None of this matters - it only relates to what I already granted you - what HUmans do about this is a fun discussion.

But this changes nothing about hte objective facts which exist in the Universe where Abrahamic God created it all.

'The Bible was an attempt to capture my nature for a less sophisticated time. Much of the stories were misconceived and misunderstood.' — Tom Storm

Then that's an objective fact. I didn't note any, so picking apart any particular belief people hold doesn't come across my desk, as it were. It is conceptually airtight that the Abrahamic God existing imports objective facts.

That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180? — AmadeusD

Of course it is, just like your question.

No. It's not. Thanks for playing.

No theist can identify objective truth either. They can only point vaguely to some amorphous god idea (as nominally foundational to whatever they think is real) a deity no one understands in the same way or expects the same things from. — Tom Storm

Im saying there is an objective truth. Maybe no one has said it, but because of my faith it’s worth trying to say something objective, universal, absolute - true for God as it would be true for any consciousness. God or truth or objectivity becomes like a limit we can shoot for.

But when I was an atheist, it didn’t matter that I couldn’t find it, that it might be an illusion - all of it became just as much bullshit as the “god idea” or the “deity no one understands in the same way”. All of it.

And as an atheist, it made sense that it was all bullshit. Why make any ethics, full of holes and overly confident in almighty “reason” and the wonderful ability to judge value? Objective truth, the stuff of reality without appearance was gone, so what use is ever using those words again to defeat appearance (for only other appearances are left when truth is gone).

But the atheists who strive to build a new objectivity, a postmodern wisdom, a new language game, are just as full of shit as the theists seem to be to you.

Without objective reality, who can really tell the difference between BS and something not-BS? No one.

There’s a reason Nietzsche said “ god is dead” when he was saying truth is overvalued and mostly a lie, and metaphysics and absolutes are bullshit, and instinct is the only invisible force that matters; because saying god is dead sums up the rest of it. Nietzsche was consistent enough to remain skeptical of scientists who thought they knew the nature of truth just as much as theists did. Bullshit speaks in every tongue.

I’m not saying people don’t come up with some great attempts at truth and ethics without god in them; it’s just that they are attempts, and not successful or effective enough to make a dent in the swamp of BS that we always create along with it. For me, without God, why bother trying again when there is no truth, nothing real about morality, no god?

I haven’t heard an atheist truly recover a real, relevant case for objectivity and meaning and purpose to philosophy and metaphysics. Nietzsche said you build it on a tightrope at best and inevitably the facade falls down. I agree with that, if god was dead to me.

I have not said theists are full of shit, just that they can be no closer to an objective morality than a non-believer. It’s subjective any way you go.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity. But you can’t demonstrate a single belief any god holds regarding morality. Pretty sure you can’t point to a single objective truth about that god. And you certainly can’t demonstrate a god.

It also doesn’t follow that if there are gods that they are (or that they create) morality itself. For all we know a god might simply identify what is good, but not be the source of it. How would we know?

Not sure why you brought up Nietzsche or science. I haven’t raised them, nor do I have much interest in either.

My point is a simple one. We have no way of knowing what any gods want from us. I am not putting this up against any other system, certainly not science, which can make no value statements or proclamations about truth.

In relation to morality, a theist has no more access to an objective morality than a secularist.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity. But you can’t demonstrate a single belief any god holds regarding morality. Pretty sure you can’t point to a single objective truth about that god. And you certainly can’t demonstrate a god. — Tom Storm

:100: Amen!

But the atheists who strive to build a new objectivity, a postmodern wisdom, a new language game, are just as full of shit as the theists seem to be to you. — Fire Ologist

If you compare both systems, i.e. religion versus atheism, you can still see different emerging properties.

Nietzsche actually understood what the emerging properties were of a society based on atheism:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead/

“God is dead”: What Nietzsche really meant

Nietzsche was an atheist for his adult life and so he didn’t mean that there was a God who had actually died, but rather that our idea of one had.

Europe no longer needed God as the source for all morality, value, or order in the universe; philosophy and science were capable of doing that for us.

Nietzsche believed that the removal of this system put most people at the risk of despair or meaninglessness.

