₦airaland Forum

Frank4YAHWEH: No, that deception does not work on me either!

Therefore Yahowah, your Mighty One, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellow servants.

This portion of this verse is in reference to Yahshua FATHER Yahowah's SON.

And, You Yahowah, in the beginning did lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands:

This portion of the verse is in reference to FATHER Yahowah, since Scripture clearly teaches that it was He "ALONE', "BY HIMSELF" with "no one beside Him" that created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM.

Note that when our Heavenly FATHER and Creator's Name is restored to it's rightful position in Scripture from where it was removed by the scribes and in turn the translators that much of your misconception concerning this verse completely disappears.

Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge You, on the peoples who do not call on Your Name (Yeremyah 10:29a).

How long will the enemy mock you, Yahowah? Will the foe revile Your Name forever? (Psalm 74:10).

Remember how the enemy has mocked You, Yahowah, how foolish people have reviled Your Name (Psalm 74:18).

Ascribe to Yahowah the esteem due His Name; worship Yahiowah in the splendor of His being set art (Psalm 29:2; cf. 96:8 & I Chronicles 16:29).

Nowhere in the so-called "New Testament" will you find Yahshua recorded as proclaiming that he had created ANYTHING. In fact, he proclaims that his and our FATHER Yahweh is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM.

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

Lol, so according to you God the Father was speaking to the Son and then halfway mid-sentence He starts talking to Himself but somehow manages to switch back to talking to the Son at the end and yet there is no break in flow? I am afraid you are cooking up a doctrine that is not in scripture.

Nowhere does Hebrews 1:10 tell us of this magical switch of yours. It is as clear as day that the bible teaches us that the Son is Yahweh.

plaetton: What a bunch of baloney.
This question below would be the natural response to your %@&^! above.

I can see you've run out of gas.

GeneralShepherd: Lol..sometimes in our bid to defend our positions we tend to oversimplify things and this has led to obvious scientific and academic blunders on this our lovely religion section..

Annony please can you give me a real life scenario where consciousness existed when the brain is completely dead.

There is a blunder here which is that you are asking me to show you in material terms something that is immaterial. You can't even prove that anything other than you is conscious. You only assume this by projecting your internal reality upon other people.

I'll give you an analogy: Imagine that you are a musician and your brain is a piano. For some reason, we cannot see the pianist but we know that there is a pianist because we can hear the music and see the keys move. suddenly, the piano stops, no more music and no more moving keys. Is it the piano that was generating the music or was it the pianist? Mind you, the piano is still there and all its parts are intact. It is not the piano that is creating the music, rather it is the pianist. The piano is only a tool for making music and once the pianist leaves it, it returns to being an inanimate object.

Compare this to the brain. The brain does not will itself to act, you are in control of your brain. like the piano and the unseen pianist, we only only hear the music (or see the brain light up) once the conscious you leaves the body, all the components of the brain are still intact yet it does not function (like the abandoned piano without a pianist). This is proof that the brain does not generate consciousness rather consciousness is created by an immaterial you using the brain as the tool to create it. In the same way that the piano does not generate music but is the tool used by the pianist to make the songs

plaetton: Convoluted logic as usual.
If you want to sleep, you don't will yourself to sleep instantly, do you?
You put yourself in in resting position until the brain directs the secretion of chemicals into your system to switch off your consciousness. The brain is always active, whether you asleep or awake.
The body has internal clock determines our sleep and waking cycle. We can and do sometimes overide that clock cycle with our will, but we always suffer the consequences in terms of ill health, stress and anxiety.
So the default position is that brain controls that cycle.

Erhm no sir, you are still missing the point.

First of all, the time it takes between willing to perform an action and the completion of that action is not proof that your will didn't cause the action. After all, it is you that put yourself in a resting position until... and you could just as easily have decided not to put yourself in the position that will lead to your sleep hence stopping the brain from directing the chemicals.

