Idle Hands Are a Devil's Workshop

I noticed that lately I have been slutty - I mean SLOTH-y with everything, from my academic life to even the mundane activities, like blogging. At last, now I have finally picked the enthusiasm up for posting another set of musings, for now. But still, I feel my hands are idle. Hmmm... But where's the Devil? I don't see him anywhere in my hands... Oh my God! Maybe I am the Devil! *LOL*

OK, I have to update about the thesis proposal. My last post about this was like ancient! BlueVoice is a great concept, yes. But guess what happened? I apostatized it and transferred to another where I think I can work better. Surprise! Right after that conversion, I did not even bother to blog about it. I mean, it's like a significant, not to mention risky, decision in my unstable university life. I guess I was lazy to blog then. The change was not about what was the better, safer thesis. It's all about where I can work better and with more enthusiasm. The second semester of my hopefully last year in college, which means the hopefully very last semester in college, has finally started just last week. I and my new groupmates should be working on programming the application. But so far, as far as I know, we are in the process of hunting down the three proposal panelists for their coveted signatures for approval. I did hear from one of my groupmates that she's learning Flash. I should be learning that too along with Visual Basic and OpenGL for backup.

So much to do but I am still not motivated. Get out of my hands, Devil!

Joke Time!!!

More text jokes that I have to delete from my cellphone inbox but I choose to remember here. Note: Text words are converted to their proper spelling.

----------------------------------------------------------
From Joval
----------------------------------------------------------
You're the perfect person that I know.

So sweet, so nice, so kind

Always on my mind

And very special for me

But there's something wrong...


Wrong send ako! hehehe :)
----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From Grace
----------------------------------------------------------
MRS: Musta po asawa ko?

DOC: Sorry ma'am! Mula ngayon, ikaw na magpapakain
& magpapaligo sa kanya kasi putol na kamay at paa
niya!

MRS: Di nga?

DOC: Hehe, joke lang! Patay na siya! :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Heto ako iniisip ka.
Nakatunganga, nakahilata,
Mag-isa,
Nananalangin,
Humihingi ng himala
Na sana nandito ka..

Dami ng hugasin!
Tambak labahan!
Gulo ng house!

YAYA! I miss you na..:)

----------------------------------------------------------
Kung nag Gay Language sana sila GMA at Garci, eh di
walang scam!

GMA: Hallow Gracia!

Garci: Plangush mother! Na chenilyn de kimberlyn ko na
po yong mga chuva ek ek!

GMA: Bonggacious! Eh yung mga chenes chenes, carry na ba?

Garci: Winnie santos mama, wiz na worry eclavou na ever!
Na chorva na!

GMA: Ang tarush! Malditah ka talaga. Eh di windra na
naman watashi!?

Garci: Anufi Ate...

GMA: Oshah babush na... Rarampa pa ang lola! :)

----------------------------------------------------------
Isang lasing may nakitang madre..
Biglang sinuntok, tinadyakan at binalibag!

Bugbog-sarado ang madre..

Tapos tumawa yung lasing at sinabi..

"Wala ka palang binatbat,
BATMAN!!"

----------------------------------------------------------
Man and wife were out on an African safari when suddenly
a lion sprang out of nowhere and dragged the wife with its
jaws.

WIFE: Shoot! Shoot!

HUSBAND: I can't! Wala na akong FILM!

----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
From Kat
----------------------------------------------------------
"Danbe fuld badaraks datay gat..
Emstel, emstel, jinepram dablak..."

Ulit-ulitin mo lang.. Magegets mo din yan.

----------------------------------------------------------
One day, a sadist, a masochist, a murderer, a necrophile,
a zoophile and a pyromaniac were talking in a psycho ward.

SADIST: I'm bored, why don't we torture a cat?

ZOOPHILE: Yeah, We'll torture it and then f**k it!

MURDERER: We'll torture it, f**k it and then kill it!

NECROPHILE: We'll torture it, f**k it, kill it and f**k it again!

PYROMANIAC: Yeah, then we'll burn the cat!

(sudden silence)

Then everybody asked the masochist,
"Hey, why didn't you say anything?"

MASOCHIST: Meow! (",)

----------------------------------------------------------
Erap in school...

Teacher: Who knows what minimize is?

Erap: I do ma'am!

