Slowly re-carting the geography and demography of Africa. In our struggle to act and be like the Europeans, we have enslaved our future to them .

Looking at it from another perspective, he was in Egypt to deal with mid eastern affairs. He is in Ghana to deal with sub saharan africa. Two different themes.

sub saharan africa

There you go. . . you just proved the point that the continent is partitioned.

Besides, you don't go to Ghana to deal with sub saharan Africa. What significance is Ghana to the stability and progress of sub-sahara Africa.

I don't know any country in West Africa that qualifies as a model or torch bearer for progress and stability. If asked to plan Obama's itinerary for Africa I would pick Tanzania as his first visit. Tanzania is not immune to all the problems that most other African countries have experienced but Tanzania is about the only country that has transformed itself significantly and successfully.

I think you are digressing from the topic of the thread.

I was talking to an Egyptian someday, and we shared the same view about Africa and how it can make progress, I was shocked beyond my wildest dreams when I asked him how exactly it was in Egypt, he went "first I have to mention it to you that Egypt is in the middle east".

That was when I realised we have been on different page all along.

Look Racism is not only practised in the west, even Arabs, think they are somewhat better than the black African. 

And it is been clearly demonstrated in Sudan, tell me why the supporters of APC are killing blacks in darfur, are there not muslims among the blacks they kill. Its just the Fulanis believeing they are better than the true black man.

I have always mentioned to anyone who cares to listen that the fulanis is the problem Nigeria has, they believe they are better than the average black man and will do anything to hold on to power.

I think you are digressing from the topic of the thread.

I was talking to an Egyptian someday, and we shared the same view about Africa and how it can make progress, I was shocked beyond my wildest dreams when I asked him how exactly it was in Egypt, he went "first I have to mention it to you that Egypt is in the middle east".

That was when I realised we have been on different page all along.

Look Racism is not only practised in the west, even Arabs, think they are somewhat better than the black African.

And it is been clearly demonstrated in Sudan, tell me why the supporters of APC are killing blacks in darfur, are there not muslims among the blacks they kill. Its just the Fulanis believeing they are better than the true black man.

I have always mentioned to anyone who cares to listen that the fulanis is the problem Nigeria has, they believe they are better than the average black man and will do anything to hold on to power.

My friend, every race on earth believe they are better than Blacks. Even amongst blacks, the light skinned believe they are better than dark skinned. It is a brainwash. The brainwash has to do with physical attributes. There is another type of brainwash - The brainwash of historical accounts.

I am glad you referenced both Egypt and Sudan in your response because I am going to change your view about Africa. The Africa that Imperial Europe know is not the one they are teaching you in school textbooks or written in public libraries and museums. Matter of fact, let me go ahead and declare to you that there exist private libraries and museums containing artifacts which are foerever closed to the public and is nonetheless funded by public tax and managed under custody of public trust. Access to them are limited and highly restricted. The Vatican has one such libraries in its vaults. You must wonder. . . if there is nothing to hide, why the secrecy and restriction to historical records. hmm? You ever wondered that far in your mind?

Let me ask you a simple question. How old is Sudan?

.

Negro_Ntns:



My friend, every race on earth believe they are better than Blacks. Even amongst blacks, the light skinned believe they are better than dark skinned. It is a brainwash. The brainwash has to do with physical attributes. There is another type of brainwash - The brainwash of historical accounts.

I am glad you referenced both Egypt and Sudan in your response because I am going to change your view about Africa. The Africa that Imperial Europe know is not the one they are teaching you in school textbooks or written in public libraries and museums. Matter of fact, let me go ahead and declare to you that there exist private libraries and museums containing artifacts which are foerever closed to the public and is nonetheless funded by public tax and managed under custody of public trust. Access to them are limited and highly restricted. The Vatican has one such libraries in its vaults. You must wonder. . . if there is nothing to hide, why the secrecy and restriction to historical records. hmm? You ever wondered that far in your mind?

Let me ask you a simple question. How old is Sudan?

.

Sudan is about 10,000 years old.  Please land quickly with what you have to say, I am very interested.
Sorry to have jumped the gun, but I am impatient to hear what you've got to say.

Sorry to have jumped the gun, but I am impatient to hear what you've got to say.

