How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values? — Athena

Sorry, forgot to respond.

When I think of Enlightenment, I think of reason. When I think of Romanticism, I think of feelings and ideals. Maybe I've got that wrong.

When I think of Enlightenment, I think of reason. When I think of Romanticism, I think of feelings and ideals. Maybe I've got that wrong. — T Clark

Combine all three, and that's Romanticism. If you've read Les Miserables, that's pinnacle Romanticism.

How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values? — Athena

As I understand it, the Enlightenment was all about rationalism order and secularism - Romanticism was specifically a reaction against these strictures, a project wanting to restore emotion, spontaneity, subjectivity and enchanted thinking.

:up:

I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. — schopenhauer1

This is too graphic. :)

Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking. — Athena

We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles.

A particular strain of romanticism is dangerous; whether it's the whole movement itself I'm not sure.

What am I referring to?

The positive spin it gives to what are normally considered the bringer of misery and pain (war being the archetype) leads to people willing to kill & die (for a cause). This, I'm led to believe, is akin to brainwashing/mind manipulation of the worst kind ever. :smile:

The positive spin it gives to what are normally considered the bringer of misery and pain (war being the archetype) leads to people willing to kill & die (for a cause). This, I'm led to believe, is akin to brainwashing/mind manipulation of the worst kind ever. :smile: — Agent Smith

I think this is an incorrect understanding of romanticism. On the contrary, being lost in the romantic view of the world is like wearing rose-colored glasses all the time. One fails to see the ugly side of existence -- that there are undertakings that are impossible to achieve or that there are things that require suffering and hardships. If you actually read the writings of the romanticists, you would think that people living in that world are childlike or immature, forget about innocence. There are failures in life.

We're on the same page.

:up:

You romanticize the reason for war. War is over gold. Look deep enough, and its over something. — Hanover

What else?

We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles. — L'éléphant

Yes, we should think scientific thinking is logical and the examples you gave and not.
We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking and voting with the same lack of thinking or deciding not to wear a mask or get a vaccination without thinking things threw is problematic. Romantic thinking is not really thinking either.

Here is a short and simple video about the good and bad of that kind of thinking.

As I understand it, the Enlightenment was all about rationalism order and secularism - Romanticism was specifically a reaction against these strictures, a project wanting to restore emotion, spontaneity, subjectivity and enchanted thinking. — Tom Storm

It is all rather complex and I regret my limited time to respond to people.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, and glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical.[1] It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[2] the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.[3] It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography,[4] education,[5] chess, social sciences, and the natural sciences.[6] It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing conservatism, liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism.[7]

The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as fear, horror and terror, and awe — especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublime and beauty of nature.[8][9] It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, but also spontaneity as a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu). In contrast to the Rationalism and Classicism of the Enlightenment, Romanticism revived medievalism[10] and elements of art and narrative perceived as authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, early urban sprawl, and industrialism. — wikipedia

However, the futurist dream of the enlightenment was to raise the human potential and resolve all our problems with reason. Democracy being rule by reason and made possible with universal education. The pursuit of happiness meant gaining knowledge. This is a huge contrast from believing we were kicked out of Eden and cursed and doomed to be miserable creatures unless saved by a supernational power and therefore we must we live under the authority a God who gives us to rule over us. This God deciding who will be masters and who will be servants. Our liberty from that is pretty romantic, isn't it? I suspect we don't understand things this way because of the Christian influence and enlightenment and Christianity oppose each other.

Could Romanticism be the problem? — Athena

I don't believe it is the idea but the people who play by it who are to blame. People may simply not be compatible with each other due to specific unexplainable differences due to our immense complexities but again, we learn and as Bottom explains, there are sometimes specific outrages which could lead to the failure of a relationship and it may very well be the wanting to maximise the romantic relationship you have with someone, pushing your limit. As he says, sometimes love cannot be explained with words and must be experienced in silence, for there is no explanation, and so there are a simple combination of emotions you feel which allows you to feel great care and comfort with the other person.

