What would change your mind?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 03:04:56 AM

That's a blatant lie and you know it.

No it's not.

Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.

The first clearly establishes that the RE does have a horizon, no matter how much you wish to deny it, and the second clearly establishes that you can see things below the line of the tube.

So I'll just keep on asking until you actually answer them:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?

No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.
I made it clear enough.

You made it clear that all you have is a baseless assertion.
You have no justification for why that is the case.

And that is really what matters as your assertions are entirely worthless.
You need to be able to explain what stops that light from reaching the eye.
We know it can make it when the tube isn't there, just like the orange line.
But why shouldn't it when the tube is used?
We know the orange line can't make it as it hits the wall of the tube. But that isn't the case for the blue line.
There is literally nothing to stop the blue line.
So why doesn't it reach the eye?

JJA's experiment with the ruler shows this quite well:

And this diagram shows what is happening with the light:

The red lines indicate how you claim the light magically goes.
But notice how that results in seeing the same section of the ruler, while the picture clearly shows that you see MORE of the ruler when it is further away.
That requires lines like the blue and purple.
The blue line goes downwards, just missing the bottom of the tube, allowing you to see the 5 cm mark when the ruler is close, but as the ruler is moved further away you can see the 4 cm mark.
The purple line goes upwards, just missing the top of the tube, allowing you to see the 9 cm mark when the ruler is close and the 10 cm mark when the ruler is further away.

So with all the evidence against you, and your inability to answer a simple question, why not just admit you are wrong?

You only see what's compressed into that diameter.

And by "compressed into that diameter" you mean things which perspective have made fit into that angular range, but that is still above and below the tube.
You even admit that there is no physical compression.

Quote from: JJA on January 11, 2021, 06:54:05 AM

If I look at my house 2 inch tube, are you saying my house is only 2 inches tall and got compressed?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Then why does someone standing right next to it see it as much larger than 2 inches?
What magic causes it to be compressed?

But perhaps a simpler question, do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see the entire house? From top to bottom?

If you see a picture of your house

You are now looking at a picture, not directly at the house.
The picture can be smaller or larger, but it is irrelevant.

Yep, if you're not looking through that tube it fits into and you move towards it.

So you claim that simply by looking at a house through a tube it magically shrinks?

You can see things that are physically bigger

And that requires light to come in from above/below/to the side of the tube.

You go along with the theory that your stars are huge and make your sun look like a speck, compared.
You see the light from each star as it was millions of years ago...or thousands,a s you're told, so how is this possible and why aren't you flooded with light on your Earth?

That was already answered, and you chose to ignore it.
They are far away.
Their distance makes them appear not as bright.

Just like a light in your room appears to flood the room, but does basically nothing to the house across the road.

Explain how you do so that proves to you they are light years away and seen as in the past and not the present.

Parallax allows us to determine the distance.
The simple fact that light takes time to travel shows that we see them in the past, not the present.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 11, 2021, 03:12:48 AM

You didn't watch the videos, did you?

Yep. Just junk, like I said earlier.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.

Let's go, because you've done a pee poor job, so far.

Lol!  You think so? Well, in that case, I'll let Martin Bryant know you'll be baking him a birthday cake with a file in the centre, and the engagement is still on. I'll also let Professor Dave know you'll be doing a YouTube video to refute those youtube videos you haven't watched yet.

Question time, and no fence sitting, Sceptimatic. I know you have commitment issues. 

Answer this: What shape is the Earth?
A) Spherical  B) Curvy  C) Flat  D) Flattish E) It's too early in world history to know.

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are?  Because I'm pretty sure that he won't.  He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?

Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.

You keep on about this 'we are told' business.  But we are not just told because we can actually measure it.  Thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers make these measurements themselves all the time.  How?  Because we have equipment that allows us to do it.  Including me.  So I am not just accepting 'what I am told' I am comparing what I am told with what I can actually measure.  I have a specialist CCD camera (what is a CCD camera I hear you ask yourself) and a filter (star analyser 100) that acts as a transmission grating (what is that I hear you ask yourself) and that allows me to disperse the light of any star into its spectra (rainbow to you).  I can then run the spectra through software (RSpec) which allows me to identify and measure the wavelengths of various absorption lines in the spectrum and thereby classify the star.  Thus confirming what 'I am told'. What experiments can you do?

