So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me. — Xtrix

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. Add to that the fact that your comment is an obvious attack on the person you are arguing with. I can never figure out whether that sort of thing is an ad hominem attack or just an insult. You're not going to convince him. Why not drop it?

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. — T Clark

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment.

It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. — Xtrix

Yes. I guess the safest move if you disagree with a particular interpretation is to use arguments based on other physicists conclusions. So even if we don't know if something like the Many Worlds interpretation is correct, we could say that we tend to think that physicist X or Y seems more sensible to us.

Or we can say nothing. Depends a bit on the person.

I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation. — Xtrix

I agree. There's something about this "incomplete information" that leads rational people to disregard opinions which are plain crazy, such as that Trump is some kind of hero rescuing kids in a ring of pedophiles based in a pizzeria. Why some people have this and others lack it, is a good question.

But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line.

What gets me is the real conspiracies aren't mentioned much by such people. Pinochet getting into power was a real conspiracy, Dilma Rousseff getting kicked out in a coup was a real conspiracy, parts of Operation Gladio seem to be quite serious. But for some reason, these one's that actually have evidence aren't often mentioned by Jones and people of that mind set.

Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason. — Xtrix

And in such instances we even play around with the word "belief". The "belief" Q people have is more akin to religion than it is as the word is used when talking about philosophy or many aspects of ordinary life.

To return to physics, it's a bit like Flat-Earthers or Moon landing deniers. What possible evidence will change there minds? If nothing will, it's likely a cult.

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment. — Xtrix

I think I understand why some people support Donald Trump and I can sympathize with their motivations. Claiming that Biden stole the election shows bad judgement, but I don't think voting for Trump necessarily does.

We don't have to take this any further. I've had my say and I can't think of anything to add.

But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line. — Manuel

Yes. Reminds me of Nietzsche:

"There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."

That's how I feel about people with awful judgment "weighing in" on anything -- whether it's physics, the election, the coronavirus, vaccines, 9/11, or anything else.

hat's how I feel about people with awful judgment "weighing in" on anything -- whether it's physics, the election, the coronavirus, vaccines, 9/11, or anything else. — Xtrix

I don't disagree, but how does one determine the line between sound and awful judgement?

A history of stupid choices and stupid judgments comes to mind. But generally it's not something easy to explain.

What flavour is that quark? I don't know bite it and see. Ha ha ha! — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: We do!

I'm back for another round, there being many statements here in dire need of clarification, rectification, refutation, and outright repudiation.

I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question.
— fishfry

I never once said that. — Xtrix

It's good you said that. So, yes or no, may I take it that it is permissible to discuss the US government's account of the events of 9/11/2001? To this moment I had not realized you felt that way.

I'm talking about 9/11 truthers -- those who believe the towers were an "inside job," brought down by the government -- through use of remote control planes or dynamite installed in the buildings, etc. — Xtrix

Ahhhhhh, this is helpful. In fact when you reacted to my labeling myself as a 9/11 truther as if I'd admitted to frolicking on Epstein island with Prince Andrew, I asked myself if perhaps you and I simply have different definitions of this term.

Following the distinction among the artificial intelligence community between weak and strong AI; let me propose some perhaps clarifying definitions for your provisional agreement.

* A weak 9/11 truther is someone who simply questions the official account and would like to see a serious criminal investigation done. Someone who perhaps knows of Hamilton and Keane's remarks and knows that the families of of the victims have been among the most vociferous advocates of a full investigation. Someone who knows that the entire pile of rubble, the evidence of the greatest crime in American history, was collected by a fleet of dump trucks the next day and hauled off China as scrap with zero forensic analysis performed. Someone perhaps who knows of the PNAC report and finds it curious. Someone who is troubled by a long laundry list of strange doings: the military stand downs, the terrorist exercises scheduled for that exact day, the collapse of the steel-framed buildings, the shorted airline stocks, the involvement of the Saudis, covered up for years and finally exposed due to the efforts of the truthers. I could go on, there are literally hundreds of such anomalies.

Weak truthers don't have answers; only questions. And "move along, nothing to see here you conspiracy nut" does not satisfy us intellectually.