Back to the point, I believe romanticism is not the issue, but rather the people experiencing it, and due to our imperfections, although we want absolute romanticism with the other person as we believe it is the only way we can truly express our love for them, we must instead sustain the relationship, for too much water in a boiling pot will overflow.

Our liberty from that is pretty romantic, isn't it? I suspect we don't understand things this way because of the Christian influence and enlightenment and Christianity oppose each other. — Athena

I'd say there is a difference between romanticising enlightenment and rationalising romanticism. :razz:

This is too graphic — L'éléphant

Well, I was trying to say that often people procreate thinking that their style of raising someone transfers some sort of romantic ideal of fulfillment. Our society doesn't work that way.. Let's take a pretty popular human desire for some of long-term love..

I can devise a science fiction universe where everyone is provided from birth with a partner that they will care for and will care for them.. But of course then comes the drama of wanting the other partner, and trading them with others.. or too many people desiring the ones the other people have, or not being happy in the confines of this one.. Thus falling apart to the chaotic market-economy of today's dating system.. And there are people who may find love and those who don't. There are those who had love and fall out, or unrequited, or lose their affection, etc. etc..

So I am just saying the romantic ideal of the perfect union.. "X person finds Y person and establish a long-term bond of mutual affection, and work in Z job that provides enough money for them, and fulfill their time without any self-reflection chopping wood, making furniture, and making pies.. essentially pretending to live in 1740.. and whose life is a clockwork of purpose and production.." this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist.

We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking — Athena

Uhm, I think I didn't make that clear. The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. There's a scientific explanation of the calm before the storm, moldy and sour foods, and looking both ways so we don't get hit by a car because the speed of the vehicle is a lot faster than our speed of avoidance.

Romantic thinking is not really thinking either. — Athena

Not necessarily. I mean, are you just talking about romantic feeling of love? Or are we still in the romanticism movement? The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage?

this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist. — schopenhauer1

Okay I give you that. Early on in life, people have romantic vision, and as they get older the romantic vision becomes impractical or unrealistic. Then finally, they see that life is about suffering and hardships -- so they join capitalism.

That is a more personal view of romance than the op was considering. The original consideration was war for ideologies such as the violence during Hitler's time, or the violent take over of the soviet union and Communist China. A fact is when Russia agreed to tear down the wall separating Germany, it was agreed NATO would not move East. That is documented but it was not the wording of a formally signed agreement. So the argument goes those negotiating with Gorbachev did say NATO would not expand east, but that doesn't matter because those exact words were not put in the signed agreement. That is a technicality that I consider highly unethical. But now for the Romanticism....

We have another agreement problem.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was suddenly left with the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. So it, the United States and Russia reached an agreement in 1994, known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, by which Ukraine would turn over its nukes in exchange for those security assurances. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/ — Washington Post

Russian media is controlled and claiming the west is violating the NATO agreement, and so is US media controlled but fortunately less so, and it is not mentioning the verbal agreement but is insisting Putin is just nuts. If we think of this in terms of people filing for a divorce we can see the romantic notions of who is being wronged and who is committing the wrong. The leaders of both countries, the US and Russia are building different understandings of reality that make it appear their side is in the right and the side is in the wrong. This happens with all wars.

We all like to see ourselves as in the right and defending what is good. This is essential to people being willing to put their lives on the line and willing to pay for the weapons of war. Trusting our leaders to do the right thing, is perhaps a very romantic notion. Looking into the Ukraine problem, I see the Israel problem of multiple agreements made depending on who is being manipulated the Jews or the Arabs. Opposing sides were led to have very different expectations, and the violence continues as people struggle to defend themselves. Having blind faith in our leaders is romantic. We need to demand full discloser of negotiations. Not just what does the official signed agreement say, but what was said to get everyone to sign?

Number one, we all need to understand what a fact is. Number two we have to hook up people from around the world with internet forums and where we all can keep our leaders honest and ethical. My romantic notion is we can have rule by reason but we can not depend on our leaders unless we can know what they are doing and pay attention!