For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe.

Indeed, atheism is on the march, with near majorities in many European countries and newfound growth across the United States heralding a cultural shift.

As many atheists know, to not have a god without an additional philosophical structure providing meaning can be a cause of existential dread.

In my opinion, the emerging properties of an atheist society are best described by the absurdist philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless.

The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

In line with what Nietzsche predicted, western civilization is now in a constant rebellion against the absurd, frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide.

Hence, it does not matter that both religion and atheism would in fact be preaching bullshit, because not all forms of bullshit are equal. Unlike religion, atheism is known to be a dangerous, society-terminating form of bullshit.

western civilization — Tarskian

Another episode of Yankees trying to lump themselves in with Europe by pretending a shared "civilisation".

Unlike religion, atheism is known to be a dangerous, society-terminating form of bullshit. — Tarskian

Statistically false by all acounts. The less religious a country is the better it is doing.

Another episode of Yankees trying to lump themselves in with Europe by pretending a shared "civilisation". — Lionino

As a European myself, I consider the Americans to be an obvious Anglo-Saxon offshoot. They undeniably share their pre-colonial history with the British isles.

The less religious a country is the better it is doing. — Lionino

For a relatively short time, atheism allows to increase national income. However, it works until it doesn't anymore.

Instead of investing in producing the next generation, they have to import it from people who did. It is a short-term gain that will eventually cost them more in the long run. In fact, it will even cost them everything.

Similarly, you can increase company profits by not spending on the maintenance of the factory. For a while, profits will indeed be better. A car company can cancel all design work for new models. For a while, the company will indeed be more profitable.

With atheism, the struggle against the absurd will sooner or later begin to dominate society, in their vain attempt at avoiding the inevitable, i.e. collective suicide.

The French just had an election on Sunday. The only issue at stake was their impending collective suicide. No children means immigration. Immigration means that the French are getting replaced. It's game over for them, but they will not accept that until they will have to.

You sound like the God of Abraham. Or Socrates. Or Descartes. Or the ministry of truth. — Fire Ologist

:up:

Realistically, there may well be things happening in the universe that the human mind - intermediated by the limited faculties of the human body - may only be dimly able to grasp. The golden ratio has been "known" for millenia; fractal patterns abound in nature. But it is only with the advent of advanced computer modelling that that we have identified the real effects of this mathematical phenomenon in the existence of attractors at the heart of non-linear systems.

Hence, I believe that some people are simply "open" to certain types of experiences which, while "meaningful," may not be immediately reducible to a concrete meaning. Other people, of a more inflexible frame of mind, are not open to these kind of experiences and, hence, simply do not have them. Or, more precisely, do not recognize that they have them.

The substance of any belief is the effect that belief has upon the actions of the believer. Individuals inspired by the sublime, the divine, have created great works of art and philosophy, sacrificed themselves for the common good, and, yes, achieved great scientific breakthroughs. I personally am inspired by the glimpses of the sublime my life has afforded me.

To deny the possibility of something that someone else has experienced because you have failed to experience it seem to me nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes.

In line with what Nietzsche predicted, western civilization is now in a constant rebellion against the absurd, frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide. — Tarskian

This is not what Nietzsche predicted. Nihilism is not the inevitable result of atheism. In fact , Nietzsche argued in his later works that religion and spirituality are nihilistic, because they represent a negation of life, as does the metaphysical notion of free will. He believed that only an atheistic revaluation and overturning of all religious, ethical and scientific values, such as the value of truth and goodness, can stave off nihilism.

In fact , Nietzsche argued in his later works that religion and spirituality are nihilistic, because they represent a negation of life. — Joshs

Yes, he undoubtedly does that too, but I do not endorse these views. I consider these to be part of Nietzsche's personal rebellion against the absurd.

He believed that only an atheistic revaluation and overturning of all religious, ethical and scientific values, such as the value of truth and goodness, can stave off nihilism. — Joshs

The alternative that he proposes is obviously unrealistic. I don't doubt that people have tried his recipe. Nietzsche did indeed rebel against the absurd -- but like everyone else who does -- with nothing particularly interesting to show for. His recipe certainly does not bring hope to anybody who has become hopeless. Any rebellion against the absurd is always in vain, including Nietzsche's.