Yes we do see stars as they were in the past because again we can measure their distance.  How?  Well up to a certain distance we can use parallax and beyond that we can use other, photometric techniques.  Your 'glowing ember' is not a bad analogy actually because a few stars do have much greater luminosity than the Sun does.  Some stars are bright because they are relatively close.  Others are bright because they are very distant and very luminous.  We have tried and tested and re-tested methods of verifying all this.

I'm sorry if you find all this so hard to believe (probably because the big numbers involved cause brain overload) but it really is true.  Deny it all you like but that won't change the truth of it.

However if you are so sure that the whole of stellar astrophysics has got it wrong, given all the evidence we have gathered over the last 150 years or so then you must have pretty compelling evidence which shows how and where we have got it wrong.  However you cannot seem to bring yourself to answer a simple question such as what the stars are actually like in your opinion. 

If you say you have already explained it elsewhere I'm damned if I can find those explanations anywhere.  Perhaps you could help me?  Because until someone can give me a better explanation then I will carry on accepting 'what I am told'.  But not just because I have been told.  Because I have made the effort to make the measurements myself and compare them with what 'I am told'.  That's what you tell us to do isn't it?  Go out and find out for ourselves.  Well I have done just that thanks very much.

Quote

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are?  Because I'm pretty sure that he won't.  He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?

I think they are projections from the super heated carbonite crystal array that pokes out of the north pole like the sun and moon projections. There's something about how the dome "breathes" too, which does something. Can't quite remember.

Oh, there's this from Jane's Compendium:

The Earth in the Denpressure Model

The Earth itself is a flat disc. It is centred at the North Pole, and right in the middle is a hot, bright light source formed of carbon, which functions the same way as a carbon arc light. This is the primary source of heat for the whole Earth, providing heat from under the ground also.
When you are far away from this light source, you get closer and closer to absolute zero. At a certain distance, even the air itself will freeze. This forms a dome, a solid barrier no human can reach because of the sheer cold of the temperatures it exists it. It extends around and above the disc of the Earth.
The light source is surrounded by crystal, which scatters the light up in a myriad specks. These reflect off the dome, creating what we see as stars. Similarly, the moon and Sun are also reflections of this central light. The Sun is the brightest, and so the hottest. The crystal is rotating, causing the motion of all the various lights.

Essentially, at the very centre of the world is a graphite electrode rapidly ascending and descending, beneath a layer of crystal. This crystal too ascends and descends, altering the inclination of the reflected stars, Sun and moon and thus being responsible for seasons.

The point where the Sun shines on the dome is heated up. With this extra warmth, the dome evaporates, rising up; then, when the Sun moves on, it cools down and refreezes again. In this way the dome can be said to ‘breathe,’ the roof going up and down.
As this follows from the denpressure model of molecules, the least dense molecules rise, and expand more and more as they do. When they run out of the energy to expand, this is where the dome forms.

Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.

Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.

Quote

No answer to your so called stars then.

Not from you so far no.  Why?

You asked some questions.  I answered them. Not to your satisfaction I'm sure but that's irrelevant.   So now it's your turn to answer my question.  What do you think the stars are and what makes them shine in your world/universe?

I know about the explanation given by mainstream astrophysics and my OWN observations support that entirely.  But what are your stars?   Stop avoiding answering questions you don't know the answers to.  I'll accept your guesses.

I'm sure you've been around long enough to know my thoughts.

One thing though. I'm glad you've avoided answering my questions. It shows you have nothing at hand and it's simply back to looking it all up, which you can't be bothered to do...and...I accept that.

Then why do you still refuse to answer?

I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2021, 03:15:44 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on January 11, 2021, 03:12:48 AM

You didn't watch the videos, did you?

Yep. Just junk, like I said earlier.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I was going to let you get to your 100 pages untraumatised, but I've changed my mind. I am going to lock you into a few beliefs, and then I'm going to crush those beliefs.

