Fighting racism

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix “And what about the margin of error, which itself is just arbitrary, based on different number of trials, and errors. Is there one holy set of margin of error? I've seen margins of error that are +/- 2, or +/-.04, or +/- 5, or +/- 4 percent in anther case. In this case the margin of error is obviously a certain number, and when you expose all results that do not agree with that, then they are "inconsequential", and you will then result with "only an ignorant like you". The margin of error, in other words, is totally arbitrary based on a given study. Maybe you should go back to statistics 101 and review how to make a survey.”

This was just purely wrong, it has nothing to do with trials and errors, they are not based on different numbers of trials.

The fact that you just quoted me out of context proves you are missing the point. I already maintained that margin of errors are not "made up" out of thin air, but are dependent on that given study, in relation to the sampling size.

Originally posted by Fadix Let see what you ended up answering here now:

“Precisely, anyone can calculate the margin of error in that particular study, depending on the sample in relation to the total. You yourself proved my point by then going on below to give your own example, which only shows it is arbitrary based on a study, as can be seen from the following phrase "let say I want to calculate it myself for a given sample lets say 19 times...."”

Proved your point. This is what you are saying. While I show you why margins of errors are not arbitrary figures, you now twist and tell me that I am proving your point. You again are contradicting yourself. Calculating something using a known law, can not give any arbitrary results, neither the fact that each studies have their error margins makes error margins any more arbitrary, because they do not come out of the wind. It is expected now that you will twist that, and tell me how arbitrary to the sense of this or that… as you do just here:

“No one said it is "arbitrary" in the sense of making it up out of thin air, what I have maintained throughout, which you continuously ignored, is that it is arbitrary based on studies, as each study, given the different confidence intervals, will differ in its margin of errors. You keep jamming the same point either intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps out of your own misunderstanding of statistics, by spouting "laws of statistics" as if margin of errors are a holy number, which they are dependent on each given study.”

I really am not interested, as I will just let you have the last word and leave you sleep knowing you had it… I will just ask to the rest of the readers to read his above explanation and later on reread once more the definition of the word arbitrary and his past posts which I quoted, and see how this man is not humble enough to admit he just did a mistake, and in fact he had no clue of what he was talking about…. Try you’ll see it is not hard to admit your mistake…. But again, I do not expect much from you.

“If you knew anything about statistics you would know that the sample size affects the margin of error, and in fact is crucial to affecting the margin of error. Even in your petty example you are using a random sample size, a random example, which will produce a margin of error based on that.”

No! I don’t know anything about statistics, I just studied inferential statistics regression models, chronological series (autoregressive processes predictions), survival analysis, non parametric regression etc… yes! I do not know anything about it, nothing… this man studying history will teach me my field… obviously again, you have no clue of what you are talking about, randomness here is non-existent, as more the sample is big, and the total huge, the total will play a small role, and we will obtain an asymptote, for this reason we ignore the total population..

The fact that you have studied statistics in-depth makes no difference, for I have just taken basic statistics, and I know enough to tell you that the sample size affects the margin of error, so depending upon the sample size in relation to the total, you will get a different margin of error. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. In your above reply, you didn't even bother to dispute this because you know it be true. Instead of disputing my claim that sample size affects the margin of error, you instead kept whining more and saying "No" and then going on to list the fields you have supposedly studied in statistics, as if stating you have studied these fields gives any more validity and weight to your mistaken position. For all we know you are making it up, but that isn't for me to dispute, the fact that you are denying that sample size affects margin of errors, shows that you a) either haven't studied statistics or b) you are intentionally denying it because it proves fatal to your argument.

The rest of your treatise simply lacks depth and as usual you presented no evidence that the races are equal, or that races do not exist, but only tried to copy and paste data that attempts to dismiss evidence of clear cut racial differences. Contrary to what you believe about "having the last post", this wasn't at all about that, but rather it was an attempt by me to have a cordial dialogue but apparently an "adult", and I am guessing you are in your late 20s or mid 30s, is unable to separate his emotions from a rational discourse, and anyone can look at my "Race" thread and see who started the whining and name calling and who now attempts to put the blame on the other side.