In fact, I was referring to Nietzsche's idea in the subtitle of the article:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead/

The death of God didn’t strike Nietzsche as an entirely good thing. Without a God, the basic belief system of Western Europe was in jeopardy.

I consider everything else that Nietzsche wrote on the matter to be his personal rebellion against the absurd. He clearly knew that there was a problem. He thought that he had found a possible solution, but he hadn't. Rebellion against the absurd only brings false hope. Salvation will never arrive. Not in the form of alcohol, or drugs, or any otherwise meaningless atheistic revaluations.

I consider everything else that Nietzsche wrote on the matter to be his personal rebellion against the absurd. He clearly knew that there was a problem. He thought that he had found a possible solution, but he hadn't. Rebellion against the absurd only brings false hope. Salvation will never arrive. Not in the form of alcohol, or drugs, or any otherwise meaningless atheistic revaluations — Tarskian

Is the only alternative to a dead determinism, a determinism of assigned causes and effects that we invented for the convenience of building stuff, a spirit of some kind? Is life meaningless simply because it doesn’t have some ULTIMATE meaning, purpose or truth? Is this what really causes feelings of despair, hopelessness and absurdity? Isn’t t a feeling of meaningless in a present situation that leads to such overblown philosophical conclusions about the pointlessness of it all? It is a hallmark of severe depression that the present hopelessness draws into itself the part and future, so that it becomes impossible to envision any change from one’s current state. One ceases to be able to remember or anticipate any hopeful state of mind.

We spend most of our lives ensconced within one value system or another which imparts a sense of meaning and purpose to life . It is this participation on the part of individuals in shared cultural practices of meaning and value that allows us to communicate with each other and make the world intelligible. Nietzsche doesn’t deny this. His point is that nihilism results from trying to freeze in place a particular cultural notion of truth or ethical goodness. Doing that eventually kills off the meaning of the values we co-create as a society, like repeating the seem word over and over until it loses all sense. To remain within meaning, we must continually renew and transform our understanding of ourselves and the world, not for the seek of some ultimate goal, but for the sake of going with the flow, being one with the process of transformation, enjoying the value systems which give us meaning and delighting in overthrowing them when they have outlived their usefulness.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity — Tom Storm

No one can point to objectivity through reason and science alone. Plato tried, Aristotle, Hegel, Descartes - they are all punching bags to us post modern sages.

If all there is are us people, after thousands of years of bickering over philosophy and mysticism, and science and religion, we have so little agreement. We get Kant where the objective thing in itself is unknowable, we get Nietzsche showing us objectivity is for the weak, we get post modernism where “there is no truth”, we get Wittgenstein where meaning is a game.

It is fairly popular to say “there is no absolute truth, there is only my truth.” Fine if someone wants to think they’ve said something by saying that, but I call that bullshit. If you think there is only “my truth” just admit there is no truth at all.

I’m saying that if I concluded there was no truth, which is hand-in-hand with there is no god, I wouldn’t be writing home about it trying to convince people how much I “knew” this to be correct (can’t say “true”). If I concluded there was no god, I wouldn’t be writing down the new Ten Commandments of morality for all to learn from.

No objective moral position to guide us - then who the hell cares what anyone thinks?

“Thou shalt only call someone by the pronoun they have chosen, even if that pronoun can change without any visible indication of what that pronoun is.” Lets try to collaborate on a compromise with that starting point.

Objectivity has been so deconstructed, gender itself is just another pile of bullshit we tell ourselves.

No objectivity is like a religious belief.

So is objectivity.

I’m saying that I happen to believe in God. And I happen to believe people DO know the truth. These are beliefs. I, like Aristotle for instance, think there can be a science of this objective world, that we can discover and share in discussion. Because of those beliefs, discussion with other people about what they think about morality and truth has value to me. I can learn something objectively true - gain wisdom.

Im not wasting my time spinning wheels talking about what is correct and what is not correct about truth and morality when, if I was an atheist post modern thinker, the end of every conversation is “well we’ll never know, all we can do is make up our best, and go on with our lives in our bubbles of bullshit.”