Let's go, because you've done a pee poor job, so far.

Lol!  You think so? Well, in that case, I'll let Martin Bryant know you'll be baking him a birthday cake with a file in the centre, and the engagement is still on. I'll also let Professor Dave know you'll be doing a YouTube video to refute those youtube videos you haven't watched yet.

Question time, and no fence sitting, Sceptimatic. I know you have commitment issues. 

Answer this: What shape is could the Earth be?
A) Spherical  B) Curvy  C) Flat  D) Flattish E) It's too early in world history to know the entirety of what Earth is.

B C D and E = with my added extra.

Quote

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are?  Because I'm pretty sure that he won't.  He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?

Quote

Let's start with your stars and their rainbows.
Light years away and we are told we see that light as it was millions of years ago, through a vacuum of space.
We see those stars because they make our own sun look like a glowing ember, sort of thing.
This is the utter nonsense we get told.

You keep on about this 'we are told' business.  But we are not just told because we can actually measure it.  Thousands of both amateur and professional astronomers make these measurements themselves all the time.  How?  Because we have equipment that allows us to do it.  Including me.  So I am not just accepting 'what I am told' I am comparing what I am told with what I can actually measure.  I have a specialist CCD camera (what is a CCD camera I hear you ask yourself) and a filter (star analyser 100) that acts as a transmission grating (what is that I hear you ask yourself) and that allows me to disperse the light of any star into its spectra (rainbow to you).  I can then run the spectra through software (RSpec) which allows me to identify and measure the wavelengths of various absorption lines in the spectrum and thereby classify the star.  Thus confirming what 'I am told'. What experiments can you do?

Yes we do see stars as they were in the past because again we can measure their distance.  How?  Well up to a certain distance we can use parallax and beyond that we can use other, photometric techniques.  Your 'glowing ember' is not a bad analogy actually because a few stars do have much greater luminosity than the Sun does.  Some stars are bright because they are relatively close.  Others are bright because they are very distant and very luminous.  We have tried and tested and re-tested methods of verifying all this.

I'm sorry if you find all this so hard to believe (probably because the big numbers involved cause brain overload) but it really is true.  Deny it all you like but that won't change the truth of it.

However if you are so sure that the whole of stellar astrophysics has got it wrong, given all the evidence we have gathered over the last 150 years or so then you must have pretty compelling evidence which shows how and where we have got it wrong.  However you cannot seem to bring yourself to answer a simple question such as what the stars are actually like in your opinion. 

If you say you have already explained it elsewhere I'm damned if I can find those explanations anywhere.  Perhaps you could help me?  Because until someone can give me a better explanation then I will carry on accepting 'what I am told'.  But not just because I have been told.  Because I have made the effort to make the measurements myself and compare them with what 'I am told'.  That's what you tell us to do isn't it?  Go out and find out for ourselves.  Well I have done just that thanks very much.

Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.

Let's deal with this a little at a time.
Is this what is believed or am I wrong in saying this by your accounts?
If so, then briefly explain before I move on.

Quote from: Solarwind on January 11, 2021, 01:49:11 PM

Quote

I can only give my best guess, which I have done on many occasions

Can anyone else point me to this best guess of Sceptis about what he thinks the stars are?  Because I'm pretty sure that he won't.  He has given it on many occasions apparently so anyone help out?

I think they are projections from the super heated carbonite crystal array that pokes out of the north pole like the sun and moon projections. There's something about how the dome "breathes" too, which does something. Can't quite remember.

Oh, there's this from Jane's Compendium:

The Earth in the Denpressure Model

The Earth itself is a flat disc. It is centred at the North Pole, and right in the middle is a hot, bright light source formed of carbon, which functions the same way as a carbon arc light. This is the primary source of heat for the whole Earth, providing heat from under the ground also.
When you are far away from this light source, you get closer and closer to absolute zero. At a certain distance, even the air itself will freeze. This forms a dome, a solid barrier no human can reach because of the sheer cold of the temperatures it exists it. It extends around and above the disc of the Earth.
The light source is surrounded by crystal, which scatters the light up in a myriad specks. These reflect off the dome, creating what we see as stars. Similarly, the moon and Sun are also reflections of this central light. The Sun is the brightest, and so the hottest. The crystal is rotating, causing the motion of all the various lights.

