A forum to discuss Bible Translations

The discussion continues

Post a reply


RECAPTCHA_EXPLAIN
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The discussion continues

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Fri May 25, 2012 4:43 pm

Anyway, TWTY-Admin... ( is your name Steve also ...? :) )
My name certainly is Steve... Steve :P A bit more about me is on the About Me page :)
Sorry I came on your forum here in a confrontational manner.
Actually, I deserved your confrontational manner. It's my fault that it caused us to exchange unpleasantries, and I offer my sincere apologies for them.

Rob's answer pretty much covers everything else :)

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Rob » Thu May 24, 2012 5:07 pm

I agree - and I don't see Craig as the enemy, it really saddens me that this can't just be solved by him actually reading through TWTY-Admin's information and telling us why/if it is wrong, then we could all come to a point of understanding whatever that is.

Calling Paul gay and evil with contextually removed evidence is the absolute opposite of what Craig wants to be about, yet he's still stomping through it all - and it is damaging, because Craig says things with such authority and conviction that people latch onto it. We can see that in the YY community - there is a whole bunch of people now believing a lie basically because Craig said it was so, and woe betide the ones who oppose it.

*sigh* :(

Re: The discussion continues

Post by steve » Thu May 24, 2012 1:40 pm

Anyway, TWTY-Admin... ( is your name Steve also ...? :) Sorry I came on your forum here in a confrontational manner.

I'll just say this... Craig should not be the focus nor is he the enemy. I see his work as a catalyst that helps many people change their perspective on Yah and "religion". This is a good thing.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Rob » Thu May 24, 2012 10:17 am

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
This is exactly why I want this issue resolved, because I know Craig doesn't want to be inaccurate. Craig is a passionate man and everything he is doing is from what he can see right - I have no doubt in his motives. Craig is an awesome resource to have on side, but like all of us he is only human and unfortunately when questions were brought to him he reacted in a way that was human, the same way people react in forms, the same way I react to my mother when discussing this and the same way I have to beat TWTY-Admin into humility regularly, he is a man and men all too easily get on a high horse :D (friends recognise this and disarm the situation as quickly and nicely as possible ;))

He asked us to question him and we did and we were dismissed - this is such a shame as the issues didn't get resolved we just got expelled and our reputations attacked, which is pretty much what happened when we left church.

I am not bothered about getting one up or winning an argument - I just want us all to work together, there aren't too many of us who think like this so splitting because people wont let people question with valid and rational arguments is just daft.

We got no response from anyone other than being told we are Pro Paul or that they agree with TWTY-Admin's findings...

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Thu May 24, 2012 8:28 am

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact".
Whilst he may not say this on his Radio show, Steve - he's certainly written it. Questioning Paul is replete with him saying "this is accurate" or "this is what the words say". I don't know whether you've read QP or not, but I demonstrate in QPR- Part 1 that Craig cannot make these bold claims.

Now, whilst ItG may not specifically state that the translations therein are "100% accurate and fact", Craig does however say this: Therefore, accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching is the primary purpose of this Introduction to God. So why wouldn't someone assume that therefore he's meaning that his translations therein aren't "accurately presenting God’s Towrah teaching"?

He also says this with regards to Yada-Yahweh: ...Yada Yah is among the best-researched and most-accurate presentations of Yah’s Word... If that isn't bigging up his own self, what else could he say? (All the above are taken from The ItG Prologue).

Saying that, I found this in ItG - Terms: If you are going to speak for God, quote Him accurately. This is what I intend to do - and I have found errors in Craig's quotations of Yahuweh's words.

Also, my problem actually isn't with Craig or his writings - it was other people constantly quoting them, and pushing them in people's faces as if they were 100% fact. It also didn't help that they never mentioned where they got their words from, nor gave a return link to where someone could read them in context. That was my main problem, and the exact reason why I actually bothered to pitch in on the comments to do with that stupid picture. I usually let idiotic stuff like that go - but not that time.
He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.
I may not've read all the way though ItG, but I've rarely seen this happen. I see but one translation put forth for the words rendered. Although as I've said, not read all the way through ItG - I've got better things to be doing with my time.
As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
Herein lies the problem Steve - whilst Craig says that people should check out his words, who exactly is equipped or able to do so? It would be like a Scientists stating "Hey - if you want to know whether a hadron collider can do what we say it does or not, why don't you build one yourself?" Few people have the ability to do this - and that also comes with being able to check what Craig has written as well. Very few people are able to do so, and those of us who try are ignored, and despite our own writings being a heck of a lot less words than Craig's, we get complained to that our "rebuttals are too long".

