up.<br /><br />Had enough?<br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60016019161497790252012-09-03T04:34:49.526-04:002012-09-03T04:34:49.526-04:00Objects are material, so the evidence would be in ...Objects are material, so the evidence would be in the subjective mind that forms them as abstracts, but nowhere else. I suppose that makes them material in one sense (part of a neuro-physical process), and they can certainly inspire debate in the real world about how they might be applied to reality to guide it (including Moral Ideals or Values). I would say they do not otherwise exist, so evidence might be hard to find, but the advantage of having them to explore the limits of engineering of all kinds (and social engineering of all kinds) makes them important nonetheless.<br /><br />When is an abstract Ideal worthwhile? might be a better question than asking for evidence beyond one's subjective acceptance of them as abstracts that help one to model the world. They are worthwhile as abstracts, as long as we concentrate on their application to reality and do not raise them to being real (and becoming fanatics in the process). If they do not apply to reality or help us model it in reality, they are just more of the same old fluff that goes through one's head from time to time. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16547995014626247282012-09-02T22:50:08.268-04:002012-09-02T22:50:08.268-04:00@ Eamon
> I really don't see why you think...@ Eamon<br /><br />> <i>I really don't see why you think it is appropriate to charge Massimo with using this blog to push / plug his books.</i> <<br /><br />Because I am SKEPTICAL of his self-articulated intentions for blogging. I don't think he is simply "blogging for self-knowledge."<br /><br />> <i>First, even if he did, so what:</i> <<br /><br />There's no "if." He is also "blogging as a profitable venture" (among other things).<br /><br />> <i>That said, you are ascribing to Massimo an intention you have absolutely no good reason to ascribe. Massimo.</i> <<br /><br />I have a very good reason. I asked him to furnish me with evidence for the existence of these (nonphysical and acausal) mathematical objects which he posited in a recent blog. When he realized that he couldn't meet this request, he attempted to evade the issue with the following response. <br /><br />"<i> You may not have noticed, but I [Massimo Pigliucci] spend an inordinate amount of (<b>UNPAID</b>) time engaging on this blog.</i>" (emphasis mine)<br /><br />(source: "<a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/08/surprise-naturalistic-metaphysics.html#comment-form" rel="nofollow">Surprise! Naturalistic metaphysics undermines naive determinism, part I</a> ")Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31874182772911488602012-09-02T14:11:06.973-04:002012-09-02T14:11:06.973-04:00Kel, there is no overlap at all between the Nonsen...Kel, there is no overlap at all between the Nonsense on Stilts and Thinking About Science. Of course some of the broad topics are similar, TAS is more focused on philosophy of science for skeptics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68145419609113212102012-09-02T13:07:40.991-04:002012-09-02T13:07:40.991-04:00Alastair,
I really don't see why you think it...Alastair,<br /><br />I really don't see why you think it is appropriate to charge Massimo with using this blog to push / plug his books. First, even if he did, so what: he makes a living by writing things people want to read, and it stands to reason that the blog readership are likely to want to read his books, even if some only want to read them so they can level irrelevant criticisms and ad hominems, so advertising them here is only appropriate.<br /><br />That said, you are ascribing to Massimo an intention you have absolutely no good reason to ascribe. Massimo has many readers who are interested in his work so he lets them know about impending publications and provides accessible links to them. Grow up, Alastair, please.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21015133095586202272012-09-01T21:55:38.712-04:002012-09-01T21:55:38.712-04:00I've been staring at the Amazon page for "...I've been staring at the Amazon page for "Thinking About Science: Essays on the Nature of Science" for a number of days now. How much overlap is there between that collection and Nonsense On Stilts?Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26742278346903202782012-09-01T21:08:01.355-04:002012-09-01T21:08:01.355-04:00@ perspicio
> I read the post and thought, &qu...@ perspicio<br /><br />> <i>I read the post and thought, "<b>Book plug</b>," which it essentially is</i>. <<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />> <i>But I'd hardly call that a Eureka! realization.</i> <<br /><br />Agreed. (I thought I was stating the obvious.)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72177163687599933412012-09-01T19:48:36.276-04:002012-09-01T19:48:36.276-04:00Speaking of plugging books, did anybody notice tha...Speaking of plugging books, did anybody notice that Massimo's only asking a measly two bucks apiece for most of these?<br /><br />Two bucks!perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69378429984099021282012-09-01T19:13:13.468-04:002012-09-01T19:13:13.468-04:00You see, Ian, you have a problem. Alastair, on the...You see, Ian, <i>you</i> have a problem. Alastair, on the other hand, is so magnanimous that he's altering his behavior to cater to the special needs your hypersensitivity makes necessary. He has gone out of his way to do the equivalent of coating his barbs with hydrocortisone before attempting any further subcutaneous insertions. Such a man deserves thanks, love, and respect, not pushback — excuse me, <i>plugback</i> — from the likes of you.