Teacher: OK, use it in a sentence.

Erap: Minimize is the girlfriend of Mickeymize.

----------------------------------------------------------
(Accordingly) a poem nominated for the best poem of '05,
written by an African kid.

When I born, I black.
When I grow up, I black.
When I go in the sun, I black.
When I scared, I black.
When I sick, I black.
And when I die, I still black.

And you White fellas,
When you born, you PINK.
When you grow up, you WHITE.
When you go in the sun, you RED.
When you cold, you BLUE.
When you scared, you YELLOW.
When you sick, you GREEN.
And when you die, you GRAY..

And you calling me COLORED?

- the kid has a point!

----------------------------------------------------------

Entertaining God

submitted on 09/25/06 as reflection paper for the religious-philosophical movie Dogma
**********************************************************

“There’s a million questions I wish I could ask, most all questioning what I'm sure is your great plan, and that would be really arrogant of me, I know. But there is one I'd like to ask, and I'm sure you get it all the time. But how many opportunities like this will I get?” Bethany inhaled deeply and then exhaled, preparing to hear the ultimate answer from someone infallible. “Why are we here?” The childlike woman stared at her for a while. Then she leaned forward and poked Bethany’s nose. The woman, who happened to be the latest embodiment of God, smiled at her and walked away. “Didn’t I tell you She was funny?” Metatron, a Seraph and the Voice of God, told Bethany matter-of-factly.

That was an excerpt from the ending scene of the film Dogma. I thought the scene was just amusing, and a little confusing, while I was watching it for the first time. However, it struck me just when I realized what it really meant during a class discussion. Although the film does not explicitly state it, it seems to imply that God created all of existence because of His sense of humor.

Dogma does not just exemplify God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but also His unlikely but very probable purpose of human existence. God is omnipotent that He can transform into one of us here on Earth. The problem is that He has to lose His omnipotence and omniscience to be human. Being human means being mortal, vulnerable to physical pain and death. His embodiment’s death can release Him from mortality to His original and true state. However, He may be trapped in His temporary body during a comatose, as exemplified in the movie. In this case, as human, He would be influenced by time. That then would give anyone the chance to prove the infallible God wrong, thereby reversing Him and all dependent existence to nothingness. But after some reflection, I learned that it may never happen. Remember that God is all-knowing. Although He lost His omniscience as a human, He still had it before He became one. Before turning human and thus losing His omniscience and omnipotence, He must have used it to ‘see’ if everything would be fine while he would be embodied. In Dogma for example, before becoming the human ‘John Doe,’ God knew that He, as human, would be beaten up and fall into comatose. But He also knew that He would eventually be saved by Bethany, the Last Scion. Thus, knowing this, He confidently allowed Himself to be human.

Now the bottom line question is: why did He have to create us? Wouldn’t it be the same if God decided to exist without us? God does not need the free man for truly responding love or for entertainment simply because He is perfect. He can never feel unloved or bored. He does not need anything else to sustain Him. So why do we need to exist? Perhaps there’s something wrong with the question. Maybe God did not need to create us – He wanted to create us.

God knows He does not need to create anything. If he was only serious, He should have not created us, thinking that, “I don’t need them anyway. It would be useless.” But He cannot be limited to being serious and boring. Since He is perfect, He must also have a sense of humor. And perhaps, as a result of being funny and playful, He created us – as His toys. As a perfect being, God cannot be entertained because he cannot be bored in the first place. Then He must have decided to be man so that He may experience human boredom and thus be truly amused when He frolics down here on Earth. It’s just like God built a small Legoland and shrunk Himself in it so He can enjoy playing with it more.

“Why are we here?” Perhaps we are here to entertain God, not because he needs amusement but he wants it. And since He is omnipotent, He gets what He wants. Now wouldn’t it affect my faith knowing that I exist as one of God’s playthings? Probably not. If we are God’s playthings, God would be like a child who would love and protect his toys. Thus, we are safe as God’s toys. If it did affect my faith, it added more amazement rather than fear in the funny God.

I must sharpen my sense of humor some more. I’d like to really amuse God in case I meet His embodiment one day. And I’d let Him poke my nose as many times as He would like.

