I think out of the box Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) The numbers you gave me are unicodes 7F 1FFF Unicode x1000–1FFF Graphic characters are characters defined by Unicode to have a particular semantic, and either have a visible glyph shape or represent a visible space. As of Unicode 6.0 there are 109,242 graphic characters.Graphic characters are characters defined by Unicode to have a particular semantic, and either have a visible glyph shape or represent a visible space. As of Unicode 6.0 there are 109,242 graphic characters. Unicodes? Edited January 7, 2012 by I think out of the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 We're going in circles. You were given the numbers, not in any-code but in plain math, without the units (which we claim is meaningless and you seem to insist you can produce something incredible from). 177 & 17,777 BTW, these 2 numbers don't have any of those pesky 'units' things for you to worry about. Do it, please. So far, you don't seem to understand my initial post about coming to a culinary forum and explaining about tomato ladders. I must say, my friend, you're doing the same thing with a science forum. You make no sense. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is really getting nowhere now. So, instead of arguing about unicode and whatever else, just take the numbers you were given (again) and show us the wonder of your (hidden) formula. Our answer, unfortunately, won't change. You do guesswork, you don't go with units, and your answers and math is meaningless. This thread is quickly transforming from "let's try really really hard to explain to this pleasantly passionate individual why we can't understand what she's saying" to "okay, that's just ridiculous". You're getting there. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The numbers you gave me are unicodes 7F 1FFF Unicode x1000–1FFF Graphic characters are characters defined by Unicode to have a particular semantic, and either have a visible glyph shape or represent a visible space. As of Unicode 6.0 there are 109,242 graphic characters.Graphic characters are characters defined by Unicode to have a particular semantic, and either have a visible glyph shape or represent a visible space. As of Unicode 6.0 there are 109,242 graphic characters. The numbers are in fact hexadecimal or base 16. Unicode is just one way that computer systems encode text. There is no reason to assume that the numbers represent encoded text. 0x7F = 127 0x1FFF = 8191 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I think out of the box Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) No Your Going In Circles, where have you been??????? LOOK!!! I saw this on Your Chocolate You Tube Video Frequency Example: Here is what I have to say, You Think Too Fast, RELAX! Oh, I did this in a hurry, but the units should be ok. 6.5 cm 6.0025 gh/s 6.5 cm= [x 0.67785464835938 6.0025 gh= [y 0.61659530457031 [x 0.67785464835938 cm *[y 0.61659530457031gh = 0.41796199335955 gh/s 0.41796199335955 centimeter/second = 0.00417962 meter/second 0.00417962 m/s - 299.792458 = -299.78827838 m/s -299.78827838 m/s / 299.792458 m/s = -0.99998605828836 m/s -0.99998605828836*100 = -99.99860582883599 percent error NOW, you remember in your video when you said that 6.5 c needs to be multiplied by 2 to get a completed cycle???? This may not be necessarily true. Here is why and yes this is the pi thing again. 6.5 c *2 = 13 c 13 c *2450.000000 gh = 31,850,000000 gh 31,850,000000 gh centimeter/second = 318.5 meter/second NOW, this is where I come in: 1 / 318.5 = 0.00313971742543 <------------- that right there is pi ratio to 10e-2, just round this off and you get : 3.14* 10e-2 = 3.14*10e-2 = 0.314 Interesting how you round off using only numbers too right.>>>>?? Now, something else, this explains the "why" of: 6.5 c *2 = 13 c = "1" complete cycle when infact you are just squaring this 6.5 c in relation to pi ratio which is c and G, combined... "You said it yourself" "Electro Magnetic Wave Frequencies" with the speed of light, of which are 3 complete separate things, as per the science world. Or better still, 10e---------->3 = 1Newton = K = 1000-----> how about that for methodology.....lol We're going in circles. You were given the numbers, not in any-code but in plain math, without the units (which we claim is meaningless and you seem to insist you can produce something incredible from). Do it, please. So far, you don't seem to understand my initial post about coming to a culinary forum and explaining about tomato ladders. I must say, my friend, you're doing the same thing with a science forum. You make no sense. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is really getting nowhere now. So, instead of arguing about unicode and whatever else, just take the numbers you were given (again) and show us the wonder of your (hidden) formula. Our answer, unfortunately, won't change. You do guesswork, you don't go with units, and your answers and math is meaningless. This thread is quickly transforming from "let's try really really hard to explain to this pleasantly passionate individual why we can't understand what she's saying" to "okay, that's just ridiculous". You're getting there. ~mooey Thanks for the "nice" explanation, and yes I was very confused on this. The numbers are in fact hexadecimal or base 16. Unicode is just one way that computer systems encode text. There is no reason to assume that the numbers represent encoded text. 0x7F = 127 0x1FFF = 8191 Edited January 7, 2012 by I think out of the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Thanks for the "nice" explanation, and yes I was very confused on this. Why? They're just numbers. All you asked