[N.B.: This May 28, 2008, post of mine is not from my blog, but from the now-defunct Creation vs. Evolution group on MySpace. It follows from my previous post about evolution.]
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
Astronomy, the scientific study of the heavens, so far has been relatively ignored by the creationist/I.D. (intelligent design) movement, which instead focuses on biology and paleontology to make its case. Why is that, I wonder?
The more I read the threads in this group, with the responses of those from the creationist camp, the more I realize how little they seem to know about science. So, if this is you, get out of the biology discussion for a little while and read up on astronomy.
Astronomers have a lot figured out, but there are lots of topics that are not yet well understood. As one example, the star Eta Carinae, in the nebula NGC 3372, was one of the brightest stars in the sky around 1840, then dimmed below what the naked eye could see by the 1860s. It remained thus until the late 1990s when it brightened considerably. Why? Good question.
If you want to see true scientific debate going on, study this. There are hypotheses and there are theories.
(OK, review time, and I’ll say this simply: A hypothesis is an idea of what’s going on, nothing more, nothing less. You test the hypotheses, you make observations, you record what occurs, you make predictions. If the hypothesis holds up, good. If it doesn’t, you set it aside and come up with another hypothesis. Repeat. Get enough of these together that play nicely with one another and you can begin to construct a theory, a framework for hooking all these together. Meanwhile, keep on coming up with hypotheses. Each will either continue to support the theory, or maybe it will throw that framework into question again. Got it?)
Back to Eta Carinae. See this for a quick overview of the discussion as of April 2000. The Astronomy Picture of the Day for May 28, 2008, describes it only briefly, but has many links to additional information (1, 2, for starters).
Really, people, and creationists I’m talking to you here: There is no fundamental scientific debate about whether biological evolution occurs, but there are plenty of threads in this group to debate that. Here, in this thread, I merely but strongly suggest you get out of the biology debate and see for yourselves just how science is debated when there really is something to debate.
Stars evolve, too, and one line in the Bible hardly makes for a complete understanding of the subject.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Why teaching evolution is necessary (Sept. 18, 2007)
You do *not* have to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. You don't have to believe that it explains the creation of the universe, or us.
You do, however, as a student, and a citizen of the world, have to understand how the theory works, and how it explains how life evolves *now* -- which is why we can't use last year's flu vaccine this year, because viruses evolve. Because life evolves.
Darwin's theory is not a replacement of Genesis 1 or 2. It explains how life works now. It has ZERO to do with how we got here in the first place. You can believe that it explains how life got here, using Darwin -- or you can not believe it. That's what freedom of belief in the U.S.A. affords us all. But you still have to learn that evolution works and how it works, and that is why we have to learn it in science classes.
You do, however, as a student, and a citizen of the world, have to understand how the theory works, and how it explains how life evolves *now* -- which is why we can't use last year's flu vaccine this year, because viruses evolve. Because life evolves.
Darwin's theory is not a replacement of Genesis 1 or 2. It explains how life works now. It has ZERO to do with how we got here in the first place. You can believe that it explains how life got here, using Darwin -- or you can not believe it. That's what freedom of belief in the U.S.A. affords us all. But you still have to learn that evolution works and how it works, and that is why we have to learn it in science classes.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Message to those offended by Christianity (Sept. 12, 2007)
Current mood: 
hopeful
I chewed on it for a bit, ate lunch, washed some dishes, then started on a reply. Below are both the initial message and my reply. Both of them are long; the initial part is 651 words; my part is 813 words. Yeah, that's a lot.
Initial message:
Subject: Message to those offended by Christianity....
Paul Harvey!
Folks this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA
********* Get Ready *********
Keep this going around the globe ... read it and forward every time you receive it. We can't give up on this issue.
Paul Harvey and Prayer
Paul Harvey says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what' s the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists? Is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right . But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back.
and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him, God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
2007 will be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions ... and our Military come home from all the wars.
Keep looking up.
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
If not delete it.
"AND THAT'S THE REST OF THE STORY"
Paul Harvey!
