Revelations - Middle east
- Thread starter ScottW
- Start date
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
second commentary, serious:
Personally I do not believe in predestination, or the fact that a "fate" exists. Since this is my belief I do not believe that someone can foretell the future because the future changes with each and every one of our actions.
Furthermore if someone tries to "predict" the immediate future he can do so on an education guess. He can take a look at conditions now in whatever he is trying to predict and make an educated guess of where the stockmarket or whatever else is going to be in 2-3-5-8-12 months, but even then it's uncertain and lots of variables change so a prediction about, lets say the stock market today, may not be valied in an hour, a week, a month or a quarter.
Now taking that into account imagine how old the old testament is. If we suppose we take the same methods of prediction imagine how flaud it is. But lets say they had divine insight. How do we know? What can be the proof positive way to show that things have occured or will occur ?
Admiral
PS: comical again--> lets call Ms Cleo
Personally I do not believe in predestination, or the fact that a "fate" exists. Since this is my belief I do not believe that someone can foretell the future because the future changes with each and every one of our actions.
Furthermore if someone tries to "predict" the immediate future he can do so on an education guess. He can take a look at conditions now in whatever he is trying to predict and make an educated guess of where the stockmarket or whatever else is going to be in 2-3-5-8-12 months, but even then it's uncertain and lots of variables change so a prediction about, lets say the stock market today, may not be valied in an hour, a week, a month or a quarter.
Now taking that into account imagine how old the old testament is. If we suppose we take the same methods of prediction imagine how flaud it is. But lets say they had divine insight. How do we know? What can be the proof positive way to show that things have occured or will occur ?
Admiral
PS: comical again--> lets call Ms Cleo
GrandHighOne
Registered
I don't think this war has much to do with the Bible. There are lots of conflicts between different peoples. Conflicts have to do with cultural differences, misunderstandings, ignorance, economics... not with God.
(BTW: If God exists, I don't think he favors one people over the other peoples)
Religion was a subject on my school (a Roman Catholic College), and the priests explained how the bible is not meant to be interpreted literally - I agree with them.
(BTW: If God exists, I don't think he favors one people over the other peoples)
Religion was a subject on my school (a Roman Catholic College), and the priests explained how the bible is not meant to be interpreted literally - I agree with them.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
the fact of the matter, saddly, is that people use such scriptures to justify their actions. Leaders cant just say "well I want more land today so I will start a war", they need some sort of "superior" motive-intervention or cause, and this is where religion comes in.
Admiral
Admiral
kilowatt
mach-o mach-o man
Well I don't happen to think that anyone can predict the future either. The bible even says something about that, its in the new testament, but I can't remember where (maybe in Mathew or something). But as far as predestination goes, how would you ever know? I mean, I'm typing this message. So did I have a choice? I believe I had a choice, but the Lord simply knows what choice I will make. Is that predestination or not? I don't really know.
I for one do take the Bible literally. Everything in it is fact. Usually written by someone watching the events occur. I think of it as a history lesson, too. Now when I read in the old testament "If a man is unholy he must sacrafice two doves" or something, I know that changed when Jesus became the Ultimate sacrafice. And I've even read that men are not supposed to shave. Well, I'm really in for it now ;-). But seriously, I wouldn't believe that we are all sinners because we shave.
I think you have to do some interperating. True, the old testament is like 5000 years old or something, but the lessons, (and I guess this is what you were saying by litteral) are the same. By not shaving their faces, the Isrealites were easly noticable. They stood out (by covering their heads, too). So maybe today that means don't hide it. Where a cross or something.
Sometimes it is hard to tell, though.
And AK, I'm not disagreeing with you, I merely read your post and thought of a thousand things to say on the topic and used your post as an outline.
Not to be mean or anything, but the boards at macosx.com beat the pants off typical linux boards. Seriously, Admin, you got a great group of minds here and its great that you open the boards up like this.
GrandHighOne
Registered
The moment you start interpreting, you no longer take the bible literally...