Secondly, what you have described is a domino series of causes and effects featuring non-conscious elements starting from your will to sleep to your eventual sleeping none of these proves that the brain is conscious of anything and not just acting out a sequence that you have put in motion. Consider a similar series having to do with how you would turn on the engine of your car:

You would turn the key to “on” to activate the electrical system, so the ignition system has power.
Then you would turn the key to “start”. This would send electricity to the starter solenoid.
That solenoid is essentially a big relay that sends the massive amount of power needed from the battery to the starting motor.
This starter motor has a small gear on the motor to mesh with the larger gear of the flywheel.
The starter motor would turn the engine, which would suck gas through the carb into the cylinders.
As the engine turned, spark plugs would spark.
One of those sparks would light the gas in one of the cylinders and the engine would start spinning under gasoline power.
You would release the key back to the “on” position and the engine would be running.

Notice that despite all the activity, your car is still not conscious and describing in detail the roles played by the parts of the car from the moment you turn your key to the moment the engine starts running does not prove in any way that the car is generating the consciousness that directs it's actions.

Thirdly, talking about a "body clock" that needs certain amounts of rest and resources is no different from how every machine needs to have its rest and resources replenished so that it doesn't suffer from wear. Your car needs fuel and rest just as your body needs fuel(food) and rest and will breakdown thereby denying you access to it's use if resources run low.

So my friend, the brain is not in control of diddly-squat. the brain is imply a machine just like any other part of the body. Your conscious self is what controls it's processes as well as other parts of the body. The brain does not and cannot generate consciousness. Neither can a computer either.

Even if the brain controls all our voluntary and involuntary actions, is the brain not part of of the body? Is the brain a non-evolved divine tool sent from god , or remote controlled by god through telekinesis?

I don't know what you are talking about in this last bit

frosbel: Heb 1:9.

Yeah and so?

By the way, are we still on for our Sunday meetup?
https://www.nairaland.com/1167082/religion-section-nlers-living-uk/1#17118203

plaetton: Have you heard of voluntary and involuntary actions ? Most of the biological activities in your body take place whether you will it or not, whether you are conscious or unconscious.
Consciousness is a product of electrical activity in the brain. It is an on and off mechanism.
Most times, it is on and some times it turns off.
You are only aware when it is on. When on off mode, you have no awareness.

I really dont know what it is your are trying to spin.

Lol, you have tried to sidestep what I am asking you.

As you say, consciousness is an on and off mechanism, when it is on, you are aware and when it is off, your awareness is switched off. Now let me ask your another question o bring what I am saying home to you.

Can you decide to sleep and then proceed to sleep?

If yes, then you can switch off your awareness therefore you have control of this on and off mechanism and since you need to be a conscious being in order to control your awareness, it cannot be said that your brain controls your awareness rather your brain is the tool by which you control your awareness and hence awareness is not involuntary in the true sense of the word.

If on the other hand, your answer is no, then you have no control of when you are awake or asleep and your brain can shut you down or wake you up at random, and this will mean that you are really an inanimate object that lacks consciousness.

hisblud: ^^^ that is what i have been saying after rereading his thesis and all na wash.

The guy is just a bundle of inconsistencies. he starts by first creating his own personal doctrine then starts hunting for 'translations'.

GeneralShepherd: Mr. Anony can consciousness exist without the brain?

Yes it does.

plaetton: Yes

Let us test your thesis with a simple question:

Can you decide to think about a something and then go ahead to think about it?

If your answer is yes, then it is you who causes brain activity to happen and since you will have to already possess consciousness in order to do that, it cannot be said that your brain activity causes consciousness.

If on the other hand, your answer is no i.e. you cannot decide to do anything then you neither know nor can control what your brain does, you cannot therefore be said to be conscious.

So my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong here. Brain activities do not create consciousness.

plaetton: Brain activity produces consciousness. Simple

Does it really?

funky medina:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LcEDPRfHMY
Thank God for them ..

