More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

The Yes-side as seen by some of the no-side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms

Hope run_to_da_hills sees this -- jackboots at no extra charge!

Excellent stuff

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Arguments are made of two or more people explaining their points of view. If an argument has no explanations then there is no way for one side to convince the other that their way of thinking is right.

If it has no explaination, it is either subjective or axiomatic.

Premise: People didn't have a full understanding of the treaty by the time came to vote.
Conclusion: They voted no because they didn't understand what they were voting for.

40% voted no for that reason based on the "euro-crats".
However, what I have been trying to point out:
Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I am voting no

is in no way logical. Put it this way. People who gave out they couldn't read it, how many of those people have even ever read the constitution?

I believe that the Irish people where right for voting against the treaty because they didn't understand it (70% believing that the treaty would be easy to renegotiate is simply a result of the people not understanding the treaty, it stems from the same issue.).

It's evidence they haven't a clue about European politics, not just the Lisbon treaty.

I believe that the reason people didn't understood the treaty was because it was never properly argued against by the government. Most of the no vote campaigns where completely wrong, but the government and the referndum commission completely failed to make sure the people understood how wrong they where.

Well I believe it because they rarely read newspapers, follow politics, take a huge amount for granted and are just generally ignorant.

70% thought they treaty would be easy to re-negotiate, that's saying they haven't a clue about European Politics, not just Lisbon.

I also think there is an insular, selfish meme doing the rounds in our society right now. For Amsterdam and Maastrich, the ignorance levels were also high but it was clear we were getting the handouts, which swung those referenda.

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I am voting no

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: But I am voting yes anyway, because I was told to.

I hope you find the above over-simplification as insulting as your own post.

Like yourself, I don't think many of the 'no' voters would have read the treaty text in it's entirety. The important point for many people however, was not that they would have read the text if it was available, but that a readable form of the text was deliberately not made available. That sort of political opacity should ring alarm bells for anyone.

I'm just back from a holiday in France and Belgium.
The French people I spoke to all said that the treaty would have been rejected there IF they'd been given the vote they'd been promised. (Not that I spoke to any of your contemporaries in the French intellectual and political elite you understand, just ordinary ignorant people.) One French teacher I spoke to at length felt that France was happy with the current level of European integration and wasn't ready as a society to take the next step. The precipitous centralisation of political power in the EU would only drive more people toward the extreme left and right.
Irish people employed in various EU bodies in Brussels, are less than happy with their new roles as EU lepers. Their main complaint was timing, as the Czech parliament was almost certainly going to fail to ratify the treaty, hence their singular support for the Irish vote.
Czech support
If only the Irish vote had been scheduled for after the Czech decision, it would have deflected the EU's wrath away from from us.

The only consensus was that the next 6 months under the 'reign of terror' of King Nicolas I, would be a rather interesting time for Ireland.

robindch

Obni wrote: »

a readable form of the text was deliberately not made available.

Where did you hear this? Apart from the refcom's short guide, the consolidated text -- all quite easy to read -- was available on the internet for over a month before the referendum.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: But I am voting yes anyway, because I was told to.

I hope you find the above over-simplification as insulting as your own post.

No insulting. Daft.

Like yourself, I don't think many of the 'no' voters would have read the treaty text in it's entirety.

Before you ponder that, you should ask yourself how many people have read the constitution in its entirety?

The important point for many people however, was not that they would have read the text if it was available, but that a readable form of the text was deliberately not made available. That sort of political opacity should ring alarm bells for anyone.

Incorrect there was a referendum commission set up.

I'm just back from a holiday in France and Belgium.
The French people I spoke to all said that the treaty would have been rejected there IF they'd been given the vote they'd been promised. (Not that I spoke to any of your contemporaries in the French intellectual and political elite you understand, just ordinary ignorant people.) One French teacher I spoke to at length felt that France was happy with the current level of European integration and wasn't ready as a society to take the next step. The precipitous centralisation of political power in the EU would only drive more people toward the extreme left and right.

