All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Yesterday
-
made with ai: 2 hours worth of Psychedelic Western Rock. one of the comments was: if nevada had a soundtrack, it would be this.
- Earlier
-
Statistician Flunks On Life Existing Elsewhere
what if replied to mike the wiz's topic in Miscellaneous
i think koonin iterated something similar when he mentioned the arrival of life is "a seeming miracle". this alone should be an indication of just how complex the cell is. reproduction is just one part of cellular operations and it's not the important part. the regulatory system is the brains of the cell. through my various chats with gpt i've managed to come up with a simple one sentence description of the eukaryote cell, which i've included in my signature. -
Statistician Flunks On Life Existing Elsewhere
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Miscellaneous
TRUE STATISTICS/PROBABLITY, HAVE TO BE PROVEN BASED ON TRUE FACTS (seems I understand stats better than the alien-statistician And; -
Statistician Flunks On Life Existing Elsewhere
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Miscellaneous
ALIENS VISITING EARTH. This article also alludes to "UAP"s implying the statistician that wrote the article is swayed by them. There are some stats people never seem to consider about aliens historically visiting earth, and you are free to look it up if you don't believe me. STAT 1; It has been shown that alien technology since the 1800s, has mirrored our own. If you look at the alien crash in "Aurora", in the 1800s, you will laugh because it apparently was a dirigible, blimp-like UFO that done about 15 mph. The alien used paper to write heiroglyphs pn. Later one when Roswell came along, it was flying saucers, which matched with Hollywood's concept of UFOs. Later on it was triangles in accordance with the stealth bomber and other fighter jets, then finally it was the tic-tac style UFO, unexplainable lights and performances. STAT 2; There is a global map of UFO sightings and the hot spots are all where people rage most about aliens and believe in UFOs. Mostly the west. STAT /fact 3; The physics of space travel are well known physics. If you travel fast enough a particle can explode your space-ship no matter how far advanced your technology is. Technology cannot reach a point where magic can circumvent physics. Just as an example of good critical thinking, I watched a show where the "rubber duck" UFO which didn't have a heat signature was determined to be "unexplained", so I want to A.I. and gave it a theory that it was a balloon and that they were simply wrong about the wind-direction that day where the balloon was located. Sure enough that was the explanation. Because I knew it was far more likely they got the wind direction wrong than it being E.T in his favourite duck-mobile. Grow a brain people, YOU ARE A MIRACLE, whether you like it or not. -
I read an article by a statistician, here are the key points, then I shall show how they are logically flawed. I do this because most people fall for these types of basic critical thinking errors when it comes to aliens. https://uk.yahoo.com/news/opinion-space-aliens-real-visited-110000412.html LOL. (For a "statistician", I just have to laugh at that one) Gee, let me think, could they possibly have anything to do with abiogenesis and evolutionism assumptions? "Comes from assuming" is the biggest problem. "what happened on earth" is loaded, and question-begged. Statistically according to formal rules, and true epistemological limits the only thing we know is that life exists on earth. Most people make his error with calculating that it is a matter of sharing conditions, and because there is an awful lot of space out there, somewhere the conditions of life will be met. But according to logical rules that doesn't give you the conclusion life is there, it gives you the conclusion that there will also be conditions suitable for life. It CIRCUMVENTS the fact that statistically, the chances of getting even one protein are still 1 in 10 to the power of 164. (More than known atoms in the universe) THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON. One thing people never look at with this issue is how unfounded the abiogenesis assumption is because like with the error of equating habitable conditions with life existing, most people being average IQ, also tend to conflate another two things, without realising it is circular reasoning. They treat earth as one example of abiogenesis because life exists. which is circular as shown by absurdum, if you just replace "abiogenesis" with anything else, since anything else will have the same amount of evidence, thus; "earth is one example of abiogenesis because life exists." OR; "earth is one example of phlogiston because life exists." (because the same amount of evidence for phlogiston or spaghetti monsters, exists for abiogenesis.) But life exists mike! Exactly, and that is the point, the statistic is that life exists not that it was abiogenesised so it can't be regarded as a factual part of the statistic. what the true