Tippaporn

Critical eyes? In truth? All information that comes to you or anyone else gets sifted first through one's personal belief system. Which explains why certain information gets rejected automatically and out of hand. If it doesn't fit into one's belief system it is quickly discarded uncritically. Or the reverse, where information is readily accepted because it does fit in with one's belief system. Often uncritically as well. Most people are not in the habit of examining information by first stepping outside of their belief systems. By suspending their beliefs during the time in which they examine a fresh idea. Again, the physical universe as idea construction. We create using ideas. Those ideas which we entertain on a regular basis become what is called a belief. Beliefs are powerful in that they then create experience. You will accept as real only that which believe and you literally live your beliefs. Regardless of whether one is aware of this process or not it is the process which all must and do follow in this reality. Hence you may create unconsciously by default, in which case you live life as a leaf blowing in the wind or you understand the process and use it to create with full conscious intent.

@Woof999 Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food. "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea." "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" "But you haven't tasted it. How do you know it's not good?" "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do new foods. Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it. Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas. They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" Is that who you are Woof999? Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food. Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not. Once I worked with a Lebanese guy. His wife would pack his lunch daily. He preferred, though, to eat lunch out. So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me. It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious. Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers. None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food. They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good. Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999? When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth. These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings. The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war. The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came. Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away. Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999? Young children are naturally inquisitive. There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with. But conformity takes it's coarse over the years. They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking. Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed. And they live out their lives knowing only what they know. Or what they think know. Is this what happened to you, Woof999? The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers. A closed mind is a terrible thing.

Do not make the mistake of writing a book review on a book you've never read. You're making that mistake now. You know nothing of Seth yet you've concluded he's a figment of Jane Robert's imagination. Are you in the habit of claiming to know something when in fact you do not? There's a term for that. I believe it's an imposter. Since credentials are important to you then I'll provide some of Seth's. His technical information is of such quality that he's been visited by a number of scientists. The Seth material is housed in the Yale University Archives, not by any means an obscure university. It's said that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale. A figment of Jane's imagination, indeed. With statements like that you expose yourself and do not put yourself in a good light. On the other hand, what is offered by science and religion in terms of a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves is extremely lacking, contradictory and discombobulated to say the least. So much doesn't fit together, so much information opposes other information, and so much which doesn't work in a practical and functional manner. Before you laugh and disparage other's knowledge, only because your personal beliefs keep you blind to it and prevent your understanding, take a good, hard look at the whole of contemporary knowledge, much of what you've been taught to believe, and you'll find that most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Given that then you are in no position to laugh or ridicule, my friend.

On a lighthearted note, this would be a good starting point: Darwin Awards You've also asked for facts or evidence on the evolution of species. Look up "speciation". Perhaps start here: Speciation The opening paragraph from the linked article: How do new species form? Like most areas of Evolutionary Biology, research related to the formation of new species - 'speciation ' - is rich in historical and current debate. Here, we review both early and modern views on speciation, starting with Darwin and finishing with current genomics-era insights. Rich in debate . . . early and modern views . . . current insights. You said it was factual. All they're doing is describing what little of the process they're able to observe and theorise about what they're observing. I thought Darwin's handwritten notes, which predated his book by about 20 years, was a trifle humourous. Note at the very top of the paper: "I think" 555555555 He certainly did. Out of interest, what term do you use? I like Seth's term. All That Is. It's hard to read anything else into that label. Labels aren't important. Convenient, but not important. On many points yes. It came from my education. What are your beliefs based on? What you see all around and others don't because they don't want to? I'm just a layman and don't claim to be anything else. What are your credentials that would lead me or anyone else to lend more weight to your arguments above scientists who have studied the subjects for decades? As for education my view is that it can be a great asset. Especially for those who are naturally in the habit of questioning. The more they question the better. On the other hand, for those who do little questioning an education can become an indoctrination instead. My beliefs are based primarily on what makes sense and what works. Where it comes from is neither here nor there with me. It's the integrity and validity of any given knowledge that is important to me. We all have awareness. Though it's never identical. Everyone therefore sees something that another does not and vice versa. Beliefs are a filtering mechanism. They filter out what one does not want to see and leaves them only that which their beliefs allow them to see. I've never asked anyone for credentials. Credentials are meaningless to me. There are people who are worthy of their credentials and many who are not. Credentials are no guarantor of anything. Certainly not of one's character. Requiring degrees min the hope that a degree pans out to be meaningful has come into vogue starting in the 80's. Do you wear designer clothes to impress others? Many people use credentials to impress. I'm not impressed by them. Rather I would be the judge of whether someone is knowledgeable or not. As to scientists who spend their entire careers on particular subject matter it may very well be meaningless. Imagine spending an entire career studying the theory of evolution only to find in the end that it's based on false premises. An education, a degree, and an entire lifelong career may amount to nothing if what you've been taught and what you've studied is, in essence, so much junk. I'm sensing that you defer to another's authority rather than your own. There are certainly times when such deference is warranted. By and large we are our own authorities. Granted, those who covet authority would contemptuously disagree. As you describe yourself as a layman who doesn't claim to be anything else I would inform you that you are much more than you think you are. Though you do not realise it you have within you the knowledge of the whole. You have valuable talents and gifts uniquely your own. I would advise to never undervalue or underrate one's self. No one has the market of knowledge to themselves. Indeed, knowledge . . . true knowledge . . . is available to all of us.

