-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should a Modern translation "water Down" theological terms?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
No! but better to translate into english what the original words used actually meant when they were written as close as possible!
Agree and disagree
While I agree there is little intrinsic value in using King James verb conjugations just for the sake of how they sound, and it is true there are vastly more words in the English language today as opposed to 1611, it also is important to maintain a standard of knowledge among the population of the meanings of words. The reason for this is that eventually, you'll get to the point that language is so base, it contains little true meaning - especially on a deeper level.
And if someone is not willing to look up a word like propitiation, for example, they have problems that no translation will solve.
So I do believe that there should be a definitive translation into modern English, using the "hard" words everywhere to maintain the integrity of the scriptures. However, the NIV and NASB are not it.
I have found a King James Clarified (new testament) online that merely got rid of the "thees and thous" and updated conjugations.
I know the King James Only crowd will hate it but from what I've seen, it's accurate.
While I agree there is little intrinsic value in using King James verb conjugations just for the sake of how they sound, and it is true there are vastly more words in the English language today as opposed to 1611, it also is important to maintain a standard of knowledge among the population of the meanings of words. The reason for this is that eventually, you'll get to the point that language is so base, it contains little true meaning - especially on a deeper level.
And if someone is not willing to look up a word like propitiation, for example, they have problems that no translation will solve.
So I do believe that there should be a definitive translation into modern English, using the "hard" words everywhere to maintain the integrity of the scriptures. However, the NIV and NASB are not it.
I have found a King James Clarified (new testament) online that merely got rid of the "thees and thous" and updated conjugations.
I know the King James Only crowd will hate it but from what I've seen, it's accurate.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
King James Clarified. King James Clarified. Someone help me out here, where have we heard about this text lately on the BB? :smilewinkgrin:
Intrinsic Value?
There is no intrinsic value in using archaic words. If you look up propitiation in a dictionary, you will find "an appeasement."
But is that what John meant when in Greek he wrote hilasmos? The idea is Christ became that which obtained the grace of salvation for all mankind. Thus hilasmos should be translated "means of salvation" rather than "an appeasement."
Apparently there is no "byzantine text type" English Translation available at the corner book store, or at a public access website. So the best available today is the NASB95, but it still uses archaic words like propitiation. And so we continue to obscure God's message, rather than translating it into "koine" (common) English.
There is no intrinsic value in using archaic words. If you look up propitiation in a dictionary, you will find "an appeasement."
But is that what John meant when in Greek he wrote hilasmos? The idea is Christ became that which obtained the grace of salvation for all mankind. Thus hilasmos should be translated "means of salvation" rather than "an appeasement."
Apparently there is no "byzantine text type" English Translation available at the corner book store, or at a public access website. So the best available today is the NASB95, but it still uses archaic words like propitiation. And so we continue to obscure God's message, rather than translating it into "koine" (common) English.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Dear Van,
There is a new, fully public domain translation based on the majority text for the NT called the World English Bible. It's an update of the ASV, but I've check a number of test passages in the NT and it seems they've put the Byz. readings back in the NT. You can find out more information from this site:
World English Bible
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
There is a new, fully public domain translation based on the majority text for the NT called the World English Bible. It's an update of the ASV, but I've check a number of test passages in the NT and it seems they've put the Byz. readings back in the NT. You can find out more information from this site:
World English Bible
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Borland
Thanks Jonathan, I will explore the difference, if any between the majority text and the Byzantine Text type, as well as WEB version. I just looked at two or three verses and it seems to read like the NASB rather than the NKJV for example at 1 John 5:7-8 and Romans 5:15. OTOH, at Romans 8:1, it reads like the NKJV rather than the NASB. My initial impression is the WEB NT seems better than the NKJV, yet still has whatever merit the Byzantine Text Type has over the CT.
At 1 John 2:2 it does away with "propitiation" and uses "atoning sacrifice" which shows a concerted effort to eliminate archaic words.
At 1 John 2:2 it does away with "propitiation" and uses "atoning sacrifice" which shows a concerted effort to eliminate archaic words.