If you've got the ability to read QP, or YY, or ItG, then you've surely got the ability to read something else counter to them. It's all just a pathetic cop-out.
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.
I only pointed out those errors in Psalm 119:127 as an example to those who said they hadn't found any errors in Craig's Hebrew translation. It wasn't meant to be an end-all statement about the Psalm itself. Also, if we used the verse as the basis, then 60% of Craig's translation of Psalm 119 is wrong (give or take a few % - I haven't gone through it all). You may argue that that's better than the KJV's 70-80% wrong, but I disagree. Incorrect is incorrect - being slightly less incorrect than someone else, is still incorrect, and no one on the planet should settle for that.
What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.
But that depends on your perspective now, doesn't it? To you he isn't - to others he is.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by steve » Thu May 24, 2012 12:19 am

Maybe some people roll with something CW has written and then take an improper attitude and present some of his stuff as. "written in stone" or "this is 100% accurate" and no other way of viewing this is right...

Craig does not have that attitude... which is one of the reasons I respect the man. He strongly encourages every and anyone to study out the Scriptures themselves. He is at times pretty adamant about his personal conclusions and commentary but I've never heard him say, "my renderings of Scripture are 100% accurate and fact". He'll often give a few different ways and possible renderings of the words and he'll lean towards which seems to flow with the context of what is written around that verse.

As far as Psalm 119... no I have not dissected all 176 verses and compared every Hebrew word in the order they were written against Craig's amplified version of that psalm. (I could not do that at present for a few reasons one being I do not yet have the tools to do so nor have I developed the language skills needed to do that)
But I will say this... even if Craigs rendering of Psalm 119 has a few errors in it... they are not intentional and I strongly feel that he has done the best he can with his current abilities and understanding... and the result is you can see the heart of David and his perspective towards the Towrah. Reading it vs. the KJV rendering is like drinking from a fresh stream vs. a stagnant pond.

What's wrong with that? It's not like he's pushing some crazy, bent, religious theology based on his renderings.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 6:48 pm

I presumed that people would read to the end of the comments section, and onto my initial edit of that first post, where I continued the discussion on Psalm 119:127.

But you're right, it's my fault that I didn't make that clear. My mistake. That won't be happening again.

Regarding Paul/Sha'uwl: Robski pretty much nailed it on the head. I don't care for Paul; no one here promotes Paul or even quotes him - our objective is to find the facts, and therefore the truth. But with this comes our inability to let lies and deceit go, and especially when it comes down to faulty, fraudulent and incorrect translations of Yahuweh's chosen words promoted as genuine and true translations of Yahuweh's chosen words.

That is what I want to find out: what Yahuweh actually said; not what someone else says He said. This is why we all should endeavour to check each and everything that is stated as fact: it's the only way we can ascertain whether someone is telling the truth, or lying.

Whilst you're not be blindly following Craig, Steve; I'm afraid I don't agree that isn't the same for many people who just quote his stuff. I see it as no different to those who blindly quote Christian theologians words or their favourite Christian authors words (a popular one at the moment is the murmurings of Rick Warren) without any words of their own. It shows that no actual thinking is being done, and that's not a good thing

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Guest » Wed May 23, 2012 1:24 pm

btw... if...

This was a topic to continue the discussion of Psalm 119, and whether the rendition of it in ItG was correct or not.

... why not state that "in the topic". Perhaps you do not have the ability to be precise and communicate very well?

Re: The discussion continues

Post by steve » Wed May 23, 2012 12:53 pm

People sure have a fine way of finding ways of not answering the topic at hand. Perhaps you don't have the ability to comprehend this?

so the discussion should really continue in an open-forum format, that anyone can view.


My initial comments here did just that... which in turn you dissected into my failure to address your comments and questions.

so... which is the "topic at hand"... continuing the discussion which was 95% of your first post ... or only addressing your comments there or your statements and question?

Yes, FB is lame... a forum is a better format to discuss, find and continue a discussion of a given topic under a general heading.
No, you did not address "the sha'ul's" doctrine in that thread.

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?

Since when was that one of the questions ...


Tue May 22, 2012 11:11 pm and again right now.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Rob » Wed May 23, 2012 8:03 am

Ok come on now people (stares at TWTY-Admin) no need to be like this.

THIS has to be understood about Paul and our generalised viewpoints (mine and TWTY-Admin's I think do differ a little). I have said it many many times - and I need to keep repeating it.