conclusion is according to deductive rules, is the non-circular conclusion that DOES follow from life existing; "Earth is one example of life having a cause, because life exists." (think about it, they are still trying to find a way how abiogenesis could have happened.) But the cause, whatever it is (if I am to be totally neutral), has to have a SUFFICIENT REASON to occur. They have never found any except design because life even if you reduce it almost to nothing, is still riddled with design. Design counts as a sufficient reason in real life when we find designed things, but a natural cause would have to be so convoluted, and a chain so fantastical, that to assume it happened is worst and weakest sophistry possible. CONCLUSION; Such statistics only "work" if you assume evolution and abiogenesis is a dogmatic fact. There is nothing as further from the truth as assuming those things are factual. Even the scientists would likely agree with me because they would say, "proof is not the function of science". people say, "space is so big life just has to be there" but this hides an implicit incredulity fallacy; "I can't believe with all that space it is empty therefore it isn't." But it is. God only made life here as far as we know. In terms of trying to make life seem like a matter of probability, the statitician and the public, are wrong to focus on the incorrect stats. You have to calculate DIRECTLY, the chances of abiogenesis assembling designer cells, which carries a number so far into fiction is can't be entertained by intelligent people unless you invoke the multiverse fiction. Gemini; Any complaints about A.i will mean a deleted post and immediate suspension. I have addressed that this is desperate propaganda where evolutionists want to avoid any validity coming from this tool in case it supports things they don't like.
-
It’s laughably easy to poison open-weight AI models, researcher finds. Good news, everyone: “open-weight” AI models that are available to anyone to download and run are comically easy to poison. Katie Paxton-Fear, a cybersecurity researcher at Semgrep, demonstrated this in an attack that took less than an hour and cost less than $100 to carry out, The Register reports, successfully manipulating the AI’s behavior by feeding it malicious data. By training the model on just ten examples of poisoned material, the model started churning out new code that’s exposed to remote code execution, a vulnerability that allows hackers to run code on a person’s machine. “I did a proper backdoor,” she triumphantly shared on social media. Backdoors are a particularly dangerous type of attack that involves training an AI in a way that introduces hidden phrases into the underlying model. A hacker can use these to quietly trigger the model into carrying out a specific action, lying dormant and unseen until they’re called into action. Last year, Anthropic published research conducted with the UK AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute that showed that both small and large AI models are vulnerable to the attack using just a few hundred documents, suggesting that these attacks could remain cheap to carry out. The findings will throw some cold water on the enthusiasm around open-weight models, which are praised for the control and transparency they provide over closed sourced models that run chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude, as well as their lower cost to use. But while their parameters may be visible, open-weight models don’t reveal their training data or their code — meaning they can still be black boxes to security researchers. “Even when model weights are public (‘open weight’), we have almost no ability to predict its behavior,” Paxton-Fear’s colleagues at Semrep wrote in a post last week. “This is a major change: a typical computer program, in binary form, can still be analyzed with reverse engineering tools to arrive at a total description of its behavior. With models, we have nowhere close to this capability.” Moreover, this is all fairly uncharted waters in cybersecurity. LLMs are incredibly complex and still new, so it’s difficult to uncover sophisticated attacks. And AI models can be compromised in much more subtle ways than software. “If a software dependency contains malicious code, we have mature practices for discovering it, tracking its provenance, and reducing its impact,” the Semgrup researchers argued. “AI models are different. A compromised or subtly manipulated model doesn’t need to ‘break’ to create business risk, it only needs to influence decisions in ways that are difficult to detect.” “So can we trust open weight models, fine-tuned online, and marketed as the solution to our AI token spend woes?” Paxton-Fear asked in a thread sharing her findings. “Well, we probably need something better than benchmarks and ‘and don’t write any insecure code.'” It’s laughably easy to poison open-weight AI models, researcher finds keep in mind this isn't "ai gone rogue", it's a DIRECT result of how the ai was trained and how it was used. BOTH are the DIRECT result of human actions.