[patlajan]

Don't you fools realize you are playing right into his hands. Everytime you argue he replies and increases his post count. It's not even about you.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag "It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa." Yes, because they were primitive. Not the other way around.

Dan, you don't know that, and neither do I. Unless the black race arose separate from the rest of humanity, again, the rest of humanity had no head start. They all began in the same place intellectually. Europeans, Native Americans, and Asians advanced at a faster rate than Africans. I'm going back very far here, before anybody had developed agriculture or civilization or even written language, which is of course another necessary precursor. Now, I doubt the Phoenicians were any more skilled linguistically at this point than the average sub-Saharan African. Phoenicians were merchants, they traded with other people, and so they needed to keep records, so they developed a written language. Africans living in the middle of the Congo did not often come into contact with anyone else, as they did not live in easily traversed land and there were no large, navigable bodies of water near by, so they didn't need a written language. The Atlantic ocean doesn't count, either, as no one at that time would have been very successful trying to contact and trade with other people across a body that large. That is why written language developed along the Mediterranean.

Clearly, there are many examples out there of humans being able to surpass the limitations of their geographical location. Most of Egypt was not a particularly agricultural place, yet they had a great civilisation. What explains THAT?

Seasonal flooding of the Nile made the soil of the banks and flood basins rich for agriculture. They had plenty.

And what explains the fact that Natives could have a civilisation and culture?

I have already said, Dan, I have no answer for that one. I'm not saying this hypothesis is set in stone; it is just a hypothesis, as is yours. Everything I have outlined is evidence for my hypothesis, whereas the arising of advanced civilization in Native America, particularly the Mayan civilization, as Incan can be explained by high-altitude agriculture and Aztecs as an offshoot of the Mayans, counts as evidence against my hypothesis. It isn't devestating evidence that by itself falsifies the claim. That will remain to be seen.

Neither of us really knows what happened all the way back then. The best we can hope to do is build theories based on common sense and to examine the evidence given to us by archaeologists. Keep an open mind here, Dan. I'm not trying to say I'm right and your wrong here. I'm just advancing a possible explanation, as are you. So far, you have done exactly what you have criticized Fadix for doing; that is, you have only critiqued my hypothesis, but have presented no evidence in favor of your own. The problem with your hypothesis is that you really can't find any evidence for it. You would have to be able to test the IQ's of Africans vs. the rest of the world in ancient times, before the development of civilization anywhere. That is obviously not possible to do. The best you could do would be to measure the sizes of respective brain cavities, but even that would be dubious at best, as it isn't even clear that the size of the brain has much to do with measuring intelligence. You would need more information, such as the distance between synapses, a comparison of the respective masses of gray matter vs. white matter, and an exact knowledge of the total biomass of the organism being studied. None of that can be known from a fossil.

Today, there IS agriculture in Africa. Thanks to who? The Europeans. If it hadn't been for Europeans, Africa would still be plagued by every disease you can think of.

First off, Africa is still plagued by every disease you can think of. This has nothing to do with civilization. It is because there exists more biodiversity there than anywhere else in the world, and so there are more species that are capable of carrying exotic diseases that can be transmitted to humans.

Second, this is completely beside the point. Of course Europeans brought civilization to Africa. They also brought additional diseases, slavery, and imperialism. Is this really evidence to be counted for the superiority of Europeans? Also, we are discussing how the civilization of the Europeans arose in the first place (it didn't arise in Europe, either, by the way) and why the same thing didn't happen in Africa. It is irrelevant to bring the discussion into modern times, because by then, everything we are trying to get at had already taken place. Keep the focus here.

[Darorinag]

Dan, you don't know that, and neither do I.

Well, you are right in that you don't know it either, which makes any claim (whether it insists on racial equality or difference) only a hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. And the one that has better scientific support would be the preferable one, no? (albeit it might have some gaps in it)..

Europeans, Native Americans, and Asians advanced at a faster rate than Africans.

They might've all come from the same place, namely Africa, but that doesn't mean they were all the same race from the beginning. The fact that whites do not turn black by staying for prolonged periods in Africa supports that claim. That means that development is not completely influenced by geographic and environmental situations. Again, we are talking about Northern Africa here, particularly Egypt, where there was an impressive civilisation. Those were "Africans" in the geographic sense of the word. Just like the whites in South Africa. But they weren't black per se, unless you believe the Afrocentric fantasy. The ancient Egyptians were Mediterranid Caucasoids.