Paul doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If Paul was an evil man who lead people away from Yah then that's what he was, if he was the best guy in the world then that was what he was. If he was just a normal pro-active guy then you guessed it, that's what he was. The problem we have is we can only go off the evidence we have.

Accusing Paul of pretty much everything under the sun and using bad sources to do it with is just silly, not only silly it's a lie. Lie's in this "game" are dangerous. We are looking for the Truth, we came away from lies to get to the Truth. We don't need more lies.

Paul isn't a problem - because he's just a bloke. The problem comes with the false teachings and opinions that come from being either "anti" or "pro". I would say "pro" Paul are the Christian's who twist Pauls words one way into Christianity and the "anti" Paul take that and scream "LOOK LOOK PAUL IS EVIL".

The problem is - it's all based on bollocks.

All we can do at the best is a little detective work to see if what he is supposed to have written, he wrote. TWTY-Admin, fuelled on by myself, decided to take a detailed look at that in regards to Galatians and found it didn't meet pretty much any of the criteria scholars use to rank the other books. No one has been able to prove it wrong, no one seems to care - because of what "other" people have said about Galatians or Paul.

Now because we stick to what we can see from the evidence we have we are constantly labelled as Paul's best mates. It's like leaving the Church all over again, no one cares to actually take the time to understand they just stick on the labels that make them comfortable.

Craig is wrong on this, and it is effecting pretty much everything else he speaks about - it's like some kind of poison dripping through all the good ideas he has had.

Summery: We are not pro Paul - we are pro facts and truth, Paul just happens to be at the centre of this particular issue.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 7:20 am

"Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?"


ok... I see now. It's all about you. Sorry. Carry on.
No, it's not all about me.

That wasn't the point of what I was saying. You mentioned "Paul" for absolutely no reason whatsoever. This was a topic to continue the discussion of Psalm 119, and whether the rendition of it in ItG was correct or not.

Since "Paul" doesn't come into it, you had no reason to bother mentioning him.

People sure have a fine way of finding ways of not answering the topic at hand. Perhaps you don't have the ability to comprehend this?
Awesome! Had me grinning ear to ear! A man after my own heart!
:D

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Royce » Wed May 23, 2012 3:04 am

I wouldn't really care at all if it was just CW's opinion being flouted on his own websites - there's more than enough sites that do that about themselves. But when his "translations" are quoted as if they were 100% accurate, and his commentary on them posted as if he was writing Scripture, that's when I start having a problem with it - hence my comments when, in response to Δυναμις, T quoted from CW's Questioning Paul's rendition of sections from Matthew, which I know to be completely and utterly wrong; not to mention the fact that I demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek to save his life in QPR - Part 1, yet people *still* quote his Greek "translations" as if he'd translated them correctly.

Further to that, I've yet to have a single person point out anything wrong I'd written in The Great Galatians Debate, which demonstrates that Paul never wrote a single word that is found in the fraudulent letter known as Galatians, which is where most people's "problem" with Paul stems from.

Now I concede that T "might not know" that CW can't translate Greek, as T himself states that he hasn't read the QPR, but then why is T quoting from QP, knowing that it's been more than well demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek? Oh that's right, because according to T he "won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings."

First to point out: if he hasn't read QP, why is he quoting a huge section from it (and how did he know that section was there to begin with if he hasn't read it?), and why is he really refusing to read the QP reviews? Because he'd rather study the TPP rather than the RC/NT? That's such a pathetic excuse when you quote from QP as if it was 100% true. It is "wilful ignorance" on T's part because then it calls into question all of CW's translations, and therefore all his commentary.

It also doesn't help that T appears to be unable to read Hebrew, therefore making the "study" of the TPP an impossibility. Someone may have the Logos Bible Software package, but that means jack-all when it comes to being able to study the Hebrew and Aramaic text (and Greek text I might add) of the TPP. Being able to use Logos Bible Software does not a translation - nor a translator - make; which is also CW's problem also, hence why his translations of the TPP don't actually follow the text as it is fully written in the TPP.

Unfortunately, whether willingly or unwillingly I am unable to pass judgement, CW has been turned into a kinda "Pope" figure, with his own ambassador bishops, forum deacons, and personal laity, who hang onto his every word and spout his translations and commentary as if CW was himself Yah's representative on earth, or as you've said Royce, "he is something special".

Whatever's speaking to CW, it seems to be incapable of getting its facts right or to CW properly, or inspiring translational competence.