<br /><br />/snarkmirrorperspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39345171874580071002012-09-01T18:57:26.124-04:002012-09-01T18:57:26.124-04:00You're not wrong, but you're feeding a tro...You're not wrong, but you're feeding a troll whose primary contribution to the thread was to make a banal observation, followed by a series of "me so innocent" noises.<br /><br />I read the post and thought, "Book plug," which it essentially is. But I'd hardly call that a <i>Eureka!</i> realization.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58412799913604443242012-09-01T18:32:05.969-04:002012-09-01T18:32:05.969-04:00@ ianpollock
> It is a connotatively loaded fa...@ ianpollock<br /><br />> <i>It is a connotatively loaded factual statement, and I am objecting to the connotations. "Push" connotes selling aggressively, or selling illicit substances. Either way, it implies a negative value judgment on selling M's books.</i> <<br /><br />I see. You have a problem with my employment of the term "push." Let me rephrase: "<i>He also uses this blog as a means to <b>plug</b> his books</i>."Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19355254866938806182012-09-01T18:10:53.592-04:002012-09-01T18:10:53.592-04:00"I simply stated that he uses this blog as a ..."I simply stated that he uses this blog as a means to push his books. That's a factual statement."<br /><br />It is a connotatively loaded factual statement, and I am objecting to the connotations. "Push" connotes selling aggressively, or selling illicit substances. Either way, it implies a negative value judgment on selling M's books.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28991426161876032612012-09-01T14:34:43.034-04:002012-09-01T14:34:43.034-04:00@ Yannis
> Really..."skepticism" age...@ Yannis<br /><br />> <i>Really..."skepticism" agenda?</i> <<br /><br />Yes..really. Massimo has a prominent role in the skeptical movement. You were not aware of this?<br /><br />"<i>He [Massimo Pigliucci] is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Committee for <b>Skeptical Inquiry</b>.[5]...<br /><br />Pigliucci writes regularly for <b>Skeptical Inquirer</b>.</i>" (emphasis mine)<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Pigliucci" rel="nofollow">Massimo Pigliucci</a>)<br /><br />> <i>I forgot that Massimo is rolling in money while cackling about his evil plan of helping people to think rationally.</i> <<br /><br />He's promoting atheistic materialism (or should I say "immaterialism?") under the guise of science (while charging other prominent figures in the atheistic and skeptical community with "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" rel="nofollow">scientism</a>"). If you don't subscribe to this worldview, then you are labeled as "irrational."<br /><br />> <i>And he did write the books. Why shouldn't he sell them?</i> <<br /><br />I never argued that he shouldn't sell his books. I simply stated that he uses this blog as a means to push his books. That's a factual statement. Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92137126948175280232012-09-01T11:27:13.065-04:002012-09-01T11:27:13.065-04:00I am thankful that you are writing the blog. I app...I am thankful that you are writing the blog. I appreciate is that you take positions on the topics you discuss, instead of the somewhat sterile "view from nowhere" that a lot of other philosophy blogs adopt. I may not agree with all your positions, but I appreciate the honesty.<br />Really..."skepticism" agenda? I forgot that Massimo is rolling in money while cackling about his evil plan of helping people to think rationally. Because that is what all evil geniuses do.<br />And he did write the books. Why shouldn't he sell them?<br />Yannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225021433431403808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86990458909545240732012-08-31T23:35:31.212-04:002012-08-31T23:35:31.212-04:00@ ianpollock
> This is pretty uncivil for some...@ ianpollock<br /><br />> <i>This is pretty uncivil for somebody who "enjoys participating in the dialectical process."</i> <<br /><br />I fail to see how exactly my post qualifies as "uncivil." <br /><br />> <i>I don't see why Massimo shouldn't "push" his books if he pleases, after all it's his blog, and furthermore the books contain yet more of his writing, which is exactly what's on offer at RS.</i> <<br /><br />I didn't say that he shouldn't sell his books. <br /><br />> <i>I'm also annoyed by the use of the word "agenda" here</i> <<br /><br />It would appear that you're easily annoyed.<br /><br />> <i>He is writing out his convictions and inviting criticism, as are most of us. That's the dialectical process for ya!</i> <<br /><br />I know what the dialectical process is. Thank you very much. And since he is "inviting criticism," I'm offering it. Why does that annoy you?<br /><br />> <i>Maybe I'm misconstruing your tone here, and it's supposed to be some sort of jovial, backslapping "you ol' bastard!" If not... dude, give the guy a break.</i> <<br /><br />I'm not giving him a slap on the back; I'm calling him out.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.com