Phoenicians were merchants, they traded with other people, and so they needed to keep records, so they developed a written language.

As the popular saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." Not applicable to blacks. So when those Africans had to struggle for survival, why didn't they, unlike the Europeans and Natives and Asians, develop means to overcome those hurdles? Again, I am not talking about language here. I am talking about basic things, from which one can further jump into more complex developments that fall into the realm of "civilisation."

Seasonal flooding of the Nile made the soil of the banks and flood basins rich for agriculture. They had plenty.

I did some research on the history of agriculture in Africa, and it turns out that there were significant possibilities for agriculture, as the soil was not infertile.. For example, in Ghana and Benin. And many more examples.

Neither of us really knows what happened all the way back then.

But we have significant archaeological findings. Again, black Africans claim that ancient Egyptians were black, but testing the mummies, their facial features, etc. shows that they were Caucasoids. That is the last attempt by blacks to validate themselves as holders of A civilisation. Blacks were used for labour in building the pyramids. Those were Nubians (from Sudan).


Notice the blue eyes.


Notice the Nordic features - this is Queen Hatshepsut

So far, you have done exactly what you have criticized Fadix for doing; that is, you have only critiqued my hypothesis, but have presented no evidence in favor of your own.

My evidence to disprove your claims simultaneously supports my claim. Because the evidence I provide against the presence of any black civilisation (despite the fact that there WAS agriculture) supports my theory.

First off, Africa is still plagued by every disease you can think of.

No it is not. There were a lot of other diseases that were put under control thanks to European medicine. Today's health situation in Africa in no way can be compared to what it would've been like had the Europeans not brought in their medical advancements to the continent. Again, so many diseases are widespread in Africa due to their lack of awareness and their very primitive nature. People with AIDS having babies... This is the most irresponsible thing anyone can do. And it doesn't really need EDUCATION to realise that this is just wrong and pointless! It's simple LOGIC. A 10 year old kid would be able to reason it out.

The development of medicine was also significant in the Arab (muslim) world, particularly with Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd. Those are the most famous physicians. There were many, many more. They were also in contact with Europe through their rule over Cordova (Spain). And not only medicine, but also astronomy, physics, and chemistry. The Greek medical system also had a big influence, especially on Ibn Sina. Anyway, point is, those people came from various places, including Iraq, Persia, etc. And they were Semites. They were not Negroids.

It is because there exists more biodiversity there than anywhere else in the world, and so there are more species that are capable of carrying exotic diseases that can be transmitted to humans.

And that doesn't apply to the hugely "biodiverse" Brasil? Again, hygiene is a very important part of any civilisation. Ancient Egyptians even had menstrual hygiene techniques. When you don't live in primitive ways, you stand a better chance of warding off diseases, althoug still not completely immune to them. Consider South Africa. Compared to other African countries, there are less diseases there. Why? Because it is relatively more civilised.

Second, this is completely beside the point. Of course Europeans brought civilization to Africa. They also brought additional diseases, slavery, and imperialism. Is this really evidence to be counted for the superiority of Europeans?

The fact that Europeans enslaved Africans is in no way a disproof of the argument that Europeans were superior. On the contrary, that Europeans were better armed and organised and thus enslaved the Africans and installed "imperialism" is a positive pointer to my argument.

Also, we are discussing how the civilization of the Europeans arose in the first place (it didn't arise in Europe, either, by the way)

Maybe, but there was great cultural contact with other areas, the Greeks and Arabs for example. And this thanks to their development of trade ships and their contact with Phoenicians and throughout the centuries with Arabs.

It is irrelevant to bring the discussion into modern times, because by then, everything we are trying to get at had already taken place.

Why is it irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. On the contrary. We are talking about the correlation between ancient civilisations and their origins, as well as today's situation between Africa and Europe/Asia. Time doesn't stop. That history has taken place doesn't mean that yesterday is not history, and that today's history is any less significant than the very "old" history. Of course, we might see each and every development today as insignificant, but that is because we are living IN it. But may I remind you that centuries from now, they will be studying our civilisation(s) and our achievements, just like we study the civilisations of the past...

