epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory

[Ginkgo]

Thank you Ginko,

I believe you, but cannot tell much more about information quantum.

Nevertheless, I was about to think that the only creation of information was of God, an this way, was the creation of the world.
(I know, this is only a related theme.)

I am running the rise of oversimplifying the idea, but I guess we could say God is the creator of information. However, if we replace the word "God" with quantum spin networks then we get a rough analogy.


P.S.

Einstein was probably wrong. God does play dice- quantum dice.

Before this silly post, observing a couple of "philosophers" who don't know anything about physics, (except for what they've learned from TV and a few pop-sci magazines) pretend to discuss physics, has been mildly amusing, like watching cats play with artificial mice. But when one of these pretentious nits shows up with the effrontery to declare that Big Al was wrong, the amusement stops.

Ginkgo, you are not qualified to pass judgment upon the opinions of those who have studied physics, much less upon one who actually discovered some physics. Take some physics courses in Relativity and QM before expressing your opinions on such subjects. If you must persist, why not attribute your little opinions to the TV perfesser from whom you learned them?

Greylorn

Good points Greylorn.

Perhaps you can help me out a bit.

I am particularly interested in angular momentum in relation to spin networks:

Sz= Ms hbar

Quantum states are characterized by quantum numbers. Sz is a projection along a magnetic field (as you probably already know}. Ms is the secondary spin quantum number, or orientation quantum number. h is of course the reduced Planck constant.

What are the possible components of angular momentum along a projected Z axis for electrons?

Thanks in advance.

[NielsBohr]

Ginkgo, you are not qualified to pass judgment upon the opinions of those who have studied physics, much less upon one who actually discovered some physics. Take some physics courses in Relativity and QM before expressing your opinions on such subjects. If you must persist, why not attribute your little opinions to the TV perfesser from whom you learned them?

Greylorn

Mister Greylorn,

Please notice:
If this is mine purposes that you find silly, mention it.
If this is the purposes of Gingko that you disapprove, mention it without me.

I actually am not physicist, and moreover: I cannot guess what Gingko will answer me. If you are not aware about the direction of time, how can you actually pretend to be physicist ?

I don not pretend myself that Einstein was false.

I only have admiration more for Niels Bohr rather than for Einstein, who abandoned his own schizophrenic son... not so great, your "Big Al"...

Niels Bohr did not formally disapprove Einstein, he only answered to him:
This is not to you to say what God must do. And I think this is a wisdom.

[Greylorn Ell]

Ginkgo, you are not qualified to pass judgment upon the opinions of those who have studied physics, much less upon one who actually discovered some physics. Take some physics courses in Relativity and QM before expressing your opinions on such subjects. If you must persist, why not attribute your little opinions to the TV perfesser from whom you learned them?

Greylorn

Mister Greylorn,

Please notice:
If this is mine purposes that you find silly, mention it.
If this is the purposes of Gingko that you disapprove, mention it without me.

I actually am not physicist, and moreover: I cannot guess what Gingko will answer me. If you are not aware about the direction of time, how can you actually pretend to be physicist ?

I don not pretend myself that Einstein was false.

I only have admiration more for Niels Bohr rather than for Einstein, who abandoned his own schizophrenic son... not so great, your "Big Al"...

Niels Bohr did not formally disapprove Einstein, he only answered to him:
This is not to you to say what God must do. And I think this is a wisdom.

NB,
Had I any reason to chide you I'd have done so upfront. I haven't figured you out yet, but this note helps, thank you. I gather that English is a fourth or fifth language for you, reminding me of a Thai wife I once had, so I think that I can decipher your meaning okay. Correct me if you feel otherwise.

I object a little bit to your choice to name yourself after a great physicist. Learning Neils Bohr's model of the electron orbit for a hydrogen atom set me on a course to study physics. Then, learning Einstein's theories and other elegant models for reality that did not fit my then-Catholic belief system set me on a path to do some metaphysical work, despite the absence of any market for my mental products. Ruined my life by others' standards, but I'd do it again.

I do not judge the value of a scientist by his personal life. I've worked with enough of them to know that the good ones have either a bizarre side, a crazy side, or a dark side--- combined in a few cases. The well-behaved scientists I've encountered did bland, blah work, like determining the constants and tables that litter the Rubber Bible. Necessary grunt work.

