Campo Del Moro, Madrid (photo from trekearth.com)
My future theology school?
1. A few comparisons
Religious and military attitudes make for interesting cultural discussion.
Religious
These sort of recent statistics are not surprising.
World military spending
Notice how Canada is more peaceful than America. At least according to the cited site.
Sure I would like to live in a more ideal world without the military. In that regard I can relate to my Mennonite friends (I attended a Mennonite Bible School for my BA). But, I am thankful that the military spending of the United States and the United Kingdom, for now anyway, contributes to my personal freedom to state my mind relatively freely on Blogger and Facebook.
Religious
These sort of recent statistics are not surprising.
World military spending
Notice how Canada is more peaceful than America. At least according to the cited site.
Sure I would like to live in a more ideal world without the military. In that regard I can relate to my Mennonite friends (I attended a Mennonite Bible School for my BA). But, I am thankful that the military spending of the United States and the United Kingdom, for now anyway, contributes to my personal freedom to state my mind relatively freely on Blogger and Facebook.
2. Some philosophical theology from a guy that tries to do it.
Got Questions
Got questions.org summarizes their work using writings from incompatibilist Norman Geisler and compatibilist James White.
'Infralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the creation of mankind, (2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through its own self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and (4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. Infralapsarianism focuses on God allowing the fall and providing salvation.
Sublapsarianism is very similar to infralapsarianism, putting God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed to create human beings, (2) God decreed to permit the fall, (3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and (4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then decreed to choose some to be saved, or vice-versa.
Supralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had elected.'
Unlike the website, I would theologically lean more toward the concepts of supralapsarianism, BUT, I have serious problems with putting God's eternal decrees within time.
I stated in the comments of the Thoughts and Theology blog of Jeff Jenkins in links:
Yes in a timeless state, and not in any type of linear time where there would be the problem of vicious regress as in if God always had an eternal relationship in time past God would never arrive at the present. There is a similar problem faced by those that postulate that the universe and time is eternal and by those that reason there is a eternal regression of gods, as in a god causes a god and there is no first god, or a choice causes a choice with there never being a first choice and nature as cause.
God simply is and is simply relational.
God did not have to reason out in time in eternity what to do but simply knew as a relational infinite being.
I do not pretend to completely comprehend it but too many evangelicals fall into the trap of putting God in a vicious regress.
As well, when I read of God's decrees in Calvinism, one must be careful not to state that in eternity God decreed one thing in time before another. No, God willed all things as God in eternity, as he is, they did not take place in the mind of God in time, although he can will that they take place in time in our reality.
_05.jpg)
Anyone willing to take a class from me here while sitting on the grass?
Got Questions
Got questions.org summarizes their work using writings from incompatibilist Norman Geisler and compatibilist James White.
'Infralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the creation of mankind, (2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through its own self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and (4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. Infralapsarianism focuses on God allowing the fall and providing salvation.
Sublapsarianism is very similar to infralapsarianism, putting God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed to create human beings, (2) God decreed to permit the fall, (3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and (4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then decreed to choose some to be saved, or vice-versa.
Supralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had elected.'
Unlike the website, I would theologically lean more toward the concepts of supralapsarianism, BUT, I have serious problems with putting God's eternal decrees within time.
I stated in the comments of the Thoughts and Theology blog of Jeff Jenkins in links:
Yes in a timeless state, and not in any type of linear time where there would be the problem of vicious regress as in if God always had an eternal relationship in time past God would never arrive at the present. There is a similar problem faced by those that postulate that the universe and time is eternal and by those that reason there is a eternal regression of gods, as in a god causes a god and there is no first god, or a choice causes a choice with there never being a first choice and nature as cause.
God simply is and is simply relational.
God did not have to reason out in time in eternity what to do but simply knew as a relational infinite being.
I do not pretend to completely comprehend it but too many evangelicals fall into the trap of putting God in a vicious regress.
As well, when I read of God's decrees in Calvinism, one must be careful not to state that in eternity God decreed one thing in time before another. No, God willed all things as God in eternity, as he is, they did not take place in the mind of God in time, although he can will that they take place in time in our reality.
_05.jpg)
Anyone willing to take a class from me here while sitting on the grass?
I do support strong security measures in airports.
Now, my Mom can really relate to this one.
With our last trip to AZ (also via NV, UT) one pilot from Dallas in the cue just shook is head as the security people literally had to hold Mom up to perform the checks on her. He stated to me along the lines that it was ridiculous to put her through that procedure. Well stated.
