Why is inappropriate contentography wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But is this what the Bible says or just your commentary based on the anti-sex theology we've all grown up with in the church? See what I'm getting at?
This isn't about "anti-sex" theology--it's about inappropriate contentography specifically. And some of how we understand the Bible on a moral level comes not just in what we 'think' it says, but also in how we approach it on a perceptual and a hermenuetical level.

Personally, I think God is all for 'sex'---as He created it to be expressed in the relationships for in which He intended it, and it obviously wasn't merely for procreation but also for recreation and expression of love between a husband and wife.

I'm not looking for loop holes, I just I noticed that the Bible doesn't always line up with conservative christian thinking so I'm trying to get to the truth of it.
Sure. But I'm not here to dispute what the typical conservative superficiality may or may not be ................

In church history at one point it was taught that having sex with your wife without the purpose or procreation was a sin (only for pleasure).
Yes, but that mistake doesn't thereby alleviate the contention that an interest in inappropriate content is bad for the Christian.

So if you lived back then and brought up the point that the Bible doesn't teach that people would say you were looking for loop holes.
Sure, but each interpretation of an individual biblical statement has its own contextual structures and reasons as to what makes it right or wrong (or unknown). Simply because some sex-related interpretations (like those of St. Augustine) were wrong in the past doesn't mean that the inappropriate content issue is subject to similar evaluations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, coming up with lists of possible negative consequences doesn't prove anything as far as whether the object/activity itself is evil.

A lot of people's lives are being destroyed by getting married, here in the West these days, people even losing their lives over it when things go wrong. In fact I'd venture to say that you're probably safer sticking to inappropriate content than risking marriage in the West given the way so many wind up, but no Christian who is aware of these things would argue that therefore marriage itself is evil.

So trying to make an appeal to some possible negative consequences is not good reasoning, as I've pointed out several times in this thread. Maybe my analogy with marriage will make it more understandable.

So, how does consuming inappropriate content help to make a person become more consecrated to God, sanctified by the Spirit and actively living in holiness before the face of God? And when we consider that Jesus paid the price for us on Calvary, that is, He literally bought us--both body and soul--then our bodies are no longer simply ours to decide what to do with.
 
Upvote 0

Torino

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2013
68
34
✟16,928.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So, how does consuming inappropriate content help to make a person become more consecrated to God, sanctified by the Spirit and actively living in holiness before the face of God?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a serious question, so I'll give you a serious response. I'm assuming you're a man, so if that is the case then you'd know how strong the male sex drive is. A lot of guys need a release regularly, and if they don't get this it gets to the point where many of them can't think or function properly. Sometimes it has been suggested that the guys just touch and have the release without using inappropriate content, but for most this isn't enough - there has to be at least some visual female stimulation. Using inappropriate content also isn't fully satisfying, but there is no guarantee you're going to find a good wife, so it is the best holdover easily available for a lot of men. I know of a lot of guys who are unmarried, and sexual pressure builds up to the point they can't think or function, and it affects their work performance, etc. Up to around age 30 for most men it's pretty rough. inappropriate content is an aid in getting this out of your system temporarily so you can get back to work.

People who advise such men to just do nothing are, frankly, out of touch with reality.

Now understand I am not saying that this situation JUSTIFIES inappropriate contentography. You didn't ask me to justify it. You asked me how inappropriate content can help a man live in better consecration to God, so I gave you the above example of how it is an aid in "getting the poison out" thereby clearing the mind and allowing the man to get back to his priorities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redstang281
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a serious question, so I'll give you a serious response. I'm assuming you're a man, so if that is the case then you'd know how strong the male sex drive is. A lot of guys need a release regularly, and if they don't get this it gets to the point where many of them can't think or function properly. Sometimes it has been suggested that the guys just touch and have the release without using inappropriate content, but for most this isn't enough - there has to be at least some visual female stimulation. Using inappropriate content also isn't fully satisfying, but there is no guarantee you're going to find a good wife, so it is the best holdover easily available for a lot of men. I know of a lot of guys who are unmarried, and sexual pressure builds up to the point they can't think or function, and it affects their work performance, etc. Up to around age 30 for most men it's pretty rough. inappropriate content is an aid in getting this out of your system temporarily so you can get back to work.

People who advise such men to just do nothing are, frankly, out of touch with reality.

Now understand I am not saying that this situation JUSTIFIES inappropriate contentography. You didn't ask me to justify it. You asked me how inappropriate content can help a man live in better consecration to God, so I gave you the above example of how it is an aid in "getting the poison out" thereby clearing the mind and allowing the man to get back to his priorities.

I hate to say this but everything you just stated is 'bull'. And how do I know this, you may ask? I know this (and I DO know this), because I've been 'those men' and I fully understand the emotional disconnect between feeling that you need something very strongly and realizing at the same time...that can't ever 'really' happen the way you think you'd like it to...that is, speaking as a common man.

So, you can dispense with the so-called social lessons. You're not dealing with a neophyte, Torino.
 
Upvote 0

Torino

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2013
68
34
✟16,928.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Calling my response "bull" isn't sufficient. I see the experience of guys I personally know, of when I was in the Army, and even my own experience on one hand, and on the other hand I see your empty claim that what I'm claiming is "bull".

It'd be great if you could take some effort to be more convincing.

Edit: Beyond that, if you weren't looking for anecdotes, what exactly were you looking for when you asked how something like inappropriate content could help one's walk with God? Or was this a disingenuous question from the beginning?
 
Upvote 0

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This represents a central fault in the one's implementation of Christianity, where the Christian looks to the church leader to define what sin is (Hebrews 7:12, Hebrews 7:23-25, Matthew 23:8-10). Rather, Christians need to truly seek Christ Jesus for the definition of sin, completely divorcing their own interests.

Sin is not defined in the form of a list, because whether someone is condemned or free to do something, is dependent upon the individual's understanding (1 Corinthians 8:7-12, Luke 12:47-48, James 4:17). This is why the Christian covenant states that God executes judgement (Hebrews 10:30) so that we either remain in Christ or are cut off like a branch to wither (John 15:1-8).

We are to offer ourselves in service to His purposes in Holy Spirit (Romans 12:1, Galatians 6:1), not judging each other but saying only what is good for the building up of others, to impart what is useful to the hearers.

I think we're in agreement on what you said above. I'd just like to ask you honestly, are you sure you are really seeking Jesus for the definition of sin or are you still being influenced by theology which may or may not be correct. Are you taking an unbiased look as I am tried to do?

This is why, as I have described, when a Christian becomes indulged in a lifestyle contrary to a holy and noble people (1 Peter 2:9), they are not fit vessels for The Holy Spirit. If then they claim to represent The Holy Spirit while not walking in obedience to Him, whose spirit do they truly represent?

I agree. I'm just not sure that just looking at a picture of a naked lady is contrary to being holy and noble.

I would certainly consider the points you are making, if you were appearing to take the matter seriously and were submitting valid points. However, you are presuming to speak in Jesus' name, to suggest that masturbation, inappropriate contentography and sexual promiscuity is not wrong. But, because you hesitate to outright say this, you are using examples of righteous sexual activities for unmarried ones, in an invalid context so that it fits in this thread, to support the position you have taken.

I'm presuming to speak in Jesus name? I'm just a Christian man trying to figure out the word of God. I never claimed to be a prophet or anything.

Not sure why I gave you the impression I'm not serious about my opinion? Maybe you just feel my points not valid because they are contrary to modern conservative Christianity to a certain degree and you're not able to think outside the box even for a second.

In saying this though, you do have a valid point.

For me to know whether I should repent so as to consider you seriously (Matthew 7:6 yes/no?), I need to know why you were motivated to begin speaking on this thread today, and what is your position in a nutshell?

Because I feel that the church has a lot of incorrect views on sex that is very harmful. I enjoyed discussing that so that I can hopefully get to a correct view myself and encourage others to do so.

My position on the inappropriate content topic is that having sexual thoughts, fantasies or viewing nudity and watching sexual videos are not sinful necessarily. But there are valid reasons not to look at commercial inappropriate contentography that have been mentioned by others here and I agree with. That same reason also extends to many of the products we purchase food, clothing, cell phones that are made under bad circumstances that require abuse of other people.

No, you were right. When someone becomes aware that to look at someone with lust is to not give that person proper value as a person, then we also begin to see how destructive it is in society, and are motivated with a passion to represent God's original plan of purity for a society that thrives in real love.

You've mentioned this a few times now. This view is not in the Bible though. Where is the verse that supports your view on this? God did make Eve for Adam, that was why he made her. I don't see how desiring someone sexually takes away their value. What about your wife? Is it ok to sexually desire your wife or are you taking away her value too?

One who is virgin and not yet married has responsibility to his spouse, that he will not be defiled before the marriage bed, even if only defiled in the mind and conscience (Revelation 14:4-5).

Being a virgin in Revelation is considered one of the admirable virtues they posses, which makes them a better gift. Yes of course to marry someone who is a virgin is a great gift, I'm not saying it isn't. But I still think it's a bit of a leap or jump to then say well if you do not provide your future spouse with the best possible gift you can give them then you are sinning.

Also is there anyone who being a healthy young single person does not have sexual thoughts about some other person at some point? I'd be surprised if there's anyone who doesn't have sexual thoughts about someone they are engaged to even people who are saving sex for marriage.
 
Upvote 0

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, how does consuming inappropriate content help to make a person become more consecrated to God, sanctified by the Spirit and actively living in holiness before the face of God? And when we consider that Jesus paid the price for us on Calvary, that is, He literally bought us--both body and soul--then our bodies are no longer simply ours to decide what to do with.

So we can not do anything in life unless it is about being more consecrated to God? We can't go to the beach, or ride a bike, or go play golf.
 
Upvote 0

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, but that mistake doesn't thereby alleviate the contention that an interest in inappropriate content is bad for the Christian.

Sure, but each interpretation of an individual biblical statement has its own contextual structures and reasons as to what makes it right or wrong (or unknown). Simply because some sex-related interpretations (like those of St. Augustine) were wrong in the past doesn't mean that the inappropriate content issue is subject to similar evaluations.

Why not? Theologians can't be wrong anymore? Look at all the denominations we have today that can't agree with each other, someone is wrong on some things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Torino
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So we can not do anything in life unless it is about being more consecrated to God? We can't go to the beach, or ride a bike, or go play golf.

That's a Red Herring. Keep the eye on the ball, brother Redstang. We're talking only about inappropriate content here...nothing else.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why not? Theologians can't be wrong anymore? Look at all the denominations we have today that can't agree with each other, someone is wrong on some things.

You really are new, aren't you? Sure, different theologians can be wrong about different things. I have never been one to contend that various ones aren't. But, this isn't to say that Christianity needs to allow itself to become Hefnerized or that we should at least listen to Hefner and his ilk as if they have much, if anything , legitimate from which we can learn.

Just because some theologians might be wrong doesn't mean that some Skeptics are right.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Calling my response "bull" isn't sufficient. I see the experience of guys I personally know, of when I was in the Army, and even my own experience on one hand, and on the other hand I see your empty claim that what I'm claiming is "bull".
When I said 'bull,' it wasn't pertaining to the fact that we men struggle a heck of a lot with this issue. In fact, knowing what I know, I have a lot of sympathy. But, this isn't to say that just because the struggle is strong that we can thereby give ourselves some moral allowance.

It'd be great if you could take some effort to be more convincing.
I'm just getting warmed up.

Edit: Beyond that, if you weren't looking for anecdotes, what exactly were you looking for when you asked how something like inappropriate content could help one's walk with God? Or was this a disingenuous question from the beginning?
No, it's not a disingenuous question; it's a question that is specifically meant to challenge you to consider how incongruous it is for us to say, on the one hand, that inappropriate content or the use of inappropriate content is morally permissible for the Christian, and on the other hand, that the Bible's contents don't really give us moral contexts that actually do permit it.

So, where would you like to begin with the subject? How about starting with what the Bible shows to be the parameters that Jesus Christ as Lord expects us to abide by so as to live within God's Will as it pertains to sexual matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Torino

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2013
68
34
✟16,928.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
2PhiloVoid,

I agree we can't give ourselves moral allowance on the basis of the struggle. This is why I said I am not trying to justify it (in that reply I made). Instead, I was responding to your question with one way it is conceivable that inappropriate content could be helpful in one's walking uprightly in life (assuming it's a permissible activity, which I believe it to be. If you believe otherwise, of course my example isn't going to be acceptable to you because our starting points are at odds.)

"and on the other hand, that the Bible's contents don't really give us moral contexts that actually do permit it." - Well, this is basically what the thread's topic is, and where the disagreement lies.
 
Upvote 0

ronandcarol

Active Member
Mar 9, 2014
108
76
✟27,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is the rational explanation about why inappropriate contentography is wrong?
God created the Garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve communing with Him daily, completely naked. There was no shame or inappropriate content as we know it today. BUT, as soon as they sinned they quickly found something to cover up their nakedness. You can rationalize that any way you like.
ronandcarol
 
Upvote 0

Ave Maria

Ave Maria Gratia Plena
May 31, 2004
41,082
1,968
41
Diocese of Evansville, IN
✟106,997.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
inappropriate contentography is wrong because it objectifies the men and women in inappropriate contentography. It turns them into mere objects to be used for a person's sexual pleasure. It is also wrong because it usually leads to masturbation which is, in and of itself, sinful.
 
Upvote 0

Serving Zion

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness
May 7, 2016
2,335
900
Revelation 21:2
✟223,022.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think we're in agreement on what you said above. I'd just like to ask you honestly, are you sure you are really seeking Jesus for the definition of sin or are you still being influenced by theology which may or may not be correct. Are you taking an unbiased look as I am tried to do?
I confess, that I do naturally have a biased view, because I see a world groaning under the burden of sin and it tempts me to speak against it. In saying this, through reading 1 Peter this morning, I have been reprimanded: my service has been motivated by a passion of my own flesh (specifically anger), which does not assist Jesus Christ to be liberated.
I agree. I'm just not sure that just looking at a picture of a naked lady is contrary to being holy and noble.
Are you able to give an example of a holy and noble reason that someone would do this?
I'm presuming to speak in Jesus name? I'm just a Christian man trying to figure out the word of God. I never claimed to be a prophet or anything.
When you became Christian, you must have understood that you are called to be a light in the world (Matthew 5:14).

When worldly people see you and the badge that says "I am Christian", do you not expect that they perceive you to represent Jesus Christ, as an opportunity to judge the reality of The Gospel as it applies to them? When you speak to make assertions in that capacity, you are speaking assertively in His name. When you do so without His explicit permission, you are doing so presumptuously (eg, Jeremiah 23:21-22).

I would like to share with you 1 Peter 4:11, because that pierced me too, this morning.
Not sure why I gave you the impression I'm not serious about my opinion? Maybe you just feel my points not valid because they are contrary to modern conservative Christianity to a certain degree and you're not able to think outside the box even for a second.
Fair enough. If you would like to press on with me in my repentance, I will make better effort and maybe we will overcome this. Would you kindly not think of me in stereotypes though? TY :) :wave:
Because I feel that the church has a lot of incorrect views on sex that is very harmful. I enjoyed discussing that so that I can hopefully get to a correct view myself and encourage others to do so.

My position on the inappropriate content topic is that having sexual thoughts, fantasies or viewing nudity and watching sexual videos are not sinful necessarily. But there are valid reasons not to look at commercial inappropriate contentography that have been mentioned by others here and I agree with. That same reason also extends to many of the products we purchase food, clothing, cell phones that are made under bad circumstances that require abuse of other people.
You have heard my reasons for maintaining a different view.

I only seek your honest, unbiased opinion, whether this behaviour that you describe "having sexual thoughts, fantasies or viewing nudity and watching sexual videos" is the sort of behaviour that you imagine Jesus Christ will have participated in? What about any of His 12 disciples?
You've mentioned this a few times now. This view is not in the Bible though. Where is the verse that supports your view on this?
This view is in the bible, in fact, but I am prevented from publishing this due to the wisdom in Matthew 25:9, Proverbs 11:13, Matthew 13:11, Matthew 11:25 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2.

I am not to deny you a cup of water in His name though, so I will suggest you very solemnly consider Matthew 5:28 and Romans 1:28 as being the lawlessness at work in Matthew 24:12, creating the society described in Luke 21:23 and this is what I am describing - our world this day is such that Romans 1:27-28 (Isaiah 4:1) - why? It is because women do not perceive that men actually love them. Whenever they see men looking at them, they know the man is mentally masturbating. Actually, there is more of a connection in the soul from their female companions, and when they open that door, they find more satisfaction there.
God did make Eve for Adam, that was why he made her. I don't see how desiring someone sexually takes away their value. What about your wife? Is it ok to sexually desire your wife or are you taking away her value too?
:sorry: I have never been married, thus you might be best to inquire the POV of your own wife.
Being a virgin in Revelation is considered one of the admirable virtues they posses, which makes them a better gift. Yes of course to marry someone who is a virgin is a great gift, I'm not saying it isn't. But I still think it's a bit of a leap or jump to then say well if you do not provide your future spouse with the best possible gift you can give them then you are sinning.
Well, it's all rather argumentative at this point. Fundamentally though, the issue is that Christians acknowledge the fact that The Holy Spirit lives within us, and Romans 8, specifically Romans 8:13 explains that there is contention/struggle to gain our will, actions, mind and words, between our fleshly desires and the desires of The Holy Spirit.
Also is there anyone who being a healthy young single person does not have sexual thoughts about some other person at some point? I'd be surprised if there's anyone who doesn't have sexual thoughts about someone they are engaged to even people who are saving sex for marriage.
It begins when we open the door to indulge in the desires of the flesh rather than the spirit, and this is largely why I have condemned the irresponsible, demonic nature of public media. It is not The Holy Spirit of God that lusts after the desires of the flesh nor tempts us to sin, but it is of The Holy Spirit of God to see the person inside and connect with the heart - serving, loving, coming to know who it is that exists as an earthly vessel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's a Red Herring. Keep the eye on the ball, brother Redstang. We're talking only about inappropriate content here...nothing else.

This is not a red herring. I'm not attempted to distract from the original topic, I'm drawing a comparison. I'm sure you didn't miss my point, I'm guessing you are trying to be misleading in your reply here so you can avoiding addressing my real point.

You said inappropriate content is bad because it doesn't help you become more consecrated with God. My point is many things are also not not helping you become more consecrated to God but no one considers them bad, so why should inappropriate content be bad for the fact that it also is not consecrating to God.
 
Upvote 0

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You really are new, aren't you?

Now you are resorting to being condescending?

Sure, different theologians can be wrong about different things. I have never been one to contend that various ones aren't. But, this isn't to say that Christianity needs to allow itself to become Hefnerized or that we should at least listen to Hefner and his ilk as if they have much, if anything , legitimate from which we can learn.

Just because some theologians might be wrong doesn't mean that some Skeptics are right.

Whoever is right should be measured by the weight of their argument not by who they themselves are or what conclusion you think they are working towards.
 
Upvote 0

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When I said 'bull,' it wasn't pertaining to the fact that we men struggle a heck of a lot with this issue. In fact, knowing what I know, I have a lot of sympathy. But, this isn't to say that just because the struggle is strong that we can thereby give ourselves some moral allowance.

I'm just getting warmed up.

No, it's not a disingenuous question; it's a question that is specifically meant to challenge you to consider how incongruous it is for us to say, on the one hand, that inappropriate content or the use of inappropriate content is morally permissible for the Christian, and on the other hand, that the Bible's contents don't really give us moral contexts that actually do permit it.

So, where would you like to begin with the subject? How about starting with what the Bible shows to be the parameters that Jesus Christ as Lord expects us to abide by so as to live within God's Will as it pertains to sexual matters.

God does not have a lot of laws regarding sex.

Leviticus 18 is the most comprehensive list.

All of the laws listed can be summed up in the following catagories:

1) Do not commit incest
2) Do not sleep with a married woman
3) Do not have a woman during her period
4) Don't do anything with an animal
5) Don't do gay stuff

Jesus didn't add anything new to the list, but he did point out that if you lust/desire to have another mans wife the fact that you want to do it you are guilty of it.

Augustine started a chain of anti-sex theology that went through the Catholic church and even the protested church. Because of that most Bible translations placed the word woman in Matthew 5:28 but really the word can be either wife or woman. The Tyndale Bible verse below reads wife. The context makes more sense as wife because this verse actually echoes Exodus 20:17. Not to mentioned if the word were really supposed to be wife then why would it be ok to lust after your own wife. Also how would you commit adultery with an unmarried women?

28 But I say vnto you that whosoeuer looketh on a wyfe lustynge after her hathe comitted advoutrie with hir alredy in his hert.

Man has added many things to the list. inappropriate contentography and premarital sex are not on the list. Lust in itself is not a bad thing, it only becomes bad when you lust for something you can not have because it belongs to someone else. When you have a sexual fantasy you don't necessarily even want to actually plan out and do what you're imaging.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redstang281

Active Member
Jan 4, 2002
99
45
Maryland
✟14,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Redstang281, I'm out brother. 26 pages, and it's the same arguments I've seen elsewhere.

It was refreshing to have come across you, and EmethAlethia. Peace to you and yours.

Thanks, unfortunately for me I am a glutton for punishment and more stubborn then I should be.

Send me a private message so we can exchange email address or something. We may be able to help each other further explore this topic in the future.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.