[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.
2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.
3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”
4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;
6. Some of us more than others.
7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.
8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.
11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.
12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.
13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.
14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…
15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.
16. You guys are amongst these students.
17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.
18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

 

[Pixel42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels are not supported by studies on lateralization, as lateralization does not add specialized usage from either hemisphere.[2] Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes,[3] and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly-defined functional differences.[4]

 

[pakeha]

Everything has to be a multiple of a Planck length. Anything else would require such length to be divided and it's indivisible.

I find it's best not to think about Planck lengths. Certainly don't think about the universe hopping from Planck unit of time to Planck time with nothing in between. It literally makes me need to lie down and hug myself.

I know what you mean, Loss Leader.
Still, if there's anything that disorients me more than thinking about Planck lengths, it's wondering how it is there are people who dislike Marmite.

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.
2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.
3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”
4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;
6. Some of us more than others.
7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.
8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.
11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.
12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.
13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.
14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…
15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.
16. You guys are amongst these students.
17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.
18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

Jabba, does this mean you've not evolved your ideas on the subject in the least, even with the input given you here on this thread?

 

[Mojo]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.
2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.
3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”
4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;
6. Some of us more than others.
7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.
8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.
11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.
12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.
13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.
14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…
15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.
16. You guys are amongst these students.
17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.
18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

Please explain what this nonsense has to do with "essentially prov[ing] immortality using Bayesian statistics". Or, indeed, how it is anything more than an ad hominem argument aimed at anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Mojo]

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording...

...and the facts.

 

[Agatha]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.

Not really, no. Thinking is not as simple as that.

2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.

Incorrect.

3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”

No, that really is not how it works.

From Wiki:

Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels are not supported by studies on lateralization, as lateralization does not add specialized usage from either hemisphere.[2] Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes,[3] and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly-defined functional differences.[4]

4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

Yes, it's a tendency, but not as a broad divide between analytic and creative thinking, more a divide between control of the left and right sides of the body. As patients who have undergone a hemispherectomy can still be both creative and analytical, it is not nearly as simple as you imagine. Our brains exhibit bilateral symmetry of structure and of function.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;

You might want to define what you mean by this.

6. Some of us more than others.

Moot until you define it.

7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.

Nope.

8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

Absolute nonsense.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

O RLY?

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.

Schools of what? Infant schools? High school, art school, dance school, university courses in maths or in creative arts?

11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.

No. It really is not as simple as you make out.

12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.

No.

13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.

Codswallop, as evidenced by the many religious scientists and by the leaps of creativity required in pure research.

14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…

Insulting and wrong.

15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.

It really is not that simple, Jabba.

16. You guys are amongst these students.

Oh, you know the talents, professions, career progressions and religious views of everyone on this thread, do you?

17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy again.

19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

Insulting and wrong again.

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

You are having trouble with more than your wording. The brain is not nearly as simple as you make out, nor are people as neatly stratified as you would like them to be.

Akhenaten (may he post forever) was exactly right when he said your summary would be a re-run of a previous post, but I really didn't expect so much wrong science in your summary.

Now, even if any one of your 19 points were correct, what do any of those points have to do with "proving", "essentially proving" or even "showing evidence for" immortality?

ETA That post took me so long to type (with so many interruptions from real life) that I see Pixel42 made the same point about lateralisation that I did. Apologies, Pixel for plagiarising your post unintentionally.

 

[Slowvehicle]

-

I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.
2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.
3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”
4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;
6. Some of us more than others.
7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.
8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.
11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.
12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.
13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.
14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…
15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.
16. You guys are amongst these students.
17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.
18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I am sorry that this is likely to offend you, but if this is supposed to be practical, empirical, objective evidence that the "soul" exists (particularly in the way you describe it) and is "immortal" (particularly given all the different situations you are willing to call "immortal"), it does not serve.

In essence, you claim that the reason you believe in an "immortal soul" (and I do not) is that you are better at appreciating something you can experience (and I cannot) because you are better at appreciating it than I am.

Where, in any of that, is anything that could be mistaken as empirical, practical, objective evidence?

You have, by buying into the excluded middle of "either holistic or analytical", constructed a "straw vulcan"; you seem to be implying that the reason I do not perceive any evidence for the "soul" is that I am looking for evidence, instead of simply holistically accepting that transcendence, in its very nature, lies beyond evidence.

The things you imagine are convincing to you, without evidence, because you imagine that they are the kinds of transcendent things that do not need evidence. When someone asks you to present evidence for your imaginings, and all you can offer is the holistic claim that your imaginings are not subject to evidence due to their transcendent nature; you are not demonstrating the "purely analytical" failure of imagination that prevents understanding on the part of your interlocutor, but the failure of you imagination to reflect reality.

You could have saved us a year and a half, by admitting that you have no evidence, only your holistic awareness of transcendence.

Please explain how the transcendent concept of the"immortal soul" that may or may not be serially reincarnated can be used to explain the fact that there are more humans alive than there have ever been. Do they all have "souls"?

Please explain how the transcendent concept of the "soul" as something immaterially "other" than an emergent property of the specific neurosystem in which it is found explains, or even addresses, the observed fact that trauma to the material neurosystem affects, sometimes critically, the immaterial "soul", and that extinguishing the neurosystem gives every evidence of extinguishing the "soul". Do you know what traumatic aphasia is?

I hope that you understand that I am not being dismissive.

If I have misstated your position, I hope you will hang in there and clarify--even if it turns out that it really is something you believe in a way that, to you, requires no evidence.

As it stands, it seems to me that you are claiming that the reason I do not understand that the soul exists is because I lack the understanding and imagination to accept that the soul exists, without evidence. Is that an accurate analysis of your position?

ETA: Agatha: you, and Pixel, and Paheka, and Mojo, all ninja-ed at least part of my post. Nothing like inhabiting overlapping signal spaces...thank you each and all (and those who are still composing) for helping state the issue in as many different ways as humanly possible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

19. It could be that they [those good at math and science and bundled off to Jabba's analytic camp] just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

 

[Mojo]

We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.

I suspect that you are here using the term "holistic" in the same sense that quacks use it. Meaning "unconnected with reality".

 

[Mojo]

It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ garden because they don’t see its ‘color.’ the fairies at the bottom of it.

FTFY (with acknowledgement to Douglas Adams).

 

[Sideroxylon]

I suspect that you are here using the term "holistic" in the same sense that quacks use it. Meaning "unconnected with reality".

A line trotted out by people who believe all kinds of things that fail to clear the hurdle of rigorous scientific examination.

 

[Garrette]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.
2. These two ways are not the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.
3. One person thinks “analytically”; the other thinks in a manner he calls “holistically” but which is really just insular.
4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;
6. Some of us more than others.
7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.
8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.
11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.
12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.
13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.
14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…
15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.
16. You guys are amongst these students.
17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.
18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – in accordance with reality and in accordance with our desires regardless of reality.

2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.

3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”

4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.


5. Most of us humans can experience – under the appropriate physical, psychological, or pharmacological circumstances – something that the desire-thinkers call “transcendence”.

6. Some of us more than others.

7. The evolutionary result of the brain’s development is the cause of that experience.

8. The desire-thinkers are prone to believe that the physically, psychologically, or pharmacologically induced experience is representative of something outside them, despite the lack of evidence for such a conclusion and the reams of evidence against it.


9. A belief in transcendence may be one of the roots of religion, though a desire to bring order to the unknown darkness may also be a root as may be an early recognition of the opportunity to use belief to consolidate power; there are likely other possible roots, too.


10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side. Interestingly, so do the successful “Eastern” schools.

11. Desire-thinkers tend not to do well at all in any school with requirements for evidence.

12. Desire-thinkers tend to equate belief with knowledge.

13. Desire-thinkers tend to use the experience they call transcendence to avoid the hard work.

14. They see neither trees nor forests and pretend it is wisdom.

15. These students become those who use the tools provided by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, and pretend that everyone else is the problem.


16. You are not even a student; a student learns when information is thoughtfully and repeatedly provided and explained.

17. This could explain why education leads to an appreciation of reality as opposed to a presentation of one’s emotional meanderings as if they were fact.

18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are right just because they ignore fact.

19. It could be that they understand neither flower nor color but act as if their emotions entitle them to pretend otherwise.


Now I am sure there are shortcomings in my rewriting of your post, Jabba, but I’ll still stack it against yours anyday to see which conforms more closely to reality. Your blathering about “Western” schools and students is simply unrelated to fact at all. Check the PISA 2012 findings for a wake-up.

Everything else is simply your inner 14 year old, incapable of realizing that his insight really isn’t insightful after all, whining to the adults that they should listen because after all, he’s 14 and knows these things while adults are jaded.

One last point: I don’t mind it as I really do have thick skin and I have not been entirely civil to you lately, but if you cannot recognize that this post of yours is a fantastically rude and insulting post, then you truly do live in a dream world, particularly since it is so factually off base.



ETA: Expertly ninja'd by nearly everyone else, especially Sideroxylon, Agatha, and Slowvehicle. My post isn't wrong, but theirs are better.

 

[Garrette]

I've seen that before, but it's been so long I had forgotten. It makes me want to shake people like Jabba who pretend a deeper insight. Feynman was perhaps the pinnacle of it, but scientists and non-scientists who simply enjoy learning (I think I'm one of those) tend, in my experience, to actually enjoy and appreciate natural beauty much more than the poseurs who talk of transcendence; those people are the Feng Shui fakers of interior design.

There are exceptions, of course. My mother has taught music all her life and sews for the Kentucky Opera. She barely graduated high school and only got her Bachelor's in Music when she was well past 50. She can truly enjoy beauty around her without the factual background to analyze it. I've known a few others like that, too, so it isn't unique to analytic thinkers, but analytic thinking most definitely adds to the ability to appreciate as opposed to detracts from it.

 

[Loss Leader]

18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…
19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

Translation: "I have a special ability to see things you can't and am, likewise, better than you."

Jabba, please answer this: If you drew a straight flush in Pai Gow Poker in Atlantic City on a $5 bet, would you refuse the $40,000 payout because it is more likely that the game is rigged?

 

[Aepervius]

Please explain what this nonsense has to do with "essentially prov[ing] immortality using Bayesian statistics". Or, indeed, how it is anything more than an ad hominem argument aimed at anyone who disagrees with you.

It is simple it is a childish "you can't see it because you are too dumb in your brain and I am better than you, nananere-nurfnurf" just wrapped in a nice language.

 

[Garrette]

Translation: "I have a special ability to see things you can't and am, likewise, better than you."

Jabba, please answer this: If you drew a straight flush in Pai Gow Poker in Atlantic City on a $5 bet, would you refuse the $40,000 payout because it is more likely that the game is rigged?

It is an excellent question.

It is simple it is a childish "you can't see it because you are too dumb in your brain" just wrapped in a nice language.

Yep. Jabba has never outgrown his epiphanic 14 year old.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is simple it is a childish "you can't see it because you are too dumb in your brain and I am better than you, nananere-nurfnurf" just wrapped in a nice language.

I must study at your feet, wordmaster. Teach me your ways...

 

[Akhenaten]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.

Spam.

- Here, in summary, my claim is that

We'll just add "summary" to the list of words you need to look up, shall we?

1. We humans have two different ways of thinking – analytically, and holistically.

That you can think of only two says more about your own limited ability to view reality than it does about the human condition.

One can't help but notice that 'irrationally', for instance, is missing from your little list.

There are as many ways of thinking as there are people, Jabba. Your glib, pop-sci approach to this matter disrespects all of them.

2. These two ways are the result of having two cerebral hemispheres that process data differently.

You start being wrong by referring to 'these two ways' and then head further into the Failiverse with your antiquated view of cerebrology and neurology.

3. One hemisphere thinks “analytically”; the other thinks “holistically.”

No.

4. Most of us humans tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.

No.

5. Most of us humans can sense – or, imagine – something we call “transcendence”;

That's because imagination transcends reality.

6. Some of us more than others.

Some of us appear to be bogarting.

7. The holistic hemisphere is responsible for that sense – or, that illusion.

How many list points are you going to spin this erroneous belief into?

8. The analytic hemisphere is either “transcendence blind” – or, immune to the illusion.

For that matter, why do you insist on turning single sentences into lists in the first place?

Do you still have no idea how (much more than normally) scatterbrained it makes your arguments look?

9. A belief in transcendence is what turns a philosophy into a religion.

Again, you completely disregard the 'stark raving mad' option.

10. “Western” schools teach mostly towards the analytic side.