Doesn't sound like Yah to me. How about the rest of you?
Awesome! Had me grinning ear to ear! A man after my own heart!

Re: The discussion continues

Post by steve » Wed May 23, 2012 1:42 am

"Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?"


ok... I see now. It's all about you. Sorry. Carry on.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed May 23, 2012 12:26 am

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?
Since when was that one of the questions, or the actual point of the comments made? Did you see a single comment from me that mentioned "Paul" (sorry "Sha'uwl") in any context other then mentioning "Questioning Paul"?

Stop bringing in things that I wasn't even discussing, and that no one else was discussing either. Is it so hard for people to stick to the topic at hand?
btw... I do not "follow" CW... I do respect the man and I have found much of his studies enlightening... I have shared some of his Scripture renderings, his translations of Hebrew mainly. So what?
Did you check that what you'd quoted was actually correct, at all? If you'd hadn't, then you're no better than the Christians who quote their favourite Bible version as if it was the translation or not.

Nevertheless, people quoting CW "translations" doesn't really matter - when however those quotations that are given don't actually follow the text they're supposedly "translating", don't expect those who can see the error to just keep quiet about it.

Also, as shown - CW's Hebrew "translations" aren't correct, so you'd therefore be sowing the seeds of false information. Congratulations.
It's kind of lame to insult the man behind his back...
Who's doing this behind his back? I'm not insulting the man behind his back - I'm pointing out his errors publicly, on a public forum and in free downloadable reading formats that everyone in the world is able to see, not to mention on very public sites like Facebook.

Unlike certain people, I don't have any hidden groups where the vultures can gather. Plus if this is the Steve I'm thinking it is (although do correct me if you're not S.P.), then you're a fine one to talk about people talking behind someone's back. If you're not, then I apologise; but your accusation is unfounded, nonetheless.
or to call people who have gained some knowledge and insights in the Towrah and Hebrew through his studies, groupies or sheep following the man instead of YHWH.
Erm, who called whom "groupies" or "sheep"? Until you've mentioned these two words, no one else here has used them.

Also, if I was to never to point out the errors of people who've gained some knowledge and insights into the Torah and Hebrew, then there are few people on the planet that I'd be able to point out their errors, and we can just all go on with our lives holding hands and throwing daisies into the air.

Gaining knowledge and insights are great - but not if they're based on incorrect assumptions and errors. Then they're no longer knowledgeable or insightful.

Now, seeing as though you haven't said anything that was pertinent to the comments at hand, do you have something on topic to actually say? I'd like to know what I said that was "totally wrong"? It's hard to learn from the mistakes people constantly make if it isn't shown to them where they're supposed to have erred, especially if they can't see it themselves. I'm no exception - just ask Rob!

Re: The discussion continues

Post by steve » Tue May 22, 2012 11:11 pm

so... what does "the sha'ul" present that is vital to ones relationship with YHWH, that is not presented in the Tanahk or witnessed to by YHWSA ...?

btw... I do not "follow" CW... I do respect the man and I have found much of his studies enlightening... I have shared some of his Scripture renderings, his translations of Hebrew mainly. So what?

It's kind of lame to insult the man behind his back... or to call people who have gained some knowledge and insights in the Towrah and Hebrew through his studies, groupies or sheep following the man instead of YHWH.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Rob » Wed May 16, 2012 9:40 am

I have to agree.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Sat May 05, 2012 7:14 pm

I wouldn't really care at all if it was just CW's opinion being flouted on his own websites - there's more than enough sites that do that about themselves. But when his "translations" are quoted as if they were 100% accurate, and his commentary on them posted as if he was writing Scripture, that's when I start having a problem with it - hence my comments when, in response to Δυναμις, T quoted from CW's Questioning Paul's rendition of sections from Matthew, which I know to be completely and utterly wrong; not to mention the fact that I demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek to save his life in QPR - Part 1, yet people *still* quote his Greek "translations" as if he'd translated them correctly.

Further to that, I've yet to have a single person point out anything wrong I'd written in The Great Galatians Debate, which demonstrates that Paul never wrote a single word that is found in the fraudulent letter known as Galatians, which is where most people's "problem" with Paul stems from.

Now I concede that T "might not know" that CW can't translate Greek, as T himself states that he hasn't read the QPR, but then why is T quoting from QP, knowing that it's been more than well demonstrated that CW can't translate Greek? Oh that's right, because according to T he "won't be reading QP or the QP reviews because I find my best use of time is study Yah's inspired word(TPP), not the witness (and non-witness) writings."

First to point out: if he hasn't read QP, why is he quoting a huge section from it (and how did he know that section was there to begin with if he hasn't read it?), and why is he really refusing to read the QP reviews? Because he'd rather study the TPP rather than the RC/NT? That's such a pathetic excuse when you quote from QP as if it was 100% true. It is "wilful ignorance" on T's part because then it calls into question all of CW's translations, and therefore all his commentary.

It also doesn't help that T appears to be unable to read Hebrew, therefore making the "study" of the TPP an impossibility. Someone may have the Logos Bible Software package, but that means jack-all when it comes to being able to study the Hebrew and Aramaic text (and Greek text I might add) of the TPP. Being able to use Logos Bible Software does not a translation - nor a translator - make; which is also CW's problem also, hence why his translations of the TPP don't actually follow the text as it is fully written in the TPP.

Unfortunately, whether willingly or unwillingly I am unable to pass judgement, CW has been turned into a kinda "Pope" figure, with his own ambassador bishops, forum deacons, and personal laity, who hang onto his every word and spout his translations and commentary as if CW was himself Yah's representative on earth, or as you've said Royce, "he is something special".

Whatever's speaking to CW, it seems to be incapable of getting its facts right or to CW properly, or inspiring translational competence.

Doesn't sound like Yah to me. How about the rest of you?

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Rob » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:08 pm

I can't really speak for who did 911 - I have not seen this evidence you speak of. I have heard pretty much all the versions though.

I don't doubt Craig's passion and I don't mind what he wants to believe - I mean at the end of the day we can all live without Paul, Paul is a non-issue here. The issue is accuracy, truth and honesty. Added to that is influence, which Craig - because of all the work he has done - has led people to be very quick to accept what he says as fact.

Craig has always kept to "Don't take my word for it" so frankly I am not, and I would advise other people to do that too. Not because I think Craig is evil, I don't. I just think on the matter of Paul he is mistaken - and being mistaken is something I know Craig doesn't want to be.

One man's belief is his own, but influencing others or being influenced by one point of view because of who that person is, is never a good place to be.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by Royce » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I think CW readers like to feel like since he has broken the DSS down and added a bunch of personal commentary about his opinion on the scriptures that Craig must be correct on all this. I personally am not a fan but the thing that gets me about him is his hatred for muslims has blinded him of his objectivity and ability to accept evidence. For instance he believes they did 911 after so much evidence and many scientists as well as others have come out with info that at the very least makes you know that the ones that did this were allowed by those in control of security and air traffic. And supposedly our creator speaks to him as if he is something special. Its comical really.

Re: The discussion continues

Post by TWTY-Admin » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:00 pm

Gonna do this in stages, as I don't have time to do everything in one post.

Just to pick on a few things:
Τ: And if you seriously think Yah would ever 'command' His children versus intruct them, then you don't even know Him.
Then Yah made a poor choice in using the Hebrew word mitswah, which is a derivative of tsawah meaning "to command, charge, give orders, lay charge, give charge to, order (Strongs #H6680)" (for the record: Yah didn't make a poor choice - He never does). Nouns come from verbs, so if tsawah means "to command" (eg Exodus 1:22: Then Pharaoh commanded (tsawah) all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”) then mitswah is "commandment".

However, as I did also say in my comment on mitswah: "It could also mean "ordinance, instruction, and prescription", all of which would've been the accurate and amplified translation of the word", I wasn't saying it *only* meant commandment - it has several meanings, all of which are usually meant. Just because "command" has a negative connotation in today's world, it doesn't have to contain such a thing. Nevertheless, parents do command their children ("Don't throw water on the TV; don't run out in front of a car; take a break from cleaning up"), but as far as I can see, there isn't much difference between a command or an instruction when it comes to parents & children - a command is usually an instruction to keep the child safe.

What I contended was mitswah meaning "the terms and conditions of Your relationship agreement" - that is the meaning of the word beriyth/covenant - and if Yah wanted to use beriyth, there's no reason why He couldn't've done so - He just didn't, so you can't just mix and match whatever the hell "translation" you want of words.

Furthermore, I did ask for someone to provide the source for CW's rendition of 'ahab, and I presumed that people would therefore provide one for the other words as well. If that can be done, I'd be more than willing to concede that I'd be wrong on this. However, going by the "because Craig Winn has said it so" is not sufficient. As with all things, most people require genuine evidence before they admit to being wrong; me being one of them

Top