Last edited by a moderator:
From the book The King James Bible After 400 Years edited by Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones :
"...Tyndale's homely use of the language was regarded as disgraceful,not unlike many people resenting modern Bible translations today because of their 'secular' or 'unelevated' language." (p.121)
"...Tyndale's homely use of the language was regarded as disgraceful,not unlike many people resenting modern Bible translations today because of their 'secular' or 'unelevated' language." (p.121)
I am tempted to say the same for the KJV
No,the KJV revisers "elevated" the language within the KJV. They fancified it.
True. I was thinking of in the sense of being secular (appealing to peoples emotions ie: it's so poetic) and unelevated in the sense that it refuses to truly acknowledge advancements in scholarship (relying on inferior and newer manuscripts, as opposed to older and more reliable ones).
I will admit my bias is mainly (not entirely) driven by the attitudes and comments of some more vocal members of the KJO crowd that I have encountered over the years.
I don't see how giving a description of a word instead of a fancied up word is "dumbing it down".
I could say "Get the girth" to my kids and they know what it is but would their friend? I could instead say "Get the black strap with buckles on either end" and I'll bet they could get it much more easily.
So to give an explanation of a word instead of a word is fine with me and I don't see it "dumbing down" at all.
I could say "Get the girth" to my kids and they know what it is but would their friend? I could instead say "Get the black strap with buckles on either end" and I'll bet they could get it much more easily.
So to give an explanation of a word instead of a word is fine with me and I don't see it "dumbing down" at all.
I have a girth, never knew there was a tool for it- :laugh:
I would say, "get the girth" and then explain what it is and where it is found. In fact, I do this kind of thing quite often. "Son, get the garlic press...." or "Son, bring me the finish nailer....." or "Son, bring me the #2 phillips head screwdriver....".
We are not the only person that people are going to be around. My kids help their grandpa on projects, they also help their mom and others cook. They will have jobs and opportunities to deal with many people throughout their life. My sons would be ill-eguipped if they are sent out into the world with knowing the proper nomenclature for the tools they will use. Not to mention the unnecessary embarrassment they would endure. I understand I cannot teach them everything, for one I don't know it all, but I would be remiss if I didn't do all I could while I can to prepare them for what's ahead.
I suggest the very same thing happens in our churches. There are words used to label key doctrines that are discussed in churches and Bible studies and ministry opportunities around the world. As a pastor and teacher the issue becomes greater because we are dealing with eternal issues. This is complicated more by the practice of redefining key terms. I have been in conversations that went round and round until I finally asked how the other person was defining the subject. If I say we are going to talk about love everyone in the room thinks of something different. I then have to explain which type of love I want to address. When someone asks, "Are you born again?" We need to know what they mean. Justification, sanctification, propitiation, and glorified are all great biblical words. In the context of a discussion on spiritual matters people can communicate better (more efficiently and more effectively) if we at least start in the same ball park. Labels, as much as we may hate them, serve a useful purpose. When I say I am a Calvinist people have a general idea of where I stand concerning salvation issues. They may have preconceived notions that need to be addressed in deeper discussions, but at least we have a common starting point.
We are not the only person that people are going to be around. My kids help their grandpa on projects, they also help their mom and others cook. They will have jobs and opportunities to deal with many people throughout their life. My sons would be ill-eguipped if they are sent out into the world with knowing the proper nomenclature for the tools they will use. Not to mention the unnecessary embarrassment they would endure. I understand I cannot teach them everything, for one I don't know it all, but I would be remiss if I didn't do all I could while I can to prepare them for what's ahead.
I suggest the very same thing happens in our churches. There are words used to label key doctrines that are discussed in churches and Bible studies and ministry opportunities around the world. As a pastor and teacher the issue becomes greater because we are dealing with eternal issues. This is complicated more by the practice of redefining key terms. I have been in conversations that went round and round until I finally asked how the other person was defining the subject. If I say we are going to talk about love everyone in the room thinks of something different. I then have to explain which type of love I want to address. When someone asks, "Are you born again?" We need to know what they mean. Justification, sanctification, propitiation, and glorified are all great biblical words. In the context of a discussion on spiritual matters people can communicate better (more efficiently and more effectively) if we at least start in the same ball park. Labels, as much as we may hate them, serve a useful purpose. When I say I am a Calvinist people have a general idea of where I stand concerning salvation issues. They may have preconceived notions that need to be addressed in deeper discussions, but at least we have a common starting point.