Anecedotes. My friend prayed and his flu went away.
Sarkozy went to the electorate and said his intentions vis a vi Europe and was elected. Some of that treaty was giving more power to local parliaments. So I wonder how much research your friend anecdotes did or were they similar to the 70% of the people here who thought the treaty would be easy to re-negotiate.

The only consensus was that the next 6 months under the 'reign of terror' of King Nicolas I, would be a rather interesting time for Ireland.

Bizarre.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If it has no explaination, it is either subjective or axiomatic.

If an argument has no explanation and is subjective then it is a baseless opinion. If an argument has no explanation and is axiomatic then why is there an argument?

So you believe that:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I am voting no

is in no way logical and yet you believe that:

Obni wrote:

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: But I am voting yes anyway, because I was told to.

is daft. What other alternative is there?

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What other alternative is there?

Not to vote?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If an argument has no explanation and is subjective then it is a baseless opinion. If an argument has no explanation and is axiomatic then why is there an argument?

So you believe that:

is in no way logical and yet you believe that:


is daft. What other alternative is there?

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I shouldn't vote.

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I should read some newspapers and / or check the referendum commission.

On another note, how many people do you think have read and have a good knowledge of the constitution? I would guess 5%.
Do you not find it a bit odd, people giving out about understanding the treaty or not understanding the treaty, when surely the constitution should take precedence as that is what being change and what the big deal is about?

Sounds like cart before horse to me.

Obni

robindch wrote: »

Where did you hear this? Apart from the refcom's short guide, the consolidated text -- all quite easy to read -- was available on the internet for over a month before the referendum.

The original format was available from 17th Dec 2007, and it was decided at the preceding inter-governmental conference (in Oct 2007, I believe) that a consolidated version would not be placed on general release, and that meant anywhere in Europe not just Ireland. Only after pressure from political activists groups throughout Europe was the consolidated version released; long after independent groups had released their own consolidated versions.

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I shouldn't vote.

Dades wrote:

Not to vote?

More support for the EU's democratic deficit :rolleyes:

Let's face it the Yes camp is made up of

1. Yes, I understand the treaty and approve of it.
2. I don't understand the treaty fully, but I'm voting Yes because my less than full understanding is being bolstered by sources I trust.
3. I don't understand the treaty fully, but I'm voting Yes because my less than full understanding is being motivated against sources I distrust.
4. I don't understand the treaty at all, but I've been influenced to vote Yes by sources I trust.

And the No camp

1. No, I understand the treaty and disapprove of it.
2. I don't understand the treaty fully, but I'm voting No because my less than full understanding is being bolstered by sources I trust.
3. I don't understand the treaty fully, but I'm voting No because my less than full understanding is being motivated against sources I distrust.
4. I don't understand the treaty at all, but I've been influenced to vote No by sources I trust.

Suggesting that those not in group 1 should simply not vote is elitist and reprehensible.
I accept that the majority of No voters are a mixture of 2&3, but the same must be said of the Yes voters. Your suggestion that all No voters are in group 4 is facile.
However, even if that were the case it does not reduce the validity of their vote one iota.
That's democracy for you!

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

Suggesting that those not in group 1 should simply not vote is elitist and reprehensible.

Argument by assertion. If you don't know, express that by neither voting yes or no. Spoil or abstain.

I accept that the majority of No voters are a mixture of 2&3, but the same must be said of the Yes voters. Your suggestion that all No voters are in group 4 is facile.

It's evidence based.
70% thought another treaty would be easy to renegotiate.

Where's your evidence?

However, even if that were the case it does not reduce the validity of their vote one iota.
That's democracy for you!

It's actually ignorance subverting democracy.

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Argument by assertion.

No, I was countering your very clear assertion...

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Premise: I don't understand this treaty
Conclusion: I shouldn't vote.

.. that people shouldn't vote unless they understand the treaty.

Evidence based?
I checked the poll from which you seem to draw your figures.
I read that 76% of NO voters (and 38% of YES voters!) agreed with the statement "The NO vote will allow the Irish government to renegotiate exceptions for Ireland". Not quite the same as ...

70% thought another treaty would be easy to renegotiate.

Not another treaty, just exceptions to this one (cf. Nice), and not 'easy' just allowed.

You are right that I have no evidence for my claim about the majority of people in both camps casting their votes based on a mixture of their own understanding of the issue, plus influences from what they regard as positive and negative sources within the campaign and campaign coverage. I hardly expected such a claim to be considered contentious, simply a general statement of how I believe most people vote in most elections.

Given that 52% of YES voters only made up their minds in the last weeks, and that 25% of the YES voters flipped during the campaign suggests that YES voters were influenced by something other than their own opinions.

So, where exactly is your evidence for the claim that the NO vote is made up substantially of those who did not understand the treaty. Only 22% gave it as their reason. I am aware that the NO camp contains some complete nut-jobs and some of the vilest elements of our society, and I would concede that it may contain more of such people than the YES camp, but don't tar us all with the same brush and above all don't compare us to creationists.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

No, I was countering your very clear assertion...

If you want to rebutt the argument the people who don't know should spoil or abstain, given there is no don't know option, only yes or no, you should argue that not by calling people who disagree with you elitist.

It's nonsense. Ideally there should be a don't know option. But without that abstaining or spoiling would be next closest. An argument for no because you don't know, has no more merit than an argument for yes because you don't know.

Evidence based?
I checked the poll from which you seem to draw your figures.
I read that 76% of NO voters (and 38% of YES voters!) agreed with the statement "The NO vote will allow the Irish government to renegotiate exceptions for Ireland". Not quite the same as ...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0620/1213810634170.html

"A survey of 2,000 voters conducted by the European Commission immediately after the vote revealed that more than 70 per cent of those who voted No believed the treaty could easily be renegotiated."

But you are right the word "easy" is not mentioned in:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

But I don't think that really changes the meaning.

So, where exactly is your evidence for the claim that the NO vote is made up substantially of those who did not understand the treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0618/1213735259853.html

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's nonsense. Ideally there should be a don't know option. But without that abstaining or spoiling would be next closest. An argument for no because you don't know, has no more merit than an argument for yes because you don't know.

Not voting will just allow other people to make decisions for you, which kind of defeats the point in having a public referendum.

A don't know option would be just an official way to spoil your vote if there wasn't a limit to how many "don't knows" they got before they had to block the treaty (or whatever was being being voted for).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0620/1213810634170.html

"A survey of 2,000 voters conducted by the European Commission immediately after the vote revealed that more than 70 per cent of those who voted No believed the treaty could easily be renegotiated."

But you are right the word "easy" is not mentioned in:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

But I don't think that really changes the meaning.

You do realise that that Irish Times article you refer to is actually misquoting that poll that you've also refered to. You can't make the ascertion that this means they meant that the treaty would be easy to renegotiate.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not voting will just allow other people to make decisions for you, which kind of defeats the point in having a public referendum.

Well then get informed. Voting no, just because you don't know, means ruining a proper referendum because you're ignorant.

You do realise that that Irish Times article you refer to is actually misquoting that poll that you've also refered to. You can't make the ascertion that this means they meant that the treaty would be easy to renegotiate.

If you read what I say I said the word "easy" was not actual in the commission's poll. Although many would say the word is implicitly there.

Have you read "Cool It" yet?

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But you are right the word "easy" is not mentioned ... but I don't think that really changes the meaning.

Oh no, it changes the meaning significantly. It sits well with the general thrust of Waters' piece, that the people voting NO had no real grasp of, or concern about, the implications of their actions. If you want to demand sound evidence and authoritative impartial sources from others, then don't drag Waters into it, as the basis of your arguments. Why mention 'xenophobic sentiment' in a balanced article based on a poll where immigration was the motivation for 1% of the NO vote? :mad:

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you read what I say I said the word "easy" was not actual in the commission's poll. Although many would say the word is implicitly there.

Many? Who? You, John Waters and his dead dad?
Personally, I thought the phrase 'difficult but regrettably necessary renegotiation' was implicit in the wording of the poll.

How would a 'don't know' vote work?
YES + DK > NO then Treaty is accepted?
NO + DK > YES then Treaty is rejected ?
(Which is what seems to have happened anyway!)

If you had ongoing concerns about some of the issues under the Lisbon Treaty, concerns not convincingly addressed by the Yes camp, and were unhappy about the treaty going ahead until these issues are resolved then it was a perfectly rational decision to use your vote to block the progress of the treaty. At this point, I concede, there is little to choose between this argument for voting to block and your argument for abstaining when applied to any single voter.
However, a critical factor, made clear through the media, was that many other voters were in the same position. That lends weight to the validity of any individual's concerns. When you find yourself part of a significant minority that feel themselves effectively disenfranchised then it becomes imperative to express that sense through action.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

Oh no, it changes the meaning significantly. It sits well with the general thrust of Waters' piece, that the people voting NO had no real grasp of, or concern about, the implications of their actions. If you want to demand sound evidence and authoritative impartial sources from others, then don't drag Waters into it, as the basis of your arguments.

Waters is where I got more than 70% from which was factually correct. I agree the word "easily" wasn't in the poll, but I think it's implicit.

Why mention 'xenophobic sentiment' in a balanced article based on a poll where immigration was the motivation for 1% of the NO vote? :mad:

That's from a poll which only picks top choic. 70% of people could have had xenophobic sentiment as their second choice.

How would a 'don't know' vote work?
YES + DK > NO then Treaty is accepted?
NO + DK > YES then Treaty is rejected ?
(Which is what seems to have happened anyway!)

If I had my way, take away their vote, make them pay more tax, until they are well informed. Personally, I'd like to see people answer a few multiple choice questions before they got they priviledge to vote.

If you had ongoing concerns about some of the issues under the Lisbon Treaty, concerns not convincingly addressed by the Yes camp, and were unhappy about the treaty going ahead until these issues are resolved then it was a perfectly rational decision to use your vote to block the progress of the treaty.

Ok, you're getting annoying now. You are totally missing the point. Yeah fine vote No if you can articulate exactly what's wrong and what's the solution.
For example, Ireland got an opt out close on security and asylum protocols in that treaty. If the no camp could coherently articulate the problem, then that would be very rational and constructive.

But unfortunately most of the reasons from the no camp and no voters are unintelligble and they have created a political impasse. A right mess.

Morans.

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote:

Morans.

Hmm, I voted yes and I really can't get over the reaction in this thread.

Why is Creationism and Lisbon even being linked - and especially in the Atheist Forum?

There does seem to be one link in common, which is that some people just like to lord it over others. It screams of 'Look at me, I'm smart and you're dumb.'

Some atheists here like the *look at the Christians they're so stupid approach* rather than thinking about what atheism means for them. The fact that some here want to link lisbon to Christians only highlights how atheism appears as a condescending fad. If it isn't religion it would be education, money, my shiny new car and so on. Shallow really.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

Why is Creationism and Lisbon even being linked - and especially in the Atheist Forum? There does seem to be one link in common, which is that some people just like to lord it over others. It screams of 'Look at me, I'm smart and you're dumb.'

Er, have you actually read the thread?

Try this post from the start if the linkage isn't very clear.

Tim Robbins

JCB wrote: »

The fact that some here want to link lisbon to Christians only highlights how atheism appears as a condescending fad. If it isn't religion it would be education, money, my shiny new car and so on. Shallow really.

I think if you've read the thread, you'd see, the angle that myself (and others) are coming from that some no voters are far more annoying than creationists. Now how many Christians are creationists, not many. In fact, one similarity which may make this easier to understand, if you don't want to read the thread, is that many christians find creationists embarrassing. As an Irish person, I find many no voters embarrasing. We are rich country. We are supposed to have good educational system. We are supposed to be part of a knowledge economy. And we have people subverting the European project because they can't / don't read newspapers and are too lazy to get up off their fat asses and get informed.

JCB

robindch wrote: »

Er, have you actually read the thread?

Try this post from the start if the linkage isn't very clear.

Yes I did read the thread and no I still don't see the link as valid.

Lisbon was a matter of opinion not scientific fact. I'm sure there were valid reasons for voting either way.

Again people here seem to have a problem with confusing their opinion with scientific fact though.

Tim Robbins

JCB wrote: »

Yes I did read the thread and no I still don't see the link as valid.

Lisbon was a matter of opinion not scientific fact. I'm sure there were valid reasons for voting either way.

Again people here seem to have a problem with confusing their opinion with scientific fact though.

No-one said it was scientific fact. What I would expect is an intelligent reason not just pin the donkey, protest voting or Jim Corr conspiracy theories.

We've stalled the European project? For what. Can you articulate one good reason? Because we look like a pack of fools.

robindch

JCB wrote: »

Yes I did read the thread and no I still don't see the link as valid.

<gives up>.

gramlab

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If I had my way, take away their vote, make them pay more tax, until they are well informed. Personally, I'd like to see people answer a few multiple choice questions before they got they priviledge to vote.

Thankfully we are living in Ireland and not Robbinsland.

True - a lot of no voters may not have been be well informed about the treaty and may not have voted for the "correct" reasons. Conversely a lot of yes voters probably didn't read up on it much either.

But I'd say they were about as well informed as they would be during a general election vote. Should each voter have to research and scrutinise each candidate in detail before voting for a person/party - No
They usually vote based on the info at hand and in the case of a reeferendum the government have a big say in what that is, but for this one they made a c*c* up. The no camp didn't really have to do much bar playing on peoples fears, which were not allayed by the government.

Democracy may be capable of throwing up some strange results but thankfully we do have it

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No-one said it was scientific fact.

I think it's important you remember that.

Rejection of Creationism is as close to scientific fact as we can get atm. Perhaps you may be justified calling people 'misguided' when they ignore scientific observation but not on Lisbon which is a matter of opinion.

Just because you voted yes in Lisbon gives you no licence to call anyone morons.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What I would expect is an intelligent reason not just pin the donkey, protest voting or Jim Corr conspiracy theories.

We've stalled the European project? For what. Can you articulate one good reason? Because we look like a pack of fools.

It's not my job to come up with reasons to vote no when I voted yes but such issues are matters of opinion.Sure you can be frustrated at the outcome but you are no better than anyone else. Judging others and condemning them as morons on this MOP issue is incredibly intolerant. But maybe it's because i'm a Christian that this bothers me.

Tim Robbins

gramlab wrote: »

But I'd say they were about as well informed as they would be during a general election vote. Should each voter have to research and scrutinise each candidate in detail before voting for a person/party - No.

They should know the basics no matter what they are voting for.
For general elections, yes you get ignorance, apathy, selfishness also but I really don't think it's comparable to the asinine ignorance we got from the Lisbon referendum.
Most people usually know one or two local issues and one or two national issues. For Europe, they can no next to nada.
Also, no matter what the outcome of a general election, it rarely corrects a political impasse to the degree we have created from this no vote.

They usually vote based on the info at hand and in the case of a reeferendum the government have a big say in what that is, but for this one they made a c*c* up. The no camp didn't really have to do much bar playing on peoples fears, which were not allayed by the government.

Agree the government were poor. But surely, people read newspapers, watch political programs, discuss issues with their friends.

Government can only takes its share, it's people who are ultimately responsible.

Democracy may be capable of throwing up some strange results but thankfully we do have it

Agree. But it can be subverted by ignorance which is what we have done to it.

Tim Robbins

JCB wrote: »

Just because you voted yes in Lisbon gives you no licence to call anyone morons.

If people create a massive political impasse and can't give an intelligent reason why they did it, or what's their better idea, it does in fact.

Creationists don't effect my job chances, stability in the Europe does.

It's not my job to come up with reasons to vote no when I voted yes but such issues are matters of opinion.Sure you can be frustrated at the outcome but you are no better than anyone else. Judging others and condemning them as morons on this MOP issue is incredibly intolerant. But maybe it's because i'm a Christian that this bothers me.

I don't suffer fools when it negatively impacts my life and the common good. What should I? You can take your toleration as far you like, but it's meaningless. What would be helpful would to find a way out of the political impasse. It would be helpful if the morans who decided to put us there provided some constructive help. But alas that's not forthcoming.

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If people create a massive political impasse and can't give an intelligent reason why they did it, or what's their better idea, it does in fact.

Creationists don't effect my job chances, stability in the Europe does.


I don't suffer fools when it negatively impacts my life and the common good. What should I? You can take your toleration as far you like, but it's meaningless. What would be helpful would to find a way out of the political impasse. It would be helpful if the morans who decided to put us there provided some constructive help. But alas that's not forthcoming.

All of that is grand - I am not arguing with you on the Lisbon Issues - but I am still interested to know why you opened the thread to link it to Creationism and by extention Christians.

If you had a problem with Lisbon you'd post it on the Lisbon forum, but no, you insisted on linking your opinion to a recognised scientific fact to give you more credibility when you really wanted to say
'I think people who voted no to lisbon are morons, but it's only my opinion so i'll link it with the stupid christians to give it a bit more weight than my insignificant opinion alone ever could'

Can you explain why this isn't intellectual snobbery?

Tim Robbins

JCB wrote: »

All of that is grand - I am not arguing with you on the Lisbon Issues - but I am still interested to know why you opened the thread to link it to Creationism and by extention Christians.

Because the reasons I was hearing for voting no were as intellectually bereft as creationism. As for "by extention Christians". That's very disingenious.
Most Christian Churches do not support creationism. In fact, as I said many Christians find Creationists an embarrassment.

I also like to throw the odd thread here on a topical issue. I did the same for the US election and the general election.

Most regulars don't seem to have a problem with this.

If you had a problem with Lisbon you'd post it on the Lisbon forum, but no, you insisted on linking your opinion to a recognised scientific fact to give you more credibility when you really wanted to say
'I think people who voted no to lisbon are morons, but it's only my opinion so i'll link it with the stupid christians to give it a bit more weight than my insignificant opinion alone ever could'

Can you explain why this isn't intellectual snobbery?

Don't worry. I was also on the political forums. If you want to call me an intellectual snob, fine but don't preach to me for calling no voters or creationists morans.

JCB

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because the reasons I was hearing for voting no were as intellectually bereft as creationism.

...the same creationism which is scientifically acknowledged to be false. Of course it's intellectually bereft to provide arguments against a widely observed and accepted scientific theory. I would imagine there are some not intellectually bereft reasons to vote no - since as with most political documents there is no definitive opinion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

As for "by extention Christians". That's very disingenious.

Well creationism is related to Christians, it's not a religion onto itself.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Most Christian Churches do not support creationism. In fact, as I said many Christians find Creationists an embarrassment.

Hmm, I don't see that mentioned half enough around here, though i am confident you will lead the way Tim Robbins.

I also like to throw the odd thread here on a topical issue. I did the same for the US election and the general election.

Most regulars don't seem to have a problem with this.

Maybe you should have posted this in the Christian Forum then considering creationism is a Christian issue? Perhaps also with a more balanced title?

'Atheist response to Lisbon Rejection' would be more accurate here on the topical issue don't you think? Though perhaps the creationism reference was just for comic value with no malice or intellectual snobbery intended?

tim robbins wrote:

If you want to call me an intellectual snob, fine but don't preach to me for calling no voters or creationists morans.

Hmm, so it's ok for me to 'judge' you but not to give out about you 'judging' others based on your opinion on lisbon?

I was doing the latter btw i have no interest in labeling you.

Judging creationists who ignore science is a different matter. But maybe you weren't aware of the difference before starting the thread. I trust you:pac: