markearthling

Hello All As there seem to be so many conflicting ideas about this subject and because many of these ideas seem to fall into the realm of speculation I decided this was the best place for this post. Various ideas/concepts of time travel seem to have been around on this planet for a very long time so I think I'll skip the history tour. It seems possible as we are travelling forwards in time every unit of time ( split/second, minute, hour day etc ) already that given time dilation/relativity that perhaps in the future we may be able to "jump" forwards in time by varying units of time ( although if future time is being set up each split/unit of time then it is not clear that by jumping too far ahead we may not land in some kind of "as yet undefined state" ? We could end up by jumping forwards to a future time which does not yet exist ?). So forwards time travel may become possible for us in the future BUT we may have a lot of work to do in solveing all the problems. Some have suggested that time is like a loop in the fabric/structure of space time. This may be so and needs further examination. From what I read it also seems to me that even if we could travel to points in time in the past we very likely would only be able to observe and not CHANGE events we witness there. I once had a weird idea (and have since discovered that others have similar ideas ) about time travel and time machines i.e. Imagine a machine ( possibly with computing/storage capacity way beyong any concepts we have now of supercomputing ( millions of cores or perhaps large scale cloud computing, something fast beyond belief almost - Quantum Supercomputing ?) which could take a Universal snapshot of the location/coordinates of every sub atomic particle, atom, electron [matter], force relationship etc in the Universe ( and we haven't covered dark matter, energy etc) every given time period (which could probably be variable). Then there is the idea that each quantized snapshot is sampled and stored in our time machine so we would have a series of everything which has happened since a partcular point in the past when we started sampleing the time snapshots of our Universe. Now we have to somehow merge this series of snap shots with the correspondingly dynamic nature of the space/time continuum and all it's various energy/forces and relative positioning in the continuum. Our time travel pilots so to speak would have to be translated into their quantum particles/sub atomic and atoms/molecules etc.. A complex map like the time travel snapshot series above and merged with the snapshot info above at a particular time in the past ( to come back we kind of reverse the process). We not only have to create our merged snapshot Series we literally have to be able to Manipulate every sub atomic particle, force relationship For all matter ( plus dark energy/matter etc) In the universe ( or perhaps this could be Done locally like only for the areas of space/time affected ?). Definitely sounds to be in the realm of the impossible. I do realise that the above sounds way beyond possibly what science/tecnology could achieve ( in the future who knows ?). Possibly sounds like the movie, The Fly/Time Tunnel. If it were possible to go back and change what happens in the past then we create the various time conundrums/paradoxes (what if I kill my father etc). If such amazing technology were available in the future then it could have other applications like possibly matter transportation/teleportation. I realise the above is highly speculatory just interested to know what others think.

So JohnB are we saying that these early blimp like UFOs with the propellors (??? maybe for atmospheric use yes ) actually flew here from space ? (propellorz in space !) OR would it be more credible to say that someone on earth was experimenting with/building early blimp like aircraft which may have predated what Graf Zeppelin did (and they successfully kept it mostly a secret apart from some sightings) ? Hey there Moontanman ! Yes I agree.