Have you also missed that everyone reading your posts understands that "scare quotes" mean that "Jabba is making this up"?

11. Students dominated by the analytic hemisphere tend to do better in western schools than do students dominated by the holistic hemisphere.

1. This is:
   
   
   • quite simply
     
     
   • not true.
   
   
2. It beggars belief that:
   
   
   • you
     
     
   • have
     
     
   • turned
     
     
   • a single
     
     
     • albeit serious
       
       
     • mistaken belief
     
     
   • into
     
     
   • an entire
     
     
   • list of:
     
     
     • utter
       
       
     • fail.

12. Analytic students tend to do especially well in mathematics and science.

Where do our Captain Obviouses come from, Captain?

13. They tend to have no appreciation for “transcendence” or religion.

As a direct consequence of which things like large hadron colliders, space shuttles and antibiotics work much better than they would if shamans and priests were developing them.

14. They don’t see much forest; they mostly see trees…

You really need to "leave" this "wooden" thinking behind, Jabba, and "branch" out a little.

15. These students become our mathematicians and scientists.

And the rest are doomed to repeat, ad nauseam, a perpetual chagrin at their exclusion from this group.

16. You guys are amongst these students.

You have, demonstrably, not the faintest idea who we are.

17. This could explain why most atheists are well-educated.

You have this arse about, as usual.

18. And, we needn’t conclude that they are atheists because they are smarter…

Saves time though.

19. It could be that they just don’t appreciate the ‘flower’ because they don’t see its ‘color.’

Tell that to Gregor Mendel next time your immortal self bumps into him. I'm sure he'd be amused.

- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

How can you be having trouble with the wording of something that you've just cut and pasted from somewhere else?

In any case, the wording is irrelevant (and excruciatingly tedious). It's the whole train of thought behind the words that's megaborked.

 

[Aepervius]

I must study at your feet, wordmaster. Teach me your ways...

Please. No. The correct term is wordsmith .

But i am always happy to take new apprentice. the starting fee is 14.99 USD per week, but sicne you are so nice I will give you the "immortal" Rabat of 5 USD, so it will only be 9.99 USB per week.

 

[pakeha]

re4444444444f


Spam.






We'll just add "summary" to the list of words you need to look up, shall we?






That you can think of only two says more about your own limited ability to view reality than it does about the human condition.

One can't help but notice that 'irrationally', for instance, is missing from your little list.

There are as many ways of thinking as there are people, Jabba. Your glib, pop-sci approach to this matter disrespects all of them.






You start being wrong by referring to 'these two ways' and then head further into the Failiverse with your antiquated view of cerebrology and neurology.






No.






No.






That's because imagination transcends reality.






Some of us appear to be bogarting.






How many list points are you going to spin this erroneous belief into?






For that matter, why do you insist on turning single sentences sinto lists in the first place?

Do you still have no idea how (much more than normally) scatterbrained it makes your arguments look?






Again, you completely disregard the 'stark raving mad' option.






Have you also missed that everyone reading your posts understands that "scare quotes" mean that "Jabba is making this up"?

1. This is:
   
   
   • quite simply
     
     
   • not true.
   
   
2. It beggars belief that:
   
   
   • you
     
     
   • have
     
     
   • turned
     
     
   • a single
     
     
     • albeit serious
       
       
     • mistaken belief
     
     
   • into
     
     
   • an entire
     
     
   • list of:
     
     
     • utter
       
       
     • fail.

Where do our Captain Obviouses come from, Captain?






As a direct consequence of which things like large hadron colliders, space shuttles and antibiotics work much better than they would if shamans and priests were developing them.






You really need to "leave" this "wooden" thinking behind, Jabba, and "branch" out a little.






And the rest are doomed to repeat, ad nauseam, a perpetual chagrin at their exclusion from this group.






You have, demonstrably, not the faintest idea who we are.






You have this arse about, as usual.






Saves time though.






Tell that to Gregor Mendel next time your immortal self bumps into him. I'm sure he'd be amused.






How can you be having trouble with the wording of something that you've just cut and pasted from somewhere else?

In any case, the wording is irrelevant (and excruciatingly tedious). It's the whole train of thought behind the words that's

megaborked.

I lift a glass of Year IV in your honour, O Luminous One, for the new word.