for was two numbers without the technical details. I even gave you the same numbers in octal. I'm assuming if the units are meaningless the base probably is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 So... What are you trying to prove? What is the significance of the numbers you've given? I have read the entire thread and I have no clue as to what's going on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I think out of the box Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) What I did was calculated black body radiation using pure numbers and specialized functions.... What does this prove??? Infinity has an end within every known number squared , singularities exist because people "think" it is related to time when it is not, hence 10^3 kilometers = volume = cuboid. So far, there has been no one that can prove me wrong on this, many have tried to speculate but they neither understand or perhaps really do not want to give this a benefit of a doubt, use the numbers I gave them and compare their own results with their own math knowledge. Why do I care ?? because scientist make big mistakes, then me and others in this world havto to live with it... I am no longer waiting for answers, I am now going to give them... The numbers are there, comapre them to your own functions and or equations (which of coarse are based on mathematical "LAWS") , then get back to me if you may. Thanks... So... What are you trying to prove? What is the significance of the numbers you've given? I have read the entire thread and I have no clue as to what's going on... Edited January 10, 2012 by I think out of the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What I did was calculated black body radiation using pure numbers and specialized functions.... What does this prove??? Infinity has an end within every known number squared , singularities exist because people "think" it is related to time when it is not, hence 10^3 kilometers = volume = cuboid. So far, there has been no one that can prove me wrong on this, many have tried to speculate but they neither understand or perhaps really do not want to give this a benefit of a doubt, use the numbers I gave them and compare their own results with their own math knowledge. Why do I care ?? because scientist make big mistakes, then me and others in this world havto to live with it... I am no longer waiting for answers, I am now going to give them... The numbers are there, comapre them to your own functions and or equations (which of coarse are based on mathematical "LAWS") , then get back to me if you may. Thanks... "Infinity has an end within every known number squared" And tomatoes are truly the ladder of fructose in the scale of fruitiness (or whatever it was) "but they neither understand or perhaps really do not want to give this a benefit of a doubt" Science doesn't do "benefit of the doubt" that would be a terrible way to go about things "hence 10^3 kilometers = volume = cuboid." Not sure what you're trying to prove with this... I mean 10 x 3 kilometers could be a measurement of area but it could not be cuboid (for that it would have to be 10 x 3 x 3 or similar, you need 3 dimensions for volume), and 10^3 kilometers is just a whole lot of kilometers What are you saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So far, there has been no one that can prove me wrong on this, many have tried to speculate but they neither understand or perhaps really do not want to give this a benefit of a doubt, use the numbers I gave them and compare their own results with their own math knowledge. ROFL, I gave you 2 numbers that must have stumped you. You didn't even realize they were in hex. Then I converted them to octal for you and finally Daedalus converted them to base 10 for you. You imply your own math knowledge is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What I did was calculated black body radiation using pure numbers and specialized functions.... This is how black body radiation is calculated: http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 How in the name of all that is physics did you even start doing the above (SIMPLE) formula with the nubmers we gave you and your "throwing a number and multiplying with another number to get colorful numbers" method any similar to that? Not only do you not know math,you don't know physics either. If you really want to be taken seriously in any sort of scientific venue, you HAVE to stop claiming weird numbers mean stuff, take a few math and physics courses, and get back to your claim. We keep asking you for clarification and you give us back just a repeat of the method that is total gibberish. Repeating yourself won't make you right. It will just make us give up. You also seem to only read the parts of posts that you can "handle". Everyone in this thread tell you that your math is utter gibberish. Maybe there's something to this claim. Have *SOME* humility, and consider the idea that you might actually not do things properly. ~mooey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 This is how black body radiation is calculated: http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 How in the name of all that is physics did you even start doing the above (SIMPLE) formula with the nubmers we gave you and your "throwing a number and multiplying with another number to get colorful numbers" method any similar to that? Not only do you not know math,you don't know physics either. If you really want to be taken seriously in any sort of scientific venue, you HAVE to stop claiming weird numbers mean stuff, take a few math and physics courses, and get back to your claim. We keep asking you for clarification and you give us back just a repeat