₦airaland Forum

Putindbutt:
ADC presidential candidate in the last election, Dumebi Kachikwu has thrown an open challenge to the coalition to come out and tell Nigerians they are not planning to make Atiku the presidential candidate. If they do, he will support the coalition and withdraw his litigation. Since last week, they have not been able to come out to respond to him 🤣😂🤣

This "Obi or nothing" approach is not only undemocratic, it is outright tyrannical and smacks of strongarm/ blackmail tactics. It is also very likely to destroy the coalition and ensure victory for BAT.

Who are the owners?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If Wike can behave the way he does in public, I wonder how he will behave in private, when the cameras are not rolling. Must be a sight to behold.

sonmvayina:
Scientific?

I don't understand. I can choose to do what I want to do. Who is stopping me?

1. Genetics. 2. Circumstances. 3. Causal chains. 4. Capacity.

Kukutente23:
But it also does not make sense for the people who contributed 30% to come out and claim all the glory for your traveling out
That will be playing god where they only lend a helping hand

The thing is that it was the critical mass required to cross the finish line after it had been repeatedly shown that PMB's steady 10 - 12 Million would not do it. Lets admit that.

NewHe:
That's the difference between you and I,respect for elders and constituted authority, thats the modest civill and spiritual deeds expected of a citizen!
Maybe if your own king (Obi or Atiku or whosoever) get their i have no option to support and honour them.
I dedicated a book to GEJ because of his impactful program, likewise Tinubu for his leadership qualities but none to Buhari not because he didn't try and no where will you find me abusing any constituted leader!

I never said you should abuse anyone. Or do you also believe it is wrong to criticize your leaders? Is criticism necessarily the same thing as disrespect or abuse?

emkz:
Many of those who worked under Buhari have turned out to be ingrates because of unemployment.

In 2011, coalition talks failed as Buhari refused to concede the vice presidential ticket to Tinubu's camp. In 2015, the merger paid off when Buhari conceded the vice presidential slot to Tinubu.

The additional 3 million votes led to offsetting Jonathan's votes by 2,571,759.

Without Tinubu, Saraki and some others, Buhari would never have won that election and Babachir and Boss Mustapha would not have been SGF.

Tinubu contributed immenseley to rebranding Buhari and successfully removed the tag of religious fundamentalism from Buhari, which influenced Buhari's marketability.

Despite Buhari's team sidelining Tinubu during Buhari's tenure, Tinubu remained true to the party. Despite the party abandoning APC Edo during Obaseki's second term campaign, Tinubu supported the party. Despite many in Buhari's camp refusing to openly campaign for Tinubu, Tinubu campaigned as if his life depended on it. Buhari later joined when it became clear he was being unfair to Tinubu.

Now, many of Buhari's disciples who feel sidelined are now undermining Tinubu. Osinbajo himself undermined Tinubu by running against him and got served. It's been only two years, and many of Buhari's disciples cannot stay the course. Buhari and Tinubu were the arrowheads of APC. Buhari had his time, Tinubu also deserves his time. After Buhari, Tinubu took more heat on behalf of APC during Buhari's tenure.

There were rumours that some people in Buhari's government were more disposed to an Atiku presidency when the Ahmad Lawan project failed. The way they are trooping to the coalition, it is clear where they stood.

Even if Babachir, Boss Mustapha, Malami, Laureta Onochie and some Buhari's closest fellows detest Tinubu, they should be reminded that Buhari would never have been president without Tinubu's support.

To politicians, think of the future. Do not make enemies because of temporary hunger. You abuse Tinubu today. Tomorrow, you might need someone from his camp to support you. Why should he trust you?

I am a person who detests BAT and will permanently remain implacably opposed to him but I have to say most of what you say here is the pure truth.

luminouz:
Spam?

Na email you dey check?

Lol...you need Brighter Grammar!!!

Yen yen yen like parrot!!!

Spam
1 of 3
noun
ˈspam
: unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spam

From the foregoing it is possible to deduce that the poster you are responding to may be such a recipient as described in the bold.

Quelme:
We go again 2027 for the people's president, Ahmed Bola Tinubu.

Stop cracking bad and insensitive jokes. He may be the IMF President. He may be the President for chosen billionaires. He may even be the Politicians President. But not in a million years can he be called the people's president.

NewHe:
We're talking about open letter published in major dailies!
Of course he appreciated all government but Tinubu own is distinct!

A public letter is what is distinct?

You guys are too deep in your worship of this man.

I repeat. Church rats have no business worshipping their oppressors.

Finally, even if Dangote prostrates publicly for Tinubu, tell me how that validates good government? It only shows that Dangote knows he has to bow down to this King because his nature.

There were other kings who didn't have the nature which forced people to bow down to them.

Try and stand on your feet please. Get off your knees.

NewHe:
Why didn't he write such letter to Jonathan, Buhari when they were there?

My dear, if you think he didnt toast every single President this country has had, you are on a long thing.
I repeat: Church rats being oppressed and exploited and enslaved by the same person should learn not to praise their enmslaver.

flokii:
PBAT is a visionary leader.. most high brow areas in Lagos are built on water (reclaimed through sand filling).
Those criticizing him out of envy and tribalism can't stay in their home States.. it's Tinubu's Lagos they are all running to.

You want sensible Nigerians to leave a man with development blueprint and master plan for packaged fraud with no achievements to him name.. you guys need to get checked

NewHe:
It's not only Dangote or the elites that are praising him. Corporate organisations, businesses, investors even diplomats ( i was at an event that USA ambassador to Nigeria was giving kudos to PBAT)
Ordinary citizens are also acknowledging him!
Only haters, opposition, lazy and uninformed people who doesn't know what reforms meant are shouting!

seunjungle1:
This new testament from Dangote to our dear President would definitely choke other side people today.
Lazy people looking for free money up and down....go double your hustling, and if you no get try I look for one.
We are hiring, if you have interest.

blamingthedevil:
God Bless President Bola Tinubu, the Best President in the history of Nigeria
God Bless Aliko Dangote
God Bless Federal Republic of Nigeria

A billionaire who is business partners with government and politicians has every reason to write glowingly of them. It is called strategy.
Church rats who are being exploited by same govt and politicians have no reason to do the same.
Learn.

They just won't stop.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

triplechoice:
. . . why for God sake you won't allow me to use everyday language , intelligent and design, to describe what's obvious in nature.

I warned you to be careful of any one who will ask you for the meaning of the word "intelligent."

LordReed:
LoLz. What is this? This doesn't make sense to me. Is me sitting in a room supposed to be remarkable?

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - >

DeepSight:
Do you know the practice of taking a person to a river to have his head washed in order to re-route hs destiny or remove cobwebs from his brain?

That may be the sort of thing FreeIgboho requires.

FreeIgboho:
It is NOT arrogance when you actually know the correct answer

It is arrogance to presume that no one else does.

FreeIgboho:
Not only that, your "choice" is determined by where you were born, to whom, and circumstances you grew up in, plus the kind of brain and personality you were given - none of which was chosen by you!

Doesnt this destroy your entire biblical worldview - if we have no freewill no one can be judged.

FreeIgboho:
I know the answer but I want Maxindhouse, Janosky, tctrills, Dtruthspeaker, Everyday247, Ruke1990, to give their input b4 I give the correct answer

What arrogance!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LordReed:
LoLz. Gosh you are terrible at this. So you don't know that each version is a fresh translation of whatever manuscripts (especially if they just found previously undiscovered manuscripts) that are available for the books? Dude, I beg you go read up on this and stop embarrassing yourself with this display of ignorance.

Do you know the practice of taking a person to a river to have his head washed in order to re-route hs destiny or remove cobwebs from his brain?

That may be the sort of thing FreeIgboho requires.

FreeIgboho:
Nope. Higher in the sense one peak of same mountain is higher than another

You know very well that the verse says "the father is greater than I."

LordReed:
If by free will you mean completely free from any influence or causal determinants then no we do not have free will. We have wills that influenced by causal determinants. This doesn't mean all our choices are predetermined but that there's a certain chance they will follow a predetermined outcome.

Very well said.

FreeIgboho:
So what is your own take? Do we have free will?

It feels like we do, but I have absolutely no idea.

I have three reasons for this.

1. Spiritual. This I cannot prove. However I have from childhood experienced predictive dreams of such detail and accuracy that I cannot deny that some things about the future are set in stone already. As I said, I can't prove this to anyone. But it gives me reason to doubt our freewill.

2. Genetic. As long as it is true that we inherit certain traits, that already limits our freewill because it means that there are certain proclivities and predispositions we are born with. Like a program.

3. Cause and Effect. If the law of cause and Effect holds true, there is an unbroken line of cause and effect from the dawn of time till this very second. And that again limits what may be thought of as freewill.

DeepSight:
Genesis 3:22 - 24 -

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

WHY? ? ?

Discuss.

FreeIgboho, Image123, tctrills.
Justify.

DeepSight:
So much talk of evolution on this board recently. The grand behemoth in the mind of the atheist that solves the problem of intelligent life. Alright, I want a really dumbed down class for myself to learn one or two things about evolution. As in, give me Evolution for Id.iots, 101, the most possibly simplified version.

Before I go further, let me state that I have never previously contested evolution on this forum: that is because I believe in it. There must be evolution of some sort or the other. Heck, even growth is evolution in some other way. As such, I have never seen the point denying evolution. If humans did not exist on this planet 4 billion years ago, and they exist now, there is probably some form of evolution or the other involved.