This is so touching especially when one considers the amount of persecution the Chinese church has had to go through. Brings tears to the eyes. To God be the glory forever!

Lol, your translation jumping skills are at work again.

Frank4YAHWEH: Yes, in the translation that you are giving reference to it does, but in other translations he is not referred to as "God." and these are the translations that I am in agreement with:

Targum

Your beauty, O King Messiah, is more stunning than any mortal’s; your lips are endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Due to this the Lord has blessed you forever.

ArtScroll Tenakh Translation

Your throne, O judge, will exist forever and ever; the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.

Moffatt Translation

"Your throne shall stand for evermore; for, since your sceptre is a sceptre just, since right you love and evil you abhor, so God, your God, crowns you with bliss above your fellow-kings" (Psalm 45:6-7). This would be Yahweh, Yahshua's Mighty One. Yahshua has not crowned himself. Yahweh will crown him when the time is right (Matthew 25:31; Luke 1:32).

"He says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Moffatt). Someone else is the Mighty One ["Elohim, God, deity"], not Yahshua. Yahshua's throne is Yahweh ["Elohim, God, deity"].

New English Bible

"Your throne is like God's throne, eternal, your royal sceptre a sceptre of righteousness" (Psalm 45:6). Yahshua is not Yahweh ["Elohim, God, deity"]. Instead, Yahshua's throne is like Yahweh's ["Elohim's, God's"] throne.

"God is thy throne for ever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Translator's footnote, N.E.B.).

Good News Bible

"Thy kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever, ..." (Psalm 45:6). In this case, the throne represents the kingdom.

"God is your kingdom ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Translator's footnote Good News Bible).

Jewish Publication Society, O.T., 1916

"Thy throne given by God is for ever and ever, ..." (Psalm 45:7). Yahshua is not declaired to be Yahweh ["Adonai, Elohim, God, deity"]. Instead, Yahweh will give to Yahshua a throne which will last forever (Daniel 7:11-14; Luke 1:32; Revelation 3:21).

Isaac Leeser Translation

"Thy throne, given of God, endureth for ever: the sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore hath God, thy God anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy associates."

The Bible in Living English

'... but as to the Son "God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of integrity is the scepter of his reign".'

Revised Standard Version

"Your throne is a throne of God, ...:" (Psalm 45:6, R.S.V. Translator's footnote). The same notation is given in Hebrew 1:8, where this Scripture is quoted. This is true, because Yahshua is (at this time) sitting with the Father in the Father's throne. (Hebrews 1:3). Later, he will sit on his own throne, just as he now sits with the Father in the Father's throne (Revelation 3:21). A footnote in the New Revised Standard Version reads: 'Or, God is your throne ...'. A seperate footnote for the passage "... and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your ..." (the footnote in reference to "your" reads: 'other ancient authorities read his'.

American Standard Version

"Thy throne is the throne of God" (Margin: Psalm 45:6, A.S.V.).

Heinz W. Cassirer Version, N.T.

"... when referring to the Son he says, It is God who is your throne for ever and ever; and the sceptre showing forth the uprightness which you bear is the sceptre of God's kingdom. You have love righteousness and hated lawlessness. And so it is that God, who is your God, has has anointed you with the oil of gladness, giving you a greater share of it than any of your fellows.

Still quoting:

"Then there are these words: You, Lord [meaning Yahweh, Psalm 102:25], laid the foundations of the earth when it first took its rise, and the heavens are the work of thy hands" (Hebrews 1:8-10; cf. Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:24, 45:12-18).

There is no support here for "two Yahwehs, pre-existent, co-creator" Yahshua. Father Yahweh really is the Creator. He did it all ALONE, with no help (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 33:6-9).

For a free list of more than 100 Scriptures revealing who is the Creator. It was not Yahshua. Please ask for it at: http://www.halleluyah.org . Also available by E-MAILING THEM you can freely receive some 70+ studies that refute the "pre-existence of Yahshua, Holy Trinity, and two Yahwehs" doctrines.