of the method that is total gibberish. Repeating yourself won't make you right. It will just make us give up. You also seem to only read the parts of posts that you can "handle". Everyone in this thread tell you that your math is utter gibberish. Maybe there's something to this claim. Have *SOME* humility, and consider the idea that you might actually not do things properly. ~mooey For example: Give ME as many numbers as you like and I will give you some numbers and tell you what it "proves" (but not how I got them) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I think out of the box Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Been on these for quite some time now about four years to be exact and I completely disagree with the above link http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 in relating to the functions for black body radiation: here are my reasons: They use these: 8*pi, 4* c^3, Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following: Values of h 6.62606957(29)×10−34 4.135667516(91)×10−15 6.62606957(29)×10−27 Values of G G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (1 Da = 1.660 538 782(83)×10−27 kg) electron mass 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms proton mass 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms Here I will give you a hint: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 -10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979 3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree +10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 24.87964042366675 24.87964042366675 second = 0.006911011 degree G+14.01061653862827 = 23.81061653862827 23.81061653862827 second = 0.00661406 degree log(0.006911011) = -2.16045841578005 =10*10 = 100% It seems that all known systems of measure are predicated on the denomination of 100! I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA! This is how black body radiation is calculated: http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 How in the name of all that is physics did you even start doing the above (SIMPLE) formula with the nubmers we gave you and your "throwing a number and multiplying with another number to get colorful numbers" method any similar to that? Not only do you not know math,you don't know physics either. If you really want to be taken seriously in any sort of scientific venue, you HAVE to stop claiming weird numbers mean stuff, take a few math and physics courses, and get back to your claim. We keep asking you for clarification and you give us back just a repeat of the method that is total gibberish. Repeating yourself won't make you right. It will just make us give up. You also seem to only read the parts of posts that you can "handle". Everyone in this thread tell you that your math is utter gibberish. Maybe there's something to this claim. Have *SOME* humility, and consider the idea that you might actually not do things properly. ~mooey Edited January 12, 2012 by I think out of the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Been on these for quite some time now about four years to be exact and I completely disagree with the above link http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 in relating to the functions for black body radiation: here are my reasons: They use these: 8*pi, 4* c^3, Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following: Values of h 6.62606957(29)×10−34 4.135667516(91)×10−15 6.62606957(29)×10−27 Values of G G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (1 Da = 1.660 538 782(83)×10−27 kg) electron mass 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms proton mass 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms Here I will give you a hint: -10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979 3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree +10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 24.87964042366675 24.87964042366675 second = 0.006911011 degree G+14.01061653862827 = 23.81061653862827 23.81061653862827 second = 0.00661406 degree log(0.006911011) = -2.16045841578005 =10*10 = 100% It seems that all known systems of measure are predicated on the denomination of 100! I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA! "It seems that all known systems of measure are predicated on the denomination of 100!" "I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA!" You have put it into words, yes. Now put it into words that make sense to the other people here. We are trying very hard to understand what your point is and what you are trying to prove here. From your last post it appears that you have discovered (and got very exited about) the fact that we use a base 10 numerical system "Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following:" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Been on these for quite some time now about four years to be exact and I completely disagree with the above link http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 in relating to the functions for black body radiation: You can disagree for however many years you want, the theory of black body radiation WORKS, and is the key to quite a number of technological items you are using in your day to day life. the amount of time you spent believing your own mistaken notion is irrelevant. You *can* be wrong for a long time, and you seem to have your mind so strictly set-up on never ever even considering the possibility that you might be misunderstanding the concepts, that it seems you will never even recognize an error even if it stares you in the face. here are my reasons: They use these: 8*pi, 4* c^3, Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following: We're "experts" because