Essentially, at the very centre of the world is a graphite electrode rapidly ascending and descending, beneath a layer of crystal. This crystal too ascends and descends, altering the inclination of the reflected stars, Sun and moon and thus being responsible for seasons.

The point where the Sun shines on the dome is heated up. With this extra warmth, the dome evaporates, rising up; then, when the Sun moves on, it cools down and refreezes again. In this way the dome can be said to ‘breathe,’ the roof going up and down.
As this follows from the denpressure model of molecules, the least dense molecules rise, and expand more and more as they do. When they run out of the energy to expand, this is where the dome forms.

That's not entirely accurate but it's a decent job that Jane made for what she grasped of the explanations.
Nobody else has got close to what she grasped.

Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.

Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.

Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 12:24:58 PM

Then why do you still refuse to answer?

I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.

Do, you don't.
For these questions it is not a case of me not accepting the answer, it is you simply not providing an answer.
Agian, if you had an answer you would just provide it in that post of yours or link to where you have already done so.

But you know that the only answer to the first question shows that the RE does have a horizon, and the second shows there is nothing to stop the blue line and thus you can see things below the level of the tube. You don't want to admit either so you just refuse to answer, but you don't even have the integrity to actually refuse and state your refusal, instead you lie and claim to have already answered. Just like you ignore the rest of my post which shows you are wrong, repeatedly.

And now with more nonsense of yours brought up, an extra question gets thrown in from the last post which you also ignorred. There is no chance you answered it considering it was only asked in the last post which you ignored basically all of.

Grow up and answer the questions:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?


Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?

Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.

This comes down to what you mean by "engulf".
If you mean it is visible from half the Earth, then yes.
If you mean it brightly illumines half the Earth such that you can see clearly, then that is also based upon how much light it puts out and how far away it is.

For stars, they are also "visible" from half the Earth at any given time, but if that location is currently in daytime, then the brightness of the sun and sky (from scattered light from the sun) makes it to dim to see, just like a dark screen out in bright sun.
However they are too far away to brightly illuminate the surface.

Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.

i.e. we don't need to do anything except completely reject reality and what we see.
No thanks. I'll stick to reality.

Do, you don't.

?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 11:40:26 PM

Do, you don't.

?

You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."

He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."

Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.

Why won't you show your work?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 11, 2021, 04:45:07 PM

Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.

Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.

Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.

What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.

Let's deal with your stars.
The sun engulfs half the Earth as we're told because nothing stops the radiation hitting us with it travelling in a vacuum as we're told.

Let's deal with this a little at a time.
Is this what is believed or am I wrong in saying this by your accounts?
If so, then briefly explain before I move on.

No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid.  Dodge the questions and try and divert the subject as much as you like but it won't work with me.   I asked you for your opinion about the nature of the stars and what evidence you have to back you up over the models held by mainstream physics.

Either you do that here and clearly and without saying you have already explained it elsewhere already or this discussion stops here and now.  I have explained my side, I have answered a couple of questions from you. Now it's your turn.  Try to do some explaining instead of just claiming.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2021, 11:46:42 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 11:40:26 PM

Do, you don't.

?

You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."

He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."

Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.

Why won't you show your work?

Has JB given you permission to answer for him?

Quote from: JJA on January 12, 2021, 01:37:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2021, 11:46:42 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 11:40:26 PM

Do, you don't.

?

You said "I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that."

He is replying: "Do (answer), you don't (answer)."

Is that why you won't you show your own experiment? You are afraid of answering? It's not hard to take pictures and document an experiment, some of us do it all the time.

Why won't you show your work?

Has JB given you permission to answer for him?

Has JB given you permission to decide who is allowed to respond to his posts?

Have you ever actually answered a question and not deflected?

Why won't you show us your experiment?  It's so simple that you should have no trouble setting up the equipment and taking all the required pictures.

Where are they?

Quote from: rvlvr on January 11, 2021, 04:13:31 AM

Sceptimatic, why can't you answer the question regarding the blue line in this picture?