End Notes:

Weymouth Version N.T. [Translator's footnote, Hebrew 1:8].

Quote:

"8. O God] Psalm 45 is a Royal Marriage song, and this translation involves the direct address of an earthly king by the title 'God.' The obvious difficulty has led to various conjectures:

(1) 'Thy throne is the throne of God' (so R.V. margin in the Psalm).

(2) 'Thy throne is God for ever and ever.'

(3) A corrupt Hebrew text, 'Yahweh' (God), being a mistake for the almost identical word meaning 'shall be,' - 'Thy throne shall be for ever and ever,' This conjecture is widely accepted, but the writer of the Epistle [to the Hebrews], in applying these words of the Psalm to the Son, would not feel the difficulty; 'Thy throne, O God' may stand." (Emphasis added).

Weymouth indicates the word Yahweh (God) does not actually appear in the original text. If this is true, then the word 'O God' should not be in the first clause of Psalm 45:6, but should read as #3 above:

"Thy throne shall be for ever and ever ..." This is the way Moffatt reads in Psalm 45:6, noted above. The thought is, once Yahshua sits on his own throne (as heir to the throne of David), his rulership will endure forever. There is no support here for two Yahwehs, or for the pre-existence of Yahshua. It is a mistake to take an ambiuous verse in the King James Version and make it into a doctrine which opposes the cardinal principle of the Scriptures,

"Hear O Isryl: Yahweh our Mighty One is ONE YAHWEH" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Gesenius Hebrew Grammer (Kautzsch-Cowley), 1949 reprint says, on page 415 paragraph (b): "In Psalm 45:7 chis-a-cha' El-o-him' (usually explained as thy divine throne). El-o-him' is most probably a later addition [another suggestion is to read chEl-o-him' like God('s throne: compare section 141 d, note]."

Did Father Yahweh call His Son "God"?
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/734899456/did-father-yahweh-call-his-son-god

Frank4YAHWEH: Yes, in the translation that you are giving reference to it does, but in other translations he is not referred to as "God." and these are the translations that I am in agreement with:

Targum

Your beauty, O King Messiah, is more stunning than any mortal’s; your lips are endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Due to this the Lord has blessed you forever.

ArtScroll Tenakh Translation

Your throne, O judge, will exist forever and ever; the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.

Moffatt Translation

"Your throne shall stand for evermore; for, since your sceptre is a sceptre just, since right you love and evil you abhor, so God, your God, crowns you with bliss above your fellow-kings" (Psalm 45:6-7). This would be Yahweh, Yahshua's Mighty One. Yahshua has not crowned himself. Yahweh will crown him when the time is right (Matthew 25:31; Luke 1:32).

"He says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Moffatt). Someone else is the Mighty One ["Elohim, God, deity"], not Yahshua. Yahshua's throne is Yahweh ["Elohim, God, deity"].

Erhm sir...the 'translations' you provided are all saying different things entirely you cannot possibly agree with all of them at the same time.

1. ...Your beauty, O King Messiah, is more stunning than any mortal’s...

2. ...Your throne, O judge....

3. ...God is thy throne....

Which is it that you agree with exactly? or are you just blindly agreeing with anything that disagrees with the deity of Christ?

Furthermore please, after explaining which one you really agree with please explain how it continues in context on to verses 12 of Hebrews 1.

Your comment here makes me wonder if you even know what you are talking about.

Frank4YAHWEH: Heinz W. Cassirer Version, N.T.

"... when referring to the Son he says, It is God who is your throne for ever and ever; and the sceptre showing forth the uprightness which you bear is the sceptre of God's kingdom. You have love righteousness and hated lawlessness. And so it is that God, who is your God, has has anointed you with the oil of gladness, giving you a greater share of it than any of your fellows.