.... and science has the self awareness to at least admit that. The "believers" just say - "you can't explain it, so it must be god", which is hardly convincing. I think you're mistaking me for a religious guy. I don't subscribe to religion of any kind. What I deal with is not at all religious. No dogma, no contradictions, no fairy tales.. If your lack of intelligence leads you to make decisions that shorten your lifespan then you're hardly likely to contribute to evolution. Again, intelligence and choice on the part of the individual, or life form, has no bearing whatsoever in the theory of evolution. Neither does longevity. The only purpose assigned to a life form is to recreate. If you can show where the theory deals with any of these three attributes then show it. Where does science say it is sure let alone cocksure? We've covered the fact that after 300+ years the only thing that science can agree on regarding consciousness is that it exists. Nowhere does the theory of evolution incorporate consciousness, which is what we are and we are life. By omitting it then it stands to reason that they're cocksure consciousness doesn't play a role or function. While science doesn't state it outright it is implied. That's just a logical and common sense conclusion. and what makes you so cocksure that Jane Roberts was right? The quote is not by Jane Roberts. It's a quote by Seth. They're not the same. The short of it is consciousness creates form. Not the other way around. I'll provide the reasons why in a series of posts. Bear with me. I am not anti-science at all. Yet I strongly criticise science when the criticism is earned. Science has some serious failings. Much of what it professes and believes is in fact highly damaging. Should I turn a blind eye to it's many shortcomings and simply worship science in eternal gratitude for what amazing accomplishments they've succeeded in bringing about for humanity? To fawn only while ignoring what can even be deemed a dark side of science would equate to being nothing more than a blind, worshiping acolyte who bows in amazement at science's every utterance. That's not who I am. So often people make the error of labeling another as anti simply because they criticise. That is fallacious logic. Best you avoid doing so.

See the answer to question 6. Are you perhaps a young earth creationist whereby your timeline wavers from mine by many orders? Again, no specificity. 14 billion years, give or take, depending on who you talk to. Physicists at least understand the simultaneous nature of time. Everything is happening at once. Certainly not according to our neurological experience. If time is simultaneous and everything is happening at once then there are no beginnings or endings. Granted, that's a tough concept to wrap one's head around when the only thing we're aware of is an existence in consecutive time . . . moment by moment by moment. An understanding of that requires more than the use of one's intellect.

A rough timeline? Somewhat over 14 billion years, less a few hundred million years when things were still a little warm and sticky. You get zero debating points for giving a worthless answer. Specificity. Do you have any? When the original life form made it's first jump what was it to? And what was it's next jump? And so on. If you can't get that specific then how about a jump from one species to the creation of an entirely new species? Since there's no fossil records to show this definitive transmutation could you at least illustrate the metamorphosis? Links to someone who has, perhaps? Or links to the scientific data that claims this? If the theory of evolution is proven then it shouldn't be hard to produce this type of material.

Probably more so than anyone can quantify or list the properties of their god. Again, why are you using the term force? Probably? What a minute . . . First you claim it's existence is "factual." Which, if true, you should be able to answer some of my questions in detail. Then you qualify any answers as being probable. How well do you understand this subject matter? Seems to me you're just repeating what you've been told by someone.

The existence of natural selection can be shown to be factual regardless of the existence of your god. Show it, then. Put up your "facts" which prove it's existence. Since you're so adamant that natural selection exists then it can't be that difficult for you to produce the concrete evidence. BTW, I'm not religious. I do believe in a source but I don't use the term "God." For one, the label has too many preconceived notions attached to it and for another my concept is not at all as Christians personify the idea of God.

