tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post9195982523456822860..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: With Enemies like this; who needs Friends?DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-2516575449197603272012-06-23T17:16:28.012-04:002012-06-23T17:16:28.012-04:00on a different note but still related to the Hitti...on a different note but still related to the Hittites, what does it mean or imply when someone calls me "a Hittite."<br /><br />Now I believe I was friendly with this person, so I assume they weren't insulting me but...<br /><br />this person was a little odd but not seemingly in a bad way. Any constructive comments?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05284946878295429603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-49380481704819038412011-01-31T23:02:08.111-05:002011-01-31T23:02:08.111-05:00lollolhappyboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-52764517297753053142011-01-31T22:39:32.140-05:002011-01-31T22:39:32.140-05:00Are you still a happy boy?Are you still a happy boy?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-77795501297229613812011-01-31T22:30:06.231-05:002011-01-31T22:30:06.231-05:00wow. i actually just read all that.wow. i actually just read all that.happyboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-58625648056713698402011-01-24T16:02:35.594-05:002011-01-24T16:02:35.594-05:00By the way, does anyone (this isn’t directed at D’...<i>By the way, does anyone (this isn’t directed at D’Ma) think I need to explain why I don’t dialogue with Dave Armstrong? It seems like petty internet feuding to do so.</i> <br /><br />Thanks for the confirmation and clarification (lest anyone mistakenly think you have actually been attempting dialogue). <br /><br />Again, I'm not the one calling you an immoral or dishonest person. At worst, I use a few pointed terms for what I consider weak arguments. But we can expect those on your side to take your side, no matter what happens. Nothing new there. <br /><br />Since I am interested in dialogue and you clearly are not (with me) by your own admission, then obviously we are at an impasse. I have no interest in mutual monologue, so we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.<br /><br />I thank you for the time you did put into this, and opportunity for me to clarify (and I think, considerably strengthen) my argument.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-31279108266749977142011-01-24T14:58:15.482-05:002011-01-24T14:58:15.482-05:00Yes, I'd agree that it appears to be "pet...Yes, I'd agree that it appears to be "petty internet feuding" to me. However, it's quite likely that I'm also illogical and confused as well. <br /><br />You cry foul Dave when Bum gets in your face yet somehow seem to think that you have not been insulting here at all. Is it because you are a "Christian apologist" that you get to insinuate DagoodS lacks "the courage of his convictions"?Zoehttp://acomplicatedsalvationreborn.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-40525325851009319032011-01-24T14:49:47.787-05:002011-01-24T14:49:47.787-05:00And the curtain is torn down, oh wizard. *grin*
I...And the curtain is torn down, oh wizard. *grin*<br /><br />I wasn't really asking for an explanation of either one of your researching skills. The point I was more making is that even with the research done some people(and I'm not naming names) seem to still have to make a lot of presumptions to tease out their argument. I'm not saying those presumptions are wrong, but I think the question I have is the same ones you may have. How can we know? So while we're going right to someone's premises, maybe we should look at our own (especially my own).<br /><br />In the few interactions I have had with you I have found you to be both humble and careful. You've answered my questions with humility and encouraged me to think critically for myself, not steering me in any particular direction. I appreciate that more than you know.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-41309958010678554292011-01-24T14:29:44.435-05:002011-01-24T14:29:44.435-05:00Thanks for the comment, D’Ma,
I hesitate to expla...Thanks for the comment, D’Ma,<br /><br />I hesitate to explain my researching skills. Like the magician, I fear once explained the magic becomes mundane, and the magician considered nothing more than a skilled laborer. All I did was two (2) things:<br /><br />1) Find the Google Book of the source cited;<br />2) Search “Hittite” or “Hittites.”<br /><br />The first step took a googlewhack. The second, typing in the single word in the “Find” box. I then found other instances where the same author referred to Hittites as existing. <br /><br />Not particularly impressive, eh? *grin* <br /><br />I personally find it very disingenuous to cut out a sentence…<i>especially</i> when the cut-out portion starts with “on the other hand” indicating a differing position than the first quote-mined part of the sentence.<br /><br />By the way, does anyone (this isn’t directed at D’Ma) think I need to explain why I don’t dialogue with Dave Armstrong? It seems like petty internet feuding to do so.