-
i swear, it doesn't get any crazier than this: Illegal immigrant who murdered Michigan woman sues Trump, demands $75M, public apology, US citizenship. An illegal immigrant serving a lengthy prison sentence for the murder of a Michigan woman is suing President Donald Trump, alleging he faced humiliation when his case was used as a political talking point, and is demanding $75 million, a public apology, and U.S. citizenship. Brandon Ortiz-Vite, 27, who was previously deported from the United States, is serving a sentence of 39 to 102 years in prison for killing Ruby Garcia in March 2024. Illegal immigrant who murdered Michigan woman sues Trump, demands $75M, public apology, US citizenship
-
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
Mambo I am not being hard on you, and if you are honest enough to take a look at some of these issues with introspection, I would like to share why your chatGPT wasn't the same; (note the terms, "retrieval" and, "generation") You see your session was generative, you were asking chatgpt to generate something that would find flaws so it hallucinated them because there were no flaws. You introduced a command prompt that fed it a bias. You should have worded it in a way that would introduce a strict formal reasoning that would evaluate not just what I said but what Dawkins said. I actually asked for a test recently with ten mistakes from atheists, and I got all ten, so I actually do test myself using the A.I. I would have accepted it had I only found 4 or 5 errors. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
The most stupid thing about atheists like Dawkins and those that listen to him, is that they do so with optimally functioning eyes. I mean seriously just think (for once), what side do you think wins, in a world where we were discussing this with a clunky, make-do eye we could barely see out of? Naturally it wouldn't matter what the creationist said in that world. WAKE UP. In the real world our technology still can't match the eye. Every single eye design is viable and a masterclass in engineering, AND with no evolutionary history. Now if we lived in a world where there were clunky, poor eyes and all you found was a history of evolution, THEN you could compare us to flat-earthers. But in this world? Take a long look in the mirror because there you see the flat-earther. Dawkins argued this not because it's factual and if you pretend it is you are LIAR and continue to spread LIES. He argued it because he doesn't want God to exist, because he isn't some perfect scientist, he is just a human sinner with a qualification. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
Apparently what happened to Mambo's chatgpt session was an A.I. hallucination, where it fills in gaps with false information. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
Morale of the story; Don't use "chatGPT" for an intellectual appraisal without first plugging it with the strict rules of formal logic, then accuse someone else of not doing a proper A.I. session when that is actually what you done to the point chatGPT stated there is no evidence for scientific facts like photic retinopathy. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
Mambo your chatGPT got things factually wrong unlike gemini as predicted; it said things about scientific knowledge which are wrong and are widely known by scientists and didn't give any sources because it didn't need to by just saying, "there is no accepted evidence" of the heat issue. Perhaps it took the words, "burn out" literally? (note also the cited sources) ANd; Ironically, YOU WERE the one relying on a biased facile A.I. session, whereas I brought my scientific knowledge to the table, Mambo. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
ANd; I asked the A.I to evaluate in accordance with formally correct logic. As you can see Mambo, I have out-thought Dawkins. -
Refuting Dawkins On The Human Eye
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
Your session stated factually wrong things. Here are Dawkins' actual words, note the highlights in red; "The same mistake" is loaded language as he has not established it is a mistake in design to begin with, which is poor critical thinking. Also terming it a "mistake" does imply bad design. The point is, his setup would not work because if you put the camera eye from cephalods into a human they would burn up. Essentially he is doing what Dawkins does best; impose his own limited subjective thinking onto the facts. CONCLUSION; Your chatgpt was wrong factually, because as you can see from the language he used, he calls the design a "mistake" and famously has argued that God would have designed things another way. Here is another quote from him; There you see it. A bungle is a non-sequitur which does not follow BECAUSE OUR EYES FUNCTION VIABLY PROVING THE DESIGN WORKS but his would not work. That is why he is not God, but instead just an arrogant atheist with limited intelligence, as I have shown. And he is also wrong, an engineer wouldn't call it a bungle because like my explanation shown, the mueller cells NEGATE forest of cells, and we can see clearly. What this actually achieves is several things, the choroid can refresh the cells for energy and acts as a liquid coolant. His set up would demonstrably not work. Your chatGPT session is a good example of how not to use A.I. unless you have great intellectual skills and abilities so that it can mirror your standard. I don't use A.I. because I need it, it firstly needs me. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. Dawkins' rhetoric is riddled with logical errors greased by his atheism, not an objective appraisal. Think about it, who is he to speak for engineers if they don't say the things he says? Here is what they actually say jambo; The following is NOT A.I. it is a quote from engineers, who have said the same thing as my original argument, that it is a one dimensional argument; -