If we lose the theological terminology to a large extent, there is a great danger that we will not really understand just what is the big deal regarding varying views on the atonement, salvation, grace etc!
Here's something interesting for your consideration :
AndrewRozalowsky.com
Why I Switched to the NIV (Part 1) – A Response to Kevin DeYoung
The book isn’t brand new (a year old), but I’m interested in the little tract (31 pages) by Kevin DeYoung called Why Our Church Switched to the ESV. In it, DeYoung doesn’t attempt to advance scholarship on the translation issues but rather seeks to address why he and his church switched from the NIV to the ESV. My interest in it lies in the fact that I have made the opposite switch for my main English reading Bible.
I used to be convinced by the arguments found in this book and others and so had an ESV-is-best mentality. Soon after I started to seriously study how language creates meaning and worked more in depth with translation, I found the claims of many ESV-is-best proponents, including my own, to be lacking.
In the same way that DeYoung offers thoughts on his own move from the NIV to the ESV (personally and in his church), I want to offer my own thoughts on why I moved from the ESV to the NIV. But in DeYoung’s case, he wants to say that the ESV is the better translation for use (30). I personally don’t want to say that the NIV is a necessarily better translation for use, but more so that the ESV-is-best mentality is false and then offer why I prefer the NIV as my main English reading Bible. The difference is important as I won’t be bound to defend every decision the NIV translators made or even to defend the NIV as the best English version.
DeYoung offers up in his introduction that he thinks God has and can use other types of translations and he complements the NIV. He states that the ESV isn’t perfect but he still wants to say that he hopes it becomes the new standard “used for prayer, preaching, memorization, study, and worship in more and more churches” (8). The fact that he thinks God can use the NIV and other translations isn’t so much a complement, however, since God can use some pretty awful things to bring glory to his name. The issue of whether or not it is a “faithful” or good translation still remains and DeYoung recognizes this otherwise there would be no reason for him to write this book.
DeYoung gives 7 reasons he and his church switched to the ESV:
1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal” translation philosophy.
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation.
3. The ESV engages in less over-translation.
4. The ESV engages in less under-translation.
5. The ESV does a better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word throughout a passage or book.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in preaching.
Since the issues underlying these points are massive, I will only offer up 7 counterpoints at the moment with a little bit of substance (so that I’m not just saying the negation of each point), and then as I have time I will fill out the series one by one, responding to them.
My seven counterpoints are as follows:
1. “Essentially literal” translation philosophy provides a modification of a category within a sphere that offers up a false dichotomy (literal vs. thoughts). The modification of the literal notion does not go far enough in addressing the false dichotomy, still insinuating that meaning occurs at the level of words while introducing a vague notion of context. This vague notion of context at least recognizes that the meaning of words are constrained, but it fails to address meaning that occurs beyond the level of the words. After all, “the meaning [of a text] is always more than the sum of individual words” (Thompson, Introducing Functional Grammar, 29).
2. The notion of transparency comes from a false notion, I believe, of glossing rather than a robust notion of languages as systems with their own meaning-making resources. There is some awareness that languages are not codes for each other in DeYoung’s work, but it is also clear that no robust understanding of systems is considered leading to a notion of transparency based on… what? Glosses from our favourite Greek lexicons? BDAG perhaps? The notion of the Greek lexicon itself may be scandalous, however. Confer, in the meantime, John A. Lee’s work A History of New Testament Lexicography and Stanley E. Porter’s chapter on lexicography in Studies in the Greek New Testament. This issue requires a lot more discussion and I have some thoughts here.
3. DeYoung argues that the NIV adds words unnecessarily and so over-translates but this is dependent upon his view of literal translation in the first place which I will argue is not accurate. I am more interested in what stands behind this notion than in whether or not the NIV “got it right” in particular passages.
4. DeYoung argues that the NIV under-translates as well by at times avoiding theological terms and important concepts though he doesn’t provide arguments that this is a bad thing, he only implies it is by calling it “under translation” and attempting to provide a couple of examples. He may be right but whether this is good or bad is another issue. His implication is that it is bad, of course.