Still quoting:

"Then there are these words: You, Lord [meaning Yahweh, Psalm 102:25], laid the foundations of the earth when it first took its rise, and the heavens are the work of thy hands" (Hebrews 1:8-10; cf. Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:24, 45:12-18).

There is no support here for "two Yahwehs, pre-existent, co-creator" Yahshua. Father Yahweh really is the Creator. He did it all ALONE, with no help (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 33:6-9).

You have just clearly shown from Hebrews 1:10 that Jesus Christ is Yahweh indeed.

Here's how Hebrews 1:8-10 reads in the versions you claim to agree with.


he says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy
comrades and Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the work of thy hands they will perish, but thou remainest. Hebrews 1:8-10 (Moffatt)

but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands: (ASV)

But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades." And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; (RSV)

but as to he Son "God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of intergrity is the scepter of his reign. You loved rectitude and hated wickedness: for this reason, God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy beyond your fellows, and You at the beginning, Lord, laid down the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of your hands: (The Bible in Living English)

But of His Son, He says, "THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND FOR EVER, AND THE SCEPTRE OF THY KINGDOM IS A SCEPTRE OF ABSOLUTE JUSTICE. THOU HAST LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, THY GOD, HAS ANOINTED THEE WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS BEYOND THY COMPANIONS." It is also of His Son that God says, "THOU, O LORD, IN THE BEGINNING DIDST LAY THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORK OF THY HANDS. (Weymouth)

Since you have granted that the person referred to in Hebrews 1:10 is Yahweh and since we know that verse 8 and verse 10 refers to the same person. You have now explicitly proven that Yahshua is YAHWEH. Thank you.

You sir, have successfully destroyed your false gospel all by yourself. You can now throw it into the bin where it belongs then repent and turn to Christ who is your true God and Saviour.

wiegraf: If you really think I don't know what I'm talking about, this is good, friendly advice; get your head checked. Really..

And I did warn you, I won't waste time on your silly shenanigans. Asking a question as vacuous as that one. Even the genius above gets it. And if you did not get it

Despite my apparent joblessness, I actually do have a lot of things to do. So, kudos.

EDIT; Ah, I forgot to mention, if you could not decipher that, then how the hell did you decipher the 'insult'? More dishonest nonsense..

Yawn. Apparently this thing that you claim to understand seems to be rather difficult for you to explain in clear terms. If speaking incoherently and expecting someone to magically read your mind is what passes for reasoning in your world, then that's just too bad.

My question remains: What exactly did you mean when you used the phrase "consciousness is housed in the brain"?

When you are ready to answer and actually have a reasonable discourse, look me up.

wiegraf: Then you might need to upgrade your OS, or get a more powerful CPU, etc etc

Yawn, I can see you really have no idea what you are talking about so you throw out an insult to help you save face. How pathetic.

wiegraf: CPU, OS, hard disk, keyboard, web cam. etc etc

I don't see what this list has to do with the question I asked you

wiegraf: I don't know how consciousness works. I do know it is housed in the brain. I also know the brain came about via evolution.

Do the math.

First of all, you don't know how consciousness works. What do you mean by "consciousness is housed in the brain"? Would "sight is housed in the eye" be a similar statement?

i.e. Are you saying that the consciousness is housed by the brain in the sense that the brain is a tool or that the brain actually creates the consciousness? Just like how an eye is the tool used to see but the eye does not create the sight itself. Get my drift?

So what exactly do you mean when you say that consciousness is housed in the brain?

Uyi Iredia: He is coming with another grenade. *Runs for cover*

hehehehe

Alfa Seltzer: Evolution, at least, can be observed.

You can observe evolution therefore evolution did it? What has that even got to do with anything?

Yeah me too, I can observe salt and pepper therefore salt and pepper must have equally created consciousness.

Logicboy03: I dont know (how consciousness came) therefore God did it.



dubious tool

I don't know (how consciousness came) therefore evolution did it.

dubious tool.