I find it interesting you do not seem to think it is possible for it to reach the eye(s).

No. I said it's impossible for it to reach the eye when looking through a tube that is levelled.

I made it clear enough.

Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube?  I need to know what material you are going to approve of.

Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.

I think you have answered your own question ...

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 11:40:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2021, 10:06:36 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 12:24:58 PM

Then why do you still refuse to answer?

I answer but you don't accept it as I don't with your answers. It's as simple as that.

Do, you don't.
For these questions it is not a case of me not accepting the answer, it is you simply not providing an answer.
Agian, if you had an answer you would just provide it in that post of yours or link to where you have already done so.

?

It's pretty easy to understand when you don't dishonestly strip away the context.

Once more, this is not a case of me not liking the answers you providing. It is simply you refusing to answer extremely simple questions because you know they show you are wrong.

If you had answers which didn't show you to be wrong you would happy provide them.
Now stop playing dumb, stop with your dishonest BS and answer the questions or admit you wont because they show you are wrong:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

And we know that without the tube, the blue line reaches the eye, so how does the tube stop the blue line reaching the eye (especially given that it doesn't stop the green line)?


Do you think that if you get far enough away, and look through a level tube, you can see an entire house? From top to bottom?

Has JB given you permission to answer for him?

Why would he need my permission to point out things you continually choose to ignore?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 11, 2021, 12:24:58 PM

Then why do you still refuse to answer?
They are extremely simple questions that any honest, rational person would be able to answer.

I think you have answered your own question ...

I know.
But I want him to admit it, or answer the questions, or to just stop spouting BS.

Also, with topics like this, it isn't entirely clear if he truly believes Earth is flat and cognitive dissonance is preventing him from answering and admitting he is wrong; or if he is just a troll.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2021, 10:21:43 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 11, 2021, 04:45:07 PM

Utter nonsense on stars if this guy cant even scrape together a coherent statement about looking through a toilet paper tube and how it relates to a flat earth.

Youre asking to prove something (stars) that is a little more difficult for the average joe to personally view.

Maybe you'll pick up a tube one day and level it on a gradient. You don't need to do anything from that point other than to realise you can't see down the gradient.

What does that even mean?
On the globe model you dont see it either as shown by jackb repeatedly.

Tell that to JJA.

No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid. 

Then, spectate.

Has JB given you permission to decide who is allowed to respond to his posts?

No, bt I'm sure he'll feel weak with having a mentor.

Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube?  I need to know what material you are going to approve of.

You choose.

It's pretty easy to understand when you don't dishonestly strip away the context.

Yep, you want to try and understand it instead of coming out with copy and paste, repeatedly.
If you want to play honestly then help yourself.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 12, 2021, 03:07:07 AM

Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube?  I need to know what material you are going to approve of.

You choose.

What would you use?  This is important to me.  I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.

Quote from: Solarwind on January 12, 2021, 02:22:05 AM

No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid. 

Then, spectate.

A spectator is one who just watches while others do the work.  Kind of like... you?

You spectate and watch while others conduct 'your' experiments and post the results for everyone to see and understand.

Where are the results of your experiment?  Still afraid to show your work?  Why won't you contribute anything to the discussion?

( I didn't get Solarwind's permission to reply here. Deal with it. )

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2021, 03:45:35 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 12, 2021, 03:07:07 AM

Speaking of "tube"... what should I use for crosshairs at the end of each tube?  I need to know what material you are going to approve of.

You choose.

What would you use?  This is important to me.  I want this to be a "1st time go".... to pass the sceptimatic standard of excellence.

Sewing cotton.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2021, 03:42:01 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on January 12, 2021, 02:22:05 AM

No I am not playing to your tune I'm afraid. 

Then, spectate.

A spectator is one who just watches while others do the work.  Kind of like... you?

You spectate and watch while others conduct 'your' experiments and post the results for everyone to see and understand.

Where are the results of your experiment?  Still afraid to show your work?  Why won't you contribute anything to the discussion?

( I didn't get Solarwind's permission to reply here. Deal with it. )

Ok, no probs.