Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-13-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

As I mentioned in another post, Deuteronomy 14 lists several animals which "chew the cud": "the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep."

Here we have a list of ruminants said to be cud chewers, so doesn't it strike you as odd that an animal that eats its own feces somehow was considered in the same classification as the others? On the other hand, if the hare appeared to chew the cud, the classification makes sense.

Also in another post, I quoted scholarly works...
/snipping for brevity

Thank you for all the well-researched information in this thread.
Copied: creation-science.us/errancy/hare_chew_cud.html
Your contributions are much more insightful than JP Holding's. I am not an expert on theology or science -just a simple truthseeker, but conversing with Holding leaves me with the impression he himself (supposedly an apologist) didn't even fully understand the debate about cud chewing / alah gerah / or the Coprophagia and Refection relationship. That's excusable though to an extent, most Christians don't research the beliefs they're defending as inerrant.

I think it is very important they understand the composition of caecal pellets and think about it twice (feces) before casually calling it "cud" (as in what cows, sheep and goats re-chew).

I repeat myself from the previous post "Assuming for one moment Moses knew of refection: If so, and Moses proceeded to classify refection as "cud chewing", then it only proves beyond doubt, how ignorant that culture was. Modern science knows better and classified this behavior in rabbits under feces-eating (Coprophagia) for a reason." (Having more in common with swine feces-eating than cud-chewing). Creationists need to fully understand what they're defending.

------

BTW, just a note on the Professor's comment about cud in the Bible requiring "fermentation"?

Quote:

"Swine may eat feces, but they don't have the fermentation/rumination process I described above, so there is really no valid comparison between rabbits and swine in this case."

What determines the definition of cud? Tobacco even qualifies as cud. I can visualize a clump of horse feces rich in semi-digested hay, or its own feces --and a swine finding it very appealing for chewing.

DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco.
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.]

DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first stomach to be chewed again

DEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed food] 2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw, quid, plug, wad]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cud

--------

Christians are presuming "cud" is defined strictly as rumination in cows, goats, sheep, --the Professor mistakingly assumes the definition of cud is limited to "fermentation chambers" and would like to include rabbits in that narrow definition based on a small similarity between digestive system of rabbit vs. cow, --disregarding the vast difference between true rumination and pseudo-rumination -- relying on the restrictive sense you've pointed out in your sources.

Quote:

...Then the resulting mix of digested material plus microbes is sent back through the digestion process once more... This time it bypasses the fermentation chamber... Whether chewing is a necessary part of the process depends on how literally one takes the layman's term "cud chewing."

Chewing is mandatory.

Moses was emphatic on the word gerah, which Biblical translators have always defined as "cud". Cud does not include substances which are swallowed. Cud is strictly defined as a substance that is "chewed".

The word cud itself can include a wad of turd which is rechewed by a swine, however, the definition of cud does not allow for a caecal pellet which is placed in the mouth and "swallowed". It must be chewed on.

Christians are not only left with a question of what "alah" meant in the original Hebrew, but likewise, what exactly is gerah? All we know for certain, is that if a substance qualifies as "cud" it must be "chewed on".

------

In a note: "Hi JP Holding. We can deduce when Moses used the Hebrew word "alah" in that scripture, he meant specifically "bring up" the chewable wad ... to eliminate creatures like swine who also are known to take chewable wads into their mouth and re-chew?

lee_merrill · 08-13-2005, 11:24 AM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

John B.: When the bible looks wrong, it isn't really wrong, it just seems that way because the divinely inspired writers meant something else besides "what we would think they meant."

Well, not every phrase is as clear as every other phrase. And I am concluding you think they couldn't count six legs! That they tried, and came up with four.

Quote:

Sharon: Failed curse in Genesis. Moses stated the serpent would eat dust, and the prophet Isaiah clearly states the serpent will eat dust (in the future).

I would expect that the Genesis curse was not, presumably, nourishing, like the English saying "eat my dust," and the Isaiah one does seem to be referring to actual food, in which case, don't earthworms swallow earth, to pick up nutrients from it? And if Genesis meant really eating and swallowing dust, then why does Isaiah say "will be" instead of "will continue to be"?

Quote:

John K.: Lee, most words have "a wide range of meanings," and context determines which of these meanings is correct. Just because a Hebrew or Greek word can mean something different in another context doesn't mean that the meaning of the word is subject to whatever definition we find most advantageous.

Yes, I agree completely, we have to try and find out what they meant, not what we wish they meant.

Quote:

Here we have a list of ruminants said to be cud chewers, so doesn't it strike you as odd that an animal that eats its own feces somehow was considered in the same classification as the others?