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-74728323770803471382011-01-24T13:40:52.330-05:002011-01-24T13:40:52.330-05:00I say DagoodS is irrational and uninformed about C...I say DagoodS is irrational and uninformed about Christianity, so that he rejected it. Anyone would expect me to have <i>some</i> theory about atheists who once were Christians. I'm not gonna say his reasons for rejecting Christianity were perfectly good ones! I would be a pretty lousy Christian apologist if I thought that. :-)<br /><br />I don't say he is immoral and evil. But DagoodS generally says about Christians that they are profoundly stupid and also a pack of liars. Which is worse? I haven't attached moral judgment; he has.<br /><br />I can only do so much discussion about discussion. DagoodS refuses to actually talk about the thing itself in any comprehensive, normal fashion. He doesn't dialogue with me. That gets old. I will continue to seek an atheist who has the courage of his convictions and can defend them against honest criticisms.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-89467943654507141412011-01-24T12:21:35.727-05:002011-01-24T12:21:35.727-05:00I have to say that in reading the posts and the co...I have to say that in reading the posts and the comments I haven't found DagoodS to be inflammatory. He is simply using a blog to flesh out ideas and beliefs, the same as you. I certainly did not intend for my questions and observations to be used as a platform to denigrate the man on his own blog. Having said that I should come clean and say that I am having my own doubts so I am scoping out thoughts and criticisms on both sides. I still identify myself as a Christian, still in my heart of hearts believe in Christ at the moment, but as I said am having some doubts. <br /><br />I find it disingenuous to use quotes from people who whispered their thoughts in the ear of someone else because they wanted to distance themselves from the ideology. It is hearsay, and as much as we'd like to attribute intent, we simply can't. When it is said that there was a BOLD denial of the existence of the Hittites, it seems to me to be more of an idea bounced off of a colleague. People do that all the time. We have hypothesis about things that we later discover additional information to that causes us to change direction. I certainly would not want my feet held to the fire for every hypothesis I've ever had.<br /><br />You say that DagoodS is irrational and disturbed and that's what led him to atheism. However as a Christian I realize that to believe in this God or any other takes some belief in supernatural occurrences that we do not observe today. One might argue that a belief in a God is irrational and disturbed.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-61812440838708027082011-01-24T11:52:12.579-05:002011-01-24T11:52:12.579-05:00Another reason it is difficult to find is, as I ha...Another reason it is difficult to find is, as I have noted, because the word "Hittites" doesn't necessarily have to be used, if a person is so skeptical that he would relegate most of the early books of the Bible to mythology and legend. This definitely happened (I produced documentation). Such a position (such as held by Schultz or David Strauss or any number of higher critics) entails by its very nature a questioning of the Hittites' existence, along with that of many other figures involved.<br /><br />It doesn't <i>necessarily</i> do so (one could hold that there were real people who were distantly and initially connected to the later massive accretion of legend and myth: such as King Arthur or Robin Hood, etc,), but such a position might very well involve that premise (non-existence) within itself. And it could be expressed without ever saying the word "Hittite," so that Google Book searches, etc., would not locate it.<br /><br />But DagoodS has already stated that documentation of that sort is not good enough for him. Very convenient isn't it: if we irrationally rule out legitimate evidence and documentation for a position because it doesn't conform to a tee to what we say it should conform to? I have maintained that this is not the ideal evidence that could be found, but it is evidence, and relevant.<br /><br />But this is part and parcel of the frequently illogical nature of DagoodS' argumentation: that I have objected to. His thinking is thoroughly irrational and confused.<br /><br />Of course, you would expect me to say that, as a Christian. I say this is a key reason why he is an atheist, because of his disturbed, irrational thinking, that led him to atheism, by means of many false premises.<br /><br />This is how I generally approach atheists and atheism: the problem is not usually a matter of being immoral, but rather, of being irrational and improperly grounded in or informed of Christianity and its rationale. That's why I always go in my analyses and apologetics right to one's premises (a thing that DagoodS detests and despises).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-90578554345229694882011-01-24T11:40:39.286-05:002011-01-24T11:40:39.286-05:00Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they ...<i>Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they recant the use of this denial of the existence of Hittites as an apologetic when the person in question changed his views on the subject?