[Fadix]

Edited by loseyourname: Thank you, Anonymouse, you're right. This is not a smear forum.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by patlajan Don't you fools realize you are playing right into his hands. Everytime you argue he replies and increases his post count. It's not even about you.

Actually, it was my last answer to him.

[Anonymouse]

Once you get personal, you lose. Thus Fadix lost long ago. I love reading about his obsession about me though. I only refer the reader to his latest discharge of simplistic repitition through which, he has constantly proven, time and again, of how he is irrational, and appeals to his emotions and ignorance in resorting to personal attacks because he feels threatened by someone intellectually superior. Indeed, as Fadix' own desperation is evident, and through his fluent dyslexic speech and spelling errors of "scientifical" magnitude, this has been the most one sided intellectual clobbering I have ever unleashed, and I don't want to brag or exude conceit, especially since Fadix is the king of conceit, but that is what it looks like. What else can you expect from someone who spends 5 years researching nothing but Holocaust and Genocide? Ignorance in every other field, be it statistics, or the rudiments of biology. That is to be expected when the challenger Fadix, is a few upgrades short of being Unix.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag Well, you are right in that you don't know it either, which makes any claim (whether it insists on racial equality or difference) only a hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. And the one that has better scientific support would be the preferable one, no? (albeit it might have some gaps in it)..

Of course. It is very difficult to reconstruct the ancient past, in particular the prehistoric past. I just don't want you speaking, as you were earlier, as if you are completely certain that the reason Africans never developed civilization was because they were intellectually inferior from the get go. There is absolutely no way to substantiate that claim, as it is impossible to measure the intelligence of large groups of people that existed nearly ten thousand years ago.

They might've all come from the same place, namely Africa, but that doesn't mean they were all the same race from the beginning.

Then what were they, Dan? Did multiple races of humans beings just spontaneously come into existence at the same time? From where? From what?

The fact that whites do not turn black by staying for prolonged periods in Africa supports that claim.

Ten thousand years from now, we'll see if that's actually true. The time scales we are talking about is a little different than Europeans that have been there a couple hundred years. Don't forget, also, that the reason a group of people's skin color would darken over evolutionary time is that dark skin color would be selected by females that realize it is advantageous for survival. European women living in Africa today are not thinking about this. They live in houses and have sunscreen. In fact, they are more likely to mate with the whitest person they can find, not the darkest, because they are making the decision based on cultural values, not biological necessity.

As the popular saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." Not applicable to blacks. So when those Africans had to struggle for survival, why didn't they, unlike the Europeans and Natives and Asians, develop means to overcome those hurdles?

What hurdles? Africans survived perfectly fine. They didn't need any civilization. The only point at which lack of civilization and technology became disadvantageous to them is when other civilizations came in and began to conquer them. By then, it was too late.

I did some research on the history of agriculture in Africa, and it turns out that there were significant possibilities for agriculture, as the soil was not infertile.. For example, in Ghana and Benin. And many more examples.

Rainforest nutrients are contained primarily in the upper canopy. If you clear the trees, which would be the first major (and I mean major) obstacle to agriculture, the ground soil would only be fertile for three season at most. Also, there are no domesticable animals in sub-Saharan Africa, except possibly the zebra and hyena, but these would not be suitable as food stock. Furthermore, there exist no plants that could be grown as crops in sub-Saharan Africa. All of the food plants are trees, and trees take years to grow. Agriculture is dependent on seasonal crops.

But we have significant archaeological findings. Again, black Africans claim that ancient Egyptians were black, but testing the mummies, their facial features, etc. shows that they were Caucasoids. That is the last attempt by blacks to validate themselves as holders of A civilisation. Blacks were used for labour in building the pyramids. Those were Nubians (from Sudan).

And? What's your point, Dan? Finding a couple of tomb's doesn't give you anyway to measure the intelligence of groups of dead people.

My evidence to disprove your claims simultaneously supports my claim. Because the evidence I provide against the presence of any black civilisation (despite the fact that there WAS agriculture) supports my theory.