In Defense of the Divine Architecture

submitted 09/25/06 as Reaction Paper for Philo 104: Philosophy of Religion
************************************************

The teleological argument, as Ernest Nagel wrote in The Case for Atheism, “is based on what purports to be empirical evidence,” which makes it different in character from the cosmological and ontological arguments. From the intricate natural systems we see around us and even ­in us, the argument from design claims that the complex existence must’ve been created by a divine architect, not by random chance. The argument is popularly compared with the case of a found watch, whose finder assumes that the watch with its elaborate mechanism was made by someone intelligent and much less likely by arbitrariness.

Ernest Nagel criticized the teleological argument with two counterarguments. The first one asserts that the idea ‘watch is to watchmaker; world is to world maker’ is a faulty analogy. Accordingly, the watch is not similar to the “innumerable animate and inanimate systems with which we are familiar.” Furthermore, the way the parents ‘make’ their offspring is not the same with how the watchmaker makes a watch. The author’s second counterargument claims to altogether crush the teleological argument because the rival hypothesis, the Darwinian Theory, is a “better supported assumption.” It “explains the diversity of biological species in terms of chance variations in the structure of organisms, and of a mechanism of selection which retains those variant forms that possess some advantages for survival.”

As a ‘follower’ of the teleological argument, I am relieved that I still haven’t encountered a very good and striking criticism to it even after reading Nagel’s article. It is now my turn to lay down my counterarguments for each of his counterarguments.

First, the watch and watchmaker may not be exactly the same with the world and world maker. However, they are proportionally similar. Yes, the overwhelmingly intricate universe is very much greater than even all the watches there are. It is because the world maker or intelligent designer is also very much greater than any watchmaker. This world maker must even be the greatest since He made the universe. It even supports the nature of the Creator. Although we can comprehend certain mechanisms of existence, such as our bodily functions, we cannot grasp the universe as a whole. It is unfathomable and mysterious, and so is its architect and maker. On the issue on the dissimilarity between parents making babies and watchmakers making watches, I don’t even know why mating came up in his arguments. The teleological argument compares the watchmaker with the world maker, not a baby maker. Moreover, in that analogy, the method of creation is not the concern; it is the purpose or cause of the creation. It suggests that the watch’s existence is only possible with a purposing will, and so is the universe’s existence. How it is created is not that essential.

Second, the Theory of Evolution only explains the existence of animate systems. How about the inanimate systems? How is the system of seasons or the organized planetary movements possible? Did they also adapt to the “mechanisms of selection?” No, because only living creatures can adapt. Besides, these inanimate systems are the mechanisms of selection. The system of seasons, for instance, forces the bears to hibernate during winter and the ants to gather and store as much food as they can during summer. Those that cannot cope would have to perish. It seems that nature has its laws. But since nature is inanimate, it cannot decree on its own. Only something similar to a purposing mind can explain the inanimate structures in existence. The Darwinian Theory is still plausible. But it must be integrated with the teleological argument to support it thoroughly. Perhaps the one who not only created but also governs the universe ‘designed’ the inanimate systems from where the animate systems were adapted and formed. And since Darwin cannot determine the source of all evolving organisms, the teleological argument patches the leak by offering the idea that only a divine architect and creator can create the very first organism from where all evolution sprang from.

According to the Prophet Jan Carlo

I have, again, been oblivious with my blog. I have to post something now. So here it is - a prophecy:
Ye, Filipinos, shall despair. Thy self-proclaimed, not to mention grotesquely ugly, hero shall fall before one of the Mexicans he has been assassinating. He then shall lose his commercial endorsements, singing contract (which he doesn’t deserve!), bragging rights, and, thank God, his fantasies of being a drop-dead gorgeous guy, which is the opposite of what he really is!

Oh Fate! Please don’t let me be a false prophet. I want all this torment to end. Just recently, I heard from the news that Morales is sure that he will win his third match with Manny Pacquiao. He did sound like the arrogant bastard that he is. But I do hope he has palabra de honor. I have this feeling that Manny will lose this time. I can’t wait to witness the chain of consequences after his defeat.

I don’t want to see him in ice cream (”O mga bata, mirinda na!”) and fast food commercials (“Papara-Pacquiao!”) ‘coz it curbs my appetite!

I don’t want to hear another “Ixtrem Magec Seng” song from him ‘coz it forces me to waste time in changing channels until that commercial ends.