So, I don't care that Big Al married a cousin and abandoned a schizo offspring. I once tried to seduce a lovely cousin, and had any of my offspring been mentally way off target, I'd either have fixed the problem or gone sailing with the family in a class 2 storm w/o Mae West jackets.

The only scientist I dislike is Werner Heisenberg. He was a Nazi, meaning that he had aligned himself with personal and political evil. His uncertainty principle is a meaningless mathematical expression, as I explain in my book. I wish that there was a hell for him to rot in, but alas, he is probably now working this incarnation out in the bowels of the Obama administration, planning to move the flag of Islam from within the White House to its highest parapets.

Finally, since you pushed the issue, I appreciate your admission that you do not know any physics. Then why are you discussing it as if you did? Doing so is IMO, dishonest, without full disclaimers.

Greylorn

[NielsBohr]

the reason is yours.

Correcting my english, as it is a second langage of mine, is the mainly issue when people have not really argument to oppose.

Maybe don't you know any other than your maternal prose.

You are impressed by a pseudo, having the impression I am trying to make high physics... under mind philosophy!

Maybe your physics were biased by your catholicism ? So you told me that you had made a reconversion in under-physics, right ?

Yeah, I am also a great metaphysical books author, this is why I am wasting time in finding and giving some answers, somewhere...

-This is your problem:
You do not accord importance in the human side since a person is a physicist... except if this one could have been suspected to work with or without his will, for his nation. In this case, you deliberately make a worth jugement... strange.

When are we deserving of you human evaluation, where is the limit ?
----------------
Finally, I do not know why you explode to the ceiling for only words...

[Greylorn Ell]

I am running the rise of oversimplifying the idea, but I guess we could say God is the creator of information. However, if we replace the word "God" with quantum spin networks then we get a rough analogy.

Ginkgo,
What we get is more obfuscation. No one here knows what a quantum spin network is. Who are you trying to impress with meaningless buzzwords? Why bother?

Einstein was probably wrong. God does play dice- quantum dice.

Before this silly post, observing a couple of "philosophers" who don't know anything about physics, (except for what they've learned from TV and a few pop-sci magazines) pretend to discuss physics, has been mildly amusing, like watching cats play with artificial mice. But when one of these pretentious nits shows up with the effrontery to declare that Big Al was wrong, the amusement stops.

Ginkgo, you are not qualified to pass judgment upon the opinions of those who have studied physics, much less upon one who actually discovered some physics. Take some physics courses in Relativity and QM before expressing your opinions on such subjects. If you must persist, why not attribute your little opinions to the TV perfesser from whom you learned them?

Greylorn

Good points Greylorn.

Perhaps you can help me out a bit.

I am particularly interested in angular momentum in relation to spin networks:

Sz= Ms hbar

Quantum states are characterized by quantum numbers. Sz is a projection along a magnetic field (as you probably already know}. Ms is the secondary spin quantum number, or orientation quantum number. h is of course the reduced Planck constant.

What are the possible components of angular momentum along a projected Z axis for electrons?

Thanks in advance.

Ginkgo,
This is an impressive and bemusing come back. I appreciate both the implications and the fine subtlety of your presentation.

Noting that were I to answer your question, it would make no difference to this conversation, and would be even further off topic than yours and NBore's forays into speculative physics. That said, the only way that I could answer your question would be to look it up in a modern atomic physics text or maybe Wikipedia, or to post the question on a physics forum and come back with someone else's answer.

BTW, I thought that "Sz" was a magnetic moment created by the spin of a charged particle, not a "projection along a magnetic field." After all, the spinning charge creates the field. Thus any projection of a magnetic moment is a self-generated phenomenon. Your explanation made it sound to any non-physicist who has not reached deep somnambulism at this point, as if the magnetic field was external to and independent of the busy particle. Correct me if I'm mistaken, please.