Folks this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA
********* Get Ready *********
Keep this going around the globe ... read it and forward every time you receive it. We can't give up on this issue.
Paul Harvey and Prayer
Paul Harvey says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what' s the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome ...
But what about the atheists? Is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well ... just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right . But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back.
and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him, God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
2007 will be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions ... and our Military come home from all the wars.
Keep looking up.
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
If not delete it.
"AND THAT'S THE REST OF THE STORY"
My reply:
I'm not offended by Christianity, but I *am* offended by the implications of this message. First of all, Paul Harvey didn't write it, Wichita Falls TX sports columnist Nick Gholson did, in September 1999.
The implications of the message are that you have to be Christian to be American. Not so. We have freedom of religion here.
The implications of the message are that the United States of America is a Christian nation. Not so. We are a nation primarily of Christians. We are not a Christian nation. We are not an Islamic nation. We are not an atheist nation. We are not a Hare Krishna nation. We are a nation FREE to practice whatever form of belief we like WITHOUT any government interference, WITHOUT any government-sponsored "do-it-this-way"-ness. When gov't does get involved, it is almost always to stop a religious majority from imposing its views on everyone, and then only when the ACLU or someone's lawyer makes the call. Then, in our system, we have a series of courts where the matter can be heard. The ACLU does lose cases; it is sometimes wrong. But neither the ACLU nor the gov't nor someone's lawyer can just arbitrarily prevent practice of religion, any more than some religious group can arbitrarily decide that everyone present at a ball game must now pray. The point is, keep religion out of public domination (this includes public schools), and everyone will be happy.
It is this exact tussle that defines the mess in Iraq right now. For decades, the 90% Shi'ite majority was brutally suppressed by Saddam Hussein's 10% Sunni minority. The Sunnis don't want to relinquish the political power they enjoyed, and don't want to be dominated by the grudge-holding, dominant Shi'ite population. The Kurds in the north are afraid of either one of them making the rules that will overrule them, and if that isn't bad enough, the true religious minority group in Iraq -- the Yazidis -- take it from all sides. THAT's what happens when you have NO freedom of religion, no freedom FROM religion.
Contrast that with Turkey, also a nation whose dominant religion is some flavor of Islam, and like Iraq, was set up arbitrarily by treaties following World War I. There, like everywhere, there are political differences of opinion, but because the government enforces secular policies, just like us, people can practice their religion as they please. Because the political focus is on things other than religion, it is the only nation in that part of the world that gets along with nearly everyone -- Israel, former Soviet-bloc nations, western Europe, us, and most of its neighbors who don't already have a seed under their dentures about something. State mandated secularism is NOT the same as state mandated atheism, like China or the former Soviet Union. Understand the difference! It's important!
Contrast both with Northern Ireland. There, the dominant religion is Christian, but the Protestants and Roman Catholics have been killing each other for centuries. At the moment, they've called a truce, but they've been there before, too. The point is, religion matters there at the political level. It doesn't in Turkey. It does in Iraq. It doesn't, or shouldn't -- it BETTER NOT -- here. The sentiments in this missive would have it that we should, and if you can't see that, you need to associate with some people who don't think like you so that you can.
So, don't knock this freedom-of-religion thing, and please stop passing around this "oh-isn't-it-awful-that-Christians-are-so-hated" piffle. Nobody is after Christians, nobody is after Christianity, not even the ACLU. All they -- we -- everyone -- wants is for the majority to leave the minority alone.
Tolerance. Understanding. Plurality of opinion. These are Christian values, they are American values, they are OUR values.
I welcome educated discussion on this topic. Not flame wars. Thank you.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
What do you get when you turn "9/11" upside down? "11/6"
[Note: In 2007, when this was written, November 6 was election day. "11/6" is "9/11" turned upside down. This Tuesday, May 17, is Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania. Do your duty: Vote!]
Flying a flag amounts to little more than lip service. However, there is no more patriotic thing an American citizen can do than VOTE.