I'd say there is a difference between romanticising enlightenment and rationalising romanticism. :razz: — Tom Storm

I love :heart: that statement. This forum is so much better than most forums because the people here can see the subtle differences and see things from different points of view. How can we educate for this?

The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. — L'éléphant

You did not watch the explanation of fast and slow thinking. There can be a big problem with believing common sense is good thinking. The video makes that very clear and it is information I wish everyone shared. A friend used to have a sign on her door saying, "Just because you think it is true, does not mean it is true." Scientific thinking questions the truth of what we believe. Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time.

The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage? — L'éléphant

Oh yes, I am of that mindset. Once in a while reality seems to dampen my romanticism and I have to work harder at believing what I want to believe.

this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist.
— schopenhauer1

PS that kind of thinking put in in Hades for a very long time. :chin:

When I think of Enlightenment, I think of reason. When I think of Romanticism, I think of feelings and ideals. Maybe I've got that wrong.
— T Clark

Combine all three, and that's Romanticism. If you've read Les Miserables, that's pinnacle Romanticism. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for those comments. That is what makes Romanticism something to discuss as it looks different from different points of view. Personally, I have strong feelings about the ideals. But then I think math and science are sexy. The power of knowledge can be thrilling and is much more hopeful than a pessimistic religion about Satan. demons, and sinners.

Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time. — Athena

Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air.

Personally, I have strong feelings about the ideals. But then I think math and science are sexy. The power of knowledge can be thrilling and is much more hopeful than a pessimistic religion about Satan. demons, and sinners. — Athena

100%

Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air. — L'éléphant

Yes and no doubt because we understand the nature/science behind many common-sense notions we can believe common sense is reasoning equal to scientific reasoning. This is close to believing the Bible is God's truth and a better source of truth than science. Both common sense and God's truth, beliefs, can lead us to trouble when we think the reasoning is equal to scientific reasoning. The pandemic has made some of us very aware of that problem.

Interestingly as some brought out in this thread, reasoning without emotions can also be problematic! The nuclear bomb may have ended the war between the US and Japan sooner and saved thousands of lives, but who does not wish that never happened and therefore we do not live in fear of nuclear war? The US used cluster bombs on Iraq and now we hear in the news that cluster bombs are against the rules for war. Emotion plays an important part in our decision-making. That was the theme of a few Star Trek shows when Kirk was the Captain of the Enterprise.

I feel passionate about what the values of what the Enlightenment can do for us and the enlightenment as I understand it is about what reason can do for us. The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too.

The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too. — Athena

I agree, reason without emotions is a machine. I don't know about Putin. I think what's happening is a bloop and a blast --

Enlightenment gets thrown about a lot in the forum. I never really paid much attention to it. But now, I have the following definition for you. Let's see what is enlightenment:

The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that dominated in Europe during the 18th century, was centered around the idea that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and advocated such ideals as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.

So, it looks to me like enlightenment is from a bygone era where people didn't have separation of church and state, tolerance, progress, liberty, fraternity, constitutional government. Why do we keep on praying for enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to ask for this now as we do have these things in our society.

What you should be asking is, what did enlightenment do for us? Well, do you feel that the enlightenment affected how our society is in any way? I think you don't think it has had any effect at all. And it's not like we can point to it and identify it using scientific evidence. Yet, here we are, always saying "If only we have enlightenment, Putin would not have done what he did." Who knows! Maybe Putin is the most enlightenment individual on the planet right now. I don't know. I'm just needing some perspective because enlightenment is really about individualism. Well, Putin is being "individual" with his decision.

War is here to stay. I don't really understand how people could not understand this. Why do you think countries stockpile on weapons? Nine countries with nuclear weapons spent almost 73 billion dollars in one year alone. What's the purpose of this spending? So they could put them in museums? Or sell on Ebay? No. The weapons are made for killing.