I don’t want to see him working out shirtless with his sons in another vinegar commercial ‘coz it’s simply disgusting (and corny)!

I don’t want to see his wife endorsing ointments just ‘coz she’s Manny’s woman!

And I don’t want to see him trying so hard to speak in fluent English to impress people in press conferences ‘coz it insults me as a Filipino! If he finds English hard, why can’t he be just like Erik Morales who speaks in his own language in front of the international public with an interpreter?

Intelligent Design

Below was my reflection paper for my Philosophy of Religion class. The teacher asked each of us to pick one of the pro-God arguments, fully explain it and relate it with us and our God. The candidate arguments are: religious experience, cosmological, ontological, teleological, and Pascal's wager. As explained in the paper, I chose the teleological argument or argument from design. I just realized, after rereading it after it was graded and returned, that the fourth paragraph was unnecessarily lengthy. It explains why it's implausible to think that the universe was created out of chance or random combination. I was just making sure that this claim would be totally refuted so that the intelligent design argument can easily be defended. *sigh* Whatever. The important thing is the paper was marked with a satisfying grade. :)

*****************************

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Before, it was called creationism. Religious groups, especially the Christian ones, pleaded with their secular governments to include this argument in educational curriculums. However, this argument was deemed not exactly as an argument, a logical argument that is, but a spiritual belief. And basically, spirits or souls and the like are banned by law to be formally taught in schools unless these schools or the state itself is sectarian. Besides, creationism as a theory is incompatible with Darwin’s scientifically acknowledged and widely accepted theory of evolution. Thus, it is not appropriate for both arguments to be preached alongside with each other.

Not long ago, I have encountered an online article about intelligent design, which sounded scientific and interesting to me. But as I was reading it, I discovered that intelligent design was just creationism renamed. The coining of the new name was an attempt to make creationism appear philosophical and scholastic so it may be acceptable for inclusion in the secular curriculum. But it was a futile attempt. Whether it is creationism or intelligent design, it still points to the belief that God created the universe.

Intelligent design, also called the teleological or design argument, states that man, nature, the world, and the rest of the universe, with all their harmonious intricacies, must have been purposely “designed” and created by an intelligent being. The body’s different organs working in unison, an ecosystem where various organisms are interdependent together with the environment, and the fact that no two or more inanimate planets are placed in a single orbit are just some of the fascinating phenomena operating with uncanny patterns and elaborate mechanisms. The teleological argument explains that these detailed arrangements in nature are possible only with an “intelligent purposing mind” that planned and created them. Since this intelligence is responsible for the existence and behavior of everything in the universe, it must then be the most superior intelligence belonging to the most powerful being above all. And this being is God.

Suppose that you have never seen a watch. One day, you saw one on the ground and picked it up. You observed that they were made of glass and metals, which are materials familiar to you. You saw the two main hands pointing at two of the 12 numbers around them. You later discovered that it was a device that tells time. You pried the watch’s back open and were amazed by the different tiny components. You inspected how these minute parts work together so that the hands point at the right numbers at the right duration to refer to the exact time of the day. You then wonder how this very complex object came to be. Since every component of the watch is inanimate, they could have not possibly come together and arranged themselves to form this time-telling device. Perhaps these components did come together and were assembled, not by their own will however, but by coincidence. Out of the innumerable possible combinations of different metals, glasses, ink (for printing the numbers), and other materials, one of them has successfully produced the watch and its intricate mechanism to serve its purpose. But such process would take billions or even more years to take place. Furthermore, such process only produced this single watch along with the other rejected combinations that eventually ceased to exist since none of them served a purpose. In this case, each object in the universe was a product of random combination; that among the countless combinations, only those that have purpose can be allowed to exist. By the law of probability however, if everything in the universe was a result of random combination, then the number of all combinations of atoms made to accidentally create the present universe must have been much, much greater than the already incalculable number of all existing objects in the universe. Furthermore, the occurrence of these relatively few successful combinations, which resulted to the existing universe, has an extremely low probability. For these successful combinations to certainly exist, infinite time should be given for all the innumerable random combinations to take place. But infinity is implausible. The finite number of all existing objects must have been created within a finite time.