Oh, I didn't mean to raise anxiety that high and please forgive my approach. But yes, I will get to the point.

We cannot separate the history of Sudan from Egypt. Infact, Sudan was Egypt. Their division into individual and separate sovereignties is fewer in years than the age of their civilization together. I don't know if I should work it backward or work it forward. . .but in any event if you are lost to the point I am making please demand my clarification.

Far back when Egypt reigned as a superpower there was only one adversary that stood in their way and that was the Ottoman Empire. Trading routes were between Africans and the Asians. . .no one paid Europe any mind because they were still in dark ages. Thank God to the influence of Egypt from their South and Ottoman from their East, they would not have evolved to what they are today. How did that transformation come about? In many successive steps.

Sometimes the waning power of one Empire leads to an increase in the rising power of another Empire elsewhere. The Pharaohs were of Nubian origin and stock. This is undisputable. The Pharaohs had two capitals - Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt was geographically located in the Kushite territory along the Nile and that region is today in Sudan. Lower Egypt was geographically located further away from the interior and in the direction of Europe and is where today is the territory of Cairo and Alexandria. For strategic reasons, old empires never locate state capitals on the edge of their dominion. . .they were always locked inland for maximum shield against surprises. The Upper Egypt capital was the spiritual capital and the Lower Egypt was a trade/caravan route between Maghrib (Today Morrocco) and Syria and Persia (Today Iran). Upper Egypt is where the Kings and their Priests hold court and Lower Egypt is where the Ministers are stationed for diplomatic missions. Trade junctions were very essential to the commerce of an Empire and many towns and mega cities today grew out of such ancient caravan/trade junctions.

Egypt reigned over Palestine and into Assyria. There was nothing called Saudi Arabia then. Clashes between Egypt and Ottoman resulted in territorial losses. The Egyptians (Nubians - negroes like you and me) were the ones that enslaved the Jews. You have to wonder, if there were Jews in Europe and other lands and these other places were civilized, why did they not wage war against the Nubians to free the Jews? It's because there were only two civilizations competing over the region now called Middle East and neither one particularly cared for Jew and so Jew was the race that no one wanted to be or associate with back then. Kinda like the black race today. . .

Well, Ottoman Empire broke up into sub Empires and so did the Nubian Empire (Egypt). Out of these multiple break ups is where Persian Empire came from. . . the Roman Empire grew. In fact before Roman the Greeks existed and were adversary to the Persian Empire.

So what happened to Upper Egypt? With the growth and expansion of Roman Empire then you have sub Empires such as Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal. The Nubians were the gate keepers of Lower Egypt up bordering Meditarenean Sea. When their Empire collapsed they retreated inland, down to Upper Egypt. What they had left further splintered into Kushite and Axumite Empires (Abyssinia). Haile Selassie was the last Emperor of that dynasty. Now, it was easy for Arabs to penetrate into Africa and enslave our people because the guardians of the outpost had all perished or abandoned station.

It was relatively easy for the Romans to penetrate as well and take over Lower Ehypt and establish their reign in the region. In addition with colonial rules. . . in their greed for total control of Lower Egypt and in an aim to re-write history. . . Britain was against Egypt and Sudan remaining one nation and so it worked covertly and succeeded in severing their ties and giving them individual sovereignties. Now, over the years and with castigation of black people as backward and abominable. . . just as the jews were treated in ancient times. . . the inhabitants of Lower Egypt began to separate from their black roots and associated with Arabs or Europeans.

Almost all the statutes. . . the Kings and Priests statutes that had Nubian features (Negroid) have been modified and given new appearances to match a rewrite of history claiming Egypt as land of Arabs or Europeans.

I know the response is rushed and kind of jumbled together. I will clarify any point if you want.

Very good post. Tell it bro!!!

Egypt reigned over Palestine and into Assyria. There was nothing called Saudi Arabia then. Clashes between Egypt and Ottoman resulted in territorial losses. The Egyptians (Nubians - negroes like you and me) were the ones that enslaved the Jews. You have to wonder, if there were Jews in Europe and other lands and these other places were civilized, why did they not wage war against the Nubians to free the Jews? It's because there were only two civilizations competing over the region now called Middle East and neither one particularly cared for Jew and so Jew was the race that no one wanted to be or associate with back then. Kinda like the black race today. . .

