₦airaland Forum

Seun:
We have made it easy for you to login to your Nairaland account without using a password.
We have also made it easy to register without having to hunt down security codes in your inbox.
Just click the With Google link in the screenshot below. Google will handle the rest.

PS: You can still register and login the old-fashioned way. The Google option is for your convenience.

This will be the first time commenting on your post. Please keep Nairaland the way it is. A lot of people turn to NL for the simplicity of it. It's a forum not a social media platform. If I want the feel and experience of social media, there are platforms for that. This is a forum and should be enjoyed as such.

No monetization because it'll quickly degenerate into a money only platform with contents that are absurd and unnecessary just to get viewership. We already have our fair share of that on NL.

No excess images, even X and Tread are not image focused.

No private message, I don't want random people reaching out to me and emailing is quiet fine. Besides we can simply just drop our line if it's necessary.

The simplicity and partial anonymity of NL is the charm. And for the visuals, nothing is wrong with it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

I'm not anti social media but by God I'd love to be online without the drama of social media. A forum should be a forum. That's the charm of it.

MrPresident1:
Isaiah 4:1 is the future, four women will hold on to one man a will please to bear his name, whennJesus, the Branch, becomes King.

This is what the verse says:

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

On what day is that? Verse 2
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

After the cleansing of Israel: verse 4
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

On that day when four women will hold one man, the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious

I'm reading your KJV translation and it's vastly different. Fundermentally the same point but completely different wordings.

Your vers 4 mentions the daughters of zion or daughters of Jerusalem. Mine has no mention of daughters at all. It doesn't even mention women from ver 2 to 6.

This is why it's important to read as a whole and not verse by verse because wordings change and presentations are very different from Bible to Bible. What is consistent is the story and the events and the situation taking place at every point.

MrPresident1:
Isaiah 4:1 is the future, four women will hold on to one man a will please to bear his name, whennJesus, the Branch, becomes King.

This is what the verse says:

Isaiah 4:1
King James Version
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

On what day is that? Verse 2
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

After the cleansing of Israel: verse 4
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

On that day when four women will hold one man, the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious

Read from Chapter 1 till the end of Chapter 5. Because if I ask you to read the entire Isaiah you will say you can't. Isaiah 4 is a spill off of Chapter 3, start from there.

Again you conveniently ignored Chapter 3 that speaks of the punishment of war when men will be killed in battle and then women will have no men to marry and out of societal shame will be willing to marry 1 man. I told you the Bibile is a history book, you must read the whole thing to prove your point. But instead you want to dwell on the second half of the story.

Now let's break down Chapter 4 ver 1 to 6

Vers 1 - a continuation of the punishment the women of Jerusalem will face for also sinning which in turn was a continuation of the chaos in Jerusalem and the judgement God will bring to all his people for sinning. We have established this.

Vers 2 - is a message if hope saying a time is coming when the Lord will make every plant and tree in the land grow large and beautiful. All those who survive will take delight and pride in the crops that the land produce. That is s promise that after the war and exile the people will come back to their land. Again solidifying that chapter 3 and 4 are a prophesy that have come and gone, the fall and rise of isreal before even Christ.

Ver 3 - everyone left in Jerusalem will be called holy. I don't even need to explain this.

Ver 4 - By His power the Lord will judge and purify the nation and wash away the guilt of Jerusalem and the blood they have shed. Again proving my claim that this was about the sins they were committing then.

Vers 5 and 6 - are both a promise of God returning to dwell with his people snd protect them like he did with their ancestors.

How then can you conclude that this passage is for this era or that soon men will be so few that women will beg to marry them. We have already established that statement - let us take your name - in ver 1 is a translation variation and not all Bibles say the same thing. GNB says and let us call you our husband. That's all. I also gave you proof that in those days the norm was mostly to bare both your fathers and your husband's name as in the case of Bathsheba. Why then are you insisting that taking your husband's name is biblical. There is nothing biblical about it. Its simply cultural and every culture has their own standard. Just say it's not cultural in West Africa and that would be fine not trying to force the Bible to your claim.

Again read the Bible in whole. Read all of Isaiah and you'll not be having this erroneous opinions.
Isaiah was a prophet who spoke of the punishment the people of isreal will be given for their sin - Chapter 1 to 39. Chapter 40 to 55 was about comfort and hope for restoration some of which was the promise of Jesus's, heaven, and salvation. Chapter 56 till the end was mostly about the glory of God and the reward the holy will recieve.

MrPresident1:
All you have said is straightforward tra.sh

That you cannot disprove. And yet again you confirm that people like you choose to pick and choose Bible verses that fit your opinion. The Bible is not your tool to back up your one-sided view. And until you change you will continue to be the ride on pastor type who can be guided into anything.

Even scrap the disproving point, my problem with people like you is, you know the truth when you see it, but your ego and opinion is so big that you turn away and get angry. Half these pastors know nothing about theology or the Bible. They are not even Bible scholars and that's why you people like them. They can pick and choose a point and twist and bend it and then you people will be happy with yoursleves. Then others will claim the Bible is two mouthed. I can bet you have never even read the whole Isaiah on your own, you just found that one verse and have clung to it. Neither have you read the Bible as a whole to know the story. All you people do is pick and choose and when someone calls you out you get angry rather than accepting your falsehood.

Until Christians begin to read the Bible as a whole and not part and pieces, you'll keep falling for personal opinion preaching and at this point, it serves you all right when pastors swindle you. On this matter of Isaiah 4, I hope you'll have the decency now that you know the truth to never mention it again as a biblical backing for your own personal opinion.

NothingDoMe:
1. Which translation of Isaiah 4:1 are you using?

2. 2nd Samuel 11:3 David sent and inquired after the woman. One said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"

You are misquoting scripture to prove your point. She wasn't David's wife at this point. As you can clearly read she was called Uriah's wife.

3. It seems your thoughts on this matter are somewhat disorganized, making a substantive response or debate challenging. Summarise your thoughts with straightforward points.

Let's focus on one discussion at a time. We should stick to our initial debate on what the Bible says about name change. We can then move on to cultural discussions afterward.

There is nothing unclear about my point. But I'll accord you your choice and stick to biblical claims

The passage you quoted was specifically a foretelling of the punishment isreal was going to face for thier disobedience. Men will die in war and women will have no husband's to marry. It had nothing to do with women taking their husband's name. The Good News Bible doesn't even translate it as just let us take your name. It translates it as let's just call you our husband. And as I stated when you read the Bible you cannot just pick and choose passages that suit you. The Bible is a history book and something led to and away from something. Isaiah 4 had nothing to do with taking a man's name or that there is a scarcity of men or that a good wife takes a man's name. There is nothing about that in the Bible. Isaiah was a prophet who condemned the peoples evil and foretold the fall and rise of the isrealities. Particularly chapter 4 is a continuation of chapter 3 not a standalone story. And chapter 3 spoke of God's punishment on the men of Isreal and generally the people. Chapter 3 is about the chaos God will bring on them. The sentence you so conveniently quoted began on chapter 3 and was a warning to the evil ways of the women and what punishment God was going to met on them. If the men die in war then of course there will be none to marry them. Chapter 4 verse 2 till then end was then a restoration promise from God.

All of these things already happened to isreal they already experienced that. The prophesy came through and went on. So why are you holding onto that as a fact that the Bible says a woman needs to take her husband's name when the entire story was about something completely different and in a situation of chaos for the isrealities?

Again GNB doesn't even translate it as taking his name. It simply says let's call you husband. Going to the passage I quoted 2nd Samuel 11: 3 she was first referred to by her father's name before her husband. In today's world that would be keeping your fathers name and then adding on your husband's. If taking the man's name was so important then they would have simply referred to her as the wife of...

There is no Biblical claims for the pastors point and simply he could have simply said he doesn't think it's right not trying to twist the Bible to fit thier own opinion.

NothingDoMe:
I already quoted Isaiah 4:1. You may counter it with another scripture.

The translation I have of Isaiah 4:1 is

When that time comes, seven women will grab hold of one man and say, please let us call you our husband....