I hoped that you would have figured by now that I am in complete disagreement with several aspects of modern physics. I took my last atomic physics course in 1963, and was so disgusted with the subject that I abandoned it. My grades were a B first term, C second term. What a stupid course! Just numbers and meaningless terms designed to make the math kind of work, with no physics involved that I could see. I recall asking the professor why we discounted the force of gravity within atoms, when according to any classical computation that force would become infinite between colliding mesons. He just got pissed off.

Toward the end of that idiotic course (pre-Standard model) I predicted that we would build increasing larger particle colliders, and that each of them would spew forth a bevy of new particles, and that somewhere in the process physicists would come up with a revised mathematical model for particle behavior (the Standard Model) and that it would be tweaked and kludged to accommodate the next batch of particles. (Notice that the "observed" Higgs Boson was less massive than the models predicted, and was nonetheless heralded as a triumph of science. Bullshit.

My work does not involve the parroting of arbitrary models. I know what they mean. You didn't need to explain "h-bar." If you wanted to explain something, why not explain the physics of "spin" for a particle?

From the perspective of LHB (Little Hard Ball) atomic theory, every particle is just a tiny, solid ball of matter with properties like mass, maybe some charge, spin, etc. But diffraction experiments show that when moving through spacetime, the LHB is really a wave. It looks like an LHB only when we observe it (i.e. "collapse the wave function"). So why don't you explain the physics of a spinning wavelet?

When you are done with that, explain what "charge" actually is. The Nobel Prize will be all yours.

I'm just saying that parroting the current arbitrary model is not doing any physics. What I'm trying to do is honest physics. I want a sense of how the components of the universe actually work, not a mathematically degenerative model of how they work. Those models are tweaked with every new super-collider, which they must be, because there is no physics to them.

I believe that this approach is essential to understanding the physics of human consciousness, which is my ultimate goal.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

the reason is yours.

Correcting my english, as it is a second langage of mine, is the mainly issue when people have not really argument to oppose.

Maybe don't you know any other than your maternal prose.

You are impressed by a pseudo, having the impression I am trying to make high physics... under mind philosophy!

Maybe your physics were biased by your catholicism ? So you told me that you had made a reconversion in under-physics, right ?

Yeah, I am also a great metaphysical books author, this is why I am wasting time in finding and giving some answers, somewhere...

-This is your problem:
You do not accord importance in the human side since a person is a physicist... except if this one could have been suspected to work with or without his will, for his nation. In this case, you deliberately make a worth jugement... strange.

When are we deserving of you human evaluation, where is the limit ?
----------------
Finally, I do not know why you explode to the ceiling for only words...

Bore,

I'm disappointed to learn that English is only your second language. From the perspective of quality, I'd have been impressed with fourth. I've encountered Mexicans still wet from their swim across the Rio Grande whose English is better. I used to know French and Russian, but have no practice with them and would never consider using them outside of theme restaurants.

But it doesn't matter, because you're a bit thin-skinned for my taste, and appear to bring nothing interesting, not even intellectual curiosity, to the conversational table. I prefer conversations with someone sufficiently intelligent to get pissed off at me with style and flair, like Ginkgo.

Greylorn

[uwot]

No one here knows what a quantum spin network is. Who are you trying to impress with meaningless buzzwords? Why bother?

How is 'quantum spin network' different to 'beon'?

[Greylorn Ell]

No one here knows what a quantum spin network is. Who are you trying to impress with meaningless buzzwords? Why bother?

How is 'quantum spin network' different to 'beon'?

Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

Networks composed of conventional flip-flops or single-atom flip-flops, components that require input energy in order to function, will never become conscious, no matter how marvelous they may be at processing information. (BTW the human brain is in this category of information processing devices, and if Hamerhoff's theories are even remotely correct, the brain is to some extent a quantum network that may or not involve atomic spin properties.)

Greylorn

[NielsBohr]

the reason is yours.

Correcting my english, as it is a second langage of mine, is the mainly issue when people have not really argument to oppose.

Maybe don't you know any other than your maternal prose.

You are impressed by a pseudo, having the impression I am trying to make high physics... under mind philosophy!

Maybe your physics were biased by your catholicism ? So you told me that you had made a reconversion in under-physics, right ?

Yeah, I am also a great metaphysical books author, this is why I am wasting time in finding and giving some answers, somewhere...