After that lengthy analysis, you then conclude that the watch that you just picked up could’ve not been accidentally created by pure chance. The only feasible explanation is that the watch must’ve had a maker. Only another intelligent being could be the reason behind the watch’s existence, its intricate characteristics, and its purpose. Maybe you have not met the watchmaker and seen how it was created. But you can be certain that at some time and some place, the watch was being directly created by an intelligent watchmaker, who didn’t have to tediously try all arbitrary combinations.

Similarly, the universe must have had a maker. Man alone is made up of clever mechanisms to survive and protect himself. The Earth itself contains numerous systems in natural phenomena, such as in the change of seasons or the process of producing rain. The rest of the universe moves in an organized manner such that collision of heavenly bodies is at least minimized, if not completely prevented. The existence and synchronization of everything there is can not be possible with utter randomness. Only power and will can create an object out of nothing and stir up events. Only intelligence can devise the intricacies of the harmonious universe. Only goodness and love can decide the Earth’s purpose, which is to support human life. This power and will, intelligence, and goodness and love can only belong to an existing being – God.

Having a sceptic disposition, I was not satisfied with a faith based on sheer dogma. I was more comfortable with owning beliefs and convictions that I can rationally defend. Seeking a logical argument as a strong foundation for my faith in God was difficult. I can easily think of refuting replies to all the arguments, which I have so far encountered, for His existence, except one – the design argument or intelligent design.

I thought at first that intelligent design was no match for the evolution theory. The idea of man as a result of evolution brought about by the need to adapt to the changing environment is more comprehensible, and thus more acceptable, than the belief that an unseen creator crafted man and everything else out of void. It was mentioned in the aforementioned online article that even the Roman Catholic Church favoured evolution over creationism in formal education. Now as a follower of that church, how can I defend the Genesis? In the first place, how the Bible stories and revelations happened is much less essential than the message they imply. As my church preaches, the Bible should not be taken as a history book that must correspond with reality. Instead, as mushy as it sounds, it should be taken as compiled love letters from God expressed in symbols and riddles. The story of Creation was simply a figurative way of saying that God made everything out of purpose and love. Perhaps what actually happened was that God indirectly created man by altering the environment of selected monkeys so that they were forced to “mutate” into intelligent, less-hairy primates that could stand straight. Evolution itself must also be part of God’s design.

I remember a religion teacher back in high school saying that there should be no conflict between science and religion. Science tells how, while religion tells who, she said. Maybe it’s supposed to stay that way. The belief in a Creator is something spiritual that should not be introduced as something logical in academics. Perhaps I have been wasting ‘thinking time’ for seeking a rational explanation for God’s existence. Human intelligence is limited. Therefore, it may be unsound to use logic from our limited minds to measure and confine the immeasurable and unlimited God with finite characteristics. Maybe, just maybe, God also designed human intelligence to be limited. This way, belief in Him would be based not solely on safe, rigid logic but on mysterious, intuitive trust, which what true faith is.

Paris Hilton's Vow of Celibacy

Only for a year however.

A while after the Stupid Girls blog where I maligned Paris Hilton as if I really knew everything about her, I've been bumping into a few pieces of news from TV and online about Paris' morally upright side. The first one I've encountered was on ET, where she was shown spending time with a devoted fan who had cancer. She said that it felt great helping one of her fans fulfil her dream. Another one was not actually a display of charity, but an implication from her previous controversial relationship with a guy also named Paris. I'm not sure if this was just one of the reasons or the sole reason that Paris Hilton broke up with Paris. All I heard was that she was enraged after discovering, during a dinner meeting or something with her then boyfriend's family, that he has not told his family about their relationship even if they have been together for a long time. It seemed to me that Hilton was expecting a formal relationship where families of both parties are aware of it.

What did I learn from this? A person's whole character should not be judged just by particular/selected things that he did or is doing. It's trite, but I fail to consider it when it comes to dealing with people. At first, all I heard about Paris Hilton is her sluttishness in One Night in Paris porn vid and her stupidity and high-maintenance lifestyle in The Simple Life. Aside from that, I did not care about knowing her beyond that. And that was wrong. This human being has a lot more than that. First impressions do last. But they should not be allowed to last forever.