* A strong 9/11 truther is characterized the way you define a 9/11 truther. Holding to a specific alternative theory, often involving elements of the US government, Mossad, mini- or micro-nukes, directed energy weapons, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Bruce Cheney.

Is that a helpful distinction? Frankly I don't know how anyone who takes the time to begin to study this case can be anything but a weak truther. There was simply never any criminal investigation done and there are hundreds of significant questions unanswered.

The "Building 7" crowd. — Xtrix

I understand exactly how you feel. I used to feel exactly the same way. People would be talking about 9/11 and some conspiracy nut would mention "building 7," which I'd never heard of, had no idea what it was, and cared even less. That all changed the day I saw a [url=]video of the collapse of building 7. You can't unsee it. It's a controlled demolition. That doesn't mean that Dick Cheney personally pressed the plunger. It only means that the government can not explain it. The 9/11 commission didn't even mention it, and the NIST report was unable to computer-model anything past the first two seconds of collapse. It remains unexplained.

Like I say, I don't blame you. I used to feel exactly the same way. Till I saw the video and found out that the NIST computer model was unable to explain the collapse.

But please, I'm open to learn. If you have a serious engineering explanation for the collapse of building 7, by all means tell it to me. And to the world, because the government hasn't got one. Maybe you didn't realize that. I didn't, till I looked into it.

If you're talking about something else, fine -- yeah, there are holes in all kinds of commissions. But the evidence isn't restricted to one official governmental commission. — Xtrix

"Holes in all kinds of commissions" covers honest mistakes of a relatively minor nature. That doesn't begin to describe the weakness and obfuscation of the 9/11 commission report.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history?
— fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer. — Xtrix

Like these guys?

Yes, it was the first time in history. It was also the first time in history the US was attacked in such a way on its own soil (besides Pearl Harbor). — Xtrix

You must realize that this is an extremely disingenuous remark, why'd you make it? If gravity made things go up that day, the fact that it was the first such attack on US soil since PH would not obviate the need to explain the phenomenon. Besides, 9/11 was a military attack by a sovereign foreign government. 9/11 was a crime perpetrated by "19 Arabs because they hate our freedoms" if you find such a mindless slogan comforting. Of course our friends at PNAC want you to think of 9/11 as Pearl Harbor. They wrote: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

You took the bait. Like they knew you would.

So what? It happened: the planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. — Xtrix

You are only revealing your lack of intellectual curiosity. It's true that one thing happened then the other thing happened. You are imputing causation where none has ever been proved. This is a philosophy forum, after all. I'm entitled to note this instance of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

If you want to learn about it, there's plenty of credible information out there. The NIST comes to mind.
[/quotre]

That's exactly the problem. The NIST report is a disgrace. It's an exercise in handwaving at best. It raises more questions than it answers. You should do your homework.
— Xtrix

Direct your very free-thinking questions to them. While your at it, direct your skepticism towards electromagnetism -- isn't THAT theory a little funny? — Xtrix

Mindless mockery in place of facts and logic.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory
Actually you seem rather neck-deep in conspiracy bullshit. You're not even hiding it well.

And you seem remarkably uncurious about the world.

But I've never said things can't be legitimately discussed. — Xtrix

Ok. You never said there are things that can't be legitimately discussed. I believe you.

Some things can, some things can't. — Xtrix

And now you just did You can't even keep your own story straight from one sentence to the next.

I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones — Xtrix

Why not? The case is full of unresolved anomalies and unexplained facts. The 9/11 commission report was a joke, the NIST report worse. Are we supposed to just accept it anyway on the say-so of you and George Bush? "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th " You do Dubya proud.

-- they're not after "truth," they -- like Creationists and Holocaust deniers before them -- start with an idea that's been planted into their heads and they try to poke holes, distort and exaggerate every word and every detail, use false arguments and sophisticated sophistry to confirm their gut feelings. — Xtrix

Wow. You marginalize and dismiss the questios of the 9/11 widows like this? I am very serious here. You should educate yourself. Nobody has been more vociferous in their demand for 9/11 truth than the relatives of the dead. You have no idea what you are talking about.