-This is your problem:
You do not accord importance in the human side since a person is a physicist... except if this one could have been suspected to work with or without his will, for his nation. In this case, you deliberately make a worth jugement... strange.

When are we deserving of you human evaluation, where is the limit ?
----------------
Finally, I do not know why you explode to the ceiling for only words...

Bore,

I'm disappointed to learn that English is only your second language. From the perspective of quality, I'd have been impressed with fourth. I've encountered Mexicans still wet from their swim across the Rio Grande whose English is better. I used to know French and Russian, but have no practice with them and would never consider using them outside of theme restaurants.

-Sorry, but you don't even know your maternal language; I wrote a second langage of mine, what had a meaning of "among" my other languages... Effectively maybe the fourth, if we include Merise/2 symbolism in database conception, C++ and a few others.

Yeah, one time french and russian in the restaurant, and book author in another life... You know what I think ? -You are the perfect american, able in doing morals for other rather to apply them to himself.

Even in a patriotic topic, Bill Wiltrack was perfectly able to understand me - and in the occurrence - to have consideration in his answer for another culture than his own Land:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13506&start=135#p175924

You don't even know your maternal language; "French" and "Russian" take no capital letter as used to mean languages - even in english !

Capital letters are used in these cases to talk for people. Only for your instruction.

But it doesn't matter, because you're a bit thin-skinned for my taste, and appear to bring nothing interesting, not even intellectual curiosity, to the conversational table. I prefer conversations with someone sufficiently intelligent to get pissed off at me with style and flair, like Ginkgo.

Greylorn

-Bring nothing ? -I did not see a bit of answer in "yours" about the physics formulas Ginkgo brought about spins and quantum states; and you write 50 lines to tell that you won't answer...

-I'am not sure about your consideration about Ginkgo, in the meaning that - against what you pretend - he is able to have courtesy and to bring proofs of cleverness, simultaneously, not as you, who apparently are able of none of both...

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,
This is an impressive and bemusing come back. I appreciate both the implications and the fine subtlety of your presentation.

Noting that were I to answer your question, it would make no difference to this conversation, and would be even further off topic than yours and NBore's forays into speculative physics. That said, the only way that I could answer your question would be to look it up in a modern atomic physics text or maybe Wikipedia, or to post the question on a physics forum and come back with someone else's answer.

BTW, I thought that "Sz" was a magnetic moment created by the spin of a charged particle, not a "projection along a magnetic field." After all, the spinning charge creates the field. Thus any projection of a magnetic moment is a self-generated phenomenon. Your explanation made it sound to any non-physicist who has not reached deep somnambulism at this point, as if the magnetic field was external to and independent of the busy particle. Correct me if I'm mistaken, please.

Yes, but I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about measuring spin projection along a vertical z axis.

I hoped that you would have figured by now that I am in complete disagreement with several aspects of modern physics. I took my last atomic physics course in 1963, and was so disgusted with the subject that I abandoned it. My grades were a B first term, C second term. What a stupid course! Just numbers and meaningless terms designed to make the math kind of work, with no physics involved that I could see. I recall asking the professor why we discounted the force of gravity within atoms, when according to any classical computation that force would become infinite between colliding mesons. He just got pissed off.

Some people do that to you. I guess I piss you off, but I try my best not to.

Toward the end of that idiotic course (pre-Standard model) I predicted that we would build increasing larger particle colliders, and that each of them would spew forth a bevy of new particles, and that somewhere in the process physicists would come up with a revised mathematical model for particle behavior (the Standard Model) and that it would be tweaked and kludged to accommodate the next batch of particles. (Notice that the "observed" Higgs Boson was less massive than the models predicted, and was nonetheless heralded as a triumph of science. Bullshit.

Well done then

My work does not involve the parroting of arbitrary models. I know what they mean. You didn't need to explain "h-bar." If you wanted to explain something, why not explain the physics of "spin" for a particle?

Because ultimately I am interested in Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-OR

From the perspective of LHB (Little Hard Ball) atomic theory, every particle is just a tiny, solid ball of matter with properties like mass, maybe some charge, spin, etc. But diffraction experiments show that when moving through spacetime, the LHB is really a wave. It looks like an LHB only when we observe it (i.e. "collapse the wave function"). So why don't you explain the physics of a spinning wavelet?