I think your definition of a force is different than mine, but natural selection is very well defined. Even if you don't agree with it, I'm be pretty sure you know how it is defined. According to science: Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. Natural selection acts on the phenotype. When anything acts on something else then force is implied. Therefore natural selection is a force as defined above. In physics, a force is an influence that can change the motion of an object. Do you have a different definition of force? Natural selection is also defined as the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment. Therefore, no free will, no choice, and the organism plays no part whatsoever in it's own direction or fulfillment.

Quantum theory might be leading us down the path to believe that there is no such thing as free will. The jury's out on that one at the moment. I've gotten wind of this "new" and utterly ridiculous scientific theory. It's based on pure naturalism; the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. And that obviously does not include us at all. This theory may as well state that subjective reality has been declared dead. We've been parsed down to being nothing more than biological, mechanised robots. If you're willing to believe this idea, despite all of your lived evidence to the contrary, then I'm convinced that you've given your mind over, along with your common sense, completely to science. Once that happens then there's no thought whatsoever required on your part to think about anything. As long as science proclaims a "truth," no matter how ludicrous, you seem to willingly and blindly follow. If you decide of your own free will to walk across the room, and you do so, then it wasn't your free will which made that choice and caused you to take that action? And what of your desire and intention to do so? Are you going to say desire and intention doesn't exist either? It just doesn't get more ludicrous, more absurd than a belief that free will is nonexistent. The only scientific theory which comes close to reaching that level of inanity is the idea that biology does not determine gender. Pretty soon you'll be denying your own existence. Science is making the disastrous mistake of putting the cart before the horse. Science observes the effects of consciousness on the body and then turns it all upside down by mistaking the effects as the cause which then effects consciousness. An example of this in-reverse thinking can be seen in science's belief that the chemicals in the brain cause human emotion. Instead, emotions affect the chemicals in the brain. Science has it completely backwards. Without free will making choices would be an impossibility. In any case, I conclude that free will does not enter into science's theory of evolution equation. And you're good with that.

I would suggest that self awareness, coupled with intelligence would allow you to make better choices. Better choices = more chance of reproducing and more chance of longevity. From Wiki: Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence. Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial, being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives." Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists. That last statement says a lot about what science understands of consciousness. And it's not a whole lot. Consciousness is much more than self awareness. It is what we are and all which that entails. Consciousness is life itself. Given that definition rather than yours, which appears to be the simplest form - sentience or awareness, then what's our role in evolution? Or to rephrase, do we play any role? Or does natural selection dictate strictly on it's own what direction is taken for us? We have no say in the matter of our own evolutionary condition or experience? What does choice or intelligence have to do with the theory of evolution? Evolution is defined as the inheritance of characteristics which over generations produce genetic variations. Natural selection and genetic drift then act on this variation. Personal choice and intelligence has squat to do with evolution according to the theory. Which is pretty much what my question was getting at. So your answer is nada. No role whatsoever. And you believe this to be plausible? In no way does that conclusion disturb your common sense? The bottom line is that if science has no clue as to what consciousness is, what we are, or what life is, then how can science be so cocksure that consciousness plays no role? Or are they making a grave, and erroneous, assumption due to their lack of knowledge and understanding? You might want to think about the following and the implications that statement has on the theory of evolution. "Chemicals themselves will not give rise to consciousness or life. Your scientists will have to face the fact that consciousness comes first and evolves its own form." —The Seth Material, Chapter Ten

The irony. The unprovable belief in the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact.

<snip> There is? Where? <snip> I'll be presenting it soon. I'll be more than happy to notify you when I do. In the meanwhile, while I'm working on putting that together you can work on the following: 1) Where does consciousness fit into the theory of evolution? What role does consciousness play? 2) Where does the free will of consciousness fit into the theory? 3) What is Natural Selection? Define it in a functional way, a working model which shows the relationship with consciousness and it's own force? 4) If the existence of God cannot be proven has the existence of Natural Selection been proven? 5) If Natural Selection exists as a determinative force then explain what created this force and where it exists? Can it be quantified in any way? Can you list it's properties? 6) Provide a timeline of evolution from the origin of life to each and every new life form. A rough timeline will suffice. 7) Given the trillions of life forms in existence today how long would it take to produce all of these lifeforms? Like xylophone you can take your ball and bat and go home anytime you like if you feel these questions are too difficult, or impossible, to answer. Or you can exit using the same reasoning that you've better things to do with your time than to waste it talking to a bunch of idiots. Idiots only because they don't agree with you. Keep in mind, too, that there is no universal consensus on the theory of evolution. There are those scientists who have evidence that it does not exist. Bonus question: Are the scientist who have evidence to the contrary pseudo scientists? Keep in mind as well the reason why you agree with those scientists who do believe in evolution. More bonus questions: Is it only because that is what you want to believe? Even if it were to be false? Do you care about only what's true? Would you change your mind if evolution is not the truth?