It is a hallmark of severe depression that the present hopelessness draws into itself the part and future, so that it becomes impossible to envision any change from one’s current state. One ceases to be able to remember or anticipate any hopeful state of mind. — Joshs

As believers in God and therefore in hope, we use a very simple -- largely auto-suggestive -- trick to address the issue: We simply hope that God will take care of it. In fact, we are convinced of this. The catch is that it only works for the ones who believe that it does.

I doubt that Nietzsche's alternative has the same properties.

If Nietzsche's "atheistic revaluation" really worked, why doesn't the suicide prevention hotline use it to give hope to their clinically depressed users?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/201904/can-religion-help-depression

Depression is the second leading cause of disability in the world.

One variable that has been recently explored as a protective factor is religiosity, spirituality.

Interestingly, the group who benefited the most from religiosity was the group at high risk for depression—those who had a depressed parent.

In sum, it seems like religiosity/spirituality may confer resilience to the development/recurrence of depressive episodes in individuals in general and in ones with high risk in specific.

The world needs a solution for the second leading cause of disability in the world. In fact, we have always had a solution until atheism started spreading.

As a European myself — Tarskian

:lol: :lol: :lol:

For a relatively short time, atheism allows to increase national income. — Tarskian

No, it doesn't.

Instead of investing in producing the next generation, they have to import it from people who did. — Tarskian

There is no meaningful correlation between religiosity and birth rates. Atheist Czechia has much higher birth rates than deeply religious Spain, Greece, and Italy.



Any other malformed idea of yours that you want me to educate you about?

It’s subjective any way you go. — Tom Storm

Then why speak? It’s all babble. No one will ever truly know anyone or anything if it’s all subjective any way you go. Nothing is left to share among people in discussion. Anything shared would be objective.

Speak to the waitress when you are ordering dinner; speak to your kids when you are telling them it is safe to cross the street; speak to your politician when you disagree with a new law about traffic signs.

But if anyone says “Laws are good.” Or “Community is important” or “there is a natural kind of person, and a built in morality of doing no harm” or any such universal concoction - tell them “blah, blah, blah.” Remember that’s subjective BS, as equally meaningful as “laws are bad” and “community is unimportant.” and any response thrown out among other subjects is your own attempt at wish fulfillment.

Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, was known to reply to arguments by wiggling his finger. He believed all was so subject to change, nothing could be fixed long enough to be objective or “truth” - with his finger he showed he understood what this meant for philosophy, for speaking.

In the end, I think the subjectivists, the no-truthers, those who drain all meaning and purpose and value, are just wrong. I totally get their position. I admit they may be right (although being right is an objective statement and the first crack in the position). I’m saying if I stood still on their position, talking about morality or metaphysics, or “good” or “justice” or “truth” would be like talking about “God” or “fairy elves” or “human progress” - just another no sum game.

If Nietzsche's "atheistic revaluation" really worked, why doesn't the suicide prevention hotline use it to give hope to their clinically depressed users? — Tarskian

Nietzsche often considered suicide due to his physical suffering. It was his philosophy which rescued him. But as you said, any approach only works if one believes in it. Or more precisely, one can only absorb a philosophy to the extent that it is relevant to and consistent with their way of life. Any therapeutic approach can help someone in distress if it resonates with their outlook, which is why a suicide helpline can encourage one person’s atheism and another’s religious faith without compromising its mission of saving lives. . Of course an idea can change the way we look at things, but even here, we must be ready to integrate what it has to teach us in order for it to benefit us.

The biggest cause of depression and despair is breakdown in interpersonal relations. Our self-worth, and the meaningfulness of our world, are dependent on our ability to form bonds with others and successfully navigate conflicts with people we care about . This requires insights into why people do things that surprise, disappoint or anger us, why trust and loyalty breaks down. If we leave the answers to these questions to our gods, we will not develop the skills to discover the perspective of the other from their vantage. Getting along with others is the most difficult challenge in life, and making progress at it is our responsibility, not the gods.