I don't agree with this, there is no evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt.

Almost all the statutes. . . the Kings and Priests statutes that had Nubian features (Negroid) have been modified and given new appearances to match a rewrite of history claiming Egypt as land of Arabs or Europeans.

The pics below should help. It's quite obvious that the people depicted are black

Another one. . .

Thanks for these pictures. If you study Egypt's artifacts, especially the pictures and arts you can tell which is associated with where; Lower or Upper Egypt.

The first picture is ornamented, highly decorated and glossed in two colors golden yellow and blue. Rays of golden sun pouring down on a throne on which sits a titular head (crown) attended to by a maiden on whose head is a symbolic figure of the sexual organ of both the male and female gender. Sun represent life, vitality and longevity. It also represent enlightenement of the mind or knowledge. The color gold represent commerce since back then gold was the standard of weight and it equates to prosperity. The blue in the color stand for River Nile. In the Pharaoh times, River Nile had significance and more value than does the Mediterranean sea. Nile provided water for irrigating farmlands, the cattle grazed along its banks and its water is used for spiritual rituals to the gods. The ornaments represented trade and commerce.

The second picture was that of Upper Egypt. Notice the colors here. . . a lot of white. White represented purity. There is no visible sign of ornamental decorations or material prosperity here. Thats because priests live an austere life and they must be freed from any materialistic leanings. . . you can see that sign of austerity. Now, notice the monkeys. They are etched into the wall at the headstone of the tomb. Monkey represent wisdom or in other words the boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness. . . thats the state of death. . .a transformation stage.


Anyway, why do you say Jews were not enslaved by Egypytians?

Negro_Ntns:

Oh, I didn't mean to raise anxiety that high and please forgive my approach. But yes, I will get to the point.

We cannot separate the history of Sudan from Egypt. Infact, Sudan was Egypt. Their division into individual and separate sovereignties is fewer in years than the age of their civilization together. I don't know if I should work it backward or work it forward. . .but in any event if you are lost to the point I am making please demand my clarification.

Far back when Egypt reigned as a superpower there was only one adversary that stood in their way and that was the Ottoman Empire. Trading routes were between Africans and the Asians. . .no one paid Europe any mind because they were still in dark ages. Thank God to the influence of Egypt from their South and Ottoman from their East, they would not have evolved to what they are today. How did that transformation come about? In many successive steps.

Sometimes the waning power of one Empire leads to an increase in the rising power of another Empire elsewhere. The Pharaohs were of Nubian origin and stock. This is undisputable. The Pharaohs had two capitals - Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt was geographically located in the Kushite territory along the Nile and that region is today in Sudan. Lower Egypt was geographically located further away from the interior and in the direction of Europe and is where today is the territory of Cairo and Alexandria. For strategic reasons, old empires never locate state capitals on the edge of their dominion. . .they were always locked inland for maximum shield against surprises. The Upper Egypt capital was the spiritual capital and the Lower Egypt was a trade/caravan route between Maghrib (Today Morrocco) and Syria and Persia (Today Iran). Upper Egypt is where the Kings and their Priests hold court and Lower Egypt is where the Ministers are stationed for diplomatic missions. Trade junctions were very essential to the commerce of an Empire and many towns and mega cities today grew out of such ancient caravan/trade junctions.

Egypt reigned over Palestine and into Assyria. There was nothing called Saudi Arabia then. Clashes between Egypt and Ottoman resulted in territorial losses. The Egyptians (Nubians - negroes like you and me) were the ones that enslaved the Jews. You have to wonder, if there were Jews in Europe and other lands and these other places were civilized, why did they not wage war against the Nubians to free the Jews? It's because there were only two civilizations competing over the region now called Middle East and neither one particularly cared for Jew and so Jew was the race that no one wanted to be or associate with back then. Kinda like the black race today. . .

Well, Ottoman Empire broke up into sub Empires and so did the Nubian Empire (Egypt). Out of these multiple break ups is where Persian Empire came from. . . the Roman Empire grew. In fact before Roman the Greeks existed and were adversary to the Persian Empire.