What's with the graphs? Everyone knows that America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth because Americans are now God's people and are the only ones who receive His blessings.
ReplyDeleteHey...if you don't believe me just listen to Pat Robertson and the rest of the "Religious Wrong...err...Right"! :-)
Personally, I don't like any of the ...lapsarian positions because none of them begin with the "being" of God as Father, Son and Spirit in relation. All of these positions are the product of a "western" mindset and an eschatological framework that misses the foundational or fundamental point of Creation (and the creation of Man in particular) to begin with: Relationship.
God's decree is only intelligible with respect to His purpose. I don't think any of these positions get at the heart of God's purpose. In fact, I think they all undermine God's purpose because they don't begin with God Himself...as He is in Himself as Father, Son and Spirit in relationship.
As for taking a class with you on the grass....
Not to take anything away from you and the enjoyment (and benefit) of sitting under your teaching, but I would even sit there to listen to...Joel Osteen. Granted, he wouldn't say much of anything that is meaningful (certainly nothing profound), but that is one beautiful place! :-)
GGM
'What's with the graphs? Everyone knows that America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth because Americans are now God's people and are the only ones who receive His blessings.'
ReplyDeleteI know. I know this from the animated political commercials ABC used to broadcast with their after school specials when I was a kid.
'Hey...if you don't believe me just listen to Pat Robertson and the rest of the "Religious Wrong...err...Right"! :-)'
I need to cite Mr. Robertson far more on my blogs.;)
'God's decree is only intelligible with respect to His purpose. I don't think any of these positions get at the heart of God's purpose. In fact, I think they all undermine God's purpose because they don't begin with God Himself...as He is in Himselfas Father, Son and Spirit in relationship.'
Thanks for the insights. I will stick with my objection.
'As for taking a class with you on the grass....
Not to take anything away from you and the enjoyment (and benefit) of sitting under your teaching, but I would even sit there to listen to...Joel Osteen. Granted, he wouldn't say much of anything that is meaningful (certainly nothing profound), but that is one beautiful place! :-)'
I need to cite Mr. Osteen more on my blogs.
Good insights my friend.
Interesting charts, especially the religious ones. I wonder if Canada really has a lot less violence than the U.S. Is it because the people are more spread out? Or maybe because there are a lot less minority groups and less of a cultural mixing pot? When I lived in Miami, most of the people I lived around were hot-tempered, and would be ready to fight at the slightest provocation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the military, I know the U.S. has been the 'military police of the world' for many years now. Currently, in Afghanistan, our Rules Of Engagement are killing our Marines and other troops. We have to follow unbelievably ridiculous restrictive rules, while the enemy follows no rules. It's ludicrous the rules we have to obey, just so we won't 'offend' the native Muslims. In fact, it's asinine, if you ask me.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI will be honest, part two was more important for me to post. As you know it was originally in the comments of your blog. I will state for the sake of readers that you commented on this issue on your blog in comments. However, I am very glad I can provide some reasonably relevant charts and statistics for this blog. I like to get things right when I post. As you and some readers will know, I used statistics in my MPhil and PhD theses.
'I wonder if Canada really has a lot less violence than the U.S. Is it because the people are more spread out? Or maybe because there are a lot less minority groups and less of a cultural mixing pot?'
I am not a sociologist, but IF the designation is correct, I reason you are onto something, as in tensions within minority groups may attribute to greater violence.
Jeff, I have to agree. If the West is going to fight militarily, it should be all out. BUT, I would very much like to avoid the occurrence of saturation bombing of civilians that took place in World War II and also the avoidance of needless killings of civilians.
GGM mentioned the word "lapsarian." Normally, I steer clear of such theological labels; I don't even like to limit myself to being labeled as any one specific denomination. Therefore, I usually have no interest in studying about such specific things. That's why, even though I believe in Election, I have never done a deep study on Calvinism, because I'm really not all that interested in all the various theological nuances and positions. But just for my own education, I looked the word up on Wikipedia, and I found it interesting what it said:
ReplyDelete"Lapsarianism is the set of Calvinist doctrines describing the theoretical order of God's decree (in his mind, before Creation), in particular concerning the order of his decree for the fall of man and reprobation. The name of the doctrine comes from the Latin lapsus meaning fall.
Supralapsarianism (also antelapsarianism) is the view that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall while infralapsarianism (also called postlapsarianism and sublapsarianism) asserts that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically succeeded the decree of the fall.
Many Calvinists reject both lapsarian views for various reasons. Herman Bavinck rejected both because he sees God's decrees as eternal. Other Calvinists (and many non-Calvinists or Arminians) reject the lapsarian views because they perceive any particular ordering of the decrees as unnecessary and presumptive speculation. Critics of lapsarianism often argue that it is impossible to conceive of a temporal process by which God, in eternity, issued decrees, and it is impossible to know the mind of God without direct, scriptural evidence."
'Infralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the creation of mankind, (2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through its own self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and (4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. Infralapsarianism focuses on God allowing the fall and providing salvation.
ReplyDeleteSublapsarianism is very similar to infralapsarianism, putting God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed to create human beings, (2) God decreed to permit the fall, (3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and (4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then decreed to choose some to be saved, or vice-versa.
Supralapsarianism puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had elected.'
Unlike the website, I would theologically lean more toward the concepts of supralapsarianism, BUT, I have serious problems with putting God's eternal decrees within time.
DOH! You already addressed all of this in your article. Just scratch my last comment, about what I found on Wikipedia. I am half-asleep right now, and I did not read your article carefully enough. I need to learn to read more carefully before I make a comment.
'Herman Bavinck rejected both because he sees God's decrees as eternal.'
ReplyDeleteBavinck was quite useful with my final PhD revisions.
God's plans occur within a timeless state and simply are.
Cheers, Jeff.
'I am half-asleep right now, and I did not read your article carefully enough. I need to learn to read more carefully before I make a comment.'
ReplyDeleteWell, I can relate, or should I state, I will revise.
Jeff, I have to agree. If the West is going to fight militarily, it should be all out. BUT, I would very much like to avoid the occurrence of saturation bombing of civilians that took place in World War II and also the avoidance of needless killings of civilians.
ReplyDeleteOne example is when the enemy manipulates the Rules Of Engagement by using women and children as shields, and shooting from hidden positions before dropping their weapons and standing out in the open. The enemy knows our troops can't shoot them if they don't carry guns, or if they are without positive identification.
There was an incident in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan about five months ago, in which 3 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman were killed in an ambush. They twice requested air support and artillery, only to be twice denied it from hundreds of miles away, because noncombatants may have been in the area.
Based on recent communications with enlisted Marines of various ranks, a perspective is developing around the current rules of engagement for Afghanistan. There is no such thing as air or artillery support anymore. The Rules Of Engagement that General McChrystal has set in place is killing Marines. There was also ROE in Iraq, but Marines were genuinely encouraged to think for themselves, to assess the situation, and ascertain the best course of action independently. This is not being done in Afghanistan, where rules are micromanaging the tactical situation. Many Marines with combat experience in Iraq are leaving the Corps for various reasons, but at least one reason for the exit can be traced to a lack of willingness to deploy to Afghanistan under the current circumstances. Deploying Marines to Afghanistan are mostly inexperienced. In fact, the Rules Of Engagement are causing a harmful affect on morale.
The dangers of that type of war.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Really liked the motorcycle video and the cartoon.
ReplyDeleteThe man on the motorcycle paid a huge price.
ReplyDeleteI think of my Mom in that cartoon.
Cheers, Jeff.
Re: security measures -- the walkway to the Seabus terminal was gated off today, due to a suspicious package (which turned out to be harmless) having been left on the North Van side.
ReplyDeleteRe: military spending
I agree and am thankful that the U.S. can provide Canada with protection, however the U.S. spends far more militarily than they need to, it's out of control. See this article for some eye-opening facts.
They should pull back most of their overseas troops and focus on reasonable domestic protection rather than trying to run the world.
A brief comparison of Oprah and Dubya:
ReplyDeleteOprah - Promotes books to her "children" of TV viewers
Dubya - Reads children's books during national disasters.
'They should pull back most of their overseas troops and focus on reasonable domestic protection rather than trying to run the world.'
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point, especially considering the negatives of wars fought with self-imposed rules.
Thanks, Saint Chucklins.
Man Smashes TVs at Wal-Mart
ReplyDeleteIs this a fundamentalist?
Is this a man angry at Wal-Mart.
Both?
Neither?
Chucky,
ReplyDeleteRe: military spending
I agree and am thankful that the U.S. can provide Canada with protection, however the U.S. spends far more militarily than they need to, it's out of control. See this article for some eye-opening facts.
They should pull back most of their overseas troops and focus on reasonable domestic protection rather than trying to run the world.
Note that, according to Wikipedia, the writer of that article, Margolis, also wrote that neither Britain nor the United States should had fought in World War II. Margolis stated: "Buchanan’s heretical view, and mine, is that the Western democracies should have let Hitler expand his Reich eastward until it inevitably went to war with the even more dangerous Soviet Union. Once these despotisms had exhausted themselves, the Western democracies would have been left dominating Europe. The lives of millions of Western civilians and soldiers would have been spared". In a 2009 essay entitled "Dont’t Blame Hitler Alone For World War II", Margolis endorsed the claims of Viktor Suvorov that Operation Barbarossa was a "preventive war" forced on Hitler by alleged impeding Soviet attack, and that is wrong to give Hitler "total blame" for World War II.
Man Smashes TVs at Wal-Mart
ReplyDeleteNotice that he just stands there afterward, with the crowd watching, and then just sits down right there. He is probably one of the large number of unemployed who could not pay his bills and wanted to be arrested so he could get free room and board, free medical and dental insurance, etc.
I suppose Germany could have been left to battle the Soviet Union. But, countries such as the United Kingdom and France would have still needed to build up armaments in preparation in case they were attacked.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the t.v. smasher was mentally disturbed...another possibility.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Amazing footage of Walmart Whacker
ReplyDeletepracticing in a batting cage in the electronics department!! I hope that he pays for all of those TVs!!
-Walter you-know-who-
I think he will pay in more way than one.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Walter.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with Margolis apart from that article, and can't say myself that I am sure what the best course of action for the U.S. would have been.
However one factor is often overlooked, that the social conditions which led to the rise of Nazism in Germany would likely not have happened without the repressive economic demands imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.
So as a consequence, the resolution of WWI formed the seeds of WWII. Usually the causes of war are not as simplistic as we are conditioned to believe.
'I'm not familiar with Margolis apart from that article, and can't say myself that I am sure what the best course of action for the U.S. would have been.'
ReplyDeleteMe either.
'So as a consequence, the resolution of WWI formed the seeds of WWII.'
This is well-documented (I have come across this idea as a child and adult in print and on film).
Chucky,
ReplyDeleteUsually the causes of war are not as simplistic as we are conditioned to believe.
That is probably true.
But concerning WWII, I would also like to add this:
Charles Darwin said: “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. …” Adolf Hitler said: Let us kill all the Jews of Europe.
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races. They drew the conclusion---the one that Darwin had already drawn---that in the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word 'expense' to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races.
In 2008, Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, appeared in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which among other claims, strongly implies that Charles Darwin's ideas led to Adolf Hitler's atrocities.
Ann Coulter, who wrote the bestselling Godless: The Church of Liberalism, said Hitler simply was taking Darwinism from the theoretical to the practical. "He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along," she said.
"We talk about the link between Darwin and Hitler, and in the middle ground, eugenics," said Jerry Newcomb, producer for Coral Ridge Ministries,about a past TV program he produced, called "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy." "Darwin led to eugenics, which led directly to Hitler."
I also want to mention the Muslim involvement in WWII.
ReplyDeleteDuring World War II, the Mufti lived in Berlin, where he met Hitler and traveled in top Nazi circles (he even stayed in Hitler’s bunker toward the end of the war). Among his close friends was Adolf Eichmann, who is commonly thought to be the architect of the Holocaust. Journalist Maurice Pearlman, author of the 1947 book The Mufti of Jerusalem, said that the Mufti advised Eichmann on the best ways to persecute Jews.
Hitler gave the Mufti a radio station, which al-Husseini used to preach Nazism and genocide in Arabic. In one of his broadcasts, the Mufti exhorted Arabs:
"According to the Muslim religion, the defense of your life is a duty which can only be fulfilled by annihilating the Jews. This is your best opportunity to get rid of this dirty race, which has usurped your rights and brought misfortune and destruction on your countries. Kill the Jews, burn their property, destroy their stores, annihilate these base supporters of British imperialism. Your sole hope of salvation lies in annihilating the Jews before they annihilate you."