I believe the Bible was written by "normal" people, but with devine inspiration. Not by God himself. Therefore I cannot consider the Bible to contain absolute truth. I believe the Bible is a book written by privileged witnesses of God's actions (with all different degrees of "privileged", more and less privileged witnesses). What those people wrote about their experiences is colored by the era they lived in, their cultural background, ... Their experiences can help us to understand the mystery of God better, help us _find_ answers, but don't _provide_ (complete) answers...
I think some sort of proof is that there are contradicting passages in the Bible. If you take the Bible literally, you have a problem. If you don't, you can search for the deeper meaning of those contradicting passages that most likely communicate the same values after all...
I hope you understand what I'm saying... this is a difficult/complicated subject, and I'm not an exegete.
kilowatt
mach-o mach-o man
Yeah, I did trip that last post up a bit ;-)
What I meant to say, was that I except the Bible as fact. And I concider all within it as *literally* occuring. But I think when you read it, you have to take into account how the world is today. Just try to make parallels with some of the stories in it.
As for who wrote the Bible, I think we are in agreement that it was people influenced by God who wrote it. They probably were told to write some of it, and lots of it is just accounts of history. Like Mathew, Mark, Luke, etc, its just them writing what happened.
BTW, read some Revolation last night.... don't know quite what to think, but it is very interesting. I've been reading all old testament (trying to understand the roots of Christianity). But I may be reading that concurrently now. Its really interesting. I know some people think that dude (John, I think) was on acid or something, and while its possable, it doesn't sound like it because it does coinside with other scripture.... any thoughts?
What I meant to say, was that I except the Bible as fact. And I concider all within it as *literally* occuring. But I think when you read it, you have to take into account how the world is today. Just try to make parallels with some of the stories in it.
As for who wrote the Bible, I think we are in agreement that it was people influenced by God who wrote it. They probably were told to write some of it, and lots of it is just accounts of history. Like Mathew, Mark, Luke, etc, its just them writing what happened.
BTW, read some Revolation last night.... don't know quite what to think, but it is very interesting. I've been reading all old testament (trying to understand the roots of Christianity). But I may be reading that concurrently now. Its really interesting. I know some people think that dude (John, I think) was on acid or something, and while its possable, it doesn't sound like it because it does coinside with other scripture.... any thoughts?
Soapvox
Want some of my Kool-aid?
I am going to state this right now, this is my opinion, if this comes across as putting down anyone's beliefs I apologize ahead of thime. That said...
What I see in the middle east is a set of two fanatic groups that are fighting over "God"(or equivalent). They have many religious differences that are all based on what some men decided to teach a long time ago when to explain natural occourences they needed a scapegoat or savior, so they created "God" and "Satan". If everyone looked on a broader range of the world today, they would see that probably the most important thing most world religions teach is love and respect for your fellow man, then why are none of them "practicing what they preach"!!!!!!!
I think it was wrong for the Isreali State to have ever been created, but we cannot change that, so they need to get out of the way and give the palestinians a share of the land. At the same time either side to be brainwashing their youth to go kill their fellow man (whether it is suicide bombing or mandatory enlistment in the military) is wrong! Murder in the name of your god is still murder!
We live in a world where children gun each other down in schools, a moron can be elected as leader of the freeworld, we bomb countries because they have things we want (oil) and intimidated other to our ends, and yet we are a "christian" nation, well people, I think we need to lead by example, we need to respect eachother on an individual basis and on a global scale, otherwise we are no better than a beast. As far as revelations go, I would have to believe in god to follow revelations (although as a former christian I know the book well) so I think when you prophosize (sp?) you sometime create them to be self fulfilling.
Whether you are buhdist, christian, jewish, muslim, agnostic, athiest or alien we need to start treating eachother as people and embrace the differences, you can learn much by listening instead of fighting.
Again I apologize for anyone I offended, but this is just what the American media has fixated on, there is the same thing going on all over the world that needs to stop. I also apologize for my horrible spelling
What I see in the middle east is a set of two fanatic groups that are fighting over "God"(or equivalent). They have many religious differences that are all based on what some men decided to teach a long time ago when to explain natural occourences they needed a scapegoat or savior, so they created "God" and "Satan". If everyone looked on a broader range of the world today, they would see that probably the most important thing most world religions teach is love and respect for your fellow man, then why are none of them "practicing what they preach"!!!!!!!