5. Consistency in translating words may aid an English only reader in concordance type searches but it doesn’t necessarily aid in the interpretation of meaning in passages, the more important issue. If I had to choose one, I would go for meaning in context rather than consistency in wording. We may have to choose one of the two options for a single translation but both options in separate translations may help the English only reader best.
6. This one kind of cracks me up, as if the literary qualities of a book only exist and are created at the word level! Literary qualities are created at a higher level than simple words and the sum thereof. A dynamic equivalence translation (I don’t like the category but I use it here) may be even better suited for such a task since it is not bound to the level of the words and word groups.
7. I think this “correcting” idea comes from a false sense of (again) languages as systems and also how to preach exegetically and what can be carried over from the original text into English. It’s funny that one of the greatest proponents of our day of expository preaching is D.A. Carson and he has used the NIV and TNIV for a number of years in preaching! When I hear him preach I don’t hear him “correcting” the text except to make adjustments based on his scholarship as he would of any imperfect translation (i.e., all of them). Some of the issue here is related to #2.
So much more needs to be said and arguments need to be offered in full. That’s why I will break this up into a series of posts. Given my current schedule I won’t be promising a certain output on a specific schedule, however. But I hope I have said at least enough to get the reader thinking in the meantime.
Now, I said I personally switched to the NIV. I will devote an entire post to this once this blog series is done. But for now, I will say that this move was not because I think it is necessarily the best translation out there. I switched to it because it more consistently tries to translate meaning at the level of the clause where the real meaning-making in the lexicogrammar (lexis and grammar) occurs.
At the same time, I have a certain level of proficiency in Greek so I spend the bulk of my study there and am not bound to English versions (though my Hebrew is not near where it needs to be yet so I am bound to English in the OT). Not everyone has the luxury. Sometimes the fact that the majority of Christians don’t have original language proficiency is used as an argument for the ESV. In my mind, and this will be argued at length later, it shouldn’t lead a person to one translation or the other, but rather to a number of translations. This recognizes that the Bible was not written in English, but in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. No one translation can capture all the meaning of the original in one go, although I get the impression from ESV-is-best folks that it is attainable. I don’t think so.
Written by Andrew Rozalowsky
AndrewRozalowsky.com
Why I Switched to the NIV (Part 1) – A Response to Kevin DeYoung
The book isn’t brand new (a year old), but I’m interested in the little tract (31 pages) by Kevin DeYoung called Why Our Church Switched to the ESV. In it, DeYoung doesn’t attempt to advance scholarship on the translation issues but rather seeks to address why he and his church switched from the NIV to the ESV. My interest in it lies in the fact that I have made the opposite switch for my main English reading Bible.
I used to be convinced by the arguments found in this book and others and so had an ESV-is-best mentality. Soon after I started to seriously study how language creates meaning and worked more in depth with translation, I found the claims of many ESV-is-best proponents, including my own, to be lacking.
In the same way that DeYoung offers thoughts on his own move from the NIV to the ESV (personally and in his church), I want to offer my own thoughts on why I moved from the ESV to the NIV. But in DeYoung’s case, he wants to say that the ESV is the better translation for use (30). I personally don’t want to say that the NIV is a necessarily better translation for use, but more so that the ESV-is-best mentality is false and then offer why I prefer the NIV as my main English reading Bible. The difference is important as I won’t be bound to defend every decision the NIV translators made or even to defend the NIV as the best English version.
DeYoung offers up in his introduction that he thinks God has and can use other types of translations and he complements the NIV. He states that the ESV isn’t perfect but he still wants to say that he hopes it becomes the new standard “used for prayer, preaching, memorization, study, and worship in more and more churches” (8). The fact that he thinks God can use the NIV and other translations isn’t so much a complement, however, since God can use some pretty awful things to bring glory to his name. The issue of whether or not it is a “faithful” or good translation still remains and DeYoung recognizes this otherwise there would be no reason for him to write this book.
DeYoung gives 7 reasons he and his church switched to the ESV:
1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal” translation philosophy.
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation.