To deny the possibility of something that someone else has experienced because you have failed to experience — Pantagruel

We do not "deny" anyone's "experience" only observe that such "experience" does not correspond to anything outside of your head. The experiential difference between us, sir, is not that we 'have failed" but that you seem to emotionally need to take fantasies (of "possibility") literally and we do not.

The substance of any belief is the effect] that belief has upon the actions of the believer.

Yes indeed, consider (e.g.) cults, asylums, prisons, casinos, p0m0 seminars, MAGA/Klan rallies ... ye shall know "beliefs" by their fruits. :mask:

:smirk: :up:

... punching bags to us post modern sages. — Fire Ologist

:rofl:

Nietzsche often considered suicide due to his physical suffering. It was his philosophy which rescued him. — Joshs

Would it work for anybody else?

Getting along with others is the most difficult challenge in life, and making progress at it is our responsibility, not the gods. — Joshs

The problem of getting along with others is not new. It is the society-wide inability to deal with the problem that is rather new. By destroying the old system, without bringing a new one, the atheist impetus has left a lot of people stranded.

People used to be able to deal with difficult life circumstances.

The standards of living in past centuries were in comparison very low. People even had to deal with famines, wars, pestilence, high child mortality and largely inexistent health care, but they seem to have been less traumatized than people today.

It is not possible to bring back spirituality to people who do not believe in it. So, that is not what I am advocating. I guess that instead they will have to try something like Nietzsche's "atheistic revaluation". Maybe it works for them.

We do not "deny" anyone's "experience" only observe that such "experience" does not correspond to anything outside of your head. The experiential difference between us, sir, is not that we 'have failed" but that you seem to emotionally need to take fantasies (of "possibility") literally and we do not. — 180 Proof

Or you have failed to observe the evidence in the events comprising your own life due to your own attitude, or simply some inherent limitation of your cognitive makeup.

"In general, if an argument is to convince you, then, first, you must be capable of understanding it; and secondly, you must accept the truth of its premises. You may be capable of grasping arguments (say, in some of the more esoteric branches of mathematics) which others are quite unable to understand; others may have no inkling about the truth of certain propositions (say, in the history of logic) which are utterly familiar to you. For such simple reasons an argument appropriate to you may be inappropriate to me."
(Annas & Barnes, Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Scepticism)

It’s subjective any way you go.
— Tom Storm

Then why speak? It’s all babble. No one will ever truly know anyone or anything if it’s all subjective any way you go. Nothing is left to share among people in discussion. Anything shared would be objective. — Fire Ologist

It’s actually intersubjective , at least with regard to empirical truth, and the intersubjective intertwines itself so inextricably with the subjective that it is only in a move of abstraction that we can claim to separate them.
And given that the objective is a product of intersubjective coordinations and material practices, the objective does not come before the other two but is derivative. What comes first is a world which is always intelligible and understandable in some form, due to the social and linguistic practices that we share. You don’t need a god or a notion of absolute truth to explain why we understand each other. The question is not why we understand each other, but how are systems of values and knowledge formed through interaction , and how do they change over the course of history, such that communities of divergent intelligiblity arise? Once we have embarked on this line of inquiry, the search for the ‘really real truth’ may come to be seen more and more as a way to freeze the progress of inquiry in its tracks, rather than as the best way to enhance our ability to get along with each other.

Or you have failed to observe the evidence in the events comprising your own life due to your own attitude, or simply some inherent limitation of your cognitive makeup. — Pantagruel

:roll: Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling.

It isn't against you. It is a generalized fact about the epistemological makeup of individual entities, of which you happen to be one.

"In general, if an argument is to convince you, then, first, you must be capable of understanding it; and secondly, you must accept the truth of its premises. You may be capable of grasping arguments (say, in some of the more esoteric branches of mathematics) which others are quite unable to understand; others may have no inkling about the truth of certain propositions (say, in the history of logic) which are utterly familiar to you. For such simple reasons an argument appropriate to you may be inappropriate to me."
(Annas & Barnes, Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Scepticism)

edit: In other words, no more or less ad hominem than your criticisms of my experiential claims. And I like my substantiating argument far better. I love scientific realism, because the first tenet of science is to acknowledge its own limits, including its approximate nature. I don't know what the limits of possibility are, but given what I can see of them in the span of one little human lifetime, I'd assume that much vaster intelligences would compass magnitudes more. Same thing with abilities.