However, I have never considered evolution to be mutually exclusive from intelligent design. Nor do I accept either -

1. That there is sufficient evolutioanry impetus - unaided save by nature alone - to produce the human being and mind

2. That there has been sufficient time in the timeline of the existence of the earth, to result in the span and stretch of creatures that have dwelt, and dwell upon the earth.

As such I believe, and have always believed, in some form of evolution, but only that which is necessarily guided by an obvious supervening intelligence. The make-up of the flora and fauna of the earth give me to believe this; and I regard it as only reasonable to any human being acquainted with such.

Nevertheless I digress too far already, as is my wont. Like I said before, what I want here is Evolution for Id.iots. I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that the entire process could have occurred un-aided by external intelligent impetus. I believe that there glaringly was.

Now, being an evolutionary id.iot, who cannot understand (quite apart from the fact that the Theory of Evolutions does not, and was not intended to discuss the origin of first life) how natural selection alone would lead to that which we have today (starting of course with a unicellular organism and ending - or perhaps continuing) with space-age beings who wear Armani Suits, drink champagne and enjoy Caviar & Sushi. Aside from write philosophy, build nuclear craft and discombobulate the atom. Or perhaps my more specific problem is believing the idea that mutations can and do lead to the sort of complexity we have today within the time-frame referenced. In that regard, please remember that the earth is about 4 billion years old, and even if we accept the pre-biotic soup idea of the origin of life, that could hardly have occurred as soon as the earth came into existence - that would have "chopped" out of the time as well. So we are talking about -

1. Earth forming and cooling

2. Life originating within pre biotic soup

3. The said first life gradually experiencing so many mutations, that it eventually turns into human beings and many other creatures

- - - all within the said time-frame.

I respectfully submit if we draw out the amount of mutations required to fulfill this miracle, the age of the earth cannot realistically support this conclusion from the point of view of statistical probabilities.

Nevertheless, once again, I digress, as is my wont.

So back to Evolution for Id.iots.

Alright, the following are the basic facts and inferences behind the Theory of Evolution -

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows:[3]

Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).

Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).

A struggle for survival ensues (inference).

Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).

Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).

Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more
likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).

This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

[b]Okay, to begin this class on Evolution for Id.iots, (I am the Id.iot-student, not teacher here; I am expecting certain evolution-inclined atheists to be the teachers) - I start with my first and most basic question.

Where are the intermediate fossils?

By this, I mean the intermediate fossils between the largely distinct groups of species -

Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal.

Evolution having occurred over millions or perhaps even billions of years on earth, it would be expected that there would be a staggering collection of intermediate fossils showing clearly the transition by various mutations and extinctions, the development from Unicellular Organism to man. So please, can any teacher help me fill in the blanks above, and where not possible, give me plausible reasons why there is a paucity of intermediate fossils - whereas there should be a deluge of same?[/b]

We start with these. More to follow.

Many thanks.

@ AlbertNewton.

And this.

DeepSight:
Well this was actually a response (slightly edited) to Plaetton's thread asking if consciousness cannot be explained by evolution only, without the need for some Divine attribution. However I think that these questions merit a discussion of their own; and I believe that they are cardinal questions.

To be clear: these posers seek to show that current scientific explanation for existence as we know it alone and by itself - from the big b.ang through to evolution and mankind, does not and cannot account for life as we know it.

To be further clear: I actually believe in evolution. There must have been evolution of some sort. However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

________________________________
I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as optical, olfactory, auditory senses and senses of taste, and the like. Not to speak of the capacity for thought - and very advanced thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.










Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.

But please do address yourself still to all posers.

AlbertNewton

Comments?

DeepSight:
I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

LordReed, what is your take on this.

Plaetton I draw your attention to this old conversation on account of your recent comments on snowflakes.
Water Crystals surely, give cause for pause.

DeepSight:
So as not to derail the other thread from discussing its specific issue - to wit - the deliberate disemination of falsehood by Yahweh, I am interested in looking also at some of the other interesting attributes of this deity.

A key one is extreme brutality.

Genocide, and brutal injunctions to stoning to death in odd circumstances.

Start with Genocidal Commands -

Wikipedia -

Deuteronomy 7 is notable because it contains one of the most overt instances of God ordering the Israelites to commit genocide against neighboring societies.

1. When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you --

2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,

4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

Later Yahweh admonishes the Israelites for not killing each and every inhabitant in these lands.

FreeIgboho & Image123.
Justify.

kingsavage:
oga that man is a Jamaican

Ok then. Nonetheless I don't think one can make assumptions from the name oh. If you hear some Nigerian names you go pick race.

There are Chinese sounding Nigerian names, Indian sounding Nigerian names, Russian sounding Nigerian names. Go to the Middle belt.