Already been done by Penrose and Hameroff.

When you are done with that, explain what "charge" actually is. The Nobel Prize will be all yours.

I believe Penrose and Hameroff have already got one collective hand on the prize. Interesting to see come October.

I'm just saying that parroting the current arbitrary model is not doing any physics. What I'm trying to do is honest physics. I want a sense of how the components of the universe actually work, not a mathematically degenerative model of how they work. Those models are tweaked with every new super-collider, which they must be, because there is no physics to them.


I believe that this approach is essential to understanding the physics of human consciousness, which is my ultimate goal.

Yes, I agree and good luck with that.


Greylorn, I think I am one of the few people here who are still prepared to hold a conservation with you. Could you please make your reply civil otherwise this will be my last correspondence.

[Ginkgo]

No one here knows what a quantum spin network is. Who are you trying to impress with meaningless buzzwords? Why bother?

How is 'quantum spin network' different to 'beon'?

Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

Networks composed of conventional flip-flops or single-atom flip-flops, components that require input energy in order to function, will never become conscious, no matter how marvelous they may be at processing information. (BTW the human brain is in this category of information processing devices, and if Hamerhoff's theories are even remotely correct, the brain is to some extent a quantum network that may or not involve atomic spin properties.)

Greylorn

Hameroff and Penrose think that spin networks are a fundamental part of space/time geometry Hameroff is prepared to say that this information system MIGHT be a candidate for qualia. Pernose is not prepared to consider spin networks as being in any way related to some type of basic consciousness.

Hameroff would be saying that qualia is an atomic property, just like mass,change and spin.



Greylorn, could you explain how beon violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sounds interesting.

[uwot]

Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

I'm sure it's covered in the book, but from what I gather, by 'energy' you mean something roughly analogous with Einstein's own concept of ether, or, more recently concepts of 'quantum vacuum'; basically 'material' stuff. Beon is, to my understanding, something like a 'field' of consciousness potential. If that is fair, then what you have is your take on dualism and the question is: how do they interact? Is there a causal mechanism, or is it some 'spooky action at a distance'?

[NielsBohr]

Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

I'm sure it's covered in the book, but from what I gather, by 'energy' you mean something roughly analogous with Einstein's own concept of ether, or, more recently concepts of 'quantum vacuum'; basically 'material' stuff. Beon is, to my understanding, something like a 'field' of consciousness potential. If that is fair, then what you have is your take on dualism and the question is: how do they interact? Is there a causal mechanism, or is it some 'spooky action at a distance'?

Uwot,
I gave a beginning of answer there:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12042&p=175729#p175729
and deeper there:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13572&p=175942#p175760
-About the second link, it is not useful for you to read all the story. Take only the paragraphs among the lasts, the ones which are beginning with "Obviously...", and the next
"All that paragraph to say".

I am about to presuppose some of what Greylon call "Beon". But this maybe is not an answer, otherwise, we would have as many kinds of Beons as dimensions, if I do not mistake myself.

One possible resolution:
Some dimensions were derivated from another, and only this.

I think, having this sort of trying "ultimate decomposition" is not the answer, is only smoke-and-mirror (virtual mirror due to the virtual photons sometimes invoked ), because in term of "derivation", it should be only question of proportion, so "mono-dimensional" if I can tell so, or in other word, without any consideration of the orientation, by example.

(Someone told on a french form that - to be brief - elementary particles - if they are - would only be a (rapid) rotation of a kinetic energy. Unfortunately, he is not anymore subscribed. (I can re-find some of his theories.))

[Ginkgo]

Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

Networks composed of conventional flip-flops or single-atom flip-flops, components that require input energy in order to function, will never become conscious, no matter how marvelous they may be at processing information. (BTW the human brain is in this category of information processing devices, and if Hamerhoff's theories are even remotely correct, the brain is to some extent a quantum network that may or not involve atomic spin properties.)

Greylorn

Greylorn,

Forget everything I have said previously, you are correct.

You comment in relation to spin network and energy being relevant to Hameroff's theory of consciousness is spot on. I made me realize the importance of dipole coupling in an magnetic field. Orch-OR might be explainable using braid theory and dipole coupling.