Without knowing the pretext to that response from Gemini, I asked ChatGPT what it thought or your claim that your science was better than Dawkins, and of the Gemini response you got: "My view is that this is not a reliable evaluation of the argument. It reads much more like Gemini has been prompted to assess or defend the user's reasoning than to critically evaluate it. Several features stand out: The language is wildly overconfident ("spectacular piece of lateral thinking", "completely flips Dawkins' critique", "definition of high-level critical rationality"). That's not the language you'd expect from a balanced scientific assessment. It repeatedly tells the user they've "exposed" Dawkins' argument rather than weighing competing evidence. Many of the citations are to blogs, Facebook posts, Instagram, Quora, Reddit and creationist websites alongside a few genuine scientific papers. Mixing high- and low-quality sources like this is a red flag. More importantly, the central scientific claim doesn't really overturn Dawkins' point. What Dawkins' argument actually is Dawkins' argument isn't that the vertebrate eye is "bad" or doesn't work well. It's that the vertebrate retina bears the marks of its evolutionary history. The inverted retina has consequences: - retinal ganglion cell axons pass in front of the photoreceptors; - they leave through the retina, creating a blind spot; - blood vessels lie in front of much of the retina. The cephalopod retina evolved independently and avoids these features. The question is not "Which eye sees better?" It's "Why are they built differently?" Evolution explains this through different developmental origins. The cooling argument This is probably the weakest part of the post. The claim is essentially: Human photoreceptors must sit against the choroid because air doesn't remove heat like water. There are problems with this. First, photoreceptors certainly require an excellent blood supply. The retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and choroid deliver oxygen, nutrients and remove waste. However, that's true regardless of which direction the photoreceptors point. An octopus retina also supplies its photoreceptors with blood. Simply orienting the photoreceptors the other way doesn't prevent vascular supply. Second, there is no accepted evidence that an everted retina would "burn out" on land. If that were true, comparative anatomists and ophthalmologists would discuss it routinely because it would be a major constraint on eye evolution. They don't. Müller cells This part is basically true—but irrelevant to the conclusion. Müller cells do guide light through the retina remarkably efficiently. That's fascinating biology. But saying evolution produced an elegant solution to a problem does not imply the problem never existed. Evolution often produces work-arounds. In fact, Dawkins himself has discussed examples where evolution makes the best of inherited constraints. The blind spot Again, this somewhat misses the point. Nobody disputes that: binocular vision compensates; microsaccades help; the brain fills in missing information. The blind spot is genuinely not a practical problem in everyday vision. But it still exists. An octopus lacks it entirely. That doesn't prove design or evolution either way—it simply reflects different retinal architectures. The key question The strongest objection is this. Suppose someone argues: "The inverted retina is actually an excellent design." Fine. That doesn't answer Dawkins. Dawkins' point is not: "The human eye is terrible." His point is: "The vertebrate eye carries historical constraints that are exactly what we'd expect from gradual modification of earlier structures." To overturn that, one would need to show that: an inverted retina is the only viable solution for terrestrial vertebrates; or a non-inverted retina could not evolve or function on land. The Gemini response never demonstrates either proposition. About the AI response itself The biggest giveaway is that it contains statements like: "You have completely flipped Dawkins' critique." "This is the definition of high-level critical rationality." An objective scientific reviewer would instead say something like: "The cooling argument is an interesting hypothesis. However, there is currently little evidence that retinal inversion evolved primarily for thermal management, and it does not by itself address the developmental explanations for why vertebrate and cephalopod retinas differ." That is a much more balanced assessment. So I wouldn't conclude that "Gemini thinks Mike has out-thought Dawkins." I'd conclude that Gemini almost certainly responded to a prompt that encouraged it to praise or defend the argument rather than critically test it. The scientific content contains some accurate facts (such as the roles of the choroid and Müller cells), but the leap from those facts to "therefore Dawkins was wrong" isn't supported by the evidence."