So, what DO you get when you turn the characters "9/11" upside down? "11/6"
November 6 is Election Day, in 2001 and as well in 2007.
'Nuff said.
Current mood: 
annoyed
Flying a flag amounts to little more than lip service. However, there is no more patriotic thing an American citizen can do than VOTE.
So, what DO you get when you turn the characters "9/11" upside down? "11/6"
November 6 is Election Day, in 2001 and as well in 2007.
'Nuff said.
A house for $10K, a building lot for $500
[Note: I originally posted this Sept. 11, 2007. Aside from updating some numbers and addresses to match the reality of May 14, 2011, this blog post is essentially unchanged from almost four years ago.]
Current mood: 
chipper
OTOH, how can you pass up being able to purchase a real house for less than a used car? Example: 307 Comrie Avenue in Braddock.
You can almost see it on Google StreetView; key in "307 Comrie Avenue, Braddock, PA 15104". It's about the fourth house on the right, almost obscured by the stop sign. Easier to see on the satellite view. The first link above is to the page on the county real estate assessment website for that house. Every house and lot in Allegheny County has such a page.
Building lots can be had for three-digit sums. Many lots have an assessed value of $500, though many have a condemned house on it. Expect to drop little more than basic grocery money to own these outright. The annual county property tax on the adjoining vacant lot, btw, is $3.28 -- yes, three dollars and twenty-eight cents -- and taxes are delinquent. It's about $142 for the house at 307. No, I don't know if the lot is actually for sale; but the house at 307 certainly is. [May 14, 2011: This house is really for sale, only $7,500. That is not a typo. Here's the ad.]
What's the catch? Well, really, there isn't much of a catch, other than there isn't much to do in Braddock, and hasn't been for a long, long time. They closed the town's hospital in 2010. There is a crime element, as there is in any run-down area, so you basically need bravery or chutzpah, but as far as I can see -- and I drove around this area just a few months ago -- that's really all that's wrong here. The mayor himself bought his house for $2,000. [link]
There is 7-day transit service here, only a six-minute walk to the bus stop, with sidewalks. It's flat, ideal for bicycling.
Oh, yes, there is one more thing: They want to build an expressway through here. I don't know if these particular houses are in the way, but the values aren't much higher on the other side of the main street, Braddock Ave. Or on it, for that matter. Nearly every storefront is boarded up. Nor is the expressway any sure thing. Some want it built (the mayor is not one of them); others simply point out the blasphemy of spending an insane amount of money for a T-shaped road that parallels two existing interstates. [2011 update: By some accounts, the expressway is dead, but other infrastructure projects in the area are being built with the expectation it will someday be built.]
Hizzoner wants artists, young people, squatters-with-an-income, empty nesters looking to get out of town without driving a half a day, and the brave, to set up shop here. And he might be right, too. I mean, yeah, $100K can get you a pretty decent house just about anywhere around here. But $10K, and own the place outright, free of mortgages and liens? How can you not consider the idea?
Friday, May 13, 2011
Three short essays I wrote just after 9/11/2001 (April 27, 2007)
I wish I'd known about MySpace back in late 2001. These short pieces were all written in one sitting, long-hand, on a long commute home one day on a bus, no later than 9/24/2001. W's "with us" quote occurred on 9/20.
Essay 1.
President Bush has placed me, a patriotic, tax-paying, law-abiding, registered voter, in the uncomfortable position of being either "with us or with them". I wonder if maybe there's a third option.
Now that we're going on two weeks into this mess, the flag waving and sabre rattling and ultimatums are making me more than a little uneasy. Doesn't anyone else understand what we're getting into?
If we do attack Afghanistan, who can blame them if they have someone retaliate from within our own borders? We go "bang bang you're dead" there, they go b.b.y.d here. All those terrorists were already here. How many more are awaiting their turn to act?
We learned in kindergarten that when a bully punches you, you don't punch back or you'll get punched back back even harder, or worse yet, yanked off to the principal's office just as culpable as the one who threw the first punch. So why are we gearing for war? That's exactly the wrong thing to do. Has nobody tried to get to the bottom of their reasons for acting?