3. The ESV engages in less over-translation.
4. The ESV engages in less under-translation.
5. The ESV does a better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word throughout a passage or book.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in preaching.
Since the issues underlying these points are massive, I will only offer up 7 counterpoints at the moment with a little bit of substance (so that I’m not just saying the negation of each point), and then as I have time I will fill out the series one by one, responding to them.
My seven counterpoints are as follows:
1. “Essentially literal” translation philosophy provides a modification of a category within a sphere that offers up a false dichotomy (literal vs. thoughts). The modification of the literal notion does not go far enough in addressing the false dichotomy, still insinuating that meaning occurs at the level of words while introducing a vague notion of context. This vague notion of context at least recognizes that the meaning of words are constrained, but it fails to address meaning that occurs beyond the level of the words. After all, “the meaning [of a text] is always more than the sum of individual words” (Thompson, Introducing Functional Grammar, 29).
2. The notion of transparency comes from a false notion, I believe, of glossing rather than a robust notion of languages as systems with their own meaning-making resources. There is some awareness that languages are not codes for each other in DeYoung’s work, but it is also clear that no robust understanding of systems is considered leading to a notion of transparency based on… what? Glosses from our favourite Greek lexicons? BDAG perhaps? The notion of the Greek lexicon itself may be scandalous, however. Confer, in the meantime, John A. Lee’s work A History of New Testament Lexicography and Stanley E. Porter’s chapter on lexicography in Studies in the Greek New Testament. This issue requires a lot more discussion and I have some thoughts here.
3. DeYoung argues that the NIV adds words unnecessarily and so over-translates but this is dependent upon his view of literal translation in the first place which I will argue is not accurate. I am more interested in what stands behind this notion than in whether or not the NIV “got it right” in particular passages.
4. DeYoung argues that the NIV under-translates as well by at times avoiding theological terms and important concepts though he doesn’t provide arguments that this is a bad thing, he only implies it is by calling it “under translation” and attempting to provide a couple of examples. He may be right but whether this is good or bad is another issue. His implication is that it is bad, of course.
5. Consistency in translating words may aid an English only reader in concordance type searches but it doesn’t necessarily aid in the interpretation of meaning in passages, the more important issue. If I had to choose one, I would go for meaning in context rather than consistency in wording. We may have to choose one of the two options for a single translation but both options in separate translations may help the English only reader best.
6. This one kind of cracks me up, as if the literary qualities of a book only exist and are created at the word level! Literary qualities are created at a higher level than simple words and the sum thereof. A dynamic equivalence translation (I don’t like the category but I use it here) may be even better suited for such a task since it is not bound to the level of the words and word groups.
7. I think this “correcting” idea comes from a false sense of (again) languages as systems and also how to preach exegetically and what can be carried over from the original text into English. It’s funny that one of the greatest proponents of our day of expository preaching is D.A. Carson and he has used the NIV and TNIV for a number of years in preaching! When I hear him preach I don’t hear him “correcting” the text except to make adjustments based on his scholarship as he would of any imperfect translation (i.e., all of them). Some of the issue here is related to #2.
So much more needs to be said and arguments need to be offered in full. That’s why I will break this up into a series of posts. Given my current schedule I won’t be promising a certain output on a specific schedule, however. But I hope I have said at least enough to get the reader thinking in the meantime.
Now, I said I personally switched to the NIV. I will devote an entire post to this once this blog series is done. But for now, I will say that this move was not because I think it is necessarily the best translation out there. I switched to it because it more consistently tries to translate meaning at the level of the clause where the real meaning-making in the lexicogrammar (lexis and grammar) occurs.
At the same time, I have a certain level of proficiency in Greek so I spend the bulk of my study there and am not bound to English versions (though my Hebrew is not near where it needs to be yet so I am bound to English in the OT). Not everyone has the luxury. Sometimes the fact that the majority of Christians don’t have original language proficiency is used as an argument for the ESV. In my mind, and this will be argued at length later, it shouldn’t lead a person to one translation or the other, but rather to a number of translations. This recognizes that the Bible was not written in English, but in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. No one translation can capture all the meaning of the original in one go, although I get the impression from ESV-is-best folks that it is attainable. I don’t think so.
