The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[onemind]

Quote:

which is an opinion you're entitled to hold, but doesn't carry a great deal of weight in a general argument.

I'm afraid the strawman is of your own making - i'm not hiding behind it, just holding it up for everyone to see

Pathetic.

Buddhism is beyond critisism because it is undefinable, a lot like god.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Hmmm, I think I see your point... some references would be nice, though.

Tsukasa posted this article on Buddhism earlier http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...=post&id=12039

that goes into some detail about its non-dogmatic stance.....

and some rough and ready stats on cultural christianity....72% identify themselves as such but 55% of people don't believe in a higher being.....

Quote:

During the 2001 poll, 72% identified themselves as "Christian." This does not necessarily indicate that they are committed Christians. Vexen Crabtree collected some statistics from a variety of sources which indicate that many of these folks are Christian in name only:

The Office of National Statistics found in the 2001 census that: "...half of all adults aged 18 and over who belonged to a religion have never attended a religious service."
Uk.news.yahoo.com reported in 2000 that "[Church attendance in 1999 was] 7.5% on an average Sunday, [down] from 10% in 1989 and 12% in 1979."
A New Scientist Poll in 2002-Autumn showed that "55% of British public do not believe in a higher being." 9

A 2004 government report revealed that about 74% of adults in England and Wales regard themselves as Christians. Another approximately 6% identify with another religion. But only about 7% of Christians in the UK actually attend church regularly. Hanne Stinson, director of the British Humanist Association, said that many adults are "cultural Christians." They see themselves as being Christian in the same way that they are British, almost in a tribal way. She said: "People label themselves with what they were brought up with...If they haven't gone to church for 20 years, they still put themselves down on official forms as 'Church of England'." 11>

http://www.religioustolerance.org/uk_rel.htm

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by onemind

Pathetic.

.

well, your arguments are pretty lame, but i wouldn't be so harsh on yourself

[onemind]

i know you are but what am i

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by onemind

i know you are but what am i

and a new low is reached

i fear there may be an unholy triumvirate of yrreg, dustin and onemind forming......

[onemind]

holy? There is nothing holy about yet another chimapanzee talking out of his ass

[Lonewulf]

Get a room, you two.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Get a room, you two.

it's a fitting end to this travesty of a thread....

[Ryokan]

Personally, I feel this thread went haywire by the second page, and wasn't going to bother replying any more. However, I see Yrreg has been talking about me, so felt I had to respond.

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you had read all my posts attentively here and specially in the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and also elsewhere, then you would call yourself an Yrregist or a Pachomist or a Susmist, etc.....

Huh? I did read all your posts both on this board and IIDB. You should know, I quoted your IIDB posts several times.

Originally Posted by yrreg

....because what you have acquired associating with your banned sect of Buddhism, banned in the E-Sangha, you could have learned from me by osmosis.

My banned what? What on earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by yrreg

At least I succeeded in convincing you to forgo your slate of Resident Buddhist previously coming after your name in every message you wrote.

You think you made me change it? I changed it just because I felt like a new one. I think I'll change it back, just to spite you

Originally Posted by yrreg

"No mean feat" like getting myself banned from the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I don't see how that's related to anything, but okay.

Originally Posted by yrreg

[right]Between Ryokan and Dancing David, Ryokan seems to be postgraduating from his summer of infatuation with Buddhism; but with Dancing David, he is the bigoted funadmentalist equivalent Buddhist.

You're still making up stuff about me, I see. I'm no less a Buddhist today than I was when you first arrived here. Heh.

Originally Posted by yrreg

From the first moment when I met you here, I had been telling you that you don't have to label yourself Buddhist in order to observe the timesless, immemorial, humanistic, wisdom teachings of civilized mankind, predating Buddha. and will be with us to the day against those teachings mankind destroys itself.

Just say you accept and seek to observe the best teachings of the sages of all ages even before Buddha came alone and tied up those teachings he borrowed with his kind of Nirvana, and according to some of his socalled followers, with the inutile concept of no-self.


Okay, tell me Ryokan, if you just know a little history of human wisdom, what is so proprietary with Gautama of the four noble truths? If any makes sense, it belongs to common wisdom of civilized mankind even before Buddha; if any makes for nonsense, it is proprietary with Buddha or ascribed to Buddha by his socalled followers.


Calling yourself Buddhist is just associating yourself with primitive superstitions; better cal yourself an ethical humanist or ethical rationalist.

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Why does it matter what I call myself? It doesn't change one bit what I believe.

You've made the claim that Buddha's teaching predates him many times, but have so far never provided any evidence, although you've been asked to do so many times.

Will you do so now?

My last and only request in this thread is that Yrreg stop making up stuff about me. It's called lying, and I don't like it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Dustin - stop lying!


You responded to this post





and then you boast to david....



How was he not claiming it was a form of dyslexia? How did you not read it? You quoted it in your response!

And for your information, as has already been pointed out, English is a difficult language for dyslexia sufferers because of its archaic ad-hoc spelling rules...hence it's perfectly acceptable for dyslexia sufferers to point to that fact as one of the reasons for their spelling mistakes.

please STOP LYING!

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. When I post I read the posts in the order they are posted and respond to them that way. David posted that several posts after I responded. Even if I responded after he posted it, I didn't actually see it until I got to it. In that instance it was before he had claimed it was a form of dyslexia post wise and he was claiming his lack of ability to spell was due to the English language.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. When I post I read the posts in the order they are posted and respond to them that way.

You also hallucinate people responding to you when they didn't.

Then you run around and call everyone liars when they correct you.

Ah, fun times, fun times.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So did they call Frey LORD or Freya LADY?

Geez, I thought you could think for yourself.

Neither. "Lord" and "Lady" are English words.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Excuse me? In response to my post, Dancing David thanked me. I got it right. I comprehended his posts. Taffer did as well. Along with others. You are the sole complainer about the quality of Dancing David's posts.

Except I question whether even HE comprehends his own posts.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

So you really think that all Buddhists follow unjustifiable dogma? Wow.

That's what I've been saying.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Funny, you leave out the second half:

They are the most common, widely accepted, and similarly interpreted fundamentals out there that give the most meaning to Buddhism.

That "give the most meaning" to Buddhism? How subjective is that?

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

They provide the basis for the rest of Buddhism, they provide the purpose and method for following Buddhism.

Says who? "Most people"?

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Read.

Elaborate.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Sigh. Have you already forgotten your novice misunderstandings? You talked about physical pain being a cause of suffering, not desire. But physical pain doesn't have to lead to suffering, and suffering means more than feeling a physical pain. Auto-erotic asphyxiation is an example of a person being in physical pain, but far from suffering. Someone hasn't done they're homework...

Let's break it down into simple parts..

1. Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.
2. You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation".
3. That isn't example of suffering being caused by an urge or desire.
4. Even assuming it is, a single example which doesn't jive with what Buddhism says about suffering in general.

I never claimed that physical pain is the cause of all suffering. Physical pain CAN be a cause of some sufferings though.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You also hallucinate people responding to you when they didn't.

Then you run around and call everyone liars when they correct you.

Ah, fun times, fun times.

And you fantasize about raping and torturing people.



I win.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

And you fantasize about raping and torturing people.

Actually, wrong. And now you begin your "losing chant": When you lose an argument, blow low.

Quote:

I win.

Lol.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Actually, wrong. And now you begin your "losing chant": When you lose an argument, blow low.

I guess that whole "I fantasize about raping people" thread has slipped your mind? How convenient. Fortunately I know it's link.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I guess that whole "I fantasize about raping people" thread has slipped your mind? How convenient. Fortunately I know it's link.

Good. Quote exactly where I stated, clearly and without you jumping to conclusions, that I fantasized about raping and torturing other people.

I know what fetishes I do and do not have. As do some members on this forum, which I trusted with that information; the same ones that laughed in your face. Your leaping to conclusions and bringing it up on a thread about Buddhism is amusing.

Oh, and just in case anyone here actually cares, the thread is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77708

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Good. Quote exactly where I stated, clearly and without you jumping to conclusions, that I fantasized about raping and torturing other people.

No. You've always been weaselly about your 'fantasies' however you clearly implied you had fantasies about rape and torture.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I know what fetishes I do and do not have.

So stop lying.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

As do some members on this forum, which I trusted with that information; the same ones that laughed in your face.

No one laughed in my face.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Your leaping to conclusions and bringing it up on a thread about Buddhism is amusing.

You're the one who started with the off subject personal accusations. Now you criticize me for attacking your sick fantasies?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

No. You've always been weaselly about your 'fantasies' however you clearly implied you had fantasies about rape and torture.

Your link only links to the thread in general. I already linked it; but it doesn't matter in the end.

Quote:

So stop lying.

I'm not. If I said anything, it would be that I have fetishes that involve certain things. I never was specific.

So tell me, Dustin, since you obviously know what my fetishes are: Be specific. Who is the victim, usually, in my fantasies? What is the preferred method of... whatever it is you think? Is the other male or female?

You know so much; I'm curious my own self what my fantasies are.

Quote:

No one laughed in my face.

Guess you didn't notice, then. Oh well.

Quote:

You're the one who started with the off subject personal accusations. Now you criticize me for attacking your sick fantasies?

Right, I mean...

The post you claimed I was responding was outside of this thread, into a thread all on its own, and was TOTALLY out of the blue.

No, wait.

Tu quoque: A fallacy of battling egos. How the hell do you walk with a bloated ego like your own?

"LOL YOU HAVE FANTASIES I WIN LOL!"

Man. You lost, fully and completely.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You missed my entire point. Allow me to repeat myself. When I post I read the posts in the order they are posted and respond to them that way. David posted that several posts after I responded. Even if I responded after he posted it, I didn't actually see it until I got to it. In that instance it was before he had claimed it was a form of dyslexia post wise and he was claiming his lack of ability to spell was due to the English language.

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

you quoted his flipping comment in your reply!

Originally Posted by dustin

Originally Posted by dancing david

I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.
I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

Spin that web of lies dustin! Spin Spin away!

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by andyandy

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

Also, apparently, bring up his own delusions of other people's fantasies up, at random, for no reason, in threads they don't belong.

Maybe next he'll talk about how Lonewulf sounds like a black name, and thus, because I am most likely black (because he's almost never wrong), go onto a rant about how us blacks are all prone to violence.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Your link only links to the thread in general. I already linked it; but it doesn't matter in the end.

You edited after I posted.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I'm not. If I said anything, it would be that I have fetishes that involve certain things. I never was specific.

Sure it was. See my signature.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Guess you didn't notice, then. Oh well.

Maybe you mean some nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away sniggered at their computer because in their feeble understanding they thought something I said was amusing, However no one "laughed in my face".

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Right, I mean...

The post you claimed I was responding was outside of this thread, into a thread all on its own, and was TOTALLY out of the blue.

Ah, So insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in this thread are OK but insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in another thread aren't?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Tu quoque: A fallacy of battling egos. How the hell do you walk with a bloated ego like your own?

"LOL YOU HAVE FANTASIES I WIN LOL!"

Man. You lost, fully and completely.

What have I lost? The only thing I've lost is my valuable time due to arguing over the internet with some 16 year old kid who has fantasies about torturing and raping people.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Sure it was. See my signature.

You call that "specific"?

Sigh.

Quote:

Maybe you mean some nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away sniggered at their computer because in their feeble understanding they thought something I said was amusing, However no one "laughed in my face".

Ah, darn. See, this is the part where you can say they all laughed at you, and then laugh maniacally.

Quote:

Ah, So insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in this thread are OK but insulting and off topic posts that refer to posts in another thread aren't?

Now you got it.

Quote:

What have I lost? The only thing I've lost is my valuable time due to arguing over the internet with some 16 year old kid who has fantasies about torturing and raping people.

6 years off. I'm 22. Also, I have fantasies, yes, but not about that specifically. Try again! This is fun. Your guess on my fetish was wrong: I'll give you another chance to give it a go. Need some hints?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

goodness, you seem to have a pathological tendency to lie

you quoted his flipping comment in your reply!




Spin that web of lies dustin! Spin Spin away!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You need to read on dear sir, as I did, my friend said that it was something called 'dysphonetic' based upon the way I read and understand words. I just learned today that it is a form of dyslexia! He didn't tell me that.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

It sounds to me that you're making it up as you go along.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And your second argument is just arrogant garbage. I can't spell english because it hasn't had orthographic reform and is not a phonetic spelling but archaic forms that were standardized randomly when there were multiple spelling of the words.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


In the second part of his post I said "I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?" because he was making up excuses SEPARATE from the dyslexia which involved the inherent traits of the English language.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Except I question whether even HE comprehends his own posts.

Ah yes. When you lose you resort to insults. The Buddha tells me that this conversation will end poorly.

Quote:

That's what I've been saying.

What? All you've been talking about is trying to label everyone. You've also displayed a wonderful ability to distort arguments all around.

Quote:

That "give the most meaning" to Buddhism? How subjective is that?

Says who? "Most people"?

Not at all. The four noble truths set up the basis for Buddhism. They also set up the purpose and methods.

Quote:

Elaborate.

Either spend ten minutes educating yourself, or post your uneducated rebuttal of the four truths and eightfold path.

Quote:

Let's break it down into simple parts..

1. Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.
2. You brought up the example of "auto-erotic asphyxiation".
3. That isn't example of suffering being caused by an urge or desire.
4. Even assuming it is, a single example which doesn't jive with what Buddhism says about suffering in general.

I never claimed that physical pain is the cause of all suffering. Physical pain CAN be a cause of some sufferings though.

Is your fetish torturing conversations? Auto-erotic asphyxiation is far from suffering, yet still includes physical pain. This demonstrates that physical pain does not have to lead to suffering, and is not the cause of it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hm, assuming more and more things about people without proper evidence, Dustin Kesselberg?

C'mon, guess my fetish along with my religion and disorder !

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Hm, assuming more and more things about people without proper evidence, Dustin Kesselberg?

He does that often.

But he's almost always right. He told me himself!

Right after he "put" me in my "place" (yes, he actually said that once). And then went off to argue with a bunch of "nobodies on hundreds or thousands of miles away". I think some sneering and condescension was involved, I'm not sure.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Not at all. The four noble truths set up the basis for Buddhism. They also set up the purpose and methods.

Didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Either spend ten minutes educating yourself, or post your uneducated rebuttal of the four truths and eightfold path.

Already have.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Is your fetish torturing conversations? Auto-erotic asphyxiation is far from suffering, yet still includes physical pain. This demonstrates that physical pain does not have to lead to suffering, and is not the cause of it.

"Auto-erotic asphyxiation" might be both painful and pleasurable (I wouldn't know) and might be a single example of how "Pain" doesn't necessarily lead to "Suffering" however again, this is a single example and is totally off topic from my initial criticism of the Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

My daughter has auditory dyslexia and her spelling is terrible. Mostly not even close enough to use a spell check program. It hinges on the fact that she cannot hear the subtleties of speech and if she cannot hear the sound she does not know which letter should be put in when spelling the word. In my daughter's case it is a direct result of her auditory dyslexia.

Her's is thought to have been caused by the constant upper respitory and inner ear infections she suffered as a child.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

In his initial assertion I drew into question his changing story about "just learning" that he has dyslexia specifically because 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' wouldn't affect his ability to actually spell words simply his ability to sound them out. 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' is a form of auditory dyslexia while "Dyseidetic dyslexia" is is the type of dyslexia that would hinder spelling. If someone with 'Dysphonetic Dyslexia' has a problem spelling then it's likely a phonics problem not related to that individuals dyslexia.

http://www.dyslexia.com/qasymptoms.htm#d981130


In the second part of his post I said "I can spell English just fine though. Why can I and you can't?" because he was making up excuses SEPARATE from the dyslexia which involved the inherent traits of the English language.

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by andyandy

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

You can't be wrong if you change reality!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Didn't answer the question.





Already have.



"Auto-erotic asphyxiation" might be both painful and pleasurable (I wouldn't know) and might be a single example of how "Pain" doesn't necessarily lead to "Suffering" however again, this is a single example and is totally off topic from my initial criticism of the Buddhists claim that "Suffering"(all suffering) is caused by desire or urge.

If there is one thing worse than an ignoramus it is a willful ignoramus with a bloated ego. You seem so intent on quibling about every tiny aspect that you are blind to the larger picture. You can't see the forest for the trees. Holding a conversation with you is like banging my head against a wall. The wall doesn't move and all I've succeeded in doing is wasting my time.

So I will once again bring to your attention "Buddhism Without Belief" and "Buddhism for the Modern Skeptic". If you ever have the desire to educate yourself and correct your novice misunderstandings, then study beyond mere Wiki pages.

However, I am not worming out of being proven wrong, as you have done many times. To correct you, here is the writting of Thich Nhat Hanh in "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching":

Quote:

Another common misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching is that all of our suffering is caused by craving. In the Discourse on Turning the Wheel od the Dharma, the Buddha did say that craning is the cause of suffering, but he said this because craving is the first on the list of affliction...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

ah, the shifting shifting sands.....

first you deny posting derogatory comments after david had told you he had dyslexia

then you say, well, yes your post was made after he'd told you, but you hadn't read his comments

now your saying that yes, actually he did tell you about having dyslexia - but you chose not to believe him.

He doesn't have dyslexia. And EVEN IF he does have the dyslexia he claims he has, it wouldn't affect his ability to spell.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Tsukasa Buddha, Unless you respond to my actual post addressing every point, I won't respond to yours.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Tsukasa Buddha, Unless you respond to my actual post addressing every point, I won't respond to yours.

So now you will ignore information because you don't like the format? Great.

1. The primary teachings of the Buddha consist of the four truths. These set the purpose of Buddhism and the methodology of Buddhism. These are the fundamentals that link all forms of Buddhism and are the most similarly interpreted.

2. If you haven't read what I gave you a link to, then you refuse to properly educate yourself. You choose to remain in ignorance. If you want to attempt to refute Buddhism before even comprehending it, be my guest. But to do so is an exercise in futility.

3. The second truth is the cause of suffering. That all suffering is caused by craving is a common misunderstanding.

[Taffer]

My god...

Dustin, as always, you show yourself to be an ignorant bigot and are not worth replying to anymore. And for the record, I laughed quite a lot when you claimed Lonewulf to have "rape fantasies". Also when you proclaimed victory because of it. Ad hom much?

Onemind, your arguments against "mainstream" Buddhism may be correct, but not all Buddhists believe those things.

Yrreg, go away. Also, I am unsure what you mean by "Sapienti pauca". I was under the impression it was a musical term. Also, I never claimed it was originally metaphorical, only that it can be interpreted as such.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Taffer

My god...

What God?

Originally Posted by Taffer

Dustin, as always, you show yourself to be an ignorant bigot and are not worth replying to anymore.

How's that?

Originally Posted by Taffer

Onemind, your arguments against "mainstream" Buddhism may be correct, but not all Buddhists believe those things.

This has been addressed dozens of times in this thread. Do yourself a favor. Read the thread and stop making dumb comments.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dustin

How's that?

LOL! YOU HAVE FANTASIES I FIND OBJECTIONABLE! I WIN THE ARGUMENT!

Yeah, okay.

[Lonewulf]

I just saw this one:

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

He's a condescending **** is what he is.

What, seriously? You're not condescending at all? Haha.

Quote:

Reading his posts is sort of like watching a midget threaten Andre the Giant.

Ego ego ego.

Quote:

Read my signature and the thread where he brags about having fantasies about raping people.

Eh, wrong. Again.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

What God?

It's a figure of speech.

Quote:

How's that?

"Bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Sounds about right to me...

Quote:

This has been addressed dozens of times in this thread. Do yourself a favor. Read the thread and stop making dumb comments.

I have read this thread, Dustin. I have read it right from the start, you may notice. I have yet to see this addressed. But by all means, please quote where it has been addressed, so I may see the error of my ways.