Basically the question I asked myself was : Where did the concept/idea / shape etc.. of the flying saucer originally come from ( in popular culture )i.e. did we first see them in the sky (as per the Keith Arnold sighting in 1947) ? [we also seem to assume that because of their aerial performance capabilities that they must come from space and be of extra terrestrial origin - They could actually be from earth and simply be new technology [black technology being tested by governments - and there is much that they don't want us to know - this idea already has great credibility ]. I don't necessarily hold with the idea that UFOs/saucers are actually extra or inter dimensional craft. I can't see any evidence for this claim although there is much on the web covering this subject. Some people suggest that this is the era/period when the term flying saucer first entered the public consciousness ( around 1947 especially after the so called famous Roswell incidents). In fact I believe that the idea of the flying saucer was around much earlier than this. Info over at Wikipedi suggests that the idea has existed in popular culture and media since early last century ( around 1911 ) although I have not seen the evidence on this. However, the following details the story of one american man named Ray Palmer who was an early SCI FI magazine author and editor. http://www.thejinn.n...ing_saucers.htm Ray apparently got going with his SCI FI /saucer stories etc around 1938. In fact many SCI FI magazines/fanzines carried saucer images and stories which predate the period of the 1940s. There was also a number of early flying saucer shaped flying vehicles ( mainly unsuccessful) which predate even the early work of the SCI FI magazine world ( around 1929 for example a lenticular shaped flying vehicle was invented ). I have read references to various historical works/images from various places around the world in other cultures and the claim is that earth has been visitted before in the past, possibly by aliens in UFOs/saucers. I have seen nothing that convinceingly or conclusively supports this claim. My contention and claim is that it is more than likely that the idea/concept and shape etc of the classic flying saucer was invented by a human mind here on earth ( it didn't come from space ) and possibly early last century ( 1900s ). However, I do keep an open mind on this subject and am open to the views of others on this. One other interesting idea I have seen is that IF UFOs/saucers are flown by extra terrestrials from space then perhaps they have been aware of our human civilisation here on earth for quite a while. The next question I ask myself is WHAT was happening in the world around the period of 1947 which might prompt the beginning of many UFO sightings/events/abductions etc.. ? Answer we had just ended ( yes in 45 ) an extremely violent world war where millions and millions were annihilated. Then we dropped our atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would this have gotten anyones attention from space ? Would ETs be interested/concerned about what we were getting up to and maybe come here for a look see etc.. ? There has been so much written about the extraterrestrial/UFO/abduction etc phenomenon/scenarios that so many ideas have become very confused and unfocussed and frankly the whole field of memes relating to these things have begun to smack of the CRANK factor and lack credibility on a wide basis. I read Whitley Streibers Communion books in the 80s and saw the film based on his work later. I was totally creeped out and I think I was a little hooked by it all until later when the admissions of fraud came out. Whitley and his supporters had simply done it for the money folks, yep that's the truth. ( just like the Fire in the Sky / Snowflake story about the abduction of a forestry worker in 1975 - it was shown by various investigators that there were monetary incentives behind the motivation of involved individuals to falsify their stories/claims ). There has been so much hoaxing going on and almost a total lack of conclusive evidence that less and less people bother to blink an eyelid anymore when this subject comes up ( less and less people could care about it at all ). ETs from outer space ? Yeah Right ! Tell us another bed time story. But I am interested in what anyone here thinks about it all.

michel123456 LOL ! Though I can see why you may have been a little confused about this. I'm not sure if Jonathon and Neil Diamond know one another but maybe you could be right. Ophiolite I'm a little disappointed that you said I have only done a disservice to Jonathon and not a GREAT disservice ! I agree, he is one of the great gulls of life. I do think however, that you are being too hard on Jonathon. He was a gull ahead of his time and he dreamed of breaking free from the ordinary gullness of life and learning all he could about new things and new capabilities. He too was judged to be in breach of his groups expectations and rules ( political correctness ) and was subjected to the dogma of the group and expected to conform. I must therefore insist upon recommending that all members here investigate Jonathons' life and works both immediately and fully ( see the movie again and it may open your eyes). The rodeo of life is like the show business stage. There will always be snipers and hecklers to knock our favourite artists off their pedestals. So watch comprehend learn chill out and enjoy Life the Universe and Everything ?8O)} p.s. Only lawn here ( high on life ) It's better to burn out than it is to rust. Neil Young

Is this anything like the Bogus Hadron particle ? ROFL

Yes the works of L Ron Hubbard or so I hear, From what I can make out Scientology is designed to hijack the mind of the believer and the abrogation of the intellect and the pocket book to a load of fraudulently bogus ideas/procedures/rituals and claptrap. ( they remind me of the Moonies and others ) That's about it really other than what others here think on the subject.

There are too many database products out there to mention here also many many programming languages used to process data on the various computer systems. It is likely that Barclays will make use of the Internet and many other internetworking technologies and related control/management software as well as the best multi level security and IT people that money can buy. They will use more than one database product (very likely). On your 2nd question Of course their new system will be crucially important to how well they can perform in future financial markets. That said, what is your application or why does this interest you specifically ?

Oh come now Ophiolite I think he would have been quite an open minded seagull ( although I can't remember seeing his brains fall out even after those terrifyingly steep dives). This after all is general philosophy. However if you are implying that I have overdone things then I am willing to wear that criticism. Open yourself up to possibility and let your heart and mind soar. By the way I recommend a viewing/reviewing of this terrific old movie ( to all and sundry ) from 1973. I just purchased a DVD copy but remember seeing it on TV way back then. It is truly an inspirational piece of theatrical art. Also switched me back onto the music of Neil Diamond.