All with either no alternatives, or stories that are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. Flat earthers do the same thing -- are their questions "legitimate"? Maybe to you -- not to me. 9/11 truthers are in the same group, in my judgment. Again, your circle of legitimacy needs to be shrunk -- by a lot. — Xtrix

Again, low-intellect snark rather than facts, evidence, and logic. You equate mere questioning of the many unexplained aspects of 9/11 with flat earthers?

People asking questions makes you feel this way. The widows of the dead asking questions makes you react like this. They should shut up and collect their government payoffs, is that it?

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something. — Xtrix

I don't see that at all. I suppose that if a guy with lifelong connections to the Mafia had strolled unchallenged into a tightly secured police station and shot Hinkley dead in front of seventy cops, that might have gotten tongues wagging. (I refer of course to the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, if there's anyone to whom that wasn't clear). But absent that, I don't recall anything out of the ordinary or questionable about that case.

There's plenty of problems with that assassination attempt I could conjure up right now. — Xtrix

But you need to "conjure them up." Because there aren't actually any questions about this particular case. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between conjuring and actual unanswered questions.

How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc. — Xtrix

LOL. Good stuff! There was nothing remarkable about the case at the time. You seem to think people make up conspiracies, rather than simply notice anomalies in the official explanation and look for answers.

I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming? — Xtrix

You honestly don't seem to be able to distinguish between people making things up, and people noting actual, substantive anomalies. I don't understand your lack of discernment. Some events happened pretty much the way the authorities say, and others didn't. It takes judgment, an open mind, and a desire to research and learn, to tell the difference. It's not easy. But when you equate the questions the 9/11 widows asked the 9/11 commission with flat earthers, you do yourself a disservice. I don't actually think you're that stupid. I don't know why you're trying to convince me that you are.

Note: I really hated writing that. We're mostly civil. But to equate the 9/11 widows to flat earthers is stupid. I tried to rewrite this sentence or find a better word but I couldn't. Please forgive.

Psychological theories aren't evidence.
— fishfry

Again, not a surprise you miss the point. What psychology does do is show why people like you even care about evidence in the first place. — Xtrix

That was exactly my point, which YOU missed. I've heard this for years. "People can't accept that a nobody like LHO could change the course of history by killing JFK, so they look for a conspiracy. And THEREFORE there is no conspiracy." I can't imagine worse logic.

And after all -- didn't a lone nobody like Gavrilo Princip spark World War I by assassinating the Archduke Ferdinand and his lovely wife Sophie, virtually by accident? Nobody ever says they don't believe a 19 year old Serbian nobody could have changed the course of history.

People question the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 precisely because the official explanation are so full of holes. Not because they are psychologically disposed to see things that aren't there. And this explains your Hinkley example. There really weren't any mysteries about that case. That I know of. And if there were, as you enumerated, they didn't resonate with enough people.

You're clearly of this cloth. — Xtrix

Ad hominems are all you've got. No facts, no evidence, no logic. Mindless jokes. The 9/11 widows are flat earthers. You're embarrassing yourself.

And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. — Xtrix

Why don't you provide some so we can both find out?

But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that. — Xtrix

I honestly don't see it. I've advanced no alternative theories. I've pointed out established facts and asked questions.

Indeed. I do the same with Creationists and Flat Earthers as well. Normally I don't even bother with the claims about "facts" or "evidence" at all -- so you're an exception in that case! — Xtrix

Flat earthers like the 9/11 widows and Hamilton and Keane. Can't you see how weak your own argument is?

But still ultimately another deluded individual. And again, me saying so won't sway you. I already know that. I'm writing mainly for others -- you're a good demonstration of thinking gone awry. — Xtrix

I have not advanced a single alternative theory that I say I believe. You're reading things I didn't write. I'f I'm deluded, tell me exactly what I'm deluded about.

Guess I caught a real one here. Funny I anticipated the building 7 thing above -- without having read further. Shocker. — Xtrix

That's because the collapse of building 7 has turned more people into 9/11 skeptics than any other single fact. Well, maybe the missing airplane debris at Shanksville or the total lack of photographic evidence of an airplane hitting the Pentagon. But Building 7 is the one event that startles people when they investigate it. I can't help that.