Al-Husseini practiced what he preached. During the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Eichmann’s assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified that Mufti was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews:
"The Grand Mufti has repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities – including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler – the extermination of European Jewry...The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan...He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
Wisliczeny also testified that al-Husseini asked Heinrich Himmler to send one of Eichmann’s assistants to Jerusalem once the war was over, to aid the Mufti in "solving the Jewish question in the Middle East."
And according to the Arab Higher Committee:
"In virtually identical letters, the Mufti, in the summer of 1944, approached Germany, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary to speed the extermination of the Jews by sending them to Poland where the Nazi death chambers were located."
(from The Mufti of Jerusalem: Architect of the Holocaust)
"Germany stands for an uncompromising struggle against the Jews. It is self-evident that the struggle against the Jewish national homeland in Palestine forms part of this struggle, since such a national homeland would be nothing other than a political base for the destructive influence of Jewish interests. Germany also knows that the claim that Jewry plays the role of an economic pioneer in Palestine is a lie. Only the Arabs work there, not the Jews. Germany is determined to call on the European nations one by one to solve the Jewish problem and, at the proper moment, to address the same appeal to non-European peoples." — Adolf Hitler to Haj Amin Al-Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, November 28, 1941
'They drew the conclusion---the one that Darwin had already drawn---that in the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word 'expense' to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races.'
ReplyDeleteIronically, Jewish people as an ethic group are very successful and therefore in a sense, 'fit'.
'"According to the Muslim religion, the defense of your life is a duty which can only be fulfilled by annihilating the Jews. This is your best opportunity to get rid of this dirty race, which has usurped your rights and brought misfortune and destruction on your countries. Kill the Jews, burn their property, destroy their stores, annihilate these base supporters of British imperialism. Your sole hope of salvation lies in annihilating the Jews before they annihilate you."'
Not too strange of bedfellows...
Jewish people are not a dirty race. In contrast human beings are under sin, but can be saved via Christ (Romans 1-6).
Cheers, Jeff.
It did not look like the terrosist got ran over as the video heading says, It looks like he was run into, but if he is a terrorist, I say good, hope he dies. Rick b
ReplyDeleteTerrorists need to be dealt with extremely sternly.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.
I have a new post where in the main body the following is discussed:
ReplyDeleteThe good, the bad, and the whatever...
Topics
The religious right
Critical thinking by Christians
Islam
The dictation theory
Sketching
Funny water related clips
the good, the bad, and the whatever
Interesting blog you got here. I'd like to read more concerning that topic. The only thing this blog needs is some pics of some gizmos.
ReplyDeleteDavid Karver
Cell phone jammer
What this blog needs is to drop the term candidate from being to the right of the term PhD.
ReplyDeleteAll the best, David.
Russ
Whatever happened to Aline at All Tur? I have left about 3 comments in the past several weeks, and she has not approved any of them; nor has she posted anything new. Maybe she is traveling?
ReplyDeleteI know, I plead ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI have been having a conversation with a Muslim on Facebook for the past few days. Since I don't like to re-invent the wheel, I am storing most of my replies to him in the comments of my current blog article, for possible future use (it's so much easier just to copy and paste old comments, rather than try to think of all that stuff again, or do all that research again, and put it together again in some logical order, and type an entire new message...sometimes those old comments can be edited to fit the situation, but that is still easier than doing it all over again from scratch.)
ReplyDeleteThe few Muslims I have talked to in the past have been very defensive. Of course, I was also talking to them about things like killing apostates, terrorist acts, marrying children, honor killings, etc., which offended them (of course, WE are the ones who should be offended, since it is Muslims who are doing those things!). But, at least with the current guy I am talking to, I am trying to focus on on the Bible (as well as comparing it to the Qur'an) and on Jesus, rather than those other negative side issues, which only distract from the important issue: salvation. And my latest blog articles, comparing Islam to Christianity, have helped put me into this mindset. Possibly because of this, the Muslim guy I am currently talking to is more open and polite and honest than Muslims I have talked to previously, and I thank the Lord for this, as well as for this opportunity to try to witness to a Muslim.
'Since I don't like to re-invent the wheel, I am storing most of my replies to him in the comments of my current blog article, for possible future use (it's so much easier just to copy and paste old comments, rather than try to think of all that stuff again, or do all that research again, and put it together again in some logical order, and type an entire new message...sometimes those old comments can be edited to fit the situation, but that is still easier than doing it all over again from scratch.)'
ReplyDeleteMakes sense.
I respect your efforts.
Thanks.