I'm suggesting dinner at one of two possible restaurants in the central London area for our meet-up next Sunday namely

The Andaz Restaurant
http://www.andazdining.com/contactandlocation-en.html

...and the Galvin Café a Vin
http://www.galvinrestaurants.com/section.php/69/1/how_to_find_us/cac4b37b715fd647939e06d3accd9398

Both of them are located near the Liverpool Street station, I haven't visited either of them yet but they come highly recommended and the prices seem quite reasonable in my opinion.

It will be nice if we can get those who are interested to confirm intent as soon as possible so that we know how many to book a table for.

So what do you guys think, dinner on Sunday the 4th?

Bump.

musKeeto: You can't call your opinion a fact.

And why is that? Can you call your opinion a fact?

musKeeto: Your opinion.

Yeah and so? Your previous comment wasn't your opinion?

musKeeto: The word sodomy is labelled derogatory in the dictionary. I wonder where this anonyism will lead you to. It definitely would not get your thread unlocked. Live with it.

Of course, and it also wouldn't change the fact that MMW has done something foolish and shameful. He'll have to live with that unfortunately

Logicboy03: Anonyism at its finest.

When asked a question that will exposes your fallacious position, anonynize by asking an irrelevant question to throw the questioner off track

Since you seem to know the intent of the question, would you mind telling me the fallacious position the question was meant to expose and how exactly it was supposed to do this.

JMAN05: the debate is too slow and thus boring.

I'm sorry sir but we didn't have your entertainment in mind when we created the thread. I'm sure there are better ways available for you to sufficiently titillate your senses.

musKeeto: Lol. I no get strength. Abeg, what words do you consider offensive?

I wonder what the intent of this question is meant to be.

Logicboy03: I know....intelligence is boring to you

Lol, judging by what passes for intelligence to you, I am not surprised that you think your puerile comment counts as such. I would have taken you seriously if you were actually worth taking seriously. ta-ta for now.

Logicboy03: Anonyism....

All cheating spouses commit adultery

Do all gay people commit sodomy? NO

See how dubious Mr Anony is?

Yawn.

musKeeto: The word 'sodomy' is offensive to homosexuals. I would expect Ihe and Anony to know better.

What you've said here is just like saying the word 'adultery' is offensive to cheating spouses.

'Sodomy' is the dictionary word describing what hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals do. I would have expected you to know better.

Tgirl4real: Mr Anony is back...yippie!

Now, where is Deepsight?

Lol


I think what anony suggested is best for now.

Lol, I never left really, it's just that as per the rules, Deep Sight and I are not allowed to debate any other person on the thread apart from each other. So as much as I would have loved to join in the 'fun' earlier that nearly derialed the thread, I really couldn't.

Hi Deep Sight, it has been some time now, still awaiting your response. At the rate we are currently moving, it'll take us a few years to finish this: that's 38 verses at 4 posts per verse at the rate of one post per week.

I can understand that my last post was a little out of the norm of this discourse so I'll make you an offer:

You can plead a "NO CONTEST"

A "No Contest" WILL NOT MEAN in any way that you are conceding or granting the points neither will it mean that you agree or disagree either in part or in total with the post.

The "No Contest" WILL ONLY MEAN THAT you have decided not respond to it at this time. This will allow us the opportunity to skip and move on to D2.

Also if you intend to engage it at some other time, I'll suggest you can put up a blank post titled "Rebuttal of A2" to which I will in turn open a blank post titled "Response to Rebuttal" and then you can open the "Response to Response" blank post, we can feel these in later as we move along.

Finally, because my last post was not the normal specific verse by verse treatment we have been using, we can allow for skipping in this special instance, however, this should be the only time either of us will skip posts in this manner. This is so that we don't make it a habit leaving empty posts strewn all over the thread. It is only done in this case so that we can move on quicker to D2

Does this work for you?