It does make it less probable, though recycling food still might be what was meant by the expression.

Quote:

In other words, even if you want to claim that alah is so versatile in meaning as to be open to interpretation in Leviticus 11:3, the other Hebrew word used is properly defined in verse 7 as "ruminate," the very thing that a swine doesn't do that disqualifies it.

That's a good point, I would respond by quoting the parallel verse in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 14:8 "The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not [/I]chew[/I] the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. (NAU)

Now "chew" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew, thus the important aspect seems to be that the pig eats its food without recycling, not that it doesn't chew it.

Regards,
Lee

08-13-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Yes, I agree completely, we have to try and find out what they meant, not what we wish they meant. Now "chew" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew, thus the important aspect seems to be that the pig eats its food without recycling, not that it doesn't chew it.

Regards,
Lee

Yes, pigs are eliminated in the definition of "cud". Rabbits would never have been classified as cud-chewers.

The rabbit is not chewing on a "chewable wad" when it mimmicks the motion of the mouth a cow makes. (repeatedly chewing on a wad, [edible or not is not an issue] -- chewing is the issue). Moses further emphasized, the substance is "brought up" (alah). Science defined that as rumination.

I just posted to JP Holding: "The swine may "chew up" a chewable wad, but it doesn't stand there and chew and chew and chew on it. Does it? That "movement of the mouth" repeatedly chewing on a chewable wad. Right? Like chewing tobacco. It's never swallowed, it is repeatedly chewed and then spit out. The swine does not do that. However, the rabbit appears to chew on a chewable wad like the ruminants do. Now, we are back at the error Linnaeus made on "appearances" of chewing a cud like cows, goats, sheep..."

LOL! People who chew Chewing Tobacco, are "cud chewers".

I have no real problem with Moses. He specified between animals that make that motion of the mouth -separating the clean from the unclean.

That is all fine and good. A hungry ancient Hebrew might see a hare on the plain, and seeing the chewing motion of the mouth and thinking its chewing on a "wad" -- "Moses said gerah makes the hare clean", and eat it. I can give Moses the benefit of the doubt ... no big deal. Hebrew slang or something, only an expert in Hebrew language might be able to ascertain a conclusive conclusion on that --wiggle room --I have no real problem with Moses. And, there's just not too much left to discuss on the issue. If said Hebrew language expert ascertains "Moses literally assumed the rabbit brought up a wad in its mouth to chew," well, Moses made an error. We all know the rabbit does not "chew" a "cud". By the simple fact of the word, alah, Moses at least had the sense to recognize the wad it was chewing on, was coming up from inside the cow.

The REAL problem is with all those Christians who have sworn high and dry, the rabbit was "chewing" a "cud", and stretched to some far-fetched feces-eating behavior -- desperately trying to make a relationship between refection and rumination, when it was never the issue to begin with.

John Kesler · 08-13-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

John Kesler:
Here we have a list of ruminants said to be cud chewers, so doesn't it strike you as odd that an animal that eats its own feces somehow was considered in the same classification as the others?

lee_merrill:
It does make it less probable, though recycling food still might be what was meant by the expression.

I notice that in your reply, you chose not to comment on the fact that I quoted scholarly reference works which state that the hare's alleged cud chewing is an error, and you just admitted that it is "less probable" that a feces-eating animal would be considered a cud-chewer since all the other cud-chewers are ruminants. Is there any reason to cling to your "might be" possibility when the evidence is against you?

Quote:

John Kesler:
In other words, even if you want to claim that alah is so versatile in meaning as to be open to interpretation in Leviticus 11:3, the other Hebrew word used is properly defined in verse 7 as "ruminate," the very thing that a swine doesn't do that disqualifies it.

lee_merrill:
That's a good point, I would respond by quoting the parallel verse in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 14:8 "The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not [/I]chew[/I] the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. (NAU)

Now "chew" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew, thus the important aspect seems to be that the pig eats its food without recycling, not that it doesn't chew it.

I find this to be an unconvincing argument. The preceding verse, Deuteronomy 14:7, contains a Hebrew word for "chews" when it speaks about animals that do chew the cud yet do not have cloven feet. The next verse then mentions the swine which has the opposite "problem" since it has cloven feet yet doesn't chew the cud. The obvious corollary is that what was true of the camel, for example, is inverted for the swine. Here is how Young's Literal Translation renders verses 7-8:

Quote:

7`Only, this ye do not eat, of those bringing up the cud, and of those dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit, for they are bringing up the cud but the hoof have not divided; unclean they [are] to you;
8 and the sow, for it is dividing the hoof, and not [bringing] up the cud, unclean it [is] to you; of their flesh ye do not eat, and against their carcase ye do not come.