Where's the link to the article? There's information available which you haven't heard that totally destroys both the theory of evolution, which is supported in part by another theory, natural selection, and that theory as well. The fact that the theory completely ignores the role of consciousness, or life itself, is to completely ignore a valid point. The theories ignore so much else, which information is also not known to you. You make the fatal assumption that all of the information related to both theories is in. Not so, my friend. But since you are immovable in your "beliefs" I do agree that your best bet is to take your ball and go home since concluding that responding to any opposition to your "belief" by "nonsensical" people is waste of your precious time. If you don't receive the immediate and universal agreement to your "beliefs" that you demand you throw in the towel. At 75 that attitude doesn't evidence maturity.

Because, Hummin, it's not a fully working theory. When asked to show how it works in great detail there exist multiple failures in the explanation as given. We're talking about life, Hummin. Where does the individual consciousness fit into evolution? Nowhere. How can that be? What's implied in the theory is that that living consciousness which it purports to explain as to it's development plays zero role in it's own development. Rather, the theory claims instead some ambiguous force called Natural Selection, which is a theory itself, which in God-like fashion determines the process. The theory doesn't at all define Natural Selection except in vague terms. Certainly not in definitive terms. No information about it's properties or where it exists. Or in what format or medium. I have a completely open mind about the theory of evolution, Hummin, I ask questions. And if I get zero answers to my questions, and if those questions can't be answered then it can't be shown to work in greater detail and thus it must be a failed theory. It's called deductive reasoning, Hummin. You, on the other hand, do not have an open mind about evolution. Why do I say this? Because you willingly ignore the questions that I and others ask about it. You willing accept the holes, the gaps, the missing information, the excluded information. And pretend these failures are of no real import. That is the definition of being close minded. To see only that which you want to see and ignore and/or dismiss all objections. How does consciousness, life itself, fit into the equation, Hummin? What is it's role? I know you can't answer these questions. Again, as I stated above, stick with the hard sciences. For once subjective reality enters into the equation you truly are in no mans land. Science has zero clue as to what consciousness even is. The theory must include consciousness. Period.

". . . one of the most solid theories in science." Stick with the hard sciences. Once subjective reality enters into the equation, which evolution completely disregards, you're in no man's land.