So below is another 'good news' about Paris Hilton. Yes, a one-year vow of no-sex-but-just-kissing may not make Paris a saint. But at least she did something based on personal ethics. It showed that she's not all about sex. She has a cognitive mind that can develop a strategy to determine whether her current boyfriend loves her or is just looking for sexual experience from the Paris Hilton. She's not stupid after all.

WTF?! Paris Preaches Abstinence

(URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060805/en_celeb_eo/19688)

By Natalie Finn Fri Aug 4, 10:12 PM ET

There's a Hilton that won't be checking in any overnight guests this year.

SEARCH

Paris Hilton--yes, that Paris Hilton--has sworn off sex. For 12 months, anyway.

In an interview for the September issue of British GQ, the star whose oeuvre includes The Simple Life and One Night in Paris set out to dispel rumors that she's a sure thing when it comes to taking relationships to that next level.

"People think I sleep with everyone, but I'm not like that," Hilton told the magazine. "Kissing is all I do.

"I'm not having sex for a year. I've decided...I'll kiss, but nothing else."

The hotel heiress, who seems to change boyfriends faster than shoes, appears excited about the effect her vow of chastity could have on her personal life.

"The reason so many of my relationships don't work is guys are like, 'Hey, what's going on? It's been like four months and I'm only getting a kiss here,' " said Hilton, who was partying with on-again love interest Stavros Niarchos on Sean "Diddy" Combs' yacht this week after attending the rap mogul's annual White Party at the Nikki Beach Club in Saint-Tropez.

While there's no word on what Niarchos has to say about Hilton's new resolution, she sounded as if there's some method to her madness--she has thought this one over and knows exactly what she's doing.

"I feel good about it," the 25-year-old told GQ. "I like the way guys so crazy when they can't have sex with you. If he can't have you, he stays interested. The moment he has you, he's gone. Unless he is really in love with you."

She went on to say that, as far as she knows, she only plans to walk down the aisle once and that, when she goes on dates, she prefers to be treated "like a princess."

As Hilton tones down the sex, her doppelganger is upping the salacious quotient. Professional Paris look-alike Natalie Reid is giving Playboy readers an eyeful in the September issue. Hilton herself says that she has been turning down offers to disrobe for the men's magazine since she was 17.

Oblivion Part 2

I'm back soon, as vowed by me.

So a while after that BlueVoice blog, I was planning to post about the brief change in our group's independent practicum project and about Manny Pacquiao's win (again!) and how much I hated him even more. But it seemed I did not find the timing, or right mood, to blog about it. Perhaps I was too worried of academic concerns and school duties.

Oh by the way, I was "appointed" the president of our sub-department. Appointed, huh? A president should be elected. Then the elected president 'appoints' people to be members of his cabinet. Whatever... I don't even have a cabinet. Just the rest of the officers. It's a good thing that I get along with them easily. Just last Monday, we had a meeting and discussed the annual acquaintance party, which will be held after all. At first, I planned not to have one because it really doesn't serve its purpose and is expensive. But then I realized from the other officers that many (probably most) of the AICG students are looking forward to an acquaintance party so they can get to meet, and perhaps welcome, the first years. I hope this hospitality is genuine.

So I should be moving on to the two things I should've blogged about ages ago.

First about our project. After contemplating on BlueVoice, we decided to look for another proposal. Honestly, I forgot our reasons for dropping BlueVoice. Maybe because it was risky and expensive. So anyway, we were debating on Game of the Generals with higher AI, or Source Code Similarity Detection. I was more inclined to the latter, but the other two were more interested with the game. Even though there was a majority, we still decided to seek for the moderator's recommendation. And she preferred the Source Code Similarity Detection. Victory for me! But it was useless victory shortly afterwards. When we had a consultation for our supposed-to-be-adviser for the source code thingy, he revealed to us that a better existing system, called MOSS (Measure of Software Similarity), is free after all. We thought it was charging. So we had to drop it. No significance, no approval, no project.

We looked into the BlueVoice idea again. We were able to discuss it with a faculty member, who then suggested that it can be worth a project. So we built on that idea, prepared the first draft, and slightly changed its name, to BlueTalk. The moderator said that it can be promising. Only a few things were required to be revised in our drafts. Now, we are working on the final draft of our proposal. Hopefully, it's on its way to full approval.

I'm not in the mood to lambaste Pacman right now. Besides, it would take a lot of words that I can separate them to another post. And that's what I'll do...