Rouser's thought processes

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I never heard of homeopathic water being irradiated anyway. Have you?

If you don't know what this is all about, it would help to read the passage from the 22nd August 2003 Commentary which started it all.

Quote:

This item, they tell us, appeared on a website with timely advice for anyone traveling with homeopathic remedies:

"Try not to put homeopathic remedies through airport security x-rays as it will render their healing properties less effective." You should also "pack them well away from strong-smelling substances, i.e. essential oils, perfume, after-shave, toothpaste etc."

But this gives us a really simplified way of designing and carrying out a test of these materials! It's been tricky working out how to perform this simple inquiry: can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials? We'll accept positive results and the determination can be done by any means: chemical, physical, optical, biological (in vivo or in vitro), using infrared, ultraviolet, polarized, high-intensity, or pulsed light, conductivity or electrochemical means, Tarot cards, or a crystal ball. Now, in view of this newest technological breakthrough — which says that x-rays will lessen the homeopathic qualities — and assuming that a very heavy dose of x-ray treatment would effectively cancel out any such qualities — I propose that a control batch of water (bottles of already-packaged product, exposed to heavy x-rays) be mixed with non-radiated samples, and presented to an applicant, to be sorted out.

The part of this which states the basic challenge ("can the applicant differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic materials?") was quoted to Rouser when he refused to believe that this ability was actually covered by the Challenge.

He latched on to the x-ray scanner part of it, and replied,

Quote:

Well then, if non-radiated samples are to be mixed with radiated samples then the radiated samples would have more radiation than the non-radiated samples, presumeably detectable with a radiation detection device.

Now this simply evades the point completely, the more so since I just this minute noticed the very last sentence from the Commentary article:

Quote:

Yes, I thought of the possible residual radiation. There are ways around that….

Which shows that Randi saw this as a conceivable loophole which he would ensure was closed.

However, the question as to whether everyday materials such as glass, water, sugar, leather and so on would become x-ray emitters under any conceivable doses of x-rays (or even become radioactive in any way at all) is still at issue, thanks to Rouser. Just because Mr. Randi thought it was worth considering, certainly isn't proof that it could or would happen.

Anyone here which a good physics degree clear this up once and for all?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
JJ/Rofle/wayrad et all

Please don't be angry but I have found evidence that you are totally wrong and I suspect this is where Rouser found his evidence as well.

Irradiation & Gamma rays

You got me there! I really thought you'd found something! Aaaaggghh!

Edited to add: I see jj got there way first!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Quote:

Steve seems to be implying that if you really whacked the afotementioned bottle of homoeopathic nothingness with an eye-popping dose, you might cause some chemical change. I don't know if he's right or not. But I'm pretty confident that whatever that change might be, it wouldn't turn said bottle of medical fraud into an x-ray emitter.

I am sorry but I do not recall implying or saying the above. If you think I was implying it, please note I was not. The point of my diversion was that substances can be irradiated and as a result become radioactive with very high doses of radiation including by X-Rays. My left shoe during my visit to Brookhaven is an example. And no, contrary to what someone else said, I did not pick up any radioactive particles of dust or whatever. The bottom of my left shoe happened to be in the path of a beam of radiation and as a result become irradiated and radioactive.

Steve, that is exactly what you implied. You are stating that the actual material of your shoe became radioactive, rather than becoming contaminated with a radioactive isotope. Thus you are saying that the material of your shoe was transformed into a radioactive isotope. That is, it was chemically changed (well, nuclearly changed, if that's the right term, which it isn't, but you know what I mean).

(Remembering more from the medical physics courses now, got a distinction, but it was 30 years ago so maybe they found more colours of kryptonite I didn't know about....)

This is completely nuts! Anything that might do that to leather would make Hiroshima look like a vicarage tea-party.

Edited to add: Of course, the passage highlighted by BillHoyt.....

Quote:

Anyway I had to give up my shoes to a technician who then washed off the radiation with borax and water and then I got my shoes back.

.... completely proves utterly and certainly that what happened was that you picked up the radiation equivalent of a dog turd on your shoe, and it was safely washed off.

Sheesh, I must remember that Steve understands substantially less science than he'd like us to believe. And if ever we need that demonstrated, this lot has done a splendid job.

Rolfe

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I stand corrected, Darat. I didn't think anyone would invoke such a high authority as Professor S. Lee. My apologies, Steve, Rouser.

Does this mean that Steve now "finds himself transformed in times of stress into the dark personification of his repressed rage and fury"? Or maybe just his left shoe?

[Rolfe]

OK, thank you Steve. By demonstrating such utter sincerity in holding a completely daft belief pretty much identical to Rouser's, you have convinced me that it is possible to be this stupid, really.

Steve actually thought about it at a level Rouser didn't even attempt, and had the obvious solution (the contamination washed off) right there to hand, and had it all explained to him quite sensibly, and it's obvious he wasn't just trolling.... BUT HE STILL DIDN'T GET IT.

So what hope had Rouser, really?

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

Hmm so Rolfe, you are saying the radiation physics technician did not wash off the radiation on my shoe? And I was
hallucinating. Thanks for that. I suyggest you begin by starting to read all he health physicsts manuals and procedures you can find and get back to us.

Insofar as to what Rouser was probably referring to, and to which you were implying that I was implying, you probably were referring to the following description:


Tony Webb, Tim Lang and the London Food Commission, Food Irradiation - The myth and the reality rev ed. Thorsons, Wellingborough, UK 1990

Quote:

Page 23: 'When radiation strikes a material it transfers some of its energy. This energy transfer can cause the atoms and molecules to vibrate more rapidly. This results in heating, for example, of matter lying in the sunshine or cooking with a microwave oven. At a certain point on the energy spectrum, however, the radiation has sufficient energy to alter the atomic structure of the material it strikes. Molecules can break apart and recombine to form new and different materials. The process involves knocking electrons out of their orbit around the nucleus of the atom, leaving positively and negatively charged particles called 'ions'. Above this energy level the radiation is called 'ionising' radiation. The ions and what are called 'free radicals' -uncharged, highly reactive, single atoms or part of molecules - are chemically very active. They can initiate a wide range of chemical reactions which can alter the chemical structure of the irradiated material.'

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hmm so Rolfe, you are saying the radiation physics technician did not wash off the radiation on my shoe? And I was
hallucinating. Thanks for that. I suyggest you begin by starting to read all he health physicsts manuals and procedures you can find and get back to us.

Now I must know how Interesting Ian feels sometimes.

Steve, please. Nobody is doubting that somebody WIPED THE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL OFF YOUR SHOE.

However, your shoe did NOT become radioactive because it was exposed to ?-rays, you STEPPED IN SOMETHING THAT HAD A RADIOISOTOPE IN IT. That was material that emitted radioactivity that was STUCK to your shoe. That was wiped off. So it was gone. Even if it was an alpha emitter, it's highly unlikely that it was there long enough to get anything in your shoe going. Light elements tend to be very unstable except in the stable isotopic form, as well, so a light element "off by 4, meaning 2p, 2n" would typically decay in nothing flat.

Were it your SHOE that became radioactive, wiping it WOULD HAVE DONE NO GOOD. The material of your SHOE, then, would emit radiation, and wiping it would do jack. If it was your shoe that was radioactive, not something stuck to it, they would have taken it, and YOU would have taken a trip to the clinic to make sure of YOUR condition. It would take exposure to particles, not photons, typically, to make your shoe radioactive, and that would have meant YOU were exposed rather nastily, too, which I'm quite glad you weren't.

[SteveGrenard]

1. Our group was issued protective shoe covers. These were taken from us when we left the hot area.

2. The bottom of my shoe was radioactive This was inside the booty. It was scrubbed with Borax soapy water. My socks were also contaminated so these were kept (I had to go home w/o socks).

I was also required to scrub my feet with the same solution they used on the shoe.
Fortunately I got to keep my left shoe and foot.

When I walked through the whole body thingie and it registered a problem I was gone over from head to foot with a hand held device which discovered the radiation on my protective covers, my shoe, my socks and my foot.

Yes I am sure it was something nasty but the health physicist was satisifed that they had sucessfully washed it off my shoe and my foot; there was no convenient way of doing so for my socks. If you visit the above cited safety site for working with radiation at Princeton, or any other for that matter, it appears that this is standard operating procedure in such a case.



--------------------------------------------------

Source: Prepared Statement of Dr. Henry C. Kelly, President, Federation of American Scientists. To Senate Foreign Relations Committee. March 6, 2002.

Quote:

Radioactive sources that emit intense gamma-rays, such as cobalt-60 and cesium-137, are useful in killing bacteria and cancer cells. Gamma-rays, like X-rays, can penetrate clothing, skin, and other materials, but they are more energetic and destructive. When these rays reach targeted cells, they cause lethal chemical changes inside the cell.

Gamma rays pose two types of health risks. Intense sources of gamma rays can cause immediate tissue damage, and lead to acute radiation poisoning. Fatalities can result from very high doses. Long-term exposure to low levels of gamma rays can also be harmful because it can cause genetic mutations leading to cancer. Triggering cancer is largely a matter of chance: the more radiation you're exposed to, the more often the dice are rolled. The risk is never zero since we are all constantly being bombarded by large amounts of gamma radiation produced by cosmic rays, which reach us from distant stars.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I was also required to scrub my feet with the same solution they used on the shoe.
Fortunately I got to keep my left shoe and foot.

Ahh. You stepped into something that got on your sock, Steve. Or it splashed on you, or something. Since you were apparently unaware of what it was, I'm obviously not going to pick that out.

It wasn't some kind of x-ray or something, it was a material substance. Since the sock absorbs, it went to a dump. The shoe didn't absorb much, apparently, so it was ok. Your foot you get to keep which is good.

Your quote on gamma radiation doesn't show that it makes something else radioactive, by the way, it simply shows that gamma radiation (which is photons, not matter particles) has chemical effects, (as opposed to nuclear effects) which is something I think we agree on.

And exposure to much is, indeed, bad.

Any photon that is "ionizing" to any serious extent can cause tissue damage. If it hits the right thing, which is purely a question of chance, it can cause very serious problems. Since we grew up in a mildly radioactive environment, our systems compensate pretty well, but not perfectly.

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
1. Our group was issued protective shoe covers. These were taken from us when we left the hot area.

2. The bottom of my shoe was radioactive This was inside the booty. It was scrubbed with Borax soapy water. My socks were also contaminated so these were kept (I had to go home w/o socks).

I was also required to scrub my feet with the same solution they used on the shoe.
Fortunately I got to keep my left shoe and foot.

When I walked through the whole body thingie and it registered a problem I was gone over from head to foot with a hand held device which discovered the radiation on my protective covers, my shoe, my socks and my foot.

OK, you either had something fall down inside your shoe cover, or it got a hole in it. Happens sometimes.

By the way, if you read your quote, it says nothing about irradiated substances becoming radioactive. It says they are ionized - quite a different matter and an essential part of ordinary chemistry. It isn't particularly good for living tissue to get ionized, which is why they got the stuff off you ASAP, but it certainly doesn't make it radioactive.

[SteveGrenard]

Wayrad:

Quote:

By the way, if you read your quote, it says nothing about irradiated substances becoming radioactive. It says they are ionized - quite a different matter and an essential part of ordinary chemistry. It isn't particularly good for living tissue to get ionized, which is why they got the stuff off you ASAP, but it certainly doesn't make it radioactive.

Then why did they determine they suceeded using a Geiger Counter?

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wayrad:




Then why did they determine they suceeded using a Geiger Counter?

To see if they had washed the radioactive material off that was stuck to your foot, of course!

edited to add: Positive reading= something radioactive present. Negative reading= radioactive substance removed. Now your shoe was still there. Isn't this a clue that the radioactive substance wasn't your shoe?

[SteveGrenard]

So some radioactive substance fell into my shoe and contaminated the shoe cover, the leather bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot. I am perplexed why it didnt contaminate the inside of the shoe but apparently it didn't.
They clearly obtained positive readings from the bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot.

Exactly how would such a radioactive substance be produced?

(Yes, I do not know what it was or what they thought it was as they were not telling me...they simply referred to it as "radiation").

[Zombified]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Exactly how would such a radioactive substance be produced?

There are basically two ways:

1. Refining ore that has a naturally occuring radioactive substances in it.

2. Bombarding a stable material with neutrons or some high-energy particle that interacts with the nucleus (most EM radiation interacts with electrons, not with the nucleus). Typically this is in a reactor of some sort, if you're using neutrons. If you are bombarding nuclei with high energy protons or electrons you can use a particle accelerator as well.

Quote:

(Yes, I do not know what it was or what they thought it was as they were not telling me...they simply referred to it as "radiation").

It's not uncommon to refer to radioactive materials that way, colloquially. But there are many kinds of radiation and they have different effects. I've tried not to use the term 'radiation' when I mean radioactive materials in these threads, just to keep this distinction clear.

Glad to hear you got cleaned off and suffered no ill effects.

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So some radioactive substance fell into my shoe and contaminated the shoe cover, the leather bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot. I am perplexed why it didnt contaminate the inside of the shoe but apparently it didn't.
They clearly obtained positive readings from the bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot.

Exactly how would such a radioactive substance be produced?

(Yes, I do not know what it was or what they thought it was as they were not telling me...they simply referred to it as "radiation").

Yes, exactly! Without knowing what they were working with, I wouldn't know what isotope it might be. Evidently something was wandering around where it shouldn't be, though, either in particulate or liquid form. Careless of somebody. It may not have been particularly dangerous - probably not, going by the response. A good soap and water washing is about how one would respond to getting tritium or C-14 tracer spilled on oneself in a biology lab (edited to add: although these days there's also a lot of paperwork too...). If it were something like plutonium, I'd expect a lot more alarm.

People do tend to throw the words "radiation" and "radioactive material" around interchangeably, but they really weren't correct to do so.

[wayrad]

Didn't you say you walked on a grid over a containment tank? One possibility is that you got hit by a drop or two from a splash. Something falling into the tank, for example a pebble carried in on the bottom of a shoe, might have done it. It's only a guess, though.

[SteveGrenard]

Yes, I had walked on a steel grid bridging a containment tank. I heard them talking that they thought this is where I got contaminated. I was allowed to take pictures and wanted a shot of the tank from directly on top of it. Our escort okayed it.

The film was fogged.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wayrad:




Then why did they determine they suceeded using a Geiger Counter?

A geiger counter counts both ionizing photons and particle radiation. If you haven't any, the radioactive substance is gone. How does this tie in with your completely unrelated post about gamma radiation, which, while it will be detected by a geiger counter, won't make anything radioactive?

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, I had walked on a steel grid bridging a containment tank. I heard them talking that they thought this is where I got contaminated. I was allowed to take pictures and wanted a shot of the tank from directly on top of it. Our escort okayed it.

The film was fogged.

Steve,

Are you still trying to understand this as your shoes becoming radioactive after exposure to radiation or...?

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, I had walked on a steel grid bridging a containment tank. I heard them talking that they thought this is where I got contaminated. I was allowed to take pictures and wanted a shot of the tank from directly on top of it. Our escort okayed it.

The film was fogged.

Hmm...getting ready to take a picture often involves some rummaging in a bag or pocket. Did you happen to hear a splash?

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hmm so Rolfe, you are saying the radiation physics technician did not wash off the radiation on my shoe? And I was
hallucinating. Thanks for that. I suyggest you begin by starting to read all he health physicsts manuals and procedures you can find and get back to us.

Sigh. What these other guys said.

Steve, I'm saying that the technician washed off the radioactive material you'd picked up on your shoe (sock, whatever). Just like washing off dog poop you'd stepped on in the street.

The Geiger counter detects radiation, which was being emitted by the "dog poop". Once there was no radiation detectable, the technician knew that he'd succeeded in getting it all off.

If the actual material of your shoe had been transformed into a radiation emitter (which is impossible under these circumstances anyway), it would not have been possible to wash it off.

The technician may have said that your shoe had become radioactive, but this is just sloppy use of language. Think dog poop again. You may say that your shoe has become smelly, but in fact your shoe has become smeared with a smelly substance. It hasn't turned into dog poop.

Your shoe registered on a Geiger counter because some radioactive isotope had splashed on it, then registered negative after this contaminating material had been washed off. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

Posting quotes which refer to completely different situations where bombardment of a material does cause a nuclear reaction has nothing to do with it either. Maybe you should go have a look at some physics text-books?

Steve, this isn't so hard. It's an easy misapprehension to make. But it's also quite easy to understand the real situation - and the fact that there is unanimity among people who actually know about this type of physics work should perhaps indicate to you that they may be right. What's the problem with just saying, oh, I misunderstood?

Rolfe.

[wayrad]

I think he has "gotten it" by now, actually. I really do wonder about the safety procedures at the place where he was, though. If he got his film fogged, he must have picked up a dose (which, as he should have noticed, didn't make his film, his camera, his hands, or even his other foot radioactive!). In an area that hot, or if there was any possibility of splashing (I'm thinking along the lines of something like a disassembly basin for underwater storage of spent fuel, waiting for shipment offsite), nobody should have been out there without a lot more protection and training than Steve describes. And I can't imagine letting a visitor get exposed.

At the facility where I worked, we had safety procedures drilled into us, with several hours a month of mandatory training. And I was in a nonsecure area, with little or no exposure. Anybody who caused a safety violation was lucky if they only underwent enough remedial training to wish they'd never been born. And I can only shudder as I imagine how much security has probably tightened up since 9/11.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by wayrad
I think he has "gotten it" by now, actually.

Maybe. Of course, if he has, he'll never actually say so. He seems to think there's some sort of taboo on admitting you were mistaken. Sad, really.

You're right, their safety procedures sound pretty flaky. However, maybe there's a bit more to it than Steve's telling us. And maybe the ensuing fuss was bigger than he's saying too.

I wonder where Rouser went? Oh well. I see the "Rouser is relatively bright and is only playing with us" option didn't get much support, which was what I was mainly interested in.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by wayrad
I think he has "gotten it" by now, actually.

Has he? Look at the last two quoted passages he posted. One discusses chemical changes that he seems to confound with atomic changes. The other discusses both chemical changes and radiation poisoning. Apparently he seems to think these are evidence of x-rays turing his clothing radioactive.

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Has he? Look at the last two quoted passages he posted. One discusses chemical changes that he seems to confound with atomic changes. The other discusses both chemical changes and radiation poisoning. Apparently he seems to think these are evidence of x-rays turing his clothing radioactive.

Could be, but then he said this:

Quote:

So some radioactive substance fell into my shoe and contaminated the shoe cover, the leather bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot. I am perplexed why it didnt contaminate the inside of the shoe but apparently it didn't.
They clearly obtained positive readings from the bottom of the shoe, the sock and the bottom of my foot.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. As Rolfe says, we may never know. I wonder sometimes whether Steve doesn't read the stuff he quotes, or misunderstands it, or thinks nobody else will understand it.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by wayrad
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. As Rolfe says, we may never know. I wonder sometimes whether Steve doesn't read the stuff he quotes, or misunderstands it, or thinks nobody else will understand it.

You may well be right. I had interpreted that as being understood to be prefixed with "So what you're saying is that....", because he'd explicitly denied this interpretation earlier, but it could be an oblique way of admitting the penny finally dropped.

Reminds me of the homoeopathy argument from last autumn,when Steve argued till he was blue in the face in favour of the proposition that homoeopathy was a valid discipline, apparently by redefining "homoeopathy" to mean any dilution which still has an appreciable amount of substance left in it. When he finally got the point about increasing dilutions equating to increasing potency, and that "real" homoeopathy is almost exclusively about content-free preparations (unless you're Hans Weitbrecht trying to be funny), he didn't admit he now understood or anything that simple, he just sloped off in silence, then remarked some time later on another thread that he was pretty sure homoeopathy was bunk.

This leopard isn't going to change its spots in a hurry.

Now, where's Rouser?

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe

Now, where's Rouser?

First, locate the first leopard. Then, second cave to the left.

[geni]

It is very simple. Rouser is a P-zombie

[wayrad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe
... but it could be an oblique way of admitting the penny finally dropped.

Perhaps the penny dropped a long time ago, quite literally...

[Rolfe]

I just felt like bumping this, considering.

Rolfe.

[epepke]

Frankly, I think it's simpler than that. I've seen it several times.

Modern medicine is very imperfect. It does a lot of things wrong, and some people are hurt by it.

If one has an average brain, one can look at the overall effect of modern medicine and conclude that, on whole, it's better than the alternative.

If one has a better-than-average brain, one can look a modern medicine and think about where it's weak and where it's strong and even try to figure out how to make it better. People with better-than-average brains can simultaneously deal with the fact that the ten or so cases of polio in the US are all caused by the oral vaccine but still compare this with the pre-vaccine days when in every neighborhood, a kid or two would be crippled with polio.

However, if one has a poorer-than-average brain, then there is a problem with storage and representation of ideas. It takes a lot of bits to understand medicine. It takes few to have a stereotypical opinion. So those with few will find stereotypes more appealing.

Some of the people with few bits to spare will have had bad experiences with medicine, either personally or in family members or by reading polemics. For those people, the uncontrovertable fact that medicine is imperfect must be given an answer represented by a 1 or a 0. It's not possible to represent the idea that medicine does some good things and some bad, because that requires more than one bit, and bits are in short supply. Therefore, modern medicine has to be declared bad or good. If it is declared bad, then by simple logic (which requires no storage beyond the ability to do logic), then anything other than modern medicine must be declared good, because it is ~modern-medicine.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh. I see this thread has long since gone off topic.

On the original topic: I voted planet X because none of the other options fit my opinion. I think Rouser2, like 1inchChrist and Kumar, is a missionaire. Rouser2 wants to discredit medical science. Why exactly he wants that, I have no idea, it could be some personal vendetta, but he is willing to use any means he can find, including lies. Most people believe they are smarter then most others, so Rouser2 assumes that he can fool us with his hyperbole. For him it is simply propaganda. He may belive some of it, but that is not important. Like all prophets, he only wants to show the way, not walk it. The day he gets that appendicitis, you'll find him flat on his back on an operating table.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Oh. I see this thread has long since gone off topic.

Yeah, I know, I just thought it was peripherally relevant, and we might drag it back on-topic. Besides, Steve Grenard and the radioactive dog turd was fun to re-read. (I think it was only when I read that and realised how fundamental his lack of scientific comprehension was, that I properly appreciated the lack of brain cells behind that creduloid as well.)

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, any thread with such a self-contradicting title is bound to be derailed.

Rouser2's thought processes, indeed .

Hans

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yeah, I know, I just thought it was peripherally relevant, and we might drag it back on-topic. Besides, Steve Grenard and the radioactive dog turd was fun to re-read. (I think it was only when I read that and realised how fundamental his lack of scientific comprehension was, that I properly appreciated the lack of brain cells behind that creduloid as well.)

Rolfe.

Ha! Newbie! Way back when (well, 3 years ago?) Grenard posted some guff about testing a homeopathic dilution with an electrical current of some sort. As soon as someone who actually knew something about electricity got involved (in this case Diezel, who is an electrical engineer), the depths of Grenard's ignorance became apparent to all. Sadly the thread was deleted in "The Great Cull". Also sadly, Diezel hardly ever posts these days.