It only supports the fact that Africans did not develop civilization. No one is disputing this. Your evidence does nothing to say why they didn't develop civilization. Your attributing it to an innate lack of intelligence is entirely speculation. There is no way of determining whether or not, ten thousand years ago. sub-Saharan Africans were on average less intelligent than Europeans.

No it is not. There were a lot of other diseases that were put under control thanks to European medicine. Today's health situation in Africa in no way can be compared to what it would've been like had the Europeans not brought in their medical advancements to the continent.

Sure, there were plenty of diseases put under control. And there were plenty of diseases that came in take their place, because of exactly the reason I gave. There is a huge stock of bacterial and viral genetic variability in Africa. It is likely that the disease problem will never go away, at least not any time in the foreseeable future. There is too much variability and too much opportunity for mutations. As soon as you find a way to stop one disease, it mutates into another, and three more you never knew existed come out of the jungle because of people treading where people had never tread before.

Besides, you act as if Africans were dying by the thousands and had no hope of survival until Europeans came in and saved their asses. That's ridiculous. There was a larger, healthier African population living in Africa before the arrival of Europeans than there is today. Along with healthcare, Europeans brought civil unrest and large-scale technological warfare that has made Africa one of the most dangerous places in the world to live, if not the most dangerous.

Again, so many diseases are widespread in Africa due to their lack of awareness and their very primitive nature. People with AIDS having babies...

You could say the same thing about the south Pacific Islands, or about many rural parts of South America. Let us not forget either, that disease does not kill off nearly as many Africans as malnutrition and large-scale warfare, two things that were not a problem until Europeans came onto the scene.

This is the most irresponsible thing anyone can do. And it doesn't really need EDUCATION to realise that this is just wrong and pointless! It's simple LOGIC. A 10 year old kid would be able to reason it out.

It is believe in some African cultures that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. A lot of Americans in the bible belt refuse medical treatment and prefer to pray to cure their cancer. These are equally stupid ways of dealing with illness. Illogicality is not confined to any one race.

Again, hygiene is a very important part of any civilisation. Ancient Egyptians even had menstrual hygiene techniques. When you don't live in primitive ways, you stand a better chance of warding off diseases, althoug still not completely immune to them. Consider South Africa. Compared to other African countries, there are less diseases there. Why? Because it is relatively more civilised.

Again, Dan, you are talking here about what has happened well after the advent of civilization. That is beside the point. We are discussing one thing and one thing only here. Why did Africa never develop civilization? You say it was because they were less intelligent. I say it was because the environment they lived in did not favor agriculture, and as a result, physical strength was the prevalent trait selected for, whereas in the parts of the world where agriculture did develop, intelligence was the prevalent trait selected for.

The fact that Europeans enslaved Africans is in no way a disproof of the argument that Europeans were superior. On the contrary, that Europeans were better armed and organised and thus enslaved the Africans and installed "imperialism" is a positive pointer to my argument.

It is evidence that they were more technologically advanced and were mightier. That does not mean superior, unless in your book, might makes right. If that is indeed the case, then you are not a very virtuous person. I've seen your picture Dan, and I'm willing to bet any African out there could take you in a fight. Hell, I could probably take you, and I'm a twiggy little powder-puff.

Why is it irrelevant? It is not irrelevant. On the contrary. We are talking about the correlation between ancient civilisations and their origins, as well as today's situation between Africa and Europe/Asia. Time doesn't stop. That history has taken place doesn't mean that yesterday is not history, and that today's history is any less significant than the very "old" history. Of course, we might see each and every development today as insignificant, but that is because we are living IN it. But may I remind you that centuries from now, they will be studying our civilisation(s) and our achievements, just like we study the civilisations of the past...

Relax, Dan. It is irrelevant to a discussion of why civilization only arose in certain places in ancient times. I never said it's completely irrelevant.

[Fadix]

Here, louseyourname, this is the first part of my answers, I will have many long posts, so I decided to cut them.

My first part is about the brain size between “races”

So here my post is about brain sizes and the numbers provided by Philippe and Elizabeth Rushton. I first decided to copy past an essay I have written about this issue months ago, but unfortunately it was one of the things I have lost when I lost my hard drive.

My critic is regarding a study by Rushton titled: “Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits.”