Written by Andrew Rozalowsky
Why I Switched to the NIV (Part 1) – A Response to Kevin DeYoung
The book isn’t brand new (a year old), but I’m interested in the little tract (31 pages) by Kevin DeYoung called Why Our Church Switched to the ESV
I want to offer my own thoughts on why I moved from the ESV to the NIV.
DeYoung gives 7 reasons he and his church switched to the ESV:
1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal” translation philosophy.
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation.
3. The ESV engages in less over-translation.
4. The ESV engages in less under-translation.
5. The ESV does a better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word throughout a passage or book.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in preaching.
My seven counterpoints are as follows:
1. “Essentially literal” translation philosophy provides a modification of a category within a sphere that offers up a false dichotomy (literal vs. thoughts). The modification of the literal notion does not go far enough in addressing the false dichotomy, still insinuating that meaning occurs at the level of words while introducing a vague notion of context. This vague notion of context at least recognizes that the meaning of words are constrained, but it fails to address meaning that occurs beyond the level of the words. After all, “the meaning [of a text] is always more than the sum of individual words” (Thompson, Introducing Functional Grammar, 29).
2. The notion of transparency comes from a false notion, I believe, of glossing rather than a robust notion of languages as systems with their own meaning-making resources. There is some awareness that languages are not codes for each other in DeYoung’s work, but it is also clear that no robust understanding of systems is considered leading to a notion of transparency based on… what? Glosses from our favourite Greek lexicons? BDAG perhaps? The notion of the Greek lexicon itself may be scandalous, however. Confer, in the meantime, John A. Lee’s work A History of New Testament Lexicography and Stanley E. Porter’s chapter on lexicography in Studies in the Greek New Testament. This issue requires a lot more discussion and I have some thoughts here.
3. DeYoung argues that the NIV adds words unnecessarily and so over-translates but this is dependent upon his view of literal translation in the first place which I will argue is not accurate. I am more interested in what stands behind this notion than in whether or not the NIV “got it right” in particular passages.
4. DeYoung argues that the NIV under-translates as well by at times avoiding theological terms and important concepts though he doesn’t provide arguments that this is a bad thing, he only implies it is by calling it “under translation” and attempting to provide a couple of examples. He may be right but whether this is good or bad is another issue. His implication is that it is bad, of course.
5. Consistency in translating words may aid an English only reader in concordance type searches but it doesn’t necessarily aid in the interpretation of meaning in passages, the more important issue. If I had to choose one, I would go for meaning in context rather than consistency in wording. We may have to choose one of the two options for a single translation but both options in separate translations may help the English only reader best.
6. This one kind of cracks me up, as if the literary qualities of a book only exist and are created at the word level! Literary qualities are created at a higher level than simple words and the sum thereof. A dynamic equivalence translation (I don’t like the category but I use it here) may be even better suited for such a task since it is not bound to the level of the words and word groups.
7. I think this “correcting” idea comes from a false sense of (again) languages as systems and also how to preach exegetically and what can be carried over from the original text into English. It’s funny that one of the greatest proponents of our day of expository preaching is D.A. Carson and he has used the NIV and TNIV for a number of years in preaching! When I hear him preach I don’t hear him “correcting” the text except to make adjustments based on his scholarship as he would of any imperfect translation (i.e., all of them). Some of the issue here is related to #2.
Now, I said I personally switched to the NIV. I switched to it because it more consistently tries to translate meaning at the level of the clause where the real meaning-making in the lexicogrammar (lexis and grammar) occurs.
No one translation can capture all the meaning of the original in one go, although I get the impression from ESV-is-best folks that it is attainable. I don’t think so.
Written by Andrew Rozalowsky
I shortened this article by Andrew Rozalowsky for ease of reading. He makes sense. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are why revive this old and dead thread.
You are really a wet blanket RM.
If something is revived it is not dead. That's logic 101.
Your constant one-liners with no substance are a wonder to behold. Now if you should ever have something remotely related to a given OP like this --have at it. Otherwise you will remain a soggy covering. ;-)
What are your thoughts regarding what Andrew Rozalowsky said?