08-13-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

I notice that in your reply, you chose not to comment on the fact that I quoted scholarly reference works which state that the hare's alleged cud chewing is an ...

7`Only, this ye do not eat, of those bringing up the cud, and of those dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit, for they are bringing up the cud but the hoof have not divided; unclean they [are] to you;

8 and the sow, for it is dividing the hoof, and not [bringing] up the cud, unclean it [is] to you; of their flesh ye do not eat, and against their carcase ye do not come.

Translated to modern English: "of those bringing up [the wad(gerah)that is chewed], and of those dividing the cloven hoof" . . .

It does sound literal, but I'm not a Hebrew linguist.

I'm amazed. How did so many people get confused on something so simple as the definition of "cud"? How easily people can lose sight of a word's meaning and confuse something simple into complicated nonsense... "cud" (a wad of anything chewable) confused into a strict definition of a substance consumed in digestion process (and the digestion process itself). Theologians... supposed experts on Hebrew language, and they don't even understand English.

Help! I think my brain is collapsing.

If the rabbit did sit and chew that turd, it would literally be "chewing the cud". But as so many scientists have pointed out, it doesn't... the turd is swallowed whole.

Upon properly understanding the definition of "cud"
1. How the cud gets into the mouth, is completely irrelevant. No need to even argue what alah means anymore.
2. Whether or not the rabbit turd is a turd or not, is completely irrelevant. We know for a fact, it is not chewed, but swallowed whole.
3. Rabbits do not chew(chewing is mandatory) on a chewable wad. They merely make the appearance of doing so.

Creationists are as fun as a barrel of monkies.

08-13-2005, 04:55 PM

Okay.. time out for some backtracking. Let me take a wild guess at what happened... maybe somebody knows more than I do about this?

Science established "rabbits do not chew a cud".

Creationists found out about refection --and assumed the rabbit chewed this pellet... and assumed it was evidence of inerrant scripture. Then, Skeptics were forced to explain the word alah means "to bring up", not bring around from the backside to the mouth... and everything went downhill from there. For instance, never stopping to question the obvious as the Skeptics did itza turd and only done on the sly [in the evening hours], but for the sake of faith it was enough. Somehow the definition of "cud (a wad chewed in the mouth)", was forgotten in the midst of desperation to prove refection was cud chewing, replaced with and newly defined as "anything that is consumed a second time around, strictly as in rumination" --which for the Professor, would rule out swine, but include rabbits, since there were discovered a vague similarity between ruminants and pseudo-ruminants digestive systems --this somehow defined "cud" as a digestion process rather than its true definition (a wad that is chewed) --ironically, the only thing defining true cud is "to chew", but in the end, chewing was irrelevant when discovered the rabbit does not "chew" its pellet. Everything became redefined for Creation Scientists, including the classification of "ruminants" --and the interpretation of scripture has been debated ever since. In the chaos Creation Scientists also went about trying to prove this turd was "not actually a turd" (though scientists had classified refection under feces eating)... and Creation Scientists were hoping to get rabbits classed as ruminants --namely, "cud chewers", as proof of Biblical inerrancy and its authority as a reliable source of science--with a hope to eventually force religion into the educational system under the guise of "science" based entirely upon their confusion of scripture? ...

I am assuming that is what happened.
But you know what they say about assuming . . .
Question every-thing.

08-14-2005, 09:22 AM

Hi John Kesler, and everyone in the thread:

At present moment Google Answers has:

Question: Rabbit Chews the Cud?
Answer: There is no answer at this time.

A lot of Spiritual answers have been given, but not concise scientific answers.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492669

Those sources found in this thread should answer the question affirmatively.

BTW, funny as it may seem, most everyone I know has chewed cud at one time or another. If you've ever chewed Bubblicious, Wrigley's Spearmint, Freedent or Dentyne -you've chewed a cud. :funny: Maybe they can come out with Bubble Cud.

lee_merrill · 08-14-2005, 03:25 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Deuteronomy 14:8 "The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. (NAU)

Now "chew" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew, thus the important aspect seems to be that the pig eats its food without recycling, not that it doesn't chew it.

John K.: I find this to be an unconvincing argument. The preceding verse, Deuteronomy 14:7, contains a Hebrew word for "chews" when it speaks about animals that do chew the cud yet do not have cloven feet.

Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for "chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.

Quote:

Sharon: How did so many people get confused on something so simple as the definition of "cud"?