Why do we keep on praying for enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to ask for this now as we do have these things in our society. — L'éléphant

How about young people can not be enlightened as we are enlightened in our later years. How well we understand meanings is a matter of brain organization and that changes as we age. The difference between learning something and knowing the facts; and getting the bigger meaning, a kind of gestalt, probably needs to be experienced before it can be known. Because in our later years the neurons in our brains have grown and new connections are made that are not made when we are young.

When we are young we pick up new facts easier but we have more of a dictionary understanding of words. This is more so before the age of 8. Around age 8 the sheath around our neurons is complete and we become more discriminating and start questioning what we are told. Around age 25 we experience another change in our brains but our personality does not become solidified until around age 30. Later in life, all the facts and memories begin making new connections, and learning something new gets harder, like a broad river flows slower, but we can have an enlightenment experience that we don't have when we are younger. I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened.

I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened. — Athena

I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.
It's been written that the causes of the age of enlightenment happened in small advances in science and other field of studies, until it became a movement and reached wider audience.

I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.
It's been written that the causes of the age of enlightenment happened in small advances in science and other field of studies, until it became a movement and reached wider audience. — L'éléphant

I did not expect anyone to accept a gerontological explanation unless they were old enough to have experienced it. Are you arguing our brains do not change as we age leading to greater wisdom with age? Of course, if a person never reads and never engages in philosophical discussions those thinking neurons do not grow and that wisdom would be very limited. But for those few who have a love of knowledge and live past 70 and 80, something awesome happens. They are no longer thinking like the warrior they once were. Now you get Socrates' arguments about justice and what is good. He has pondered those notions for many years and now people want to hear what he has to say. What he ponders is slightly different from the young man obsessed with his body, his sex life, and competition with his peers.

Not until the renaissance, printing press, and knowledge of making paper did a growing middle class have access to the ancient Roman and Greek thoughts that became the foundation for philosophy in Europe. The church developed scholasticism centered on Plato and Aristotle creating a market for the ancient books. Later, Bacon blew the door to knowledge wide open with abductive reasoning and we enter the modern age with scientific thinking. The industrial age was made possible in part by perspective art because now pictures of the plans for making machines could look three-dimensional and these pictures put in books spread the industrial technology rapidly.

thought to have been devised about 1415 by Italian Renaissance architect Filippo Brunelleschi and later documented by architect and writer Leon Battista Alberti in 1435 (Della Pittura). Linear perspective was likely evident to artists and architects in the ancient Greek and Roman periods, but no records exist from that time, and the practice was thus lost until the 15th century — Naomi Blumberg

I think what we must consider is the ingredients of thought. Why did the Renaissance spread from Italy? Because they still had ancient documents and a memory of the glory of Rome. Because they had metropolitan cities and sought the old documents that provided solutions to metropolitan problems. This was not so for the whole of Europe where besides a few technological skills passed on from generation to generation, people were relatively isolated in rural agrarian communities, the only source of information was the church that was commented to the past and saving souls for God and heaven. They were told not to be worldly and they were not intellectually stimulated until church-controlled scholasticism gave them Aristotle. And they died young.

So why were the Romans and Greeks different? There was a time when the Greeks were thought to be a race of genius and there is some excitement about questioning why they were different. Roman advanced concepts of universals and law, but they began by imitating Athens. I am saying this to compare it to living on a landlord's land and trying to exist by farming when it was not advanced and there were no books, no trade routes, nothing to stimulate their imaginations of what could be. The ingredients for thought and imagination did not exist in most of Europe before the Renaissance.

Are you arguing our brains do not change as we age leading to greater wisdom with age? — Athena

I'm not sure I understand this point. Please clarify as to your reaction to what I said regarding the change in wisdom.
My point in my previous post was: the enlightenment happened. Now it's our task to examine what lasting effects did enlightenment provide? Because you seem to say we should bring back the enlightenment -- it isn't an organization or an institution that could be established again. And why do we need to bring it back? It doesn't look like it had a lasting effect if we're still unhappy with the state of affairs.