So what happened to Upper Egypt? With the growth and expansion of Roman Empire then you have sub Empires such as Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal. The Nubians were the gate keepers of Lower Egypt up bordering Meditarenean Sea. When their Empire collapsed they retreated inland, down to Upper Egypt. What they had left further splintered into Kushite and Axumite Empires (Abyssinia). Haile Selassie was the last Emperor of that dynasty. Now, it was easy for Arabs to penetrate into Africa and enslave our people because the guardians of the outpost had all perished or abandoned station.

It was relatively easy for the Romans to penetrate as well and take over Lower Ehypt and establish their reign in the region. In addition with colonial rules. . . in their greed for total control of Lower Egypt and in an aim to re-write history. . . Britain was against Egypt and Sudan remaining one nation and so it worked covertly and succeeded in severing their ties and giving them individual sovereignties. Now, over the years and with castigation of black people as backward and abominable. . . just as the jews were treated in ancient times. . . the inhabitants of Lower Egypt began to separate from their black roots and associated with Arabs or Europeans.

Almost all the statutes. . . the Kings and Priests statutes that had Nubian features (Negroid) have been modified and given new appearances to match a rewrite of history claiming Egypt as land of Arabs or Europeans.

I know the response is rushed and kind of jumbled together. I will clarify any point if you want.

I stopped reading from the area in bold as it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

You have lost quite a lot in the middle, before the area in bold.

Before the roman empire, there were the Incas, the greeks, and the monguls in the east. So you see how it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

If the Romans came out of the division of the Eyptian and Ottoman empire. So how do you explain the Incas, the greeks and monguls. I will hold it there and await an explanation, before I ask you about the saxons.

And then there was nothing like France, Britain, Spain or Portugal, Even Turkey existed before this places.

_{God bless turkish women, what beauty.}

Beaf:

Very good post. Tell it bro!!!
I don't agree with this, there is no evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt.

The pics below should help. It's quite obvious that the people depicted are black

Biblical records. Are you not familiar with "pharoah let my people go"?

Ikomi:

I stopped reading from the area in bold as it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

You have lost quite a lot in the middle, before the area in bold.

Before the roman empire, there were the Incas, the greeks, and the monguls in the east. So you see how it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

If the Romans came out of the division of the Eyptian and Ottoman empire. So how do you explain the Incas, the greeks and monguls. I will hold it there and await an explanation, before I ask you about the saxons.

And then there was nothing like France, Britain, Spain or Portugal, Even Turkey existed before this places.

_{God bless turkish women, what beauty.} 

I didn't see where in Negro_Ntns post he claimed that the romans and co came out of the division of the egyptian and ottoman empire. He simply referred to them as sub empires meaning they weren't as powerful and weren't the dominant empires of the time. A lot of African history has been lost, even closer to home, the destruction of the Benin Kingdom by Europeans. The Europeans would want you to believe the Benin Kingdom was people swinging on trees, etc, but records prove different. West Africa had close trade ties to the portugese and their account of what the Benin Kingdom looked like is quite different, they speak of an organised city, streets, well organised rows of houses, etc. I hope this discourse can stay on point and not be derailed, nice thread Negro_Ntns, God bless. 

Ikomi:

I stopped reading from the area in bold as it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

You have lost quite a lot in the middle, before the area in bold.

Before the roman empire, there were the Incas, the greeks, and the monguls in the east. So you see how it does not agree with my knowledge of history.

If the Romans came out of the division of the Eyptian and Ottoman empire. So how do you explain the[b] Incas[/b], the greeks and monguls. I will hold it there and await an explanation, before I ask you about the saxons.

And then there was nothing like France, Britain, Spain or Portugal, Even Turkey existed before this places.

_{God bless turkish women, what beauty.}

Why is the Incas coming up here? They were across the Atlantic in present-day Central/South America. The Greeks and Mongols were in Eurasia.

Negro_Ntns:

I know the response is rushed and kind of jumbled together. I will clarify any point if you want.

RichyBlacK:

Why is the Incas coming up here? They were across the Atlantic in present-day Central/South America. The Greeks and Mongols were in Eurasia.

Richyblack the man himself said it, its a big jumble many things are missing.

But I get the bottom line of the story, he is just trying to point out that we have never been on the same page with Arabs. I am not sure who took more black slaves between the Arabs and the British.