unlike you, we had the humility to go learn the subject, its history and the origin of the formula before we claim we can do better. You're talking gibberish, and you don't understand how the physics works. This isn't an opinion; the moment you claimed to "disagree" with the above formula, you showed it to be a fact. Values of h 6.62606957(29)×10−34 4.135667516(91)×10−15 6.62606957(29)×10−27 Do you even know what h is? How does it have multiple values if it is a defined constant? Where are its units? What are its units, really, do you even know? Do you know where it came from and why it was defined the way it has? I'm starting to give up, and you, my dear friend, need to go over the rules of discussion. Values of G G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (1 Da = 1.660 538 782(83)×10−27 kg) What's G? Do you know? Where did this constant come from? What is this "Da"? Do you mean the "Dalton" (Atomic mass unit) ? If so, why does it matter to G, when G is clearly not Kg, but rather [math]\frac{m^3}{kg s}[/math] - do you even understand what those units mean? electron mass 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms proton mass 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms Okay... Here I will give you a hint: Don't give me a hint, and don't be a smartass. We're spending time here listening to you and participating in the discussion -- there's really no need for you to be so disrespectful. You came to us and the responsibility to cooperate is yours. Start owning up to it. Solve the equation. You claim you can solve things better, and you beat around the bush. This is the definition of acting as an internet troll, and I, being the one that at first thought you could use some patience and guidance to get your passion in the right track, am starting to lose my patience. Also, here's a hint for you: You can write things really really big, and it still won't make you right. -10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979 3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree How is anything 'second' equal 'degree' ? Do you mean "minute of arc"??? http://en.wikipedia....i/Minute_of_arc That's about the only thing I can think of that MIGHT make that statement make even vaguely possible. Even then, btw, you would need to *transform* seconds to degrees, which mean (wooh) you would need to work with the units. log(0.006911011) = -2.16045841578005 =10*10 = 100% Where did the percentage come from? How is -2.16... equal 10*10? I'm starting to think you're speaking gibberish on purpose. I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA! You've been getting our answers, and you've been uncooperative. I suggest you read the rules of this forum, my friend. You're not following the debate rules, and your insistence to repeat claims without proper explanation and misuse of math is trying our patience. We're giving you a chance... this won't be the case forever. Are you here to discuss science, or are you here to convince us reality is unreality and physics is unphysics? Choose. Now, for the sake of visitors who may read this thread and wonder what "Black Body" radiation *ACTUALLY* is, here's a great site to play around with the different aspects of it: http://phet.colorado...pectrum_en.html We also use it extensively in Astronomy, estimating the temperature of planets orbiting remote stars. (http://en.wikipedia....et_and_its_star) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I think out of the box Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 still waiting for your pi=3 I think this calculation is in error. Unless you're purposefully limiting yourself to only one significant digit, in which case I'm not impressed. I could prove that pi=3, if 1 significant digit is good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) still waiting for your pi=3 md65536, on 6 January 2012 - 05:58 AM, said: "I think this calculation is in error. Unless you're purposefully limiting yourself to only one significant digit, in which case I'm not impressed. I could prove that pi=3, if 1 significant digit is good enough." He's not saying Pi = 3 He's saying "If you only take 1 significant number then Pi is 3" If your only taking 1 significant number then my phone number is 0, you can dial it but it won't work. You're dodging now, stop stalling and get to the point. Avoiding valid questions is against forum rules and not conducive to good debate Edited January 12, 2012 by Tres Juicy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I think out of the box Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Forget about the drama, later you will see what I mean.... I need the derivative of these two values please in relation to time using 1 light second of 186,000 miles. Do it in your expertise I do not care. Then you will be able to understand what I am doing when you see my results compared to yours. If your find and my find are legitimate and we both agree on this, then you may learn something new and thank me later, for making you think out of the box..Let go of the assumptions until their facts remember???? I think it is only fare as there are two pages here I completely worked on with math, that's lots of brain power! These are the values... this is the same as x 1776 y 2029 2029 is the delta change You can disagree for however many years you want, the theory of black body radiation WORKS, and is the key to quite a number of technological items you are using in your day to day life. the amount of time you spent believing your own mistaken notion is irrelevant. You *can* be wrong for a long time, and you seem to have your mind so strictly set-up on never ever even considering the possibility that you might