I think it was wrong for the Isreali State to have ever been created, but we cannot change that, so they need to get out of the way and give the palestinians a share of the land. At the same time either side to be brainwashing their youth to go kill their fellow man (whether it is suicide bombing or mandatory enlistment in the military) is wrong! Murder in the name of your god is still murder!
We live in a world where children gun each other down in schools, a moron can be elected as leader of the freeworld, we bomb countries because they have things we want (oil) and intimidated other to our ends, and yet we are a "christian" nation, well people, I think we need to lead by example, we need to respect eachother on an individual basis and on a global scale, otherwise we are no better than a beast. As far as revelations go, I would have to believe in god to follow revelations (although as a former christian I know the book well) so I think when you prophosize (sp?) you sometime create them to be self fulfilling.
Whether you are buhdist, christian, jewish, muslim, agnostic, athiest or alien we need to start treating eachother as people and embrace the differences, you can learn much by listening instead of fighting.
Again I apologize for anyone I offended, but this is just what the American media has fixated on, there is the same thing going on all over the world that needs to stop. I also apologize for my horrible spelling
GrandHighOne
Registered
People in power use whatever is available to make their position stronger. If those in power use religion, they have an added advantage: they can (ab)use religion as a means to keep the people ignorant, stupid, calm.
There are lots of examples: American and European politicians who "promote christian values", Taliban in Afghanistan, CIA-sponsored sects in South-America and Africa,...
Good news: I read in the newspaper today that 70 percent of Israeli's no longer believe that Sharon is the one who will solve their problems. Peres' is gaining importance... (I don't like him too much either, but at least he's less dangerous than Sharon, and he's willing to talk to the palestinians about removing the "Israeli Defense Force" from Palestinian territory currently under Israeli control).
Yooo! Racer X...
You spoke a lot!
Relax...untangle the knots...soften the glare...
One way of learning is to ask others why they think as they do...
No need to use force, more even coming from the windmill of the mind.
For some a dream, for others a nightmare...
"Detach yourself and you will see", it's a pity no university has such a course.
Many greetings to you...
You spoke a lot!
Relax...untangle the knots...soften the glare...
One way of learning is to ask others why they think as they do...
No need to use force, more even coming from the windmill of the mind.
For some a dream, for others a nightmare...
"Detach yourself and you will see", it's a pity no university has such a course.
Many greetings to you...
scott
softer than ever!
On the middle east:
Palestine certainly has a valid gripe. If we put aside all prejudices and contexts (please take this objectively), it boils down to the fact that there is a large Jewish population in the USA, and although the American Jews still have little representation in government, the USA was the heavy hand enforcing Zionism. To prove the point, one must only look at the military arsenal of the Israeli force to see that they are backed by the USA (whether by donation or sale). As an outsider, I can't help but feel that the USA seems bound by a segment of its population to side with the Israeli, no matter the skirmish.
In general:
The reason this thread can get so hot boils down to our own pride. The US nationals are informed of events in tis region by the US media, and they base their opinions on those facts. The European (forgive me for generalizing) contingent base their argument on the spin that the the Euro media puts on the story. I base my opinions on what the Canadian media, always out to pretend to be separate, states in their stories.
We're all reading from different scripts, yet trying to argue the same point.
Palestine certainly has a valid gripe. If we put aside all prejudices and contexts (please take this objectively), it boils down to the fact that there is a large Jewish population in the USA, and although the American Jews still have little representation in government, the USA was the heavy hand enforcing Zionism. To prove the point, one must only look at the military arsenal of the Israeli force to see that they are backed by the USA (whether by donation or sale). As an outsider, I can't help but feel that the USA seems bound by a segment of its population to side with the Israeli, no matter the skirmish.
In general:
The reason this thread can get so hot boils down to our own pride. The US nationals are informed of events in tis region by the US media, and they base their opinions on those facts. The European (forgive me for generalizing) contingent base their argument on the spin that the the Euro media puts on the story. I base my opinions on what the Canadian media, always out to pretend to be separate, states in their stories.
We're all reading from different scripts, yet trying to argue the same point.
GrandHighOne
Registered
scott: that was an intelligent post.