Because words in different languages have different meanings? Especially very specific sorts of terms, such as in biology, such as in this list:

Leviticus 11:16-18 ... the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey... (NIV)

Leviticus 11:16-18 ... the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture... (ESV)

Leviticus 11:16-18 ... the eagle owl, the short-eared owl, the seagull, hawks of all kinds, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the barn owl, the desert owl, the Egyptian vulture... (NLT)

So we're having trouble here identifying these creatures, and a similar problem would be expected with technical sorts of terms, such as with the creatures that "walk on all fours" in this passage, which really have six legs.

Regards,
Lee

John Kesler · 08-14-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,
Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for "chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.

What reference work did you use? Each source that I consulted shows that not only is there a Hebrew word rendered "chew" in Deuteronomy 14:7, but it is there twice. It is verse 8 that doesn't have a Hebrew word for "chew." See here for proof.

And to reiterate, as comparison between Leviticus 11:3 and 7 reveals, there is no substantive difference between alah and garar. See this post.

08-14-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I checked verse 7, and it doesn't actually have the Hebrew word for "chew," though verse 8 does. So I think my point here still stands.

Regards,
Lee

Lee, the word "cud" itself implies chewing. Chewing is all cud is about. Read the dictionary definition.

You are missing something obviously. The scripture does not need to use a word for "chew" because "chew" is all wrapped up in the very word "cud". If the rabbit chewed the pellet, it would make it a cud. If the rabbit does not chew the pellet, it is merely a turd and nothing more. The act of chewing on a wad (any chewable wad) "makes it a cud".

Here is my response to JP Holding:

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by jpholding

Then it is indeed a very good thing that there is no word corresponding to "chewing" in the Hebrew.

Quote:

SHARON MOONEY: HEY GUYS (iidb.org)! Maybe that was a sign from God! No Corresponding word for Gerah (the mystery spew) other than the English word "Cud", meaning "a chewable wad". I guess they can blame that darn curse at Babel. Please forgive my redundant use of "chew" and "cud" -- I think Christians are having trouble comprehending the definition of cud. It is a noun, defined only by verbal action of "to chew the wad". Without chewing, it is only a wad, and not a cud. What is so difficult to understand?

SHARON: That was an utterly stupid, oblivious question JP.

Are Apologists born with a Lower IQ than the average person, or is it a result of brain damage during the Born Again Process?

In an earlier email: William J. Stewart, Kingston, Ontario wrote:
You mentioned that the rabbit does not chew at all, but rather swallows the pellet whole. This argument is based upon the assumption that "chew the cud" is an adequate rendering of "'alah gerah". The fact is, neither word literally means to chew. "'Alah" has a variety of uses, but generally means to raise up or bring up. But in addition, it can mean to recover or restore. The rabbit surely is recovering or restoring it's food in the coprophagia process. It would seem that translators considered "chew the cud" to best accommodate Moses' meaning, though it seems to fall short in fully expressing what "'alah gerah" means.

SHARON: MR. STEWART, IS IT CUD OR NOT? YEA OR NAY?
As soon as you've admitted it is cud spoken of in scripture (unless you know more than Biblical translators) -- if you admit it is "cud" you have admitted it means chewing. If you say that it does not mean cud --then you guys are given the ultimatum of telling Christians, "Erm, the rabbit does not chew a cud, because we're oblivious what the word Gerah means. It doesn't mean cud anymore. We Christians are not sure what the mystery wad was that cows bring up."

Christians are now attempting to deny the word "chew" is found in Hebrew scripture. It doesn't have to be. "Chew" is found within the word cud itself.

Please do choose another word for Gerah, but "cud" is not permitted if you guys are going to say "Gerah" is "cud". Explain to the world, Biblical Translators were too ignorant about Hebrew language to understand the definition of Gerah.

CUD --MEANING LITERALLY "A WAD THAT IS CHEWED" -- Digestion has nothing to do with the definition of cud. Okay, let's play that word game -- give the English equivalent of "Gerah".

The only question is "What is Gerah"? Is it `cud', yea or nay, Christian brethren? Do you deny Gerah is "cud"? If you do, then please, please! Tell us what Gerah is? Please keep the word "cud" out of your articles in the future, because the rabbit does not chew a "cud". You can redefine "Gerah" to your heart's desire, but you cannot redefine cud.

I ask all these Christians, what is Gerah? Some mystery dropping from heaven, like manna --or the lump a cow brings up and re-chews, which we all know in this day and age is none other than "cud", good old fashioned "cud". Again, read "dictionary.com" for the definition of "cud".