It did not say let us take your name. That is simply a translation issue. Calling your husband doesn't mean taking your husband's name.

To my point biblically people were called by either their fathers name or their location... Mary of Magdala, or Jesus's of Nazareth. If you want a verse then 2nd Samuel 11: 3 Bathsheba was called the daughter of Eliam even though she was married to King David. A whole King.

Back to your point. Isish was foretelling the destruction and exile of the isrealities due to their sin and the punishments they will have. Men will die in war and women will have no men to marry. That passage had nothing to do with the normal lives of people. So why do people like you take Bible verses out of context and use it to back up your point. The Bible is a history book with events that led to and away from everything. You are using a passage that foretold a punishment that happened even before Christ as your yardstick. And the translation of the passage isn't even the same through out all Bible versions. Do you see how problematic you people are. That's why a pastor can come and tell you things like this and you'll clap your hands and say ride on.

Back again to my point that you so conveniently ignored. What about traditional customs that do not allow women take their husband's name. Are they all sinners because you want to claim it's not Biblical?

The world is bigger than your own beliefs and cultures in Nigeria. Learn about other customs and stop trying to use the Bible to back up your private opinions. Because if I want to, I can also claim the Bible says men who have properties are all bad and doomed to die.... Isaiah 5: 8

tosyne2much:
Clinching to your husband's surname shows uniformity or togetherness

By the way, why would a woman even refuse to bear her husband's surname

Oh I forgot feminism has taken over everything lately

It's also cultural. You people forget that there is more to this world than Nigeria. There are over 190 countries in this world and all of them have their tradition. You are quick to label it feminism but ignore the fact that many cuktures out there have traditions were women must retain their fathers name. China, Korea, some parts of Canada, Spain, Greece and even France. But no. As long as it's not so in Nigeria then boom they must be feminist.

There is more to the world than you know. Just say your culture doesn't support it but don't claim that it's bad or unbiblical when there are several cultures and traditions that allow it. Again the world is too large to judge it by your own standards.

This is untrue. Why do we take our own beliefs and force it on others and then claim it's biblical.

In the Bible women were called and linked to their fathers same as sons. You'd see many people in the Bible being referred to as YYYY daughter of YYYY. Biblically linage was paternal so daughters retained their identity to their father not to their husbands.

Besides we forget that there is a world beyond West Africa. If he had said its mot right in Ghanaian culture I won't argue but to say it's wrong the whole world over ignores all of the cultures that traditionally requires women to keep their fathers name. Most south east Asian countries like China, Korea, Vietnam have traditional laws where women keep their names.

Many European countries have the same law such as Spain, Greece, and France. Even Canada has such a law.

We trolly need to stop tagging everything as biblical in a bid to solidify our own opinion. He could have just said I don't think it's right not it's not biblical.

Dandsome:
By nature men are not programmed to be with only one woman.
Even amongst animals, you will notice that it's one male to about 5 to 10 females.

That's why when you want to rear animals y9u bring more females to one male.

You can't cheat nature.

One man one wife is a "feminist" thing the white man brought to us by using religion to cover it up.

African men and men in general are not wired to be with one woman.

Now before you say "what if the woman cheats?", you should understand that in this case it's a man's world. Just like how when you hit a woman, the whole world will frown at you. That's a woman's world.

One funny thing is that women don't mind if you marry another wife, so far you make it known that's she's the queen mother and other cowives and sidechicks bow to her, she's fine.

Let me leave you with an illustration.

A key that can open many padlocks is a master key. A padlock that any key can open is useless.

Think about that.

If you are a Christian, have you never read the book of Proverbs? Two, are you an animal? If animals do it, then are you an animal? Aren't we supposed to be higher beings? Animals live in the bush. Why do you live in a house? If you can't cheat nature, why are you not living in the bush? If you can't cheat nature, why are you looking for modern medicine to extend your life? Why are you looking for cars to move from place to place? Nature gave you legs and stamina to move. Animals migrate on their own two feet; why do you need a car to migrate? You want to claim nature but refuse to live by nature. Nature says to live wild, why are you choosing to be civilised. Did nature give you technology? You want to modify other aspects of your life, but not your sexual urges, if you're going to live by nature do it in full.

You are right, religion and the white men brought the story of one man, one woman. Fantastic. If you don't want that, then you should not want anything the white men and religion brought. Don't want education, don't want modern medicine, don't want technology, haba, why are you even using a phone and wearing white men's cloth? Reject everything the white men and religion brought. Reject civilisation and go back to the old days and be polygamous wearing leaves and hide, working on your farm, and marrying 8 wives. You cannot eat your cake and have it. If you want to accept the white men's religion and teaching then do it in full and learn self control, you are a human being not an animal.

Alright, it's time for history.

Uhh, how I love this question. Cause it has so many branches. Let's get to it.

As many have answered, no, the Bible does not mention head coverings for men. But again, let's do some history and culture.

Ancient Jews and current jews had tradition that cut across fashion, authority, and religion. For important positions ot even just going for important occasions, part of the fashion was head covering. So, men would either wear a turban or put a long scarf on their head. There was also the religious necessity where men who read in the synagogue were required to cover their heads. The attire made for Aaron, if you read Leviticus, also included a turban. The Pharisees and Sadducees all wore turbans or head scafs. In those days, women also wore the same thing, mostly out of fashion.

Now fast-forward to the time of Jesus. Okay, when Christianity was gaining traction, the early apostles were doing their best to create tradition and culture, but obviously, that was hard because they were from a very cultural country. So we have Paul giving a very cultural opinion on head coverings in 1st Corinthians, which pretty much stuck for a while.

Now the juicy part. Christianity as it is, is a living thing, and it grew up. Over the years, from the Middle Ages a lot of changes were made. Also in its bid to penetrate so many regions and be appealing to the people, Christianity took on many things that were culturally fine for those people. So if you look at some church documents, and by church I mean the early christian catholics, they reported including certain changes to dressing especially for authority figures.

So if I remember correctly it was around the middle ages when bishops and popes began wearing skul caps those small little caps at the center and then the bigger ceremonial looking caps. Anyway, it was more for distincition for them, but in many areas like in the middle east, especially when the curuch had a strong hold in constantinople present day turkey a lot of priests and high ranking religious people wore head gears to fit the reegion, culture, and in some cases climate.

Fast foward even further and much of this regional traditions became popular and even just regular and common place and then because the catholic church is big on uniformity they made head gear uniform for certain positions. Anyway but if you notice, the head greas are worn up until a point, and removed usually at the hight of mass, or for catholic during consencration allowing them to align to some point to the teachings of paul. and then they are reworn afterwards.

Why I like questions like this. Well because it reminds you that not everything is in thhe Bible and christianity has grown. Christianity is not just Biblical, it also relies on tradition and history among other things. For instance, there is no christmas in the Bible, but the ancient christians who were trying to gain foot in the roman region had to battle with converts celebrating the sun god. for these people it wasnt even about worship the sun, it was more like a cultural celebration. The christians then knew it would be difficult to break them away from something so deeply cultural, so what did they do, they modififed the celebration. You want to celebrate and worship the sun god, fine, we bring you the Son of God, celebrate his birthday instead. And boom, they won and conquered.

The Bible is the structural framework of christiandom and everything must align with it, but the christianity we have today was gotten this far because it has muscles and organs and senses along side a skeletal structure. Mind you that for the first 300 years after Christ, there was no Bible, the ealry Christians, depended on revelations, word of mouth teachings, writings, letters, theological conversations, and more to understand and know God's will.

So no, because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean it is a false christain teaching, remember the Bible tells us, what we collectively bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and what we collectively lose, is losed in heaven. Because the whole body of christians at some point collectively accepted that men should not cover their head in a church it became so. And until we can all collectively say otherwise, what has been approved has been approved.

Hello. I'm a content manager and provide several content management services.

Writing

Articles, blogs, web copies
Human- 6 naira per word
AI - 4 naira per word

Speeches, brochure content, YouTube Scripts, non-fiction ebooks
Human - 8 naira per word
AI - 6 naira per word

Academic projects, assignments, grant Writing technical documents
Human - 10 naira per word

Editing - 4 naira per word
Includes in-depth editing

Proofreading - 2 naira per word

Transcription
Video to text - 500 naira per minute
Audio to text - 500 naira per minute
Image to text - 1200 naira per page

Includes pidgin to English transcription

Powerpoint Presentation - 2000 per designed page (1500 per page for tasks over 50 pages)
For
Basic PowerPoint business presentation
Brochure designs
Course designs
Or other image and text slide based needs

Simple Website - 70,000
For
Schools
Small business
Portfolios
Idea presentation
Or cost friendly needs

We use Google sites and modify it extensively.
We offer free 5000 words website copy
We offer free .com.ng domain name

Text to Video - Video editing - 2000 per video minute
For article to stock video creation


This is a seasonal promo offer as you’ll see from my WhatsApp Business service listing and website price listing. Take advantage now

Offer runs till the last day of June.

For long term partnership text for bulk pricing

WhatsApp today at 0. 705 .528 .7216.

Samples are available.

If you have slightly divergent tasks kindly reach out, I just might have experience handling it.

The only thing I wonder about situations like this is...

Men why is it that the first thing you do when you make small money is to find a woman and carry responsibility no one sent you.

This man now, how much has he spent on his parents and siblings. Even leave siblings. His mother and father, how much of his money have they eaten for him to say okay now I can get a woman.

You were jobless but rather than building yourself you decided to find yet another jobless woman.

As a woman I wonder what goes on in your head. The first time I worked post secondary school my mind did not go to man or kids, I immediately taught of my parents. Even now as a full time worker, I'm still focused on letting my parents eat my money first before finding responsibility no one sent me.

This seems like a reoccurring theme among men and genuinely I wonder why? The funny part is most men who do this come from poor homes. You spend money on a wife and your kids but your family are home is barely surviving. Look at mothers of wives and mothers of husbands. Women tend to have healthier looking mothers because they spend om them.

If you finished school without a job then focus on yourself first, take care of your parents consistently before you look for a woman. Worse even if you want a woman who isn't working.

Personally I think men plunge themselves into unnecessary wahala when they do this. Before you spend on a woman, let your mother be balling.

Sincerely don't understand what goes on in a man's mind when he does something like this.

Melagros:
COMRADES, congratulations to them, why once Nigerian women give birth their face looks 40 even in their 20s
Nigerian girls make una dey enter gym to continue looking sweet 16 abeg

Have you considered that maybe if this is how all Nigerian women look after giving birth then maybe that's how much toll pregnancy leaves on them? It's one thing to have one or two women, but if the majority look the same then maybe that's how pregnancy leaves them. Have you ever thought of that instead of expecting them to look sweet 16. Besides she is still a nursing mother and medical science will tell you that a woman is still healing up till 1 year after birth. It's not easy to bring a human being into the world. Lets focus more on celebrating with her than attacking her weight.

And mind, you she had always been on the bigger side before she had her weight loss transformation.

peteregwu:
Like I said no homosexuals should be allowed to him any position in the church. Let them repent first and become born again before that. No one is condemning any homosexual. As long as the church knows that such individual is a homosexual (except it is hidden from the church), they shouldn't be given any position.

Romans 8:7-8 KJV
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."

They can only be allowed to come to church and hear the word of God and go. The kingdom of heaven is for those that humbly repent of their sins and forsake then and follow Jesus.

Matthew 7:6 KJV
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

As for the The catholic church, the Vatican, killed many christians that stood against their satanic doctrine in the dark ages by burning them at the stake and exyerninating many of them. Catholic initiated the praying to "holy Mary", a dead woman which is necromancy which is witchcraft pricatices according to the bible. They worship the "queen or heaven" that the bible stood against in the old testament. The Catholic also bow to image of mary and some saints in the bible. The Catholic also dwell on purgatory which is satanic deception to send more souls into hell forever. I go on and on

I really wanted to skip on by but I have a problem with people who say the Catholic church isn't Bible believing.

You mean the people who complied and gave you the Bible are not believers.

You mean the Bible that was originally compiled for Priest.

You mean the Bible that had church politics in play when being compiled

You mean the Bible that has parts withheld for special uses. Jeremiah particularly isn't complete a bit of it was held back for Priest to use in exorcism.

You mean the Bible that was selectively compiled by Catholic leaders to focus only on salvation. Meaning that many good books were held back because they didn't fit the bill.

Hey. You can't really think that protestant church's that came up less than 500 years ago are more Bible believing than the people who gave you the Bible. You can't be claiming to know more than the publishers can you?

For the homosexuality thing,to each his own. Jesus said to love the sinner not the sin. Jesus particularly was radical about welcoming the rejected. He welcomed the leapers those who were seen as grave sinners and the prostitutes and the tax collectors. I mean one of his disciple was a great sinner right? Not once did he support their sin, bit she showed them his truth and that was enough to convert them. Maybe we need to show these modern day sinners the truth.

For your argument on Mary. One I can tell you have never calmed down do read the words of the Hail Mary. If you do you'll at least know that the first half are all praises bestowed on her in the Bible. Second it's weird that you claim to read the Bible but forget that Mary was the only one who was recorded to change the plan of God.

I like when pentecostal pastors focus on Jesus saying Woman, but forget that Jesus told her my time has not come. Meaning it's not yet time for me to do any public miracle according to the plan of God. Theologians and historians will tell you Jesus was 28 or 29 then so it wasn't time. And I love how the authors tell us clearly that all they did was look at each other and Mary his mother dud not fuss or argue, she simply told the servants of another household to do what Jesus tells them to do.

If you pause and unbiasedly dwell on that encounter you'll see that although it was not part of God's plan, she asked and she was honored. Now Catholics know that and all we are doing is tapping into it.

A dead woman.... true but false. Like I said many books didn't make the cut into the Bible cause they were not directly improving your faith in Christ. All the apostles wrote books. Mary the mother of Jesus also wrote a book. Hers didn't make the cut cause it focused on the lost years of Christ. All the miracles he did from birth. But John the beloved the one disciple who lived long and cared for Mary throughout her lifetime wrote many books. One if them speaks of Jesus taking his mother body and soul to heaven. That is why although every apostle and disciple has a grave mark which the church has identified. There us no identifiable grave mark for Mary. If I recall correctly there was one for Joseph his foster father.

Then the point about purgatory yeah I can't help you with that because the Bible Martin Luther King popularised during the great revolution was incomplete. The original compilation has books that support the existence of purgatory. And by any chance have you even tried to understand what purgatory means or is supposed to mean. It's literally telling you that only the absolutely righteous can make it to heaven. Those who fall short due to persistent sin are not fully cast away, as sin cannot be condone in heaven purgatory is a middle ground for us to attone for those sins. It's a place where fire purifies making people worthy of heaven. The church tells that all sin has a punishment not matter what. Being forgiven isn't enough. And they back it up with the Bible. Paul was forgiven but lived his whole life with a wound. David was forgiven but lost his son, Jacob was forgiven but slaved away and was even cleared by his uncle. Every sin has a punishment. If you don't suffer the punishment here through penance or in some case sickness, then you'll need to suffer it somewhere. You can't make heaven with the punishment due to your sin still lingering, there has to be justice for your crime. How does this teaching now translate to purgatory leading people to hell.


Anyway. When arguing theologically or Biblically do well to read commentaries from theologians both catholic and non chrustians alike don't just believe what your pastors tell you. The christisnity you know today has grown. Yes the Catholic church fought against heretics through wars but they have survived things that should have ended them centuries ago but the gates of hell never prevailed.

Let me leave you with this. Why do men take off their headgear when they enter a church. The Bible doesn't have that. If anything Jews covered their head and the early disciples must have done the same for years. That tradition of men opening their head isn't in the Bible. It came out years later and was approved by the Catholic church and popularised. Not everything is in the Bible. Even the Biblr confirms that.

But i digress from the main point of this post.

I won't be replying further. Thanks and have a happy Sunday

Still running. Samples available.