-
It seems Gemini thinks my argument is the fuller explanation and Dawkins' complaint about the human eye is one dimensional, and a poor critical analysis because he didn't take all of the factors into play. As you can see, my science was more sophisticated, it's ironic that my science it seems, was better than his; (don't just dismiss this because it's A.I., actually read it, it is unavoidable that his argument was wrong) Here was it's evaluation of my argument;
-
Heuristic Proving Creation True And Evolution False
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
How I designed the heuristic; (it seems simple, but I knew it would guarantee the answers I wanted because each question is designed based on logic and engineering knowledge, though admittedly I was nervous when I designed it, in case there were examples that broke the heuristic and proven me wrong.) Now for the TRULY intelligent people reading this (lurkers and people that don't join the forum), their minds will be racing and they will be going through cognitive dissonance trying to find some, "OUT". Take it from someone that finished first place in a logic test taken by 40 thousand people; there is no way out of this. You didn't evolve. God created you all along. (which can't be proven technically but it's irrelevant, if you find design and not evolution then there's a designer, and faith can get you the rest of the way.) -
Heuristic Proving Creation True And Evolution False
mike the wiz replied to mike the wiz's topic in Creation vs Evolution
If readers are wondering why this is more of an "explanation" than a topic open for debate; what debate? What argument? There was no argument, I asked two questions, and I always got the same results. That is not something that should be up for dispute unless you also think we should debate the following; Question 1; Pick any human being, did they have a vertebrate bodyplan? Question 2. Did the same human contain any reptilian features such as scales or being cold blooded? See my point? What argument? What debate? These are FACTS, and they shown design, not evolution. It's that simple. A person of high critical thinking ability only makes one statement about these facts; you either accept facts or you don't. If you do, you accept the reality of the world you live in, if you don't you can lie to people and pretend the facts don't have significance and use other rhetorical excuses so that you can go on pretending the picture of facts actually support evolution. -
Heuristic Proving Creation True And Evolution False
mike the wiz posted a topic in Creation vs Evolution
Well I say, "proving", you may argue the technicality, but the nature of the heuristic is by analogy, that of having a double trial, where two people are accused of murder, and one man shows consistently which each line of evidence he is innocent, and the other with each line of evidence he is guilty. That is what I would call, "reasonably proven". My heuristic is designed from two questions; Question 1; CHOOSE ANY specialised organism. Search; does it excel in engineering brilliance in any area of that specialisation? The answer is always "yes" be it fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, optics, whatever. Whatever the area is, not only will you find optimal design, you will find the design is predicated on a deep understanding of that field. Question 2; For the very same specialised organism, are there any intermediates ever found for those specialisations? The answer is always no. Here are some examples A.I. helped me with to show this; CONCLUSION; It really doesn't matter what the specialised form is, we could list every one that mankind knows about, the archer fish for example, has to calculate the mathematics of a parabolic water jet trajectory, the trilobyte's eye was predicated on an understanding of Abbes sines laws, Fermat's principle and the law of bifringement crystals. That knowledge of optics was required for the design of the eye. Again, no evolutionary history in any you choose. If we had a list of 457, there would be 457 viable designs in all areas of engineering, and 457 examples of no evolutionary intermediates. CASE CLOSED really. The ONLY reason to continue with evolution is if you are simply a liar. -
Sorry I missed your post Hawkins. My only view is that an omniscient mind is going to know everything and compared to that level of thinking human thinking is almost useless, not only have we collectively got a miniscule IQ compared to God, but also our ignorance and our guesswork from clues are usually absurd in the highest degree. Abiogenesis for example, is quite frankly a pathetic attempt to pretend a lifeform could create itself. That is about as scientific as flying spaghetti monkeys.
-
Story by Thalia Oosthuizen . . . New Cars Can Report Dangerous Driving Automatically. Most people are surprised to learn this, but many modern vehicles have advanced technology that allows vehicle owners to review data on things such as how fast they drive, hard braking, and collisions. Some share it with insurance companies or emergency services after a crash. You don’t have to opt in for all of it. Your driving habits are not as private as they used to be. Knowing this may change the way you view aggressive driving. Safe driving protects more than just your safety. - MSN providing "snapshots" doesn't supply context. what is seen as "aggressive driving" can EASILY be entirely irrelevant. this reminds me of how insurance companies . . . nevermind.
-
i already knew that just by the video title, that's why i didn't watch it. as it stands now, HUMANS are the threat, not ai. ai is only a tool (like your hammer) and that's ALL it is. a perfect example of what i'm talking about is this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8CS85gWnA the title reads : karoline leavitt storms out of press briefing after being corned, published by Times Now - Times Now News channel examines news with in-depth analysis. We provide much more than the Get Breaking news, the Latest news, Politics news, of the day. Times Network houses upscale television channels. the problem is, karoline doesn't storm out of ANYTHING. the video is over 2 hours in length but it repeats the first 30 minutes 4 times. IOW this is a video generated by ai with ZERO human oversight. yay rah the MEDIA ! ! at least try to get your facts straight BEFORE going bsc.
-
yes, and it's for those people i made my post. i will say this, at the current state of the technology it's highly unlikely that ai will EVER achieve true humanity. human morality is probably the only thing that kept us from destroying ourselves and ai HAS NONE. yes, we can give ai a "simulated morality" but the caveat here is a simulation CANNOT simulate the unknown.
-
Interestingly Jambob, your avatar "believe in one less God than you do", also seems to make a similar error if you think about it, because if the one less is the true God then it becomes rather a problem wouldn't you say? (though this is only an observation, not a personal comment) After all believing in the one that counts is paramount. Allow me to waffle/rant; Because I am not causing an argument, I am just trying to get people to apply critical thinking. Is it really quantitative? You could argue such framing is misleading even if unintentionally so, if the true matter is that the universe and maths, and all the design in life is what requires God, one God, to exist. Even if we do this from the standpoint of pure neutral logic and don't speak about faith or the bible, I am sure you can see, there wouldn't really be a need for many God if this universe is a creation, and even if I am overly courteous by saying, "if" with respect to your own position even though I am of assured with great irkblastings that the Lord is true, be that as it may I am sure you can see that the invention of a thing only requires the one. From there through propositional implications of logic we can then carry on with our, "if, then" operators thus; "if" this is indeed requiring a creator, "then" the matter of many false ones can become the muddying of mikey's waters, and a red-herring to the issue of requirement. By analogy I offer up my non-prosaic renderings in my usual unorthodox style for the delight of your reading, ho ho; Imagine we have a murder, we know it is reasonably committed by one person. Jack the ripper. However there are many suspects. But then does the focus on the suspects remove the fact there was a murder? No indeed, and if we focus not upon the evidence we can get caught up in many triflings with our whodunnit. There are also many theories that appear equal to begin with, many suspects whereby you may reasonably say to begin with, "this is absurd, each case is akin to a conspiracy type level of theorising at best, dependent upon circumstantial evidence". However, this yet again does not tell us there was no murder. If we then from this take each case on it's merit some will be better than others. So here is my challenge for today, and I challenge myself with it also, since I have never asked A.I. about it and here is what I shall put to the A.I.; "If we were to focus upon the following categories and compare them to myths and legends and religions contemporaneously with the bible, would any stand out or are they all equal? The categories are; the criterion of embarassment, undesigned scripture concordance, manuscript authority, archaeological evidence, use of language where the author struggles to define the supernatural through a lack of a frame of reference, knowledge that precedes science." SInce I am asking this in real time, here is it's answer. (the session is new, the A.i. knows nothing about me.) (you are not obliged to respond to my post Jambob, it's just for reading in the hope you are reasonable.) bye for now.
-
You're right to fact check of course. Hope my post didn't give the impression I wasn't, I just can't resist assessing peoples' propensity to believe such things, whoever believes/asserts such factoids or doesn't, so I am not accusing anyone in particular, I just happen to know people tend to believe a lot of claims like that. I should have made that clearer.