Love your signature, CharlieH. 5555555555

"It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on." Well, to be truthful you didn't answer the question. Which was, "if you're not the one creating your experience then who does? What agency determines aspects of your reality for you?" Your reply as to the agency, which you answered in the context of "no one gets to choose to be born" was "someone." You've got to admit that's funny. Because that "someone" could theoretically be God. And I know you don't believe in God. So what other force has that ability, that power? One more point. I had asked that you incorporate freedom into the idea that our experience is created by us. For you cannot seriously expect a correct answer to that question while omitting freedom. The two are inextricably linked. You cannot separate on from the other. You didn't mention freedom at all. Is it because this is what science so often does? When information doesn't fit it just gets discarded? It's not a question of right or wrong, good or bad, etc. It's a question of having a practical working thesis. Being a science guy you should at least be able to provide a rough outline of a working hypothesis at a minimum. The key word here is "working." Because if you can't show how it works then I think even you would agree that a non-working hypothesis would be utterly worthless. "You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences." Good on you that you've at least admitted that we create our own reality to some extent. As to the rest of that paragraph you are now entering the soft sciences, which are more than wanting. I can say this much. Science knows next to nothing about what the subconscious is. They do spin theories using what little they do understand. I would advise to accept science's conclusions on what the subconscious is with a grain of salt. A truckload would do fine. You do have a subconscious. Why not explore your own? While the question is a serious one I doubt you'd have an inkling on how to go about such a personal exploration. Is it best then, or perhaps because it's your only other option, to carte blanche accept the opinions and dictats of "authoritative" science simply because they have anointed themselves authorities of credibility in all subject matter? And especially since you don't have first hand knowledge yourself? "Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices." It's coincidental that you would mention Buddhism. Here's a quote that is saying the same thing I've been saying: you create your own reality using your thoughts. Think of what you want and that is what you will create (joy). Think of what you don't want and that is what you'll create (suffering). The choice is always ours . . . second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour . . . thoughts create. Period. "What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. If a man speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering will follow him as the wheel of the cart follows the beast that draws the cart. If a man speaks or acts with a pure mind, joy follows him as his own shadow." - Gautama Buddha "I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo." ???? For one, if you were to dig deeper into many of science's theories, objectively rather than fawningly, you'd quickly discover that much of science theories are exactly that . . . mumbo jumbo. Why? Because many of their theories either outright lack a working basis or their working basis is woefully incomplete. Granted, it's difficult to be objective when you've already bought the farm. Here's a quote for you from Seth from the book, The Unknown Reality Vol. 1: "Consciousness is composed of energy, with everything that implies. The psyche, then, can be thought of as a conglomeration of highly charged "particles" of energy, following rules and properties, many simply unknown to you. On other levels, laws of dynamics apply to the energy sources of the self. Think of a given "self" as a nucleus of an energy gestalt of consciousness. That nucleus, according to its intensity, will attract to it certain masses of the entire energy patterns available to a given identity." The key phrase here is "many simply unknown to you." You must admit that many scientific theories are created with only that information which is currently known. Even then not all of the currently know information is incorporated into many of their theories. What does not fit, or is inconvenient, is left out. Aside from information that is currently known is the unknown. Which is much, much vaster than what is known. If science were to be purely objective and honest then they would say about a given theory, such as evolution, "This is what our available "facts" currently point to but, hey, we could be completely wrong. If a single piece of unknown information were to become known it might alter or even completely invalidate what we've currently concluded." Rather, in their hubris they claim to "know" even as they are fully aware of the truth of the preceding sentence. FYI, that paragraph by Seth describes, to a small extent, who we are. I don't expect anyone to fully, or even partially understand it but kudos to you if you do. This is extremely complex subject matter. Before anyone reads it with little understanding and then comments that it's nothing but word salad then understand that to comment derogatorily from a mere paragraph would be disingenuous. There's 20 years of work by Jane Roberts which provides more than ample information which would make perfect sense of that paragraph. No one should be writing a book review on a book they haven't read. And one more quote from Seth, from the same volume, as he comments specifically on what I claimed, that the to-be-born child chooses his parents and vice versa. "Each of you, again, chose your parents and environment. You spoke in your notes (two days ago) of precognition in connection with art - an excellent point. Precognition in those terms also applies at your birth, when ahead of time you are quite aware on unconscious levels of those conditions that you will meet. You have chosen them and projected them ahead of you, out into the medium of time." No worries about insulting me. We're good.

The coldest I've ever experienced was -33 C. With wind that, according to the reported wind chill factor, made it feel as cold as -63 C. Not that it was blowing that hard everywhere and all of the time. Just the rock bottom coldest reported. That was in Chicago. I went out just for the experience. Multiple layers of clothes and face covering. I wore my ski goggles and an excellent pair of ski gloves, LOL. And yes, it'll kill you quickly if not dressed properly. And even if you're dressed frostbite can set in quickly on your extremities. I consider Antifa to be the Brown shirts of the Nazis. The rioting in the US was absolutely insane during the summer of 2020. Absolute viciousness acted out with gleeful abandon. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

I'd love to go to Antarctica just for the experience. I can't imagine the cold. Stark whiteness and desolate. Did you like it there? How cold did it get whilst you were there? The hate in the world these days is on the rise, in my opinion. An understanding of who we are and the true nature of reality would automatically eliminate most of it. Which means that most of it is due to a lack of understanding. We might muse that what we discuss here is purely philosophical in nature. Not at all. The practical applications are limitless.

That's not real. Only a movie. And it's only based on one man's interpretation of what such an imagined scenario would produce. The writer was most obviously engaging in dark thoughts as he wrote it. Had he had thoughts of an opposite nature the story would have been much different. Frank Capra made those types of movies. Which were just as much a true and real reflection of the true nature of who we are. The real life of each individual works the same. Dark thoughts produce dark experiences and vice versa. It's that simple.

Hasn't anyone been misunderstood in life leading to ill feelings and then sought to simply clear it up? Why would I ir anyone care? For the sake of maintaining harmony. Is a desire for harmony amongst people not worth the effort? Especially in what is becoming more and more a hate filled world. You didn't offend me, TBL. No drama and an apology isn't needed.

A pissing contest is two parties trying to outdo each other. This wasn't that. This was nothing more than me trying to clear the air about a misunderstanding and mauGR1 coming out of left field going nuclear. I'm not into abuse so just as in any relationship which becomes abusive it's time for one or the other to pack their bags and go. No feelings hurt for me so no hot temper on my part over any of it. Just a simple, "No thanks."

You've obviously got some personal issues, mauGR1. You'll understand why I won't be replying to you any longer.