Another typical response. Actually in the 9/11 case I have, a little. But I regret spending even a second on it -- the most it deserved was 0 seconds, like the claims of flat earthers. Of course I could be wrong about them too! But that's a risk I'm happy to take. I trust my bullshit-detector. — Xtrix

You have as little curiosity about 9/11 as you do about flat earth theory. I just find this a stunning admission.

Calm down... — Xtrix

I'm pretty calm. But of course you haven't facts or evidence or logic, so "calm down," and "Flat earther!" are all you've got. I'll have some ad hominy with those grits.

Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed?
— fishfry

Why? WHY? — Xtrix

Well? Why?

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference. — Xtrix

I would say the same about you. I'd use the word discernment. You can't distinguish the questions the 9/11 widows put to the commission, from flat earthers.

I actually did laugh at this one. You rebel you! Just a natural born rebel! — Xtrix

Actually a questioner of authority is more like it. Not actually much of a rebel, sad to say.

Or naturally born deluded. But go with whichever is more psychologically pleasing. — Xtrix

What am I deluded about? I've asked questions, and linked to the questions asked by others. I've asserted no alternative theories at all, not a single one, beyond the perfectly true fact that the 9/11 commission did a piss-poor job and did not conduct a criminal investigation. And that no criminal investigation into 9/11 has ever been done. This is a factual matter of public record. The 9/11 was not a criminal investigation. So what do you think I'm deluded about?

Yes, and I suspect you'd go right to the end of that experiment -- if the experimenter was a 9/11 truther, of course. — Xtrix

That didn't even make any sense.

Alright enough of this. You can have the last word. And thanks for the chat, it was fun.

That all changed the day I saw a [url=]video of the collapse of building 7. You can't unsee it. It's a controlled demolition. — fishfry

It remains unexplained. — fishfry

Lots of things go unexplained. All kinds of strange things happen during disasters. There's nothing about that video -- or logic generally -- that suggests a demolition. The building fell for structural reasons due to the impact of the WTC collapse. It can't be sketched out exactly how, perhaps, but neither can how we evolved from primates. Must mean "God did it." Or maybe aliens. Or maybe a demolition by a corrupt government.

If you can't see the absurdity, and where your reasoning is going wrong, then, again, you're caught in the rabbit hole and there's no pulling you out. And I'm not interested in trying to.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history?
— fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.
— Xtrix

Like these guys? — fishfry

Oh you mean the conspiracy theory-peddling "non-profit" group of quacks known as the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? Funny that's who you offer up. In that case, there's a group of "scientists" who you'll be interested in who deny climate change. There were lots of scientists paraded around by tobacco companies who denied any link to cancer. There are all kinds of scientists -- with degrees! -- who meet annually to discuss new findings for "creationist research" -- that Noah's flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon, etc.

I know what you're thinking: "How am I to know who to listen to?" But you've already made your choice. You've thrown in with the small minority of cranks. I throw in with the vast majority of credible scientists. I advise you to take a break from truther websites and have a conversation with them instead.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

And you seem remarkably uncurious about the world. — fishfry

Not at all. I'm just not interested in whether Santa Claus likes chocolate chips or macaroons. Nor am I "curious" about Jewish space lasers, Bigfoot, Creationist theories, climate "skepticism," and moon landing conspiracies. Like I've said before -- you're welcome to your delusions. Have fun with that.

I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones
— Xtrix

Why not? — fishfry

For the same reasons you (I would hope?) think "questions" about whether Reagan was really replaced by a robot after his assassination aren't legitimate. Some things are so stupid you just can't bother with them. If you don't recognize that 9/11 truther claims are of the exact same cloth, then your judgment is simply terrible. And, like I said, it won't matter what I say about it. Nor can I convince you or teach you. You simply possess terrible judgment.

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.
— Xtrix

I don't see that at all. — fishfry

I don't recall anything out of the ordinary or questionable about that case. — fishfry

:rofl: Exactly.

How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc.
— Xtrix

LOL. Good stuff! There was nothing remarkable about the case at the time. You seem to think people make up conspiracies, rather than simply notice anomalies in the official explanation and look for answers. — fishfry

Was I not just noticing anomalies in the official explanation? Can you prove me wrong? Why do you hate questioning? How can you dismiss all the people who want answers to these questions?