About the media:
I suppose we are all influenced by the media in our countries... but IMO it is often safer to rely on the European press (maybe Canadian too, I don't know) than on the American press. Especially in this case (Palestine / Israel) since the US are involved in it...
If anyone wants to know what media influence(d) me: my newspaper of choice is "De Morgen", one of the two high-quality newspapers in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium -- it is an independent (no political ties, unlike other Belgian newspapers) publication, a bit leftist.
I also read "De Standaard" (www.standaard.be), the other high-quality newspaper: it is a Roman Catholic newspaper (very good content, sometimes criticizes the Church).
Magazine: Maomagazine (www.maomagazine.be), investigative journalism.
TV-news & background information: I rely on Canvas (www.canvas.be) for the TV-news (public broadcasting corporation, journalists are independent from the government, news is less sensational than on commercial stations). I also watch lots of documentaries and reports on Canvas, BBC2, BBC World and "Nederland 2" (Dutch public broadcasting corporation).
I only rely on the Internet for IT-related news. Only exception: I get the headlines of the NY Times delivered by e-mail every day, and if I have time I read some of their articles.
About the media:
I suppose we are all influenced by the media in our countries... but IMO it is often safer to rely on the European press (maybe Canadian too, I don't know) than on the American press. Especially in this case (Palestine / Israel) since the US are involved in it...
If anyone wants to know what media influence(d) me: my newspaper of choice is "De Morgen", one of the two high-quality newspapers in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium -- it is an independent (no political ties, unlike other Belgian newspapers) publication, a bit leftist.
I also read "De Standaard" (www.standaard.be), the other high-quality newspaper: it is a Roman Catholic newspaper (very good content, sometimes criticizes the Church).
Magazine: Maomagazine (www.maomagazine.be), investigative journalism.
TV-news & background information: I rely on Canvas (www.canvas.be) for the TV-news (public broadcasting corporation, journalists are independent from the government, news is less sensational than on commercial stations). I also watch lots of documentaries and reports on Canvas, BBC2, BBC World and "Nederland 2" (Dutch public broadcasting corporation).
I only rely on the Internet for IT-related news. Only exception: I get the headlines of the NY Times delivered by e-mail every day, and if I have time I read some of their articles.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
No I am sorry, but I have to shove my opinion in here.
What the heck is it with europeans and american media???
Perfect example:
I was vacationing in greece a few summers back and had my opinions on certain issues and was ready and able to back them up with good and most importantly *valid* examples.
Whenever they agreed with me they nodded and said "yep yep you're right" Whenever they did not agree and had no reason or *valid* example to back up their point they just gave me the "no matter who your ancestors were, you were born in the US, you are a stupid ignorant american brainwashed by the US media"
I mean give me a f*cken break! This is ouble faceness (is that even a word ?) at its worst!
Yellow Press exists EVERYWHERE, not just in the usa, and I suggest that everyone who is a free thinking person look into the news with a grain of salt because no matter what the paper or the reporter, you view the news from the reporter's point of view and any prejudices he/she has come out on paper whether he wants it or not.
Furthermore just like you pick and choose your scholarly authors when you go to barnes & noble to get a book to read, the same way you should pick your papers and how you get your news.
There is a greek aesopian fable.
There was once a fox, a very hungry. It comes up to a grapevine and sees some juice grapes hanging from it. It says to itself, what the hell, I am hungry enough. I will try to get them. So she jumped and jumped as high as she could but no matter how high she jumped she could not reach them. In the end she gave up and said to herself "to hell with them, they are sour anyway and not worth my trouble".
I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome...it sickens me to see people who can otherwise say "hey I dont have a valid example, I will get back to you" blame it all on media bias and american ignorance. As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that
Admiral
What the heck is it with europeans and american media???
Perfect example:
I was vacationing in greece a few summers back and had my opinions on certain issues and was ready and able to back them up with good and most importantly *valid* examples.
Whenever they agreed with me they nodded and said "yep yep you're right" Whenever they did not agree and had no reason or *valid* example to back up their point they just gave me the "no matter who your ancestors were, you were born in the US, you are a stupid ignorant american brainwashed by the US media"
I mean give me a f*cken break! This is ouble faceness (is that even a word ?
) at its worst!Yellow Press exists EVERYWHERE, not just in the usa, and I suggest that everyone who is a free thinking person look into the news with a grain of salt because no matter what the paper or the reporter, you view the news from the reporter's point of view and any prejudices he/she has come out on paper whether he wants it or not.
Furthermore just like you pick and choose your scholarly authors when you go to barnes & noble to get a book to read, the same way you should pick your papers and how you get your news.
There is a greek aesopian fable.
There was once a fox, a very hungry. It comes up to a grapevine and sees some juice grapes hanging from it. It says to itself, what the hell, I am hungry enough. I will try to get them. So she jumped and jumped as high as she could but no matter how high she jumped she could not reach them. In the end she gave up and said to herself "to hell with them, they are sour anyway and not worth my trouble".
I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome...it sickens me to see people who can otherwise say "hey I dont have a valid example, I will get back to you" blame it all on media bias and american ignorance. As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that
Admiral
GrandHighOne
Registered
Before I say anything else: please note that I am aware of the fact that the European media are going in the exact same direction as the US media... therefore in a few years I'll have to say the exact same thing about the US and the European media...
But _for_now_:
In general, I believe the US media are less independent from government & corporations.
My main problem is with the "invisible" ties that exist between different media, different media all promoting the same cause. Example: Fox News Channel, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative talk-shows like Rush Limbaugh's, different organizations and think tanks and advocacy groups, all working together to promote conservative ideas... (without Joe Sixpack knowing that all those organizations and corporations are connected to each other)
Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and corporations like AOL TimeWarner have too much power, too much control over what is said in the media. It is an illusion to think that people who watch out what they read are not influenced by the existence of these structures...
What about uncritical people?
Think about the "election" of a new US president last year... from where I was looking, that didn't look like a nation of well-informed people electing the most capable leader for the next 4 years...
--
I do not think that everything American is _bad_ by definition. Nor do I think everything European is good. But I have serious doubts about American media.
(AdmiralAK: I'm sorry for the GREAT insult. I didn't mean to insult anyone.)
But _for_now_:
In general, I believe the US media are less independent from government & corporations.
My main problem is with the "invisible" ties that exist between different media, different media all promoting the same cause. Example: Fox News Channel, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative talk-shows like Rush Limbaugh's, different organizations and think tanks and advocacy groups, all working together to promote conservative ideas... (without Joe Sixpack knowing that all those organizations and corporations are connected to each other)
Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and corporations like AOL TimeWarner have too much power, too much control over what is said in the media. It is an illusion to think that people who watch out what they read are not influenced by the existence of these structures...
What about uncritical people?
Think about the "election" of a new US president last year... from where I was looking, that didn't look like a nation of well-informed people electing the most capable leader for the next 4 years...
--
I do not think that everything American is _bad_ by definition. Nor do I think everything European is good. But I have serious doubts about American media.
(AdmiralAK: I'm sorry for the GREAT insult. I didn't mean to insult anyone.)
Yooo...Admiral!...
You did shove...
"I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome..."
"As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that..."
...all europeans...Wow!
...ALL things american...Wow!
Must be painful...I can understand ...
...greek-american...
You mean Greek, as the european country Greece, right?
You mean american as the USA, right?
Sorry there's no more there to help you out...
Many greetings to you...
You did shove...
"I feel that this is the attitude all europeans have to ALL things american, this superiority syndrome..."
"As a greek-american I take GREAT insult to that..."
...all europeans...Wow!
...ALL things american...Wow!
Must be painful...I can understand ...
...greek-american...
You mean Greek, as the european country Greece, right?
You mean american as the USA, right?
Sorry there's no more there to help you out...
Many greetings to you...
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
I don't know where sao is coming from, so no comment on that.
secondly, the insult is general so dont worry about it GrandHighOne.
Thirdly (and last) the problem that plagues the USA is voter apathy. People dont feel compeled to go out and vote. People take their democratic rights for granted. I know, at least in greece, voting is compulsory in european countries so people do not have the luxury to be apolitical and apathetic. There are some, and those cast blank ballots, but the rest have to know a thing or two, and they vote for the people that best suit them (also there are more political parties over there, here republicans and democrats have intermingled so much its like teh RISC and CISC debate).
If voting was compulsory I believe more parties would be created to represent the masses that go unrepresented because they do not vote. That is my belief.
As for voting for the most capable person...first off this goes towards voter apathy, and second it goes towards ideology. Bush and Gore and the other candidates stand for some ideology. If the frontman for that ideology is flawed (i.e. Bush) you vote for the ideology he stands for and not the person, which is what I believe the masses did. For me these were my first elections. None of the candidates appealed to me personality-wise. Ideologically I am a bit more conservative than liberal, so I went with Bush. When you vote for someone it's not always an informed decision, it also has to do with your gut instinct.
Admiral
secondly, the insult is general so dont worry about it GrandHighOne.
Thirdly (and last) the problem that plagues the USA is voter apathy. People dont feel compeled to go out and vote. People take their democratic rights for granted. I know, at least in greece, voting is compulsory in european countries so people do not have the luxury to be apolitical and apathetic. There are some, and those cast blank ballots, but the rest have to know a thing or two, and they vote for the people that best suit them (also there are more political parties over there, here republicans and democrats have intermingled so much its like teh RISC and CISC debate).
If voting was compulsory I believe more parties would be created to represent the masses that go unrepresented because they do not vote. That is my belief.
As for voting for the most capable person...first off this goes towards voter apathy, and second it goes towards ideology. Bush and Gore and the other candidates stand for some ideology. If the frontman for that ideology is flawed (i.e. Bush) you vote for the ideology he stands for and not the person, which is what I believe the masses did. For me these were my first elections. None of the candidates appealed to me personality-wise. Ideologically I am a bit more conservative than liberal, so I went with Bush. When you vote for someone it's not always an informed decision, it also has to do with your gut instinct.
Admiral
Izzy
luv my lil' malteaser
Interesting thread here on the situation in the middle east...here's an link for all of you to ponder over.
http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/fl030402.html
If you read this all the way through please share your thoughts on it.
http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/fl030402.html
If you read this all the way through please share your thoughts on it.
AdmiralAK
Simply Daemonic
Politicians are not dumb, they are keneving fiends that only seek to further their own political careers. Public service these days is a career and not a selfless task you undertake on your free time, as it was in our forefather's days.
First of all, no one is entitled to land, no one. This is not a socialistic world where everyone gets a fair-share. Land is aquired through agreements, alliances and even war.
The allies won WWII and gave away part of their claims to the making of Israel. Was this right? In a "fair" way, no it wasnt, people were already there, but it was their land that they received by being the victor of a war and they could do what they wanted with it.
The fact that israelites lived there many many years ago has nothing to do with anything. If that were the case southern italy and sicily would be under greek control, and so would the norhtern part of cyprus which is "occupied" by a turkish government.
If you lose something in an armed conflict you are not entitled to get it back just like that, its like gambling, you lose something in a game of craps, the only way to get it back would be to play more and try to win it.
I am on the side of the israelis on this, NOT because "they have the right" to be there, but because they got some land fair and square through some means (war) and they are attempting to have some sort of peaceful resolution, but you have certain idiots that go and blow themselves up. It seems that more people are getting fanatical, and are endangering peacetalks that have a chance fo being successful!
Admiral
First of all, no one is entitled to land, no one. This is not a socialistic world where everyone gets a fair-share. Land is aquired through agreements, alliances and even war.
The allies won WWII and gave away part of their claims to the making of Israel. Was this right? In a "fair" way, no it wasnt, people were already there, but it was their land that they received by being the victor of a war and they could do what they wanted with it.
The fact that israelites lived there many many years ago has nothing to do with anything. If that were the case southern italy and sicily would be under greek control, and so would the norhtern part of cyprus which is "occupied" by a turkish government.
If you lose something in an armed conflict you are not entitled to get it back just like that, its like gambling, you lose something in a game of craps, the only way to get it back would be to play more and try to win it.
I am on the side of the israelis on this, NOT because "they have the right" to be there, but because they got some land fair and square through some means (war) and they are attempting to have some sort of peaceful resolution, but you have certain idiots that go and blow themselves up. It seems that more people are getting fanatical, and are endangering peacetalks that have a chance fo being successful!
Admiral