First of all, before criticising his work, I shall point out one fact which is ignored by those advocates of the “race” superiority. We know that the brain is like a muscle, we know that brain activities modify the brain (I shall come to this later), and probably slightly influence its mass. Just like any other muscles in the body. So here is a serious argument to consider. If in fact the brain masses of blacks is lower than those of whites, is it because of lack of education? Think about this, if blacks did not have the same opportunities in life, and that they did not exercise their brains as much as whites, how much of this brain mass differences, if there is any, was due to the fact that as any other muscle in the body the brain that was not exercised as much as others was lighter than those others? This is just something to consider.

Now, my critic, first let quote Rushton study of 6000 U.S. Army personal, Rushton writes:

“The three populations under consideration have mean absolute cranial capacities of African Americans (1356 cm3), European Americans (1371 cm3), and East Asian Americans (1383 cm3). These cranial sizes are taken from the stratified random sample of over 6000 U.S. Army personnel studied by Rushton (1992) prior to corrections made for body size, sex, and military rank.”

This was one of the studies where the sample was considerable, from this study, the absolute cranial capacities of blacks was 1% lower than whites, and 2% lower than yellow. Again difference lower than the margin of error. What this means is that if we were to take two groups of whites and make the comparison we would find differences under the margin of error (similar differences). Only the differences in nutrition and other factors are enough to induce such insignificant differences that are even not statistically significant.

Cranial capacity for the three groups is about the same, in fact, we can take two groups of whites and find the same differences. Now, how was Rushton able to find 1364cm3 for Asians, 1347cm3 for whites and 1223cm3 for blacks? How? After all, his own recent study using US military personal, we find out that the three groups in the study had about the same cranial capacity? Actually how he did it is way out of his field of study. He is a psychologist, NOT a neurologist. The way he came to this number is by… let quote him.

“They are also found for the world averages calculated by Rushton (1995) from a review of over 150 years of research”

People might believe that he took the cranial capacity to estimate, not!..., from those researches he took the numbers and applied his “calculations” of body size etc… which have been shown recently to have practically no link with the size of the brain. His methodology, neurologists reject it. Recent studies of the physiology of the brain shows that Rushton can not be more wrong. Of course Rushton do justify his methodology by referring to autopsy data using the allometric technIQues, but the problem is that it IS specifically this technique that is questioned by neurologists. In fact, Rushter own reference to this technique and the variation of a 100g between the mass of the brain of a woman and man shows his own methodology flawed. As new recent researches indicate, the difference is a little lower than that. Secondly, from his own admission the brain of a black man is heavier than a white woman; in fact, his own studies “claim” that a black man brain size is between the one of a white woman and a white man. If we were even to consider that, we would find out that from his own admission the brain of a black man is heavier than his own numbers.

Now, let return to the military personal sample, Rushton correct it based on stature and weight (method under dispute as one of the questioned parameters), by doing so, he came with the corrected figures as being 1359, 1380, 1416 respectively. In his correction he add 3cm3 for blacks, 9cm3 for whites and 33cm3 for yellows.

To justify his corrections he writes:

“Although analysis of covariance is typically used to control for the small differences found among humans, it is to some degree an overcorrection, because head size itself is part of stature and body weight. Regardless, in the present study, it is inapplicable for the three, mainly rank-ordered, data sets. Although there is no real theoretical justification for controlling for body size in this study, nonetheless, a correction is made for it based on Jerison and Jerison encephalization quotient (EQ), which is used in zoological studies, and occasionally in the human literature, too (e.g., Rushton, 1991).”

The EQ he refers to is used to compare brain sizes among species and not waiting species. This technique in question is one of the parameters that is disputed when using the allometric techniques. By doing such, Rushton is able to reduce the size of blacks brain and increase those of whites and yellows, and finally adding what he calls the 150 years of study, without even paying attention that those that were completed decades ago were flawed, as any new one shows no statistical differences between the cranial capacity of whites compared with blacks, and that the only way of finding any differences is by using his correction values which are now known to not be valid and flawed.

I will continue later.

[loseyourname]

Whoa there, Fadix. I don't care about brain size or cranial capacity. I never said Africans had smaller heads then Whites. I just said that there is a difference between the races, that is all. Don't start posting pages upon pages of irrelevant material. Please stick to addressing the several points I have outlined in my posts to you.