Jonathon Livingston Seagull ( A film that will lift your spirits and make your heart soar) also recommended are the literary works of Richard Bach on which the film is based. Music soundtrack by Neil Diamond. Open up your mind and psyche And dare to dream Dare to be your true self The person you were born and meant to be. Is there anything the human spirit and mind Cannot conceive of and achieve ? Can we fly like the birds and soar like the eagle ? An ancient dream of man is coming true As we learn how and another limitation slips away. Can we fly higher and further and faster than we Ever have before ? Can we dive steeper and faster With more control than we ever did ? The dream is slowly coming true. Will we fly to the planets and eventually the stars Pursuing the mysteries of space, time and the universe Conquering all before us and eventually the mystery Of life and creation itself (substitute "evolution" if you feel the need). How far and fast will we travel then ? Through the einstein rosen bridge Or faster than light like the legendary tachyon. We already travel with the arrow of time forwards Into the unknowable. But will visits to the future be "knowable" then How about the past ? Will we conquer the many dimensions postulated By the string theory and breach the boundaries Of our own universal donut as postulated by M theory ? Will we travel to other universes in the multiverse And finally perceive the meaning of Big Bang theory And the "intelligent" creation of all that Lays before us ? Or discover chaos out of which flows order Like a final fractal crystallization ? Will we discover intelligent forces of design and creation Or just forces and global structure ? Will the macrocosm finally shrink into the microcosm And will humanity finally transcend it's form And longevity Organizational and societal woes Over many thousands or millions of years ? The future lays before us Will we embrace all it offers Or shrink backwards from the challenge When we now stand at the edge of the sea of knowledge So much lays within our grasp To fulfill us physically, intellectually and spiritually To make for a better life and world (s) For more open and productive collaboration And communication as a species We can only go forward if we progress Especially beyond the bounds of greed And monetary gain. Our progress and success depends on many things But we should not capitulate To the snipers of group expectation and Political correctness and dogma in any form From any source. We are all different and we should Recognize our differences and biases We should be open about them. The future can be ours if we are prepared To work And embrace all that it offers And to never lose our child like sense Of wonder. It's better to burn out than it is to rust. Neil Young Any discussion/commentary welcome.

HAL I like your updated image (awesome colour etc for something 1200 years old). From this clearer image it does look like the headgear is actually hair although I wonder why the beard is brown and the hair yellow ? ( maybe the crown at the top does indicate some kind of crown also) I agree with what marat says above. I don't think it likely Jesus would have been depicted in his time as he was just another Jo on the street (unimportant to authorities etc).

Having another look at that 1200 year old irish image of Jesus supplied by HAL above the images' headgear is a little rough looking almost like a crown of thorns OR it could be some kind of fancy tousled hat which they may have worn way back then but it doesn't seem at all like what you would imagine a crown would normally look like (although notice the Cross topping the headgear which can be seen on other crowns found in christendom/europe and perhaps UK). Then again it may just be the persons' hair as has been suggested. Cap'n Refsmmat Pontius Pilate may have been a ruthless governor as you said BUT remember that people back in those times were VERY superstitious. The romans had a pantheon of Gods themselves which they made sure to placate with the necessary sacrifices and religious ceremonies whenever possible. At one stage in rome (and I am not suggesting that this relates to the time frame we are discussing just the relevance in terms of the roman religious mind set in general) there apparently was an temple or alter set up to the veneration of what was described as the unknown God (to ensure that their actions did not bring down the wrath of a deity that they were not aware of). So pilate, as ruthless as he may have been may also still have been concerned about the consequences of killing Jesus (what will the Gods or any unknown God [ the Jewish God ?] do to me for this i.e. in the afterlife he may have been disadvantaged because of this). Remember that his wife warned him about killing Jesus (of course another open question) because "she had suffered much in a dream about him" i.e. she warned him to not do anything against that righteous man (the wording may in fact be something like "have nothing to do with this righteous person". On the subject of deferring to the jews as to who he released or not yes he could have totally ignored jewish wishes but perhaps he being superstitious as most people/romans were in those times and not wanting to offend any God/Deity (and because he considered Jesus was not what he was made out by the jews i.e. not at fault) he may have decided to give Jesus a chance at freedom so he threw the release question open to the jews present in the crowd (pilate may have considered this another way to gain favour with the Gods, known or otherwise so as to not offend any deity). It could hence be possible that pilate (the ruthless) had other reasons for not wanting there to be any roman record of the audience/judgement and crucifixion of Jesus. (reasons of superstition/religion). Also the romans were hated by many jews and giving them what they wanted may help him to govern more easily in the future (reasons of politics and practicality). The jews probably did not want any records kept so if pilate did/ensured the same thing then he may have been getting more on side with the jewish establishment and furthering his own cause of governance and that of his mother state/empire Rome. As an example of how much Jesus was hated by the jews consider that he was crucified in the company of criminals (one crucified on each side of Jesus at Golgotha (place of the skull)). The jews wanted him to be identified with criminals and the implication is that he broke their most sanctified religious laws and like any other criminal he deserved the death penalty for his blasphemies against God and their laws. Apparently the romans put a wooden plaque over Jesus head on the cross which read something like "this is the King of the Jews" but no way did the jews want that read or repeated by anyone as they did not recognise Jesus as their Messiah/Christ and certainly did not want this blaspheming criminal for their King so they requested that pilate change the wording of the plaque to "This man said that he is the King of the Jews" to discredit the idea BUT pilates response was "What I have written I have written" and that was that. as