But one thing am very sure of is that until the true blacks either Hausa, Yoruba or Igbo take the reign of power from those Fulanis in Nigeria, and run things like reasonable humans as the Ghanians in their true black blood are trying to show to the world that democracy is actually an African thing.

Nigeria will continue to experience Monarch leadership from those Fulanis who see the black man as nothing in the first place, and would rather put in place autocracy, to ensure its hold on power, which will lead that nation Nigeria nowhere even in 100 years to come.

Negro_Ntns:

Anyway, why do you say Jews were not enslaved by Egypytians?

There is no account (outside the Bible) of Jewish slavery in Egypt. The bible account is so flaky that the name of the Pharaoh is not given (hallmark of a fudge). Also, as you've stated; Egypt was in control of Palestine at the time. The brand spanking new land of milk and honey was Egyptian territory!

I admire your lateral thinking, you are right to point out the jumbling up of African history. The Arabs only ruled Egypt after 641AD, thats one point that usually gets overlooked (just like not a single Pharaoh has been found entombed in a pyramid).

The history of several Nigerian cultures is tied to Egypt; including parts of Edo, Urhobo, Yoruba and several others.

Keep it rolling.

Beaf:

There is no account (outside the Bible) of Jewish slavery in Egypt. The bible account is so flaky that the name of the Pharaoh is not given (hallmark of a fudge). Also, as you've stated; Egypt was in control of Palestine at the time. The brand spanking new land of milk and honey was Egyptian territory!

I admire your lateral thinking, you are right to point out the jumbling up of African history. The Arabs only ruled Egypt after 641AD, thats one point that usually gets overlooked (just like not a single Pharaoh has been found entombed in a pyramid).

The history of several Nigerian cultures is tied to Egypt; including parts of Edo, Urhobo, Yoruba and several others.

Keep it rolling.

?? Exactly how much research have you done on the subject to arrive at such a conclusion that there is no evidence? Though some people like to berate it the irony is that the people and even scientists the world over have on many accounts used biblical records since it chronicles many events like the different accounts of slavery and rulerships the jews have been under, etc. Considering that there have been huge leaps in methods employed by archeologists and more is now known about ancient egypt, are there any archeological finds that disprove the account of the jews being under Egyptian slavery?

Sky Blue:

?? Exactly how much research have you done on the subject to arrive at such a conclusion that there is no evidence? Though some people like to berate it the irony is that the people and even scientists the world over have on many accounts used biblical records since it chronicles many events like the different accounts of slavery and rulerships the jews have been under, etc. Considering that there have been huge leaps in methods employed by archeologists and more is now known about ancient egypt, are there any archeological finds that disprove the account of the jews being under Egyptian slavery?

We are digressing.

The strange thing is that the bible is the only source of the exodus story and like I said, archeological finds prove that Egypt occupied the area the Jews were supposed to have run off to. Pharaoh's name? . . .Not even provided.
Using the bible a source of historical information is only ok for religious purposes. It isn't a history book or a science book and will never be.

Ikomi,

Sky and Richy have both clarified it better than I could have done. I want you to keep an open mind.

On the Fulani Emirate and Sultanate. . .you will know that Fulani nation is spread across West Africa but its only in Northern Nigeria that they have established a dynasty. This says much about Hausa tribe and their place in history. Prior to Dan Fodio's Jihad, who were the Hausas and how powerful were they? I don't want to dilute the topic with this Fulani issue and I will stop here. Please open a separate topic on that for review.

God bless turkish women, what beauty

Turn that compass off for now. . .

There is no account (outside the Bible) of Jewish slavery in Egypt. The bible account is so flaky that the name of the Pharaoh is not given (hallmark of a fudge). Also, as you've stated; Egypt was in control of Palestine at the time. The brand spanking new land of milk and honey was Egyptian territory!

The strange thing is that the bible is the only source of the exodus story and like I said, archeological finds prove that Egypt occupied the area the Jews were supposed to have run off to. Pharaoh's name? . . .Not even provided.
Using the bible a source of historical information is only ok for religious purposes. It isn't a history book or a science book and will never be.

Beaf,

For a very long time history was totally in oral form. . . passed down from one generation to the other through indoctrination. In record, the Egyptians were the first scribes and they etched hieroglyphics onto walls to communicate ideas and events. The ten commandments is not the first written message but serve as record of a first written scripture. That scripture contains more than just the popular ten commandments. . . it is a detailed message of communication to the Jews. If we are looking for evidence or lack of on the slavery of the Jews by the Egyptians we must review two historical records. The first will be a true and complete translation of hieroglyphic messages recovered so far and archived. The second will be a complete review of the Book of Moses, in which the Ten Commanments was revealed. As is common with scriptures, God gives a past, a current and then admonishes humanity with the coming future. We must ask, where is The Book of Moses?

Some of it is in the Bible and some is in the Quran. Both talk about the enslavement and captivity of the Jews in Egypt. The mention of names will be hard to lift because the names we know today might not be the names with which those Pharaos were known back then. The names we know today evolved out of Roman and Latin nomenclature and pronounciations and should be expected to differ from its ancient roots which preceded the times of Ceasar.

I agree, Scriptures should not be used as history books but the history they account for serve appropriately as the opening for us into the total human experience and relativity. They become the authority against which to test and prove or disprove of theories and evolutionary timeline.

Negro_Ntns:

Ikomi,

Sky and Richy have both clarified it better than I could have done.  I want you to keep an open mind. 

On the Fulani Emirate and Sultanate. . .you will know that Fulani nation is spread across West Africa but its only in Northern Nigeria that they have established a dynasty.  This says much about Hausa tribe and their place in history.  Prior to Dan Fodio's Jihad, who were the Hausas and how powerful were they?  I don't want to dilute the topic with this Fulani issue and I will stop here.  Please open a separate topic on that for review. 

Turn that compass off for now. . .   


Beaf,

For a very long time history was totally in oral form. . . passed down from one generation to the other through indoctrination.  In record, the Egyptians were the first scribes and they etched hieroglyphics onto walls to communicate ideas and events.  The ten commandments is not the first written message but serve as record of a first written scripture.  That scripture contains more than just the popular ten commandments. . . it is a detailed message of communication to the Jews.  If we are looking for evidence or lack of on the slavery of the Jews by the Egyptians we must review two historical records.   The first will be a true and complete translation of hieroglyphic messages recovered so far and archived.  The second will be a complete review of the Book of Moses, in which the Ten Commanments was revealed.  As is common with scriptures, God gives a past, a current and then admonishes humanity with the coming future.  We must ask, where is The Book of Moses?   

Some of it is in the Bible and some is in the Quran.  Both talk about the enslavement and captivity of the Jews in Egypt.  The mention of names will be hard to lift because the names we know today might not be the names with which those Pharaos were known back then.  The names we know today evolved out of Roman and Latin nomenclature and pronounciations and should be expected to differ from its ancient roots which preceded the times of Ceasar. 

I agree, Scriptures should not be used as history books but the history they account for serve appropriately as the opening for us into the total human experience and relativity.  They become the authority against which to test and prove or disprove of theories and evolutionary timeline.   

The part in bold is an issue that people fail to take into consideration a lot of the time. IT is like biblical names, Moses probably wasn't called moses the way we know it but when translated fromt he original hebrew names now became the moses we now pronounce the way we do. Same with a lot of other documents, people don't put it in context. Its like looking at a man who had $50,000 in the 1920s as a poor man when in reality if you factor in inflation, currency value, etc, $50,000 then was a huge sum. According to my understanding of how hieroglyphics is decoded, a pattern recognition system is used and compared with what is attainable in languages. Example, some words are more common and more generally used than others in a huge proportion of languages, some letters used to make up words are also more common, while some are used the least. Hence you can understand the complexities in actually obtaining fully accurate translations, instead what is sort is the basic gist of the matter and when you factor in the fact that there are a lot of extinct languages, then you get into even murkier and less clarified territory.

A lot of documents we see as "historical" in the English language sense of the word actually aren't word for word translation and a lot of things get lost in the process, context is lost, in some cases meanings, rhymes, cultures, metaphors, etc, are lost. @Beaf, I raise these points to highlight the fact that things aren't as open shut as you seem to propose. That is why i asked if you looked into the issue to see what and what isn't disproved. Its not just about having the "knowledge" per se, but being able to discern what to do or obtain with such knowledge.

@Negro_Ntns,

Well done!!!

O, Afam preceded me.

Well thought-out thread.