Thanks again.

[Greylorn Ell]

Bore,

I'm disappointed to learn that English is only your second language. From the perspective of quality, I'd have been impressed with fourth. I've encountered Mexicans still wet from their swim across the Rio Grande whose English is better. I used to know French and Russian, but have no practice with them and would never consider using them outside of theme restaurants.

-Sorry, but you don't even know your maternal language; I wrote a second langage of mine, what had a meaning of "among" my other languages... Effectively ma for oybe the fourth, if we include Merise/2 symbolism in database conception, C++ and a few others.

Only a fairly stupid computer programmer would confuse the machine "languages" of computers or the compilers used to translate human linguistic forms into those coding systems, as true human language. I'd never consider any machine-code set, FORTRAN, COBOL, C, C++, Algol, etc. as a real language. I knew some marginal programmers who made that mistake. They actually tried to talk to me in a computer language when explaining problems that they were having. No wonder they were having problems.

The only computer language that comes close to human linguistic forms is something called FORTH. It is possible to use FORTH to change the language itself, just like human languages. You wouldn't know of it. Only highly competent programmers can use FORTH effectively. Don't even try to learn it, for it will only confuse you and piss you off, and you will end up hating all Americans who are smarter than you. That's a lot of people to hate.
______________

There is little point in correcting grammar and spelling on a forum except to point out that the writer of incorrect language forms, if he does so consistently and without proofreading and correcting his work using the available tools, is just another pinhead disguising his incompetence behind poor grammar because he is a foreigner. Bullshit. My Thai wife's fourth-language English coming off the airplane was far superior to yours. That's because she was conscientious about learning.

You ignore the spell checker and obviously never proofread your submissions. E.g: "second langage of mine", and my favorite, "ma for oybe the fourth." This tells me that you are an incompetent, irresponsible writer whose primary concern is shooting off your mouth as quickly as possible, without consideration for the cogency and readability of your material. Are you a teenager? I'm guessing so.

Yeah, one time french and russian in the restaurant, and book author in another life... You know what I think ? -You are the perfect american, able in doing morals for other rather to apply them to himself.

Even in a patriotic topic, Bill Wiltrack was perfectly able to understand me - and in the occurrence - to have consideration in his answer for another culture than his own Land:

You don't even know your maternal language; "French" and "Russian" take no capital letter as used to mean languages - even in english !

Capital letters are used in these cases to talk for people. Only for your instruction.

Bore,
You and Bill are destined to become great friends, and I wish you the best, in the truest American sense of the word. I do not want to know your nationality, lest I be tempted to subconsciously judge your fellow countrymen by your dismal level of competence.

The standard English language always capitalizes the names of other nations, no matter how they are used. This is a courtesy built into English. Even French fries, and certainly French, the elegant language.

That you presume to correct my English usage without bothering to research your opinions suggests that there is a deeper reason behind your persistent ignorance, a reason related to I.Q. level. Get a dictionary and learn to read it. That will require a few years. Until then, your words are babble.

Before you get into "instructing" anyone, buy a goldfish. You might be able, with practice, to instruct it to swim to the top of the tank when you toss in some food.

But it doesn't matter, because you're a bit thin-skinned for my taste, and appear to bring nothing interesting, not even intellectual curiosity, to the conversational table. I prefer conversations with someone sufficiently intelligent to get pissed off at me with style and flair, like Ginkgo.

-Bring nothing ? -I did not see a bit of answer in "yours" about the physics formulas Ginkgo brought about spins and quantum states; and you write 50 lines to tell that you won't answer...

-I'am not sure about your consideration about Ginkgo, in the meaning that - against what you pretend - he is able to have courtesy and to bring proofs of cleverness, simultaneously, not as you, who apparently are able of none of both...

You are incapable of seeing any answers. Had I answered Ginkgo's questions, you'd have been unable to determine if I was right or wrong.

My relationship with Ginkgo is our business, not yours. So STFU. Look that up. I'm correcting my earlier assessment that you are a teenager with the opinion that you are an old biddy, a female busybody who has no business of her own worth minding, so compensates by meddling in the relationships of others. Time to go fondle your cat.

Greylorn