I am having trouble making these functions work in the posting/reply editor here. Can we do these things here ( if so what I am doing wrong or what procedure should I be following ) ? I seem able to select/all but then I can't copy, cut (although paste seems OK) ? I have to use backspace or delete to get rid of unwanted content. any help much appreciated

The definitions above furnish one with a wider view and fill in most of the gaps. I particularly like the contributions of missisippichem and Ophiolite (all are good though). If I had said below (taken from above) above Knowledge, though it is valid and very usefull (crucial to our survival and progress in life etc) should not on it's own be misconstrued to be Wisdom. Wisdom is the sum of our resources/knowledge/abilities and what we choose to do with these resources/knowledge/abilities (how we apply our resources etc). If I had said this above originally my meaning may have been more clear/complete. Though I am not trying to be exact i.e. make the definitive definition as Ophiolite pointed out there is no standard definition. My view is only one amongst many views on this. I take resources/knowledge/abilities to cover most of the things discussed above such as experience and recognition of limitations. I thought I was trying to cover most of these things by using the wording ,"wisdom is the sum of our resources" (trying for a catch all - but of course there is no point in shooting for something that doesn't exist).

ajb Thanks for what you said I get it that these things may not be pure energy. I am not criticising what you said it's just that I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "stuff" ? Also I am having problems making this quite facility work. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong ? Sorry that was "quote facility".

Perhaps I should have posted this over at Speculations ( Capnreffsmat/Swansont ?) Sorry about that (I guess it is mostly speculation). I will know infuture what to do. If you want to move it (or perhaps there is no merit in what I am trying to express) that is fine by me. thanks

Some very cogent arguments/info above. On the subject regarding the authorities at the time of Jesus ( both religous jews/rulers from various preisthoods and roman authorities) it seems likely that the roman authorities would have been the ones to keep any records about jesus seizure/crucifixion although I think Jesus was seized in the garden of Gethsamane by jewish guards from the local temple (if I have this right). He was then taken for an audience with a jewish high preist and others to try him and then later taken to the roman governor Pilate for an audience to determine his fate. Pilate could not find any fault with the prisoner but as the jewish crowd were baying for his blood Pilate capitulated and with a symbolic gesture of the public washing of his hands for all the crowd to see he publically absolved himself from the responsibility of what he could see as the killing of an innocent man (he washed his hands of the responsibility). Supposedly the jewish crowd were given the choice of release of a prisoner and the choice was between Jesus and Barrabas (a known criminal). The crowd chose Barrabas. On the subject of any records that might have been made back then one might expect that the romans were likely to do this and of course there would be a high likelihood such documents have been lost over such a length of time. Although as Pilate may have considered this a distastefull (he had to wash his hands of Jesus and supposedly his wife warned him to have nothing to do against that righteous man) affair is it possible that Pilate ensured that no roman records should be made or kept (possibly thinking about his reputation?). The romans could also have kept records of their crucifixions but again perhaps this was expunged from any record for the same reason. In the case of the Jewish leaders and religious people Jesus was a bit of a threat to their religious power base and position (apparently Jesus was not the only itinerant preacher who had raised their ire before and possibly not the last) his position/actions seemed a direct challenge to their authority/establishment. His teaching seemed to suggest he thought himself the Christ/Messiah prophesied long ago in the hebrew religious documents/literature and his seeming claim to be the Son of God was considered by the various priesthoods as being outright blasphemy (a position worthy of the death penalty). The Jewish leaders/priesthoods hated Jesus, his position, his following and the reports of miracles that came in (perhaps they were a little scared of him who knows). If they accepted him as their newly identified/arrived Christ/Messiah they would also probably be obliged to make him King (of the Jews). Jesus was as such hated on many fronts by the Jews. They wanted him dead quickly and expunged from the record as efficiently as possible. It doesn't seem likely that Jewish authorities would bother making any lasting records of Jesus life/activities etc for the above reasons. It is possible that someone may have bothered to make a picture/portrait of Jesus in his time or perhaps just a symbolic image like the old one above. However one wonders if people would have thought to do that way back then ? On the very old image of Jesus above I also wondered why he might be portrayed wearing a crown and rich clothing (robe) ? Jesus was a religious/spiritual figure who was venerated by many as being or existing at a very high plane or level (in heaven he supposedly sits on the right hand of God / Lord of Lords and King of Kings). By some he was/is considered to be the Son of God and also possibly by some as the true Jewish Christ or Messiah and hence King of the Jews. So possibly Jesus was being portrayed as a richly dressed King in that old image above (open to discussion).

I guess you are right. Thanks for the references. I still have some reading to do. I have my L plates firmly affixed to my rear bumper

StefanCOA In general what you are saying above seems to be quite reasonable. On the subject of dictionary definitions maybe someone should take this up with the dictionary makers because there are a lot of lay people out there who have the wrong impression of things scientific (lead up the garden path) because of what the dictionary makers print and because most lay people read ordinary dictionaries. I always thought that a theory (scientific or otherwise) was simply a set of ideas about the reality of things. Now I have been informed otherwise. Of course there are better sources of information like libraries and other repositories of scientific literature. And now we have the net (we are lucky these days). But we all have plenty of reading/work to do weeding out the good stuff from the rubbish.

I was reading over at science news about "The End of Space" by I Got Wisdom (or some such ) but not allowed to comment (topic locked). Since God showed this to "Got Wisdom" I won't bother to pursue this one too closely. One thing did bother me and that was that on The Onion they were talking about the Hubble Kaleidoscope (Is A Kaleidoscope for real ?) and how astronomers have recently observed total "Weirdness" out in space with this thing. What is the Hubble Kaleidoscope and is The Onion reporting valid/serious science/astronomy news ? I went over to http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/penprase/BEPresearch.website/Default.html This one has links to something called project Kaleidoscope http://www.pkal.org/collections/About.cfm This one seems to be the home for project Kaleidoscope which is some kind of educational program ? On M Theory I think that M (Membrane) theory says that the universe has a 3 dimensional (I think there may be more than three dimensions ?) donut like shape and I think that einsteins' work says that if you travel far enough in space that you just come back around on your path until you arrive back at your starting point (like in a loop). So maybe we could actually see an end to space/our universe (as I think M theory proposes that there are many universes which could exist side by side in some kind of bubble structure) using our most powerfull scopes if an end is actually there (or would light travel also in a giant loop around the universal donut and so we could never break out and see any end of space even though it could be there ?). I think M theory also proposes that because there are multiple universal donuts that these may collide and where their edges intersect/collide (the point of collision) possibly a singularity is produced which releases such an enormous amount of energy from the impact that a BIG BANG occurs and a new universe is made in the multi universal bubble structure (mat ?) and so the new universe expands, grows and develops like ours did supposedly around 15 billion years ago. Just like string theory, M theory is fascinating and I realise there must be much more to add to this story ( wide open to debate). DrRocket Needs a puppy bed.

Howdy all I remember years ago when I was working in a new IT job I read some literature from a computer company (in the US I think). They were putting out stuff like the early Microsoft Co did like database, spreadsheet and wordprocessing software ( for CP/M systems if I remember correctly ) etc.. Basically someone high up in the company was making a commentary on the companys' products and their utility and usefullness. The guy was saying that technology was now leading us into a new age of Wisdom (which is perfectly OK to say). I thought his statements though were a bit over the top (just like when we are informed of new technical breakthroughs which have just been IDed in the lab and all the benefits they will bring when in fact these new things may not deliver for another 50 years or more). I don't think wisdom is tied to technology or knowledge alone. I think of wisdom in the following way : Knowledge, though it is valid and very usefull (crucial to our survival and progress in life etc) should not on it's own be misconstrued to be Wisdom. Wisdom is the sum of our resources and what we choose to do with these resources (how we apply our resources). This is my definition of Wisdom. I know that others will have different approaches/thinking on this subject and so I am interested to learn what they think about it.

Interesting stuff above especially what was said about Josephus. This is a serious subject but then I thought on a lighter note In the Life of Brian Brians' mom said he was a VERY naughty boy !

When subatomic particles are discussed what exactly are we talking about ? ( as I understand it things like protons/neutrons (nucleus), electrons, quarks, gluons ( hadrons ?) etc are all considered to be subatomic particles ?). According to the einstein equation (E=MC^2) am I right in assuming that an atom is pure energy ( over simplistic ? ) and it's mass can be fully converted to energy ( 100% efficiently or possibly not [ other products of light, heat, sound, radiation etc ]) ? So are subatomic particles like little packets of energy or if not do we know what they are ? Would it be valid to consider all mass from micro to macro level as "mass energy" ? The structure of the atom as we think we know it is very interesting. (protons and neutrons in the nucleus and other subatomic particles and electrons orbitting in valence shell orbits on the outside). Are we correct in thinking that the electrons actually do orbit the nucleus ? Where have we discovered this ? Is the old "drop" theory of atomic structure even considered anymore (I think that's what it was called) ? Is it possible that the atom might have something in it like an energy gradient which varies from most dense in the nucleus to less dense at the outside where the electrons are ? i.e. if the "gradient" is not at it's max and has room for the energy of one more electron (empty valence shell at the outside) then it accepts an electron. ? If the atom was actually like a blob of energy with an energy gradient from nucleus to outside then when we atom smash aren't we knocking little blobs of energy off the atom which spin this way or that (depending on the energy level of the particles smashing the atom then we get smaller or bigger blobs of energy breaking off ?) ? So are the sub atomic particles themselves some kind of localised energy gradient which exist separately inside the atom or do they not actually exist and are maybe just part of the atoms' gross energy before they are knocked off as energy blobs by the smashing process ? (maybe electron flow is like some form of energy blob exchange ?). or maybe subatomic particles are something else altogether.

Mooeypoo Isn't this the right place for speculation about evolution or should crazynutsx have posted elsewhere ? Is he actually soapboxing as you said above or is he just presenting a general speculatory subject regarding creationism vs evolution ? Just wondered. Mooeypoo Whoops, sorry. I see it was moved from somewhere else to here.

Mooeypoo It is time for me to bite the bullet and fully apologise (which I do unreservedly) for the things which I unfortunately said above. I have been talking to Ophiolite and he showed me that my actions have also insulted others here and the thread above displays this to all above. I got off to a bad start and have not cast myself in a good light to others here as well but only have myself to blame for that (definitely the wrong thing to do). My conduct above is an example of how not to proceed in an attempt to communicate with others (very poor attempt on my part). As such I am the one who stuck his metaphorical foot into his mouth and so I am prepared to wear the consequences of my actions. I deserve the fact that this thread is still up (it could have been removed but probably serves well as a reminder/warning of the consequences of this type of conduct). A shame as the science discussion/content on this thread has been very good/enlightening. I am usually an effective communicator and do not normally go out of my way to insult others where I can avoid it BUT here I think I messed up badly and for some reason I was too pushy and determined to get at the material/answers I wanted. We all have biases and yes I have mine as well (no excuse). I can see you (and others) were only trying to get through to me but I was pig headed and stubborn. You are obviously very well educated and knowledgeable ( I will get back to you regarding your post on Radiometric Dating on Earth Sciences). What I said was wrong and I regret saying what I did and you obviously are an honest person. So that's it basically. I will not make the same mistake again. Thanks again for your forbearance/patience and very helpfull posts. ?8O)}