I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?
— Xtrix

You honestly don't seem to be able to distinguish between people making things up, and people noting actual, substantive anomalies. — fishfry

You continually missing the point here is very telling indeed. I'll leave it for anyone following this sad discussion to judge for themselves, but it's an interesting teaching tool.

All deluded people think they have "substance" and "evidence," including flat earthers. That doesn't make them all equally ridiculous, but the commonality is still there. You simply aren't capable of seeing how ridiculous your theories about controlled demolitions are, and how similar they are to creationist and flat earth theories. So be it -- that's no surprise.

People question the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 precisely because the official explanation are so full of holes. Not because they are psychologically disposed to see things that aren't there. And this explains your Hinkley example. There really weren't any mysteries about that case. That I know of. And if there were, as you enumerated, they didn't resonate with enough people. — fishfry

No -- it's precisely because they are psychologically disposed. Which is why JFK's assassination has numerous theories, because it was a shocking event, and Reagan's doesn't -- because it turned out OK. If it hadn't turned out OK, you'd be hearing plenty of "mysteries" (some of which I already made up as examples) and would probably be arguing about how closed-minded I am for not taking them seriously. Your last sentence proves the point: it didn't resonate with people. Yes, and JFK theories do -- as do 9/11 theories (but not the WTC bombing in 1993). Why? For exactly the reasons mentioned.

Ad hominems are all you've got. No facts, no evidence, no logic. — fishfry

You're embarrassing yourself. — fishfry

You fail to see that you're embarrassing yourself. Also no surprise.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Someone with your level of judgment lecturing anyone about "logic" is itself pretty embarrassing. But again, nothing I haven't encountered before -- Creationists say the exact same things. :roll:

You have as little curiosity about 9/11 as you do about flat earth theory. I just find this a stunning admission. — fishfry

Shocking! How can I be so closed minded and incurious! How can I be so awful to those poor 9/11 widows! I don't know how I live with myself.

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.
— Xtrix

I would say the same about you. — fishfry

No kidding? I suspect Ken Ham would as well. I'll lose as much sleep over either.

What am I deluded about? — fishfry

What are Creationists "deluded" about? They're just asking questions too.

To say it one more time: the very fact that you care about this, and have judged (poorly) that this is something worth pursuing, and that it's all a "mystery" worth solving, etc., is on par with any other conspiracy theory of your choice.

It's the same argument used with Creationists ("God of the gaps"), in that there will always be questions and holes and mysteries and problems with any historical event, if one cares to delve deep enough into it. The very reason there is this level of controversy about 9/11 and not the 1993 bombing, or the JFK assassination and not the Reagan assassination, is well known by psychologists, and is rather predictable. You see it all around the world, in fact.

There's nothing wrong with questioning things. But what you choose to question, and why, matters. What you choose to do with your time, energy, and attention matters. It's a judgment call.

It's precisely judgment that you lack. Regarding "delusion": you're deluded if you believe building 7 was "demolished," for example. Which you said. So there's a specific example for you.

You can have the last word. — fishfry

I doubt that very much.

I doubt that very much. — Xtrix

To the extent that this counts as a post, you're right. I just wanted to say that I ran my eyes down to the end and didn't read whatever you wrote. 9/11 is actually not much of an interest of mine, I watched a bunch of 9/11 vids a while back (before Youtube banned them all) and made a mental note of the standard talking points. And to be fair, I do believe we haven't been told the full truth about it; and that since it is an undeniable fact that there has never been a criminal investigation, I'd like to see one. Further discussion about the subject wouldn't be of interest to me. And you did yourself no favor by equating the questions of the 9/11 widows, formally submitted to the 9/11 commission and most of them still unanswered to this day, with flat earth theory. This marks you in my mind as a most unserious individual.

And now I really am done here.

I doubt that very much.
— Xtrix

To the extent that this counts as a post, you're right. — fishfry

Yes -- you're fairly predictable.

To summarize this odd discussion: you're yet another deluded 9/11 truther desperately pretending to not be a 9/11 truther -- exactly like most 9/11 truthers. "I'm one of the REASONABLE conspiracy theorists!"

It's simply terrible, terrible judgment. On par with flat earth theory -- many proponents of which are probably nice people as well, but likewise deluded.

It was fun embarrassing you -- have a good time with your unanswered "questions."