The renaissance -- you're thinking that the search for scholastic knowledge, rediscovering of the ancients writings, and other arts and politics ideas are sought or willingly craved by the greater population. No. It didn't work that way. The thinkers, the historians, the scholars were the ones. They were what they were before the renaissance and because of that, this renaissance thinking happened.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Please clarify as to your reaction to what I said regarding the change in wisdom.
My point in my previous post was: the enlightenment happened. Now it's our task to examine what lasting effects did enlightenment provide? Because you seem to say we should bring back the enlightenment -- it isn't an organization or an institution that could be established again. And why do we need to bring it back? It doesn't look like it had a lasting effect if we're still unhappy with the state of affairs.

The renaissance -- you're thinking that the search for scholastic knowledge, rediscovering of the ancients writings, and other arts and politics ideas are sought or willingly craved by the greater population. No. It didn't work that way. The thinkers, the historians, the scholars were the ones. They were what they were before the renaissance and because of that, this renaissance thinking happened. — L'éléphant

Oh my goodness we have different sources of information. My sources of information say a very deliberate effort was made to regain past knowledge. My source of information is college lectures but I found a link on the internet that is useful. The lecture focused more on the Italian reasons for pursuing documents translated by Petrarch. That is a memory of the glory of Rome, and I need to have cosmopolitan solutions to Italy's cities that were growing because of increased trading. Agarainian Europe with no trade was not as motivated in the beginning because the church met their needs.

More specifically, famous Italian Renaissance scholar and humanist Petrarch (also known as Francesco Petrarca) is remembered for rediscovering the earlier work of Roman philosopher Cicero. Cicero was born in Italy in 106 BC and died in 43 BC. He is regarded as one of the most masterful writers of his time and the Latin language. Petrarch’s rediscovery in the 14th century of Cicero’s letters is considered to be the spark of the Italian Renaissance and inspired other European scholars to do the same and look to ancient texts. Petrarch considered the ideas present in Cicero’s and other ancient texts as superior to the ideas present in Europe at the time of the Middle Ages. As well, Petrarch is considered to be the founder of the humanist movement during the Renaissance.
Petrarch
Petrarch Portrait from the mid-1400s.
In general, Renaissance Humanism was the study of ancient Greek and Roman texts with the goal of promoting new norms and values in society. These norms and views varied from those at the time because they focused less heavily on a religious worldview. Instead, Renaissance humanists such as Petrarch use ancient texts to promote a worldview based on logic and reason. — History Crunch

An organization that did advance ancient mysticism and knowledge were the Masons.

Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that arose from obscure origins (theorised to be anywhere from the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple to the mid-1600s). Freemasonry now exists in various forms all over the world, and has millions of members. The various forms all share moral and metaphysical ideals, which include, in most cases, a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.[1]

The fraternity is administratively organised into Grand Lodges (or sometimes Orients), each of which governs its own jurisdiction, which consists of subordinate (or constituent) Lodges. Grand Lodges recognise each other through a process of landmarks and regularity. There are also appendant bodies, which are organisations related to the main branch of Freemasonry, but with their own independent administration.

Freemasonry uses the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what has been described as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."[2] — mystic

Public schools in the US were about liberal education based on the Greek and Roman classics and they advanced humanism along with an understanding of democracy that is dependent on literacy in Greek and Roman classics. I think such education can prevent Romanticism from becoming a tyranny or a war machine because of its focus on the individual as an authority while promoting the welfare of all. This follows from Aristotle and the notion that every species has a purpose and it is the human purpose to reason and this goes with notions of being political animals. It includes Cicero and the ideas about right reason. Philosophy gives us a totally different way of searching truth than the religions of revelation. The Bible is about a kingdom, not democracy and it is about believing, not reasoning.

Thank you for these passages. The Petrarch one is what I had in mind about renaissance. Your comments are on point.

This forum is so much better than most forums because the people here can see the subtle differences and see things from different points of view. — Athena

I bet that you tell that to everyone in every forum you visit! :smile: