tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post1798349963507741454..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Abducted by AliensMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16628264408067480052009-07-19T04:24:49.295-07:002009-07-19T04:24:49.295-07:00最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセ...最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか家出http://ruby.iwatukisan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10803252770538571952009-07-17T08:01:39.404-07:002009-07-17T08:01:39.404-07:00最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.07...最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆メル友募集noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56034750736066418422009-07-06T06:49:47.747-07:002009-07-06T06:49:47.747-07:00みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあ...みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう精神年齢http://new.haaaasagasou.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56582232479216410622009-07-04T05:37:57.983-07:002009-07-04T05:37:57.983-07:00さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆...さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか逆円助http://new.googlejuku-navi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71212107510330736282009-02-26T07:11:00.000-08:002009-02-26T07:11:00.000-08:00'All the early Christians had to do in order to li...'All the early Christians had to do in order to live, was to deny Christ. That's all.'<BR/><BR/>Galatians 6:12<BR/>Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Paul, who was there, says that people were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.<BR/><BR/>He also says church leaders compromised their beliefs to avoid persecution for the cross (NB not resurrection) of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Naturally, as the centuries wore on, these people became more and more brave.<BR/><BR/>By the end of the second century AD, John was being plunged alive into boiling oil , and being unharmed.<BR/><BR/>Although at the time of writing of Matthew 28:17, it had to be explained that some of them were 'doubters'.<BR/><BR/>And while Paul and Acts makes no mention of any preaching of almost all these 11 disciples,almost as though they had packed it all in, by the 21st century, these people are now so brave that they would rather be killed than deny Christ.<BR/><BR/>Probably in another 500 years time, the disciples will have marched on Rome to demonstrate outside Caesar's house their devotion to Christ.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-89951844000053158872009-02-22T10:49:00.000-08:002009-02-22T10:49:00.000-08:00Anonymous:Why would you believe that the Qur'an is...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Why would you believe that the Qur'an is man-altered but the Bible isn't? That is the question.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11972642033247667662009-02-21T12:05:00.000-08:002009-02-21T12:05:00.000-08:00ok tele how about I give you the truth value "I" f...ok tele how about I give you the truth value "I" for an answer. thus you have incorrectly assigned a postion to me and other theist as having a double standard. I presume the atheist professor here suffers from logical analysis as well since most of his post draw false dichotomies of relgious peoples beliefs.<BR/><BR/>but, hypotheically if i believed the koran to be false and the bible to be true, how exactly does that give my position a double standard? The koran is a man altered copy of the bible...what about this explanation gives me a double standard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44926490682692739172009-02-21T09:32:00.000-08:002009-02-21T09:32:00.000-08:00Anonymous,Okay, let me explain further:The Qur'an ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Okay, let me explain further:<BR/><BR/>The Qur'an makes some claims about the supernatural. The Bible also makes claims about the supernatural. <BR/><BR/>Why do you believe one book's claims but not the other's?<BR/><BR/>Simple question.<BR/><BR/>If you honestly evaluate both, and conclude the one or the other is more reliable, fine. But I sense that you may not have applied the same standard to both books.<BR/><BR/>You dismiss the Qur'an, but you accept the Bible? Why?<BR/><BR/>What is your standard?<BR/><BR/>How do you sort out which claims are believable and which claims are not believable? How you tried to do this at all?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34145138169311077102009-02-20T21:42:00.000-08:002009-02-20T21:42:00.000-08:00I dont see how believers have a double standard if...I dont see how believers have a double standard if they do not assent to beliefs by which you or others think are inconsistent with theirs. thats just name calling and not addressing the reasons why these alledged "irrational" believers" have a false view of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72703436050440174042009-02-20T14:18:00.000-08:002009-02-20T14:18:00.000-08:00Anonymous,Believers may or may not have rational r...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Believers may or may not have rational reasons; but if you read the article, you'd realize why believing some things and not believing other things *is* irrational; namely, that religious believers have a different standard for assessing religion than they do other things in life.<BR/><BR/>It's irrational because it's such a blatant double standard. <BR/><BR/>Then once consistency and objectivity are more valued by believers, people should be able to decide on the merits if they should believe something or not.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30181728501013776732009-02-20T08:27:00.000-08:002009-02-20T08:27:00.000-08:00I like how the good ole professor here thinks reli...I like how the good ole professor here thinks religious people are rational and therefore wrong...isnt that some kind of ad hominem? People can be wrong and still be rational...very bad point sirAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11758749376719377292009-02-19T15:51:00.000-08:002009-02-19T15:51:00.000-08:00"What good does it do to propagate if the progeny ...<I>"What good does it do to propagate if the progeny do not survive?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>Reginald</B> ... you seem to be adopting a rather anthropomorphic position on behalf of reproductive mechanisms there. I mean, are you suggesting that unicellular organisms might be somehow concerned by what is "good" for their genes ...?<BR/><BR/>I can't help feeling that this line of discussion has um, run out of steam. But Thank Q! Reginald for the interesting chat!<BR/><BR/>All The Best!one billion dalekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08792146398030529926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21476324609535984922009-02-19T07:00:00.000-08:002009-02-19T07:00:00.000-08:00Likewise, when it comes to propagating and mutatin...<I>Likewise, when it comes to propagating and mutating genetic code (which is the entire extent of my comment above that you have taken issue with), the unicellular strategy is far far more efficient than the multicellular strategy.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're suffering from the same lack of detail of which you accuse others. What good does it do to propagate if the progeny do not survive? That is not "efficient." And as for mutating genetic code, once again you need to define "efficient," more mutations is not necessarily better. There may be a different and optimal rate of mutation for each situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86682535512318470252009-02-18T19:37:00.000-08:002009-02-18T19:37:00.000-08:00AddendumWhoops! sorry, I cut'n'paste from the wron...<B>Addendum</B><BR/><BR/><I>Whoops! sorry, I cut'n'paste from the wrong draft, so here the missing section, as an addendum for my post above ...</I><BR/><BR/>There are all sorts of "best" ways to acquire money, best being subjectively dependent on what is perceived as least hazardous to a particular expression of genetic code:<BR/><BR/>Create a profitable business.<BR/>Acquire a well-paid job.<BR/>Marry someone who is rich.<BR/><BR/>The most "efficient" way though, is to rob a bank. Sure, it's more brutish and hazardous than the "best" ways, but potentially far far more effective too!<BR/><BR/>Likewise, when it comes to propagating and mutating genetic code (which is the entire extent of my comment above that you have taken issue with), the unicellular strategy is far far more efficient than the multicellular strategy.<BR/><BR/>So your statement about my "assumption that there is only one best way to survive and propagate", is in itself an assumption on your part that what I meant by "efficient" was "best". And that I was talking about "survival", which um, I didn't mention at all.<BR/><BR/>Your post addresses "best ways to survive and propagate", and provides ample illustrative examples to that end. But as such, it is not about the "most efficient ways of propagating and mutating genes" at all.<BR/><BR/>Quite understandable, but nevertheless a misperception, thus as I say, we appear to be at cross-purposes!<BR/><BR/>Still, them's the perils of internet discourse for you eh!<BR/><BR/>All The Best!one billion dalekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08792146398030529926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46511472530733412902009-02-18T17:55:00.000-08:002009-02-18T17:55:00.000-08:00Thank Q! for your replies.Now, I don't want to 'hi...Thank Q! for your replies.<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't want to 'hijack' Mr.McCormack's blog as it would be discourteous, so I will respond just the once and leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>But daleks enjoy a stimulating chat, and discussion can of course be continued in the future on the dalek blogs, if so desired.<BR/><BR/>So beyond this post, I will limit myself here to just notifying in due course when the dalek critique of Atheism is published.<BR/><BR/>OK then, onto the points raised!<BR/><BR/><B>Matt S</B> ... I should perhaps clarify that daleks are not advocates for any 'religious' viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>It can be useful to bear in mind, that what is today referred to as 'Religion' was originally a <I>sincere</I> attempt at comprehending the nature of subjective experience, nothing more. Back then, it wasn't 'Religion' at all, it was simply mankind contemplating his place in the scheme of things.<BR/><BR/>And in that respect, Religion is a precursor to Science, and as such not intrinsically antagonistic. For in it's heyday, Religion was as <I>sincere</I> an endeavour as Science is today. Science has superceded Religion by being a superior explanatory device, that's all.<BR/><BR/>So from that perspective, the fact that Atheists persistently 'beat up' on Theists has become something of a ritual for them, an act of repeatedly rejecting a paradigm that was long ago proven untenable.<BR/><BR/>But for daleks, this has become somewhat tiresome! <BR/><BR/>Though to be fair, Atheists do provide a valuable service, being as it were a vigilant 'front-line' attacking any backsliding into simplistic and demonstrably false religious rationales.<BR/><BR/>So sure, Atheism is a significant advance on religious rationales, but because it invests so much effort into rejecting it's precursor, it is perhaps blind to it's own shortcomings as an explanatory device. In other words, as a set of concepts, Atheism is so obsessed with looking over it's shoulder distancing itself from what it has left behind, that it seems to have little capacity to critique where it is now.