</i><br /><br />In effect, yes. Kyle noted that no one argued like that anymore, in the same context, and I would contend that his not naming Budge was a charitable act, because the man no longer believed it; therefore shouldn't be named. But it was important to note that skeptics once argued in such a fashion and that archaeology had corrected them. Kyle took a middle road by not naming him, yet leaving clues for those really interested in who it might be.<br /><br />I think it is important to understand that skepticism in certain areas (basically from the school of higher criticism) was much greater in the past, before the advent of biblical archaeology, because we should learn from our mistakes. It's always good to know where we have come from. This is why history in general is a good and constructive field of study.<br /><br />That said, I think that when this is done, it should be properly documented. I'm as disgusted as atheists, at the use of some "proverbial"-sort of accepted wisdom, minus any documentation and hard evidence presented. This is why I have had to work so hard looking up things, because so many Christian apologists (even scholars) were too lazy to do so and contented themselves with simply parroting "commonly known" knowledge (i.e., within their own circles) that something or other was the case. That doesn't cut it. It's never been how I do my apologetics.<br /><br />But there are some reasons I have suggested, why it is so difficult to find documentation of this: it's very old (pre-1880), a lot is in German; skeptics were reluctant to put it in print (Budge), or to publish such radical opinions with their name attached (F. W. Newman).<br /><br />But there were such opinions. My research has shown that. It doesn't convince DagoodS, but nothing ever does: he is beyond all rational argument on some things. I write for others, not him. His was simply the extreme opinion that needed to be refuted. He doesn't dialogue (at least not with me). And that is what I am about. I seek dialogue, not mutual monologue (mixed in with a bunch of insults that have nothing to do with the topic).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-58971084896277595192011-01-24T09:47:16.550-05:002011-01-24T09:47:16.550-05:00"Then grave doubts in the past have been rais..."Then grave doubts in the past have been raised concerning the Hittites Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136)"<br /><br />I've been reading the back and forth between you guys as this has unfolded. I really don't have a dog in this fight and am unprepared from a research stand point to argue for or against. Thus what I am offering is an observation and not an argument.<br /><br />It seems to me, and as one who has typically been on the side of Christian apologist, that the arguments put forth by the Christian apologist in this case are a massive fail. This, again, is just an outside observation of facts.<br /><br />The key words in this are "Occasionally it has been boldly said". Just from the outside looking in, if the best as a Christian apologist, you have is that Sir Budge didn't outright deny the existence of the Hittites "because he didn't wanna do it in writing" it can hardly be called bold.<br /><br />It is my observation that apologists on both sides of any issue(I'm not speaking of anyone in particular here - so don't think I'm attacking anyone in this debate)tend to latch onto ideas and quote mine to support their own agenda.<br /><br />I think at the very least maybe some agreement could be had that if the support for said argument is not strong, and holes have been shot through and through, that maybe it's just not a good argument and drop it.<br /><br />It is hard to believe that apologists have clung to such a vague quote. But it does happen on both sides. <br /><br />Furthermore, I'd be interested to know, did the Christian apologist correct his statement later? Even if Sir Budge did make the statement at some point, it appears that he later corrected his views "in writing" when new information came to light. Did the Christian apologist do the same? Did they recant the use of this denial of the existence of Hittites as an apologetic when the person in question changed his views on the subject?<br /><br />Again, please do not take offense to my questions. I'm only offering an observation, and some honest questions.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-42770275036182766812011-01-23T15:22:31.736-05:002011-01-23T15:22:31.736-05:00In other words, in what was cited from Budge's...In other words, in what was cited from Budge's <i>writing</i>, he didn't outright deny their existence. That's because he didn't wanna say it in writing.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-53304480763777066532011-01-23T15:21:26.343-05:002011-01-23T15:21:26.343-05:00So Newman and Budge did NOT say “Hittites didn’t e...<i>So Newman and Budge did NOT say “Hittites didn’t exist” just “concepts similar in some respect only.”</i><br /><br />Yeah? So what? As I have now stated three times, and again now, I haven't argued otherwise. I stated as much in my first paper. Maybe you'll get it now.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-72164331274454797762011-01-23T11:10:44.176-05:002011-01-23T11:10:44.176-05:00Read Dave Armstrong’s response to my question as t...Read Dave Armstrong’s <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/01/great-hittite-wars-part-iv-lying.html" rel="nofollow">response</a> to my question as to why Kyle was citing Newman and Budge. He indicates “compare” means “concepts similar in some respect only.”<br /><br />He mocks me; calling me “foolish” for allegedly claiming Kyle’s use of compare means “without a doubt that he [Kyle] is claiming that his two similar citations are <i> absolutely identical </i> to the alleged oral statement of Budge.” [emphasis in the original] (Note I did not say they were absolutely identical. Example 17,233 of Dave Armstrong misrepresenting my position.)<br /><br />Interesting. So Kyle says “it has been boldly said that ‘no such people exist’ (compare Newman and Budge)” and Dave Armstrong insists this means the citations are NOT “absolutely identical” to the statement.<br /><br />So Newman and Budge did NOT say “Hittites didn’t exist” just “concepts similar in some respect only.”<br /><br />QEDDagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-43964630886977743452011-01-21T12:57:56.283-05:002011-01-21T12:57:56.283-05:00. . . he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny...<i>. . . he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites.</i><br /><br />I have already argued that this is implausible, because Budge would have known full well that he was the one being referred to, and that folks could figure it out without too much trouble, since so many clues were left, that I discovered myself. <br /><br />Therefore, if it were a complete falsehood that he had made such a denial, he would have surely renounced the misrepresentation. The fact that he was not named is overcome by the fact of obvious clues left, where readers can put two and two together.<br /><br />If Kyle were truly interested in lying and fabricating for mere polemical purposes, then he wouldn't have left so many clues to identity, precisely because it would backfire and become ugly with a strong rebuttal. It wouldn't be in his interest to do so; it would be counter-productive to his purpose. He would just say "so-and-so stated they didn't exist" without all the clues.<br /><br />So I find your take quite implausible on these grounds and on the basis of not being in the habit of regarding eminent scholars as bald-faced liars: especially regarding aspects of their own field.<br /><br />They may be wrong; stubbornly wrong, of course. They may be reluctant to change their mind when evidence warrants it, but they (atheist and Christian alike) don't usually lie and fudge the facts (i.e., unless they are in certain corners of the global warming PC crowd, where data manipulation is the norm).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-13149429069465228592011-01-21T12:55:58.244-05:002011-01-21T12:55:58.244-05:00Had to write a longer response for this one.
P....Had to write a <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/01/hittites-skeptics-and-hearsay.html" rel="nofollow">longer response </a> for this one.<br /><br /><br />P.S. “Compare” means in support of the proposition. “Contra” would mean against. See <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/6-300.htm" rel="nofollow">compare vs contra.</a> If Kyle wasn’t claiming the citations were supporting the claim “Occasionally it has boldly been said, ‘No such people existed,’” then what WAS he citing them for?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-68437428685930642462011-01-21T12:47:17.367-05:002011-01-21T12:47:17.367-05:00Right. So you think the most plausible explanation...Right. So you think the most plausible explanation is to simply call Kyle a liar regarding his report of what was said, huh? He completely fabricated a remark made by a very reputable archaeologist? Budge would categorically deny saying what Kyle reports him to be saying (if Budge is the guy)? <br /><br />I thought DagoodS might pull a stunt like that (since he thinks many many Christian apologists are in the habit of deliberately lying or being utterly incompetent in research); I didn't realize you were as hyper-skeptical.<br /><br />It's true that if one holds (like <i>Bareknuckles Bum</i> and to a lesser extent DagoodS) that those of a different persuasion are clearly a pack of liars and incompetents; intellectually dishonest through and through, that almost anything can be explained. You can do that; you can take a quasi-conspiratorial view of things.<br /><br />I approach things vastly differently: I take people (ALL people) at their word unless there is very strong, compelling evidence to doubt their individual honesty. I don't regard atheists <i>en masse</i> as a bunch of liars or evil people. Nope. I approach each one as a person with presumed integrity; as a seeker of truth and the good, as he or she deems it to be.<br /><br />The demonization of opponents is the primary cause of dialogues being impossible from the outset. Atheists and agnostics too often demonize Christians as dishonest liars or clueless dumbbells.<br /><br />We all have to get past that and regard those who differ from us as people with an honest disagreement: seekers of truth just as we are. We can dispute and dialogue and debate about what these truths are or might be, minus all the derogatory opinions and cynicism. But we must presume good faith and honesty in our opponent.<br /><br />At least that is what I will continue to do. I'll continue to seek atheists who don't start with an assumption that virtually all Christians are idiots or liars or "retards" (the <i>Bareknuckles Bum</i> mentality).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-83854966738374611582011-01-21T12:11:07.911-05:002011-01-21T12:11:07.911-05:00(1) Scholars bounce theories ideas off their colle...(1) Scholars bounce theories ideas off their colleagues all the time. Then they do research. If the evidence directly supports the theory or directly refutes it, they may publish something. If the evidence isn't is inconclusive, they don't make a claim about it. Sounds to me like Budge didn't make a claim.<br /><br />(2) Maybe, Kyle didn't identify Budge because he knew perfectly well that Budge would deny that he had ever categorically denied the existence of the Hittites. Maybe Kyle is just like all the other Christian apologists who have claimed that skeptics denied the Hittites without having the evidence to support their claim.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-49481572322102786462011-01-21T11:58:56.263-05:002011-01-21T11:58:56.263-05:00The First Vatican Council was in 1870. I meant to ...The First Vatican Council was in 1870. I meant to note the date above.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-63644528021041863462011-01-21T11:47:13.244-05:002011-01-21T11:47:13.244-05:00The same dynamic applied to Johann Joseph Ignaz vo...The same dynamic applied to Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger's works <i>Letters of Janus</i> and <i>Letters of Quirinus</i>, that dissented from the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council. They were anonymous. So this practice of anonymous dissent was not an unknown phenomenon at all.<br /><br />Budge would have been all the more reticent in 1904, with over 20 years of archaeological findings already having occurred. Like many scholars who have been proven wrong over the course of time, he held on to his outmoded beliefs in the face of manifest evidence.<br /><br />Archaeology is no different from natural science in that respect (see Thomas Kuhn's <i>Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i>), since human nature is the same and pride is a huge factor working against the granting of concessions and admitting error.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-81538265864850804982011-01-21T11:30:51.125-05:002011-01-21T11:30:51.125-05:00Newman's Hebrew Monarchy, incidentally, was in...Newman's <i>Hebrew Monarchy</i>, incidentally, was initially published anonymously, so again we see a reluctance of the higher critics to openly state their more radical claims (in this case, in print, but without a name attached; in Budge's case, in conversation only).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-71205012006770008802011-01-21T11:25:40.824-05:002011-01-21T11:25:40.824-05:00. . . unable to cite any scholar who ever publishe...<i>. . . unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague.</i><br /><br />It looks like you didn't read what I wrote above or the latest section of my paper.<br /><br />Kyle was (it seems pretty evident to me) being charitable to a very eminent fellow Egyptologist (Sir A. E. Wallis Budge) who had been shown to be dead wrong (two years after he made his statement), based on the seminal Hittite archaeological finds of 1906-1907, under Winckler.<br /><br />Secondly, as he noted, Budge did not state this in print (he stated in print the lesser claim that the "Kheta" were not the same as the Hittites). He was apparently afraid to do so. Therefore, he expressed it privately. So Kyle honored the confidentiality by not naming him; yet he left so many obvious clues as to his identity, that I could figure it out 100 years later by a textual comparison and a fun bit of "literary archaeology."<br /><br />Thus, not naming him didn't have to do with lack of evidence, but with the demands of charity towards a colleague, and the reluctance of the latter to publish his true opinion.<br /><br />In his article "Archaeology" in <i>The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</i>, Kyle names many higher critics who question everything under the sun in the Bible. He didn't name Budge there as the person who made the denial, but he left a clue in context (see all the clues in my paper):<br /><br />"Occasionally it has been boldly said that 'no such people ever existed' (compare Newman, <i>Hebrew Monarchy</i>, 184-85; Budge, <i>Hist of Egypt</i>, IV, 136)."<br /><br />The use of "compare" means that he wasn't claiming that these two works made the claim. They didn't. Budge said it privately to Kyle in 1904, as Kyle noted (not naming him) in <i>The Fundamentals</i> (1909). Since Newman died in 1897, this clue narrows it down to Budge.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-91223968507177283312011-01-21T08:41:44.590-05:002011-01-21T08:41:44.590-05:00Last paragraph should have read:
If I read your l...Last paragraph should have read:<br /><br />If I read your latest findings correctly, even one of the authors of the work that gave “fundamentalism” <b>its name</b> is unable to cite any scholar who ever published a claim that the Hittites never existed. The most he can provide is the private musings of an anonymous colleague. I think you are right to anticipate that Dagoods is not going to admit defeat on that.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com