be misunderstanding the concepts, that it seems you will never even recognize an error even if it stares you in the face. We're "experts" because unlike you, we had the humility to go learn the subject, its history and the origin of the formula before we claim we can do better. You're talking gibberish, and you don't understand how the physics works. This isn't an opinion; the moment you claimed to "disagree" with the above formula, you showed it to be a fact. Do you even know what h is? How does it have multiple values if it is a defined constant? Where are its units? What are its units, really, do you even know? Do you know where it came from and why it was defined the way it has? I'm starting to give up, and you, my dear friend, need to go over the rules of discussion. What's G? Do you know? Where did this constant come from? What is this "Da"? Do you mean the "Dalton" (Atomic mass unit) ? If so, why does it matter to G, when G is clearly not Kg, but rather [math]\frac{m^3}{kg s}[/math] - do you even understand what those units mean? Okay... Don't give me a hint, and don't be a smartass. We're spending time here listening to you and participating in the discussion -- there's really no need for you to be so disrespectful. You came to us and the responsibility to cooperate is yours. Start owning up to it. Solve the equation. You claim you can solve things better, and you beat around the bush. This is the definition of acting as an internet troll, and I, being the one that at first thought you could use some patience and guidance to get your passion in the right track, am starting to lose my patience. Also, here's a hint for you: You can write things really really big, and it still won't make you right. How is anything 'second' equal 'degree' ? Do you mean "minute of arc"??? http://en.wikipedia....i/Minute_of_arc That's about the only thing I can think of that MIGHT make that statement make even vaguely possible. Even then, btw, you would need to *transform* seconds to degrees, which mean (wooh) you would need to work with the units. Where did the percentage come from? How is -2.16... equal 10*10? I'm starting to think you're speaking gibberish on purpose. You've been getting our answers, and you've been uncooperative. I suggest you read the rules of this forum, my friend. You're not following the debate rules, and your insistence to repeat claims without proper explanation and misuse of math is trying our patience. We're giving you a chance... this won't be the case forever. Are you here to discuss science, or are you here to convince us reality is unreality and physics is unphysics? Choose. Now, for the sake of visitors who may read this thread and wonder what "Black Body" radiation *ACTUALLY* is, here's a great site to play around with the different aspects of it: http://phet.colorado...pectrum_en.html We also use it extensively in Astronomy, estimating the temperature of planets orbiting remote stars. (http://en.wikipedia....et_and_its_star) Perhaps we should wait until the "notified individual" replies to the comment "I" sent them. Therefore there wont be any confusion... Forums Rules?????? Is calling someone a ""SMART ASS""" against forums rules?????????????? If so I think you should read this thread more thoroughly...And stop making accusations yourself!!!!!!!!!!! He's not saying Pi = 3 He's saying "If you only take 1 significant number then Pi is 3" If your only taking 1 significant number then my phone number is 0, you can dial it but it won't work. You're dodging now, stop stalling and get to the point. Avoiding valid questions is against forum rules and not conducive to good debate Forget about the drama, later you will see what I mean.... I need the derivative of these two values please in relation to time using 1 light second of 186,000 miles. Do it in your expertise I do not care. Then you will be able to understand what I am doing when you see my results compared to yours. If your find and my find are legitimate and we both agree on this, then you may learn something new and thank me later, for making you think out of the box..Let go of the assumptions until their facts remember???? I think it is only fare as there are two pages here I completely worked on with math, that's lots of brain power! These are the values... this is the same as x 1776 y 2029 2029 is the delta change Edited January 12, 2012 by I think out of the box -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Forget about the drama, later you will see what I mean.... I need the derivative of these two values please in relation to time using 1 light second of 186,000 miles. Do it in your expertise I do not care. Then you will be able to understand what I am doing when you see my results compared to yours. If your find and my find are legitimate and we both agree on this, then you may learn something new and thank me later, for making you think out of the box..Let go of the assumptions until their facts remember???? I think it is only fare as there are two pages here I completely worked on with math, that's lots of brain power! These are the values... this is the same as x 1776 y 2029 2029 is the delta change Once again, and I quote "Tomatoes are a ladder in the fructose of fruitiness" In other words - you are talking rubbish "2029 is the delta change" What?! Perhaps we should wait until the "notified individual" replies to the comment "I" sent them. Therefore there wont be any confusion... Thanks! Or, you could have read his post properly in the first instance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following: ! Moderator Note We're all using English, too. This is beyond pointless. Closed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts