Public Schools

[chris]

My cousin was home schooled for quite some time, and is now, at the age of 16 going to a public school for the first time since kindergarten. Their English class, has a habit of swerving of subject and debating evolution creationism. I wish I was there, but I am home schooled myself(though I have spent most of my time in public school). I wish I was there, because these people don't know how to debate. Anger and such flies through he air like arrows. When I ask this controversial question, I ask that we all keep this in mind, a debate is not a chance to prove something by shoving it down their throat. Most debates end with both sides still believing what they did before hand. A debate is a chance to take the American right of freedom of speech, and use it wisely. This question is not meant to debate evolution vs creation, but it will probably end up that way. This question concerns the public school system specifically.


Here is the question:

What should be taught in public school concerning the origin of life, further more, but more a different question, should Christianity be taught in any way shape or form? Shoul teachers be so severely punished for quoting scriptures?




Here is my answer.

I am a Christian, but I feel at Americans spiritual state right now, it is not fair, and will get you no where, by saying Christianity should be the only thing taught. We are far from that. The public school system really has no business, in my opinion, in teaching our influential youth the origins of life. However, I find teaching strictly Evolution, which supports Atheism, and outlawing all others not only infuriating, but immature, and biased. Our government has no business in choosing what origins of life are to be taught. I say this becuase the origins of life are so closely linked with religion. There are two basic ideas, Evolution, and Creation. Creation come in many forms, and could be taught broadly, in my opinion, to start with. Tennessee allows public schools to teach both, why don't others? There is no reason, and this statement is for Christians, Evolution is the sole origin of life taught in public schools because we have sat around and remained silent If the scientists can voice it, and make a difference, why can't we? Start by being wise, start small. Get both to be taught, then move on. Evolution was slowly accepted to be taught in our public schools, sadly enough, I think Creationism is taking a long time to regain its rightful place, its fair place, in the teaching of origin.

So what do our Total War fans think? How, why, and what should be taught in our public schools concerning the origin of life?

[kiwitt]

If you are going to include choices;

Adam and Eve, Evolution

What about ...

Alien Immigrants, Re-incarnation, or other Origins of life.

A better subject, is teaching children how to research and make their own decisions.

If you want your children to learn what you believe, teach that yourself and not have the schools do it. I would not want schools imposing other peoples views on children. They are so impressionable.

Therefore, All origin of life theories should be excluded from schools, including christian.

An option would be a Religion Class period, where students could go to their local place of worship and study for an hour or so. If they have no religion, a science expert could explain evolution theory, a ufologist could explain extraterrestrial life, or have a free period where they go to the library and study.

[econ21]

Chris, I suspect your view is a particularly American one. In Europe, I don't think there is any significant scientific debate about evolution. That issue was sorted out over one hundred years ago. And to the best of my knowledge, most European Christians have moved on and don't believe their faith depends on the invalidity of a scientific theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.

What should government schools teach kids? (In the UK, we call our private schools public schools just to confuse folk). In science classes they should teach science and that means evolution, not creationism. Show me all the biology professors in Yale, Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford researching creationism and I might change my mind. But to the best of my knowledge, creationism more properly belongs in religious education, along with Allah, Buddha and all the other stories parents fill their children's minds with.

Not trying to offend, just my aetheistical two cents.

[ichi]

Creationism has no place in public schools. If people want to teach their kids anything they 'believe' they are free to do so, but schools should teach fact. Evolution, genetics, geology, all fact.

The Catholic Church suppressed science that contradicted their view or that threatened Christianity. This was a big mistake. We should learn from history and not make that mistake.

Creationism is a religious myth. The Hopis, Buddhists, every other culture in the world has their own creation myth. There is no telling which of these, if any, is correct, unless you base it on fact.

And the facts do not support the biblical version of events.

ichi

[|OCS|Virus]

If you are asking me personaly, I do not belive a teacher should impose there beliefs or try to sway them one way or another no matter how deep there belief is but sould be able to state there opinion so they will not be forbiden to talk about certain things. Because I think that would violate freedom of speech. But I do not think that the government should have any say in matters of evolution or creation. But I do think that it is imortant to be discussed at one point or another but only at an age were a person is capable of making choices for themselfs. For example college courses should be able to deal in such matters. I mean if people that are of age can not even talk about there views, then what is the point of having opinions on it at all? I do not believe matters of faith should be discussed in churches however the point of a church is that you have decided to go with one faith or the other. {dont know how that situation would come up but I'm just saying.} I would also would like to make the point that if you want your school to teach a certain religious perspective there are catholic schools or other schools that will teach school in a way more to the liking of people of a certain religion.

{this does not apply to the question but may I ask how you can stand to be homeschooled? I was homeschooled for about two years I was so bored it was rediculous how did you deal with that?}

[Revenant69]

Religion doesnt belong in schools in any shape or form whatsoever EVER. It has absolutely no place there. Humans evolve, so lets evolve past this whole Creation myth and start trusting our science. I rely on facts and not on John said to Jim that James had a friend ....

Oh, the fact that I am a scientist has nothing to do with my opinion.

[Phatose]

If I were to take after the ancient Greeks and worship Zeus as a thunder god, would that be a reason to no longer teach that lightning is caused by static discharges in the atmosphere?

No, of course not. That would be patently ridiculously - seriously suggest at a school board meeting that the schools should teach thunder-god intervention instead of meteorology if you don't believe me, and watch them laugh you right out the door.

Despite what you seem to be implying, evolution isn't a religious issue. Nowhere in evolution do you find and there is no god - Theism and Atheism are both extraneous. The existence of Christian creation mythology doesn't make evolution a religious issue any more then Greek mythology makes lightning a religious issue. Religion is simply beyond the scope of the theory of evolution - god does not factor into it, just the fossil record and modern knowledge of biochemistry and physics.





For the record though, evolution vs. Christianity is an incorrect term - it's far from all of Christendom that's opposing evolution, as statements by the pope prior to John Paul indicate. If anything, the appropriate statement would probably be evolution vs. literal interpretation of Genesis.

[|OCS|Virus]

but that isnt a fair compairison, the idea of taking two things like the idea of creation and lightning and trying to contrast the two. Revnant you seems to be trying to bend others to think like you I dont know about others here but I dont appreciat that in the least. If we can not act in an adault matter twords the question that has been asked then it is better not to respond. if you think the idea is obserd then just state your opinion and leave it at that. sorry if that is a little harsh but seriously some people belive things that others may think obserd that does not make it right for you to critisize there beliefs. Because you are a scientist I understand that you would base things on fact but that does not give you the right to throw stones so to speak at others who believe in creation.

[Phatose]

Ah, I misunderstood.


If you'll please explain to me how lightning and creation are dissimiliar enough to disqualify the comparison, I'd be quite grateful.

[Lord Rom]

Quote[/b] ]Creationism has no place in public schools. If people want to teach their kids anything they 'believe' they are free to do so, but schools should teach fact. Evolution, genetics, geology, all fact.

If only evolution was fact I could agree with that statement. Ichi, I highly respect your posts(and look forward to reading them m8) but evolution is a theory, nothing more. It is taught as fact in many places to people whom evolution is their own religion of a sort. Blindly ignoring the missing evidence and dogmatically stating that anything that disagrees is religious and cannot be put into the equation. Check out the post from months past where this same subject was thoroughly discussed. Lol there must have been a thousand replies Irriducible complexity is the new theory that creationists are wanting discussed in class rooms. It has good merit scientifically and deserves to be taught just as much as evolution theory. Beware of those who want only their side argued in the class room. Check out that older post...people there made a much better argument both for and against than I can.
Rom

[Lord Xelous]

1 Word question.. Dinosaurs...

If god exists.. and according to the Bibile existed in a 10,000 year time span, why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?

And one day jesus & the deciples were walking along the road, when all of a sudden their path was blocked by a giant brontasaurus, with a splinter in it's paw... and Jesus took the big beast and soothed his wounds...

I mean I'm not sure what's worse, the idea of no god, or the idea that if there is a god he created the earth in 6 days (what a botch job) and he put all this evidence of a hundred thousand million years of pre-historic live and evolution, just so when you get to heaven he can go

Did you believe in Dinosaurs?
Well yeah you'll say There were all these fossiles & sh*t
*Click*, whooosh.. You idiot... I was just F*c*King with you...
But it all seemed so plausible you scram as you hurtle off into the burning abyss.

And why do I say all this? So you realise it don't matter what the bible says, about home schooling, about debating about anything, it's what you think that's important.. and make sure you're not too influenced by fiction, modern or 1900 year old versions of it...

-- Comments Adapted form the Late Great William Hicks


It's better to have an idea than have beliefs, people die for them, kill for them, but an idea can be changed
-- Words from the mind of Kevin Smith.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]Chris, I suspect your view is a particularly American one. In Europe, I don't think there is any significant scientific debate about evolution. That issue was sorted out over one hundred years ago.

truth, only in america would people actually believe stuff like that, saw some u.s. kids earnestly debating that **** (can`t think of a polite word for it) on tv.

i didn`t know wether to laugh myself silly or cry my heart out that people are wasting their time on it, get a life

[Phatose]

Irreducible complexity isn't a scientific theory. It's an objection to the scientific theory of evolution.

I would humbly request that from now on we differentiate between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory, as they are simply not the same thing.

[Lord Xelous]

Also.. while my mind is on the subject, there are those who wish to play the Pascal's Wager.

In case you don't know, Pascal's wager was derived by the French Mathematician Blaise Pascal, and he said, that from all the evidence he'd have to assert there is no god, but just incase there was he would wager 1/7th of his week praising god and sitting doing nothing, just incase. But he was living in 18th century France, and saying there was no god might have gone with with a bit of a linching.

So if you wish to play the odds of there being an afterlife, a god and the slight possibiliy of the bible not being fos, then you can play Pascal's wager, and good luck to you... But I'm not a gambling man, pure fact & modern scientific proof will do me.

[Phatose]

Pascal's wager isn't going to be very useful in a conversation like this anyway. The mathematics of it depend completely on assuming that Catholic Christianity is completely right, or that atheism is completely right. He doesn't bother to consider the possibility that both may be wrong - and if you include those logical possibilities, all of a sudden the mathematical favoritism for belief goes *poof*.

Consider only one additional possibility - that god does exist, but he sends Catholics to hell and Atheists to heaven. It's hardly a common thought, but given our complete lack of solid evidence on the nature of the possible divinity, it's impossible to rule out. That suddenly puts the Catholic and the atheist back on equal afterlife footing. Any other possibility you can come up with will have similiar reverse possibilities. In the end, no matter what you believe, you have exactly the same probability of getting into heaven or hell, and Pascal's wager ends up being an arguement for hedonism.

[Lord Xelous]

Like I said.. I'm not a gambling man....

[ichi]

Rom:

I could not agree with you more on several things: that to teach one thing and to ridicule all other views is inherently wrong; to blindly ignore missing evidence also leads to errors; and that other thread on this was full of posts by people much smarter than I.

Here is my position: there are several competing theories that attempt to explain all of evolution. These will continue to be tested and perfected, as science continually tries to test existing models and discard the parts that do not pass the test.

The genetic makeup of organic life controls the expression of that life. This genetic material is passed from parent to offspring. It can change over time. I know this all from personal experience (I have experimented with fly DNA - ya I know just like the movie), but so do you - look at different dog breeds.

There are life forms that demonstrate speciation. Look at salamanders in California, or squirrels on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon, for example.

So genetics is real, evolution is fact. There are also several theories of genetics, and several theories of evolution, but simply because we do not understand everything about everything doesnt negate that there are facts.

As stated, I have trouble believing the Biblical story of creation. But when I look at the delicate complexity of life and the world around me, I can't help but see a very deep beauty that could well be the result of a Supreme Being.

And what would you expect of a Supreme Being? Very high quality work. Nothing slapped together over a week, no I think not. As stated by others, evolution does not disprove God, Christian or otherwise.

This subject has been the source of many fights, and I do not savor the prospect of a fight with you. Reasonable men can disagree over reasonable things, and I look forward to hearing from you on this and other topics.

respectfully

ichi

[Finn]

my problem with teaching religion in schools is that religion seems to always try to force its followers to follow the doctirine of whatever that religion leader has decided. Religion against surgery? right then the follower has to die instyead of receiving some life saving operation. Religion says that every other religion is wrong, and we are the one true religion? cue jihads/crusades/ religion wars etc.

Schools should teach fact first of all, what are the current most likely scientific theories, what evidence backs them up, what evidence is against them, let the child come to its own conclusion.

Then there is morals, most religous schools seem to teach morals using a basis of religion. god says though shalt not hurt thy fellow man. So the only reason i shouldnt walk up and punch you in the face is because some deity that there is no evidence to suggest actually exists says i shouldnt. well i'll do it anyway...
Morals should be taught completely on their own, *WITHOUT* religion, You dont walk up and punch someone in the face because its not right, its not fair, and how would you like it done to you?

Give them a basic moral and scientific framework let them put the pieces together, and if they so wish to follow a religion, then they are perfectly willing to do that. Its not right to skew there beiliefs from the start though to make them more likely to favour a religion.

[Somebody Else]

I went to an Enlgish public school, there, we had to go to chapel every day, bar Wednesday and Saturday. Skipping said chapel was one of the few things my housemaster got worked up about... so you could say that religion was a central part of the school's ethos. However, that does not mean that we spent our science lessons learning a whole lot of nonsense about the Creation. I do know that at least one of the physics teachers was a fervent Chirstian, of some strange subset or something. That didn't stop him from being (apparently - I didn't do physics past GCSE) one of the best physics teachers in the school.
The story of the Creation was a good attempt to rationalise our existence, but now that more information is available, those views are somewhat outdated... I mean, making a woman out of a man's rib?? (Talk about a waste of resources )

[Count Fudgula]

Schools in France are entirely secular and they are not allowed mention religion whatsoever. This is taken very seriously and leads to situations like a Sikh teacher who was asked to resign because he wouldn't come to work without his turban, and more recently the protests regarding headscarves for female Muslim students being banned. (This last one is a bit strange for a country obsessed with scarves in general, cf. G. Houllier for a reference point for those familiar with English football).

[Red Peasant]

Evolution may be a theory but is is a scientific theory, arrived at using valid and rational scientific methodology. It may be wrong, partially if not totally, but then, most scientific theory is constantly *evolving*, constantly being qualified, amended, and challenged.

However, 'Creationism' is a matter of faith, usually unshakeable, in a particular religious dogma. If one believes in it then it cannot be amended, and it is not based on any kind of empirical, scientific methodology of any kind. According to the Bible, the world and humanity was created some 4,600 years ago.....no arguments.

The answer is simple: teach Christianity (inc. creationism), Islam, Buddhism, etc., in Religious Studies. Teach science in Science classes.

The problem in America is that it has a politically powerful *Christian* lobby that can force these surreal debates in a national forum. (*Christian* can include all and any wacko pseudo-christian sect and sub-sect, which seem to breed like flies in the States, it's just not an issue over here, except amongst a very small lunatic fringe).

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (chris @ Jan. 26 2004,20:34)]My cousin was home schooled for quite some time, and is now, at the age of 16 going to a public school for the first time since kindergarten. Their English class, has a habit of swerving of subject and debating evolution creationism. I wish I was there, but I am home schooled myself(though I have spent most of my time in public school). I wish I was there, because these people don't know how to debate. Anger and such flies through he air like arrows. When I ask this controversial question, I ask that we all keep this in mind, a debate is not a chance to prove something by shoving it down their throat. Most debates end with both sides still believing what they did before hand. A debate is a chance to take the American right of freedom of speech, and use it wisely. This question is not meant to debate evolution vs creation, but it will probably end up that way. This question concerns the public school system specifically.


Here is the question:

What should be taught in public school concerning the origin of life, further more, but more a different question, should Christianity be taught in any way shape or form? Shoul teachers be so severely punished for quoting scriptures?




Here is my answer.

I am a Christian, but I feel at Americans spiritual state right now, it is not fair, and will get you no where, by saying Christianity should be the only thing taught. We are far from that. The public school system really has no business, in my opinion, in teaching our influential youth the origins of life. However, I find teaching strictly Evolution, which supports Atheism, and outlawing all others not only infuriating, but immature, and biased. Our government has no business in choosing what origins of life are to be taught. I say this becuase the origins of life are so closely linked with religion. There are two basic ideas, Evolution, and Creation. Creation come in many forms, and could be taught broadly, in my opinion, to start with. Tennessee allows public schools to teach both, why don't others? There is no reason, and this statement is for Christians, Evolution is the sole origin of life taught in public schools because we have sat around and remained silent If the scientists can voice it, and make a difference, why can't we? Start by being wise, start small. Get both to be taught, then move on. Evolution was slowly accepted to be taught in our public schools, sadly enough, I think Creationism is taking a long time to regain its rightful place, its fair place, in the teaching of origin.

So what do our Total War fans think? How, why, and what should be taught in our public schools concerning the origin of life?

I am surprised that that is happening at all. My wife is a high school teacher, English for 11th and 12th graders. One of the first things they tell teachers at both of the schools where she has taught, in Indiana and now outside of DC, is that under no circumstances is a teacher to bring up religious beliefs or personal political ideology. In fact the teacher's union won't protect you if you give a lecture on what people's religious or political beliefs should be. It strikes me as highly inappropriate that an English teacher is bringing up evolution at all - among other things an English teacher probably doesn't have much training in biology or at least not enough to be teaching it in school - and even if this teacher does then there is still no reason to discuss it in an English class.

As far as science goes a belief in evolution does not require you to be an aetheist. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is the de facto statement that god does not exist, merely that the account given by the bible does not reflect what we have deduced about evolution through the scientific method. One theory of religion that makes plenty of room for evolution and the existence of god is the idea of god as the great clockmaker. God puts the world together and then starts it running, intervening from time to time to adjust it when things go astray.

As far as the bible goes it is full of fail-safe statements along the lines of whatever contradicts god's word in the bible is false or misguided, so the bible is always right and if you don't believe that then you have been misled by evil, therefore the bible is always, without question, correct. A convenient system but one that does not allow for any rational deductions that stray from a text that was written thousands of years ago, has no extant originals, and has been translated and recopied thousands of times.

[Revenant69]

Quote[/b] ]Morals should be taught completely on their own, *WITHOUT* religion

I agree with Finn here, morals are what keeps humanity running (well one of the things) and, really, morals are just common sense knowledge. Bible just put them in the writen format and that is part of what made it so appealing (fortunately or unfortunately). Morals should be taught by parents to their kids, then when kids grow up and can think for themselves they can decide if they want to believe Jesus, Buddha etc etc...

I just dont like the idea of indoctrination. Besides I think religion was misused to such devastating effects that it isnt really funny. Just to remind you all that in Medieval times church was one very powerful financial organisation, if I recall correctly there was a 10% tax. Meaning that 10% of your profit went to the Church. I am not even mentioning the countles Holy wars here. To put it bluntly, it is my personal opinion that Religion was developed as just a tool, a tool to control large and sometimes unwieldy masses of peasants. A fear of something unknown will keep them in line so to speak. (although technically religion evolved from believes of early humans - hehehe couldnt resist writing this sentence)

PS I agree with Dhepee all the way.

PPS Oh and OCS Virus, I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, if I did than I would be just as bad as those Jahova witnesses who try to ram religion down your throat. I expressd my personal beliefes, if you dont like them then, well, dont read them.

[nightraven436]

When I read your post Dhepee, I just had to speak up. A few years ago in Junior High School, my English teacher gave us a book on the Monkey Trial. A story about a teacher in America that taught Darwin's theory, not really thinking much about it. He was then taken to trial because of conflicting views with the church. This book obviously led us to discuss evolution and creationism. Maybe the teacher was just trying to force her own views on us.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (nightraven436 @ Jan. 27 2004,11:35)]When I read your post Dhepee, I just had to speak up. A few years ago in Junior High School, my English teacher gave us a book on the Monkey Trial. A story about a teacher in America that taught Darwin's theory, not really thinking much about it. He was then taken to trial because of conflicting views with the church. This book obviously led us to discuss evolution and creationism. Maybe the teacher was just trying to force her own views on us.

That is different. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a historical event and to teach the trial does not require the teacher to push her views on the students. For that matter if you banned all curriculum that in any way involved religious or political viewpoints you couldn't teach any history or much literature. The issue is not whether something is taught but how it is taught. Is the teacher facilitating a discussion and adding context to a course or is a teacher telling students how to think?