<BR/><BR/>The forthcoming dalek dissertation challenges Atheism in that light.<BR/><BR/><B>Reginald</B> ... if you check back on my original comment, you'll find I said <I>the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.</I> But you are making a case for all sorts of <I>best ways to survive and propagate</I> (and a fine case you have made too, and also refreshing to see that you can come up with more than one-line quips! ;) :)<BR/><BR/>But there is a vast difference between what I am talking about: "the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes", and what you are talking about: "best ways to survive and propagate".<BR/><BR/>So um, I think we may be at cross-purposes!<BR/><BR/>To elaborate just a little ... what is "best" is highly subjective, and your post ably demonstrates that. "Best-ness" cannot be meaningfully measured outside of whatever specific context it pertains to.<BR/><BR/>But what is "most efficient" is less subjective, given that efficiency can be measured. And efficiency can also be comparitively measured across different contexts.<BR/><BR/>Also, unicellular organisms have no impulse to "survive" as such, just mechanisms for evaluating environmental parameters. So for a single-celled entity, the "best way to survive and propagate" as you put it, is a non-issue, they just propagate.<BR/><BR/>OK then,<BR/>All The Best!one billion dalekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08792146398030529926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71053000184177614412009-02-18T11:12:00.000-08:002009-02-18T11:12:00.000-08:00The origins of multicellularity - John Tyler Bonne...The origins of multicellularity - John Tyler Bonner, Integrative Biology 1:1 pp 27-36, 7 Jan 1999<BR/><BR/>Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity - MARTIN E. Boraas, DIANNE B. Seale and JOSEPH E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12:2 pp 153-164, Feb 1998, doi 10.1023/A:1006527528063<BR/><BR/>An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian - Steven M. Stanlye, PNAS May 1, 1973 vol. 70 no. 5 1486-1489 <BR/><BR/>Developmental expression of transcription factor genes in a demosponge: insights into the origin of metazoan multicellularity - Claire Larroux, et.al. Evolution & Development 8:2, pp 150-173, 23 Feb 2006.<BR/><BR/>On the origins and early evolution of multicellularity - A.G. Desnitski, BioSysstems 29, pp 129-132 (1993).<BR/><BR/>A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor - David L. Kirk, BioEssays 27:3, pp 299-310, 15 Feb 2005<BR/><BR/>and on and on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45256039381873628432009-02-18T09:21:00.000-08:002009-02-18T09:21:00.000-08:00Other ways to survive, which I didn't think of ear...Other ways to survive, which I didn't think of earlier:<BR/>Parasitize off some other organism which is successful. Form a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with a different organism. Cooperate with others of your kind in a social unit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-20179832739704200422009-02-18T07:16:00.000-08:002009-02-18T07:16:00.000-08:00Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of...<I>Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?</I><BR/><BR/>I expect to see the same quality of argumentation which you have already displayed on the topic of science. Y'see?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-42891337145223340442009-02-18T07:14:00.000-08:002009-02-18T07:14:00.000-08:00Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms a...<I>Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.<BR/><BR/>Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)<BR/>...<BR/>Yes Reginald, quite. Apparently you don't realise that such cheap 'point-scoring' diversionary one-liners that attack the person rather than their point-of-view, actually say more about your intellectual capacity, than mine (see, I can do 'em too! ;)<BR/><BR/>Still, your attempt at intellectual thuggery...</I><BR/><BR/>I was hoping your errors were obvious enough that I wouldn't have to provide a lengthy elaboration; that if you stopped for a moment's contemplation you might even be able to see the weakness of your own argument. But as they say, life is unfair. So then:<BR/><BR/>Multicellular vs. unicellular: One obvious mistake in your statement is the assumption that there is only one best way to survive and propagate. Not so. There are many ways to survive in the world. You can be faster, you can have better offensive weaponry (fangs, claws), better defensive weaponry (armor), you can burrow or climb or swim to places your predators cannot, you can use camouflage to hide, you can be poisonous to eat, and advertise this, you can find a food source no one else can reach or utilise, you can wait out conditions no one else can survive, you can put more effort into raising your offspring through the difficulty of being small and vulnerable, etc. If one niche is already occupied, you may be better off finding a new and different one than competing head-to-head with those who have already been refining their game for some time.<BR/><BR/>As for an evaluative mechanism, Nature most certainly does possess one: Natural Selection. The ones who survive and propagate are the ones whose genes are better represented in ensuing generations. This is so obvious that some have called it a truism, thinking that this is criticism. The idea is very simple, but very profound. The means by which an organism survives and propagates can be any of those mentioned above, or anything else. Survival is not a game with set rules. <BR/><BR/>In any one example, traits which affect survival may be identified, and in some cases measured with precision, and this has been done repeatedly by various scientists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61994799269969776602009-02-18T05:54:00.000-08:002009-02-18T05:54:00.000-08:00"Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique o..."Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?"<BR/><BR/>Daleks, I was an atheist before I got really into studying the theory of evolution. There's historical resaons for denying jesus and the christian god, plus philosophical reasons for denying all the other gods. We just happen to be into science and perhaps there's a confirmation bias, but I know of studies showing that religious worship is somehow beneficial. The question is though, are those worship activities something that can be done in a secular context, like meditation, or is god really just releasing extra serotonin into baptist preachers' nervous systems?Matt Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17476827778760803809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87693910638433770042009-02-17T14:08:00.000-08:002009-02-17T14:08:00.000-08:00Yes Reginald, quite. Apparently you don't realise ...Yes Reginald, quite. Apparently you don't realise that such cheap 'point-scoring' diversionary one-liners that attack the person rather than their point-of-view, actually say more about your intellectual capacity, than mine (see, I can do 'em too! ;)<BR/><BR/>Still, your attempt at intellectual thuggery is most timely, as it pre-empts any inclination on my part to bother participating further. Still, I'm quite content to just be entertained from the sidelines!<BR/><BR/>So Thank Q! for revealing straightaway, both the quality of demeanour, and the tone of discussion that could be expected here.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?<BR/><BR/>So feel free to drop by to further abuse, amuse, and bemuse the i-Magi-Nation - anytime!<BR/><BR/>All The Best!one billion dalekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08792146398030529926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27059521380560858772009-02-17T07:01:00.000-08:002009-02-17T07:01:00.000-08:00Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms a...<I>Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.<BR/><BR/>Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for sharing your scientific ignorance with the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82729160227516889782009-02-16T16:11:00.000-08:002009-02-16T16:11:00.000-08:00Hello there Matt!Just a few general comments, havi...Hello there Matt!<BR/><BR/>Just a few general comments, having browsed your blog ...<BR/><BR/>The i-Magi-Nation enjoys your Atheist blog, it is a most entertaining and stimulating read! Though for myself, I must admit I haven't yet figured out why you spend so much time on blogging, when your worldview seems to by-and-large be modelled on the Dawkins notion that we only exist to propagate our genetic code, then die. I can't see how on earth blogging aids to this end, except in some obtuse and highly diffused manner perhaps.<BR/><BR/>I wonder too, why Richard Dawkins doesn't simply live according to his worldview, and focus on maximising his input into the gene pool, instead of unneccessarily exposing his genetic endowment to potentially hostile opponents, thus enhancing the likelihood of having his genes prematurely annihilated!<BR/><BR/>Oh well, perhaps he is some sort of faulty mutation ...<BR/><BR/>Come to think of it, <I>all</I> multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.<BR/><BR/>Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, your R2D2 project seems to be progressing very well! daleks use R2D2s for all sorts of things - see picture <A HREF="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Tx6UsW10cuo/SW_7gNFgqjI/AAAAAAAAAog/Hqkx78uqwEQ/s1600-h/2.jpg" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>OK then,<BR/>All The Best! :)one billion dalekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08792146398030529926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87204880993938500362009-02-16T08:53:00.000-08:002009-02-16T08:53:00.000-08:00My point is this.When Jesus was alive, they (His f...My point is this.<BR/><BR/>When Jesus was alive, they (His followers denied Him, deserted Him)<BR/><BR/>After He was crucified, buried, amd returned to them (after they saw Him)...<BR/><BR/>these SAME people who were so afraid of losing their lives...now were willing to die for Him.<BR/><BR/>I haven't chosen to die for Him. But I know that He is real because he has given me new life. He has climed me as His own in baptism and He has given me the faith to believe...othewise, I would never believe in Him of my own will.<BR/><BR/> I know that many here do not believe. That's ok. I can't, nor do I want to force anyone to believe.<BR/><BR/> But there may come a time, when you hear from the doctor that you have cancer, or when you are going through a divorce, or when you are gasping for your last breaths on your death bed...there may come a time when yuo will call out for Him. And He will be there for you. He will be there for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76425707346199294642009-02-15T14:17:00.000-08:002009-02-15T14:17:00.000-08:00The notion that some claim is true because there w...The notion that some claim is true because there were some people who were so wrapped up in it they were willing to die for it, is just a non-starter. First, we don't really know how committed the disciples and followers of Jesus were to the doctrine. We just have a few fragments of text written decades later about the events based on retellings of retellings of retellings of them. Second, if someone is so consumed by some idea or doctrine that they will die for it is a better indicator of how suspicious it is and how irrational their attachment to it is. That tells me that they've lost all capacity to make rational decisions about it. I'd be much more impressed to see some level of skepticism and caution from them. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.com