Instead of saying "chew" is not found in the Bible, give the alternate word which was intended for "Gerah". Some mystery in the Bible now, eh, after centuries of calling it "cud" what is Gerah (noun): Jism, Plark, Scrat, (some crazy word we've never heard of? Did Hebrew cows spew up something unfamiliar to Farmers across the world in the year 2005? or was Gerah "CUD" just as Biblical translators put it? Biblical translators used the word "cud", and by doing so, the word "cud" itself indicates verbal "chewing". The whole word "cud" is defined as "a wad that is chewed".

If the Gerah is not "cud", please inform the world what this "mystery stuff is that cows bring up".

Cud is the word translators chose, and have always used. Cud is no other than a "wad that is chewed". Chew does not need to be in the Bible. Cud defines itself, it means "chewed wad". The rabbit does not chew that pellet, by that alone, we know the pellet is not a "cud".

As soon as you guys choose that other word, Christians are going to know your true blasphemous nature... changing the King James Bible?? GO RIGHT AHEAD JP HOLDING. ARE YOU JP HOLDING, SAYING THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

The whole argument about refection hangs upon "cud". And the definition of cud hangs upon a wad "which is Chewed", like Chewing Gum, Chewing Tobacco.

Now deny Gerah is "cud" if you will.

The whole scripture is meaningless without "cud" for Gerah. The whole meaning of cud, is rendered useless, --and renders your cud chewing arguments equally useles if you take the chewing out of it. Cud is "chewed" ... it's all it does, it's all it ever was, it's all it will ever be. "A chewable(verb) wad (noun)."

NOW GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DENY THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

You guys are simply proving how incapable you are of dealing with an error.

I see! I see! You have time and time again, swervedand weaved all around the word "alah" trying to claim it doesn't mean "bring up". But when it comes to the word "cud", you claim now, it doesn't mean "cud" --therefore, it doesn't mean "chew". Chewing is all "cud" is. A wad that is chewed. SIMPLE: If it is not chewed, it is not cud. READ THE DEFINITION OF CUD. Cud is defined as "a chewable (verb) wad (noun)", or "a wad that chewed".

MR. STEWART -- For people who do not believe "Gerah" meant "Cud"... you guys sure have used the word "cud" a lot.

Is Gerah Cud or not?

If you say it is cud, you have already admitted it means chewing. Chewing is ALL cud is about.

Thank you for trying your best to swerve and dart around the issues.
Sharon Mooney

08-14-2005, 09:22 AM	#27
Sharon357 Guest Posts: n/a	Google Answers Hi John Kesler, and everyone in the thread: At present moment Google Answers has: Question: Rabbit Chews the Cud? Answer: There is no answer at this time. A lot of Spiritual answers have been given, but not concise scientific answers. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492669 Those sources found in this thread should answer the question affirmatively. BTW, funny as it may seem, most everyone I know has chewed cud at one time or another. If you've ever chewed Bubblicious, Wrigley's Spearmint, Freedent or Dentyne -you've chewed a cud. :funny: Maybe they can come out with Bubble Cud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2005, 04:55 PM	#26
Sharon357 Guest Posts: n/a	Okay.. time out for some backtracking. Let me take a wild guess at what happened... maybe somebody knows more than I do about this? Science established "rabbits do not chew a cud". Creationists found out about refection --and assumed the rabbit chewed this pellet... and assumed it was evidence of inerrant scripture. Then, Skeptics were forced to explain the word alah means "to bring up", not bring around from the backside to the mouth... and everything went downhill from there. For instance, never stopping to question the obvious as the Skeptics did itza turd and only done on the sly [in the evening hours], but for the sake of faith it was enough. Somehow the definition of "cud (a wad chewed in the mouth)", was forgotten in the midst of desperation to prove refection was cud chewing, replaced with and newly defined as "anything that is consumed a second time around, strictly as in rumination" --which for the Professor, would rule out swine, but include rabbits, since there were discovered a vague similarity between ruminants and pseudo-ruminants digestive systems --this somehow defined "cud" as a digestion process rather than its true definition (a wad that is chewed) --ironically, the only thing defining true cud is "to chew", but in the end, chewing was irrelevant when discovered the rabbit does not "chew" its pellet. Everything became redefined for Creation Scientists, including the classification of "ruminants" --and the interpretation of scripture has been debated ever since. In the chaos Creation Scientists also went about trying to prove this turd was "not actually a turd" (though scientists had classified refection under feces eating)... and Creation Scientists were hoping to get rabbits classed as ruminants --namely, "cud chewers", as proof of Biblical inerrancy and its authority as a reliable source of science--with a hope to eventually force religion into the educational system under the guise of "science" based entirely upon their confusion of scripture? ... I am assuming that is what happened. But you know what they say about assuming . . . Question every-thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.