It is permissible to teach about politics and to lead discussions on it as long as the teacher does not make a judgement on the relative merit of one system over another, and also provided that a student's comments in class are not disruptive. Disruptive in the sense that a statement of belief in the course of discussion either serves to condemn or hold in contempt the beliefs of others or to espouse a viewpoint that advocates violence, hatred, or contempt of others based on their religious, political, or ethnic affiliation.

In other words you can ask the class Who would you vote for in the presidential election but you cannot tell the class to vote for Dennis Kucinich, you cannot allow a student to say that someone is stupid for supporting a candidate or say that they support any candidate who will send all members of x-race to prison.

[Demequis]

Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Jan. 26 2004,22:32)]Pascal's wager isn't going to be very useful in a conversation like this anyway. The mathematics of it depend completely on assuming that Catholic Christianity is completely right, or that atheism is completely right. He doesn't bother to consider the possibility that both may be wrong - and if you include those logical possibilities, all of a sudden the mathematical favoritism for belief goes *poof*.

Consider only one additional possibility - that god does exist, but he sends Catholics to hell and Atheists to heaven. It's hardly a common thought, but given our complete lack of solid evidence on the nature of the possible divinity, it's impossible to rule out. That suddenly puts the Catholic and the atheist back on equal afterlife footing. Any other possibility you can come up with will have similiar reverse possibilities. In the end, no matter what you believe, you have exactly the same probability of getting into heaven or hell, and Pascal's wager ends up being an arguement for hedonism.

I think that is one of the better thought out posts I've seen in a while. I've never even thought about switching the rewards around. That's ingenious :) I always liked Pascal's wager, but when you put it in that light it does indeed seem like an argument to live for your life rather than any afterlife What a great take on his wager.

Just to clarify things if I recall correctly Pascal's wager is a precursor to game theory (I didn't see it actually posted above so here it is):

The subject is given a choice, be atheist (= agnostic for the game) or be faithful (= any god-fearing religion for the game). One of these choices is correct, with a certain probability for each choice to be the correct one. The rewards for choosing correctly vary depending on your choice however. If you believe in god, and god exists you go to heaven (for pascal's game), payoff = infinity. If you are atheist, and god does not exist, you enter the void, payoff = 0.
A rational participant would weigh each of these choices and whichever one had the highest expected payoff he would choose.

so....

Believe in god:
chance of payoff = .x
payoff = infinite
expected payoff = .x(infinity) = infinity

Atheist:
chance of payoff = 1 - .x
payoff = 0
expected payoff = (1- .x)*0 = 0

It's easy to see why pascal chose to believe.

What's great about Phatose' post is that you use the exact same deal as above, and you get equal payoffs. Beautiful Too bad you can't hedge your bets and be atheist and god-fearing....


Oh and also, to the people degrading the importance of evolution because it's just a theory. Well, you should understand that like the theory of gravity (and many, many, many others) the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for phenomena that we do not understand. So far no data have been uncovered to disprove either of these theories, and so they can be accepted as the best explanation we have (and thus the best thing to teach our kids). The same cannot be said about creationism.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]Believe in god:
chance of payoff = .x
payoff = infinite
expected payoff = .x(infinity) = infinity

Atheist:
chance of payoff = 1 - .x
payoff = 0
expected payoff = (1- .x)*0 = 0

after the first fifteen years of life i chose the second option, deal with it.

[Kampfen]

What is this doing here?

Will someone in authority please remove this crap from the board. This and all of the other bull that has nothing to do with the game.

Go post your educational theories on an educational BB. Check out the NEA site and really learn something for a change. Get a little variety. Learn something from somebody that is interested in that subject. I don't go to a marriage counselor for advice on politics.

Let's keep our eye on the ball boys and girls. It's TotalWar.org

[kiwitt]

This forum is a community. Think of it as an electronic village of like minded individuals. (i.e. they like Total War, as opposed to where they live.)

There was an even livelier debate on morals in another thread. Our moderators will keep an eye on any discussion out of kilter with forum rules.

[katar]

welcome to the forum Kampfen

don`t worry too much about threads like these, as kiwitt said, these threads are monitored on a regular basis, anyone who gets out of hand gets their wrists slapped.

as for removing them, i said something similar on a similar thread..... and was told that i was not being forced to read it (very true).

so i don`t bother with that thread anymore, and i`m spoilt for choice on this site, plenty other stuff to keep me interested.