The question is not why we understand each other, but how are systems of values and knowledge formed through interaction , and how do they change over the course of history, — Joshs

But what happens when you realize that everything we construct today will utterly change and be wiped away? What happens to the “objectivity” that is derived from the shifting sands?

It never was more than an illusion. Intersubjectivity only becomes objectivity by convention.

Look, I think there is an objective, mind independent physical world, that is intelligible to minds to varying degrees that can be logically tested, and that logic reflects the fact of objects being in the world. There is truth and wisdom to be gleaned FROM experience.

But I only think this because nothing else makes any sense at all. If I thought no-god and no-truth made sense, then no more objective mind independent reality and all intersubjectivity is a game played in the phenomenal world, as reality is always once step removed (if it exists at all).

Ad hominem, not an argument. Quite telling. — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof It isn't against you. It is a generalized fact about the epistemological makeup of individual entities, of which you happen to be one. — Pantagruel

:sweat:

I love how you strategically omit citing the argument. Wise choice.

But what happens when you realize that everything we construct today will utterly change and be wiped away? What happens to the “objectivity” that is derived from the shifting sands?

It never was more than an illusion. Intersubjectivity only becomes objectivity by convention — Fire Ologist

Changing is not the same thing as being ‘wiped away’. I’ll give you an example. In the shift from Newton physics to relativistic and quantum physics, was the Newtonian description of macro phenomena ‘wiped away’? No, it continues to be useful. Non pomo-oriented philosophers of science will say that we continue to understand the Newtonian concepts in an unchanged form, and merely correct or supplement them when dealing with sub-atomic phenomena. Postmodern thinkers argue that when in using the Newtonian concepts today, we alter the sense of meaning of this system of terms ( terms like mass and energy), but in ways that are subtle enough that it appears for practical purposes as though we are accessing their original meaning. I think this is a good example of how our concepts evolve and change in ways that are subtle enough that we can move back and forth between the older and the newer senses of meaning in ways that are useful to us. Progress may change our older concepts , but it also depends on them, references them, builds on them. It just doesn’t do so in a cumulative, linear, logical manner. We can agree with Kihn that a new paradigm is better than an older one, that it makes progress over the older one, by solving more puzzles But we can also agree with him that assuming a linear , cumulative progress in thinking is really no progress at all, because it just recycles the older concepts and adds to them. Real progress requires real change in ideas, and real change in ideas demands qualitative , gestalt shifts in the axes of meaning within which empirical concepts get their sense.

The fact that our schemes must be turned on their heads from time to time doesn’t mean that they aren’t in touch with a real world , as though only the schemes changed but the world remained the same. We can say the same thing about the world around us, the real, material world that we interact with , that matters to us, as w can about our schemes. That real world is constantly turning itself on its head as well. We as human knowers are qualitatively changing our understanding in conjunction with and in relation to a world which is changing its relation to itself, and to us, over time.

Im not wasting my time spinning wheels talking about what is correct and what is not correct about truth and morality when, if I was an atheist post modern thinker, the end of every conversation is “well we’ll never know, all we can do is make up our best, and go on with our lives in our bubbles of bullshit.” — Fire Ologist

Well, if you stick to such straw men then this conversation won't go anywhere. And what's with the wacky Jordan Peterson style utterance? Isn't his bogyman the 'postmodern Marxist?

My argument does not take into consideration postmodernism, of which I know little. It does not explore atheism, as this not relevant to the points made. It does not take into consideration what truth or objectivity are - different subjects entirely.

These are points you seem to have raised to distract from my key argument which is even if you grant there might be gods you can't demonstrate which one is real or what god's moral system is. That's all. In other words to say god is the source of morality is functionally irrelevant since there is no agreement about what that morality is or which god is true. There is no objective morality from god you can point to.

So it's clear that the atheist and the theist can both do little more than explore morality through an ongoing conversation and via a community coming to agreements about the behaviours we believe avoid suffering and promote flourishing. Which is pretty much what we do.

Some very useful responses. Cheers.