Instead we should be determining why it seemed necessary for them to attack us, and resolve it at that level. What I am saying is simple: We should not retaliate.
No war. No violence. Peace.
Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough in my first missive, so I'll say it again. Mr Bush, you cannot be against abortion on the grounds that it is murder, and then plan to go overseas and wage war. That's murder, too. There can be no distinction, given the rules you yourself laid down, that taking a human life is taking a human life, no matter what you call it, or under what circumstances.
So, Mr. Bush, if you are still bound and determined to go to war, does that then mean you are adopting your predecessor's abortion policies? If your abortion policies remain intact, then call back the armed forces. You cannot have it both ways.
Let's say an official government force enters into a neighborhood, sets fire to an occupied building on official orders, and kills dozens of people inside. What does that make that government force, or the government behind it? Corrupt? Warlike? Criminal?
This is pretty much what happened on May 13, 1985, in Philadelphia, when several occupied townhouses were bombed and left to burn by city police and firefighters. This was done, it was said, for political purposes; the occupants had a political agenda which ticked off city authorities. An entire city block was destroyed, and while the city did pay the property owners, no police or fire authorities were found culpable for their handling of the destruction.
Similarly, consider what happened to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993. They too were an organized group with a political agenda that ticked off the authorities. The B.A.T.F. gave them an ultimatum, which they refused. In the ensuing battle, hundreds died, including children. Nothing, essentially, was done to the federal officials who brought this to bear, whoever set the fire, or how.
It was this inaction, this perceived injustice, which caused one terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, the B.A.T.F.'s headquarters, two years to the day after Waco. Perception is everything. Whether there was an injustice or not, someone thought enough that there was that he decided a large-scale terrorist act was called for.
What we are planning for Osama bin Laden and his ilk is nothing more than another M.O.V.E., another Waco, but on a larger scale.
OK, they attacked us first. Or did they? Yes, they hit us first. But to stand in the shoes of some over there, we struck first. What did we do? We exist, that's what. We're evil in their eyes. Granted, the extremists did the act, but we have a couple of extremists ourselves, incluing the current occupants of the White House.
It is wrong to strike back. That will show that we're evil, in case anyone over there doubted it.
Back to 2007. I find it difficult to believe that my words weren't prophetic here.
*
Essay 1.
President Bush has placed me, a patriotic, tax-paying, law-abiding, registered voter, in the uncomfortable position of being either "with us or with them". I wonder if maybe there's a third option.
Now that we're going on two weeks into this mess, the flag waving and sabre rattling and ultimatums are making me more than a little uneasy. Doesn't anyone else understand what we're getting into?
If we do attack Afghanistan, who can blame them if they have someone retaliate from within our own borders? We go "bang bang you're dead" there, they go b.b.y.d here. All those terrorists were already here. How many more are awaiting their turn to act?
We learned in kindergarten that when a bully punches you, you don't punch back or you'll get punched back back even harder, or worse yet, yanked off to the principal's office just as culpable as the one who threw the first punch. So why are we gearing for war? That's exactly the wrong thing to do. Has nobody tried to get to the bottom of their reasons for acting?
Instead we should be determining why it seemed necessary for them to attack us, and resolve it at that level. What I am saying is simple: We should not retaliate.
No war. No violence. Peace.
*
Essay 2.Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough in my first missive, so I'll say it again. Mr Bush, you cannot be against abortion on the grounds that it is murder, and then plan to go overseas and wage war. That's murder, too. There can be no distinction, given the rules you yourself laid down, that taking a human life is taking a human life, no matter what you call it, or under what circumstances.
So, Mr. Bush, if you are still bound and determined to go to war, does that then mean you are adopting your predecessor's abortion policies? If your abortion policies remain intact, then call back the armed forces. You cannot have it both ways.
*
Essay 3.Let's say an official government force enters into a neighborhood, sets fire to an occupied building on official orders, and kills dozens of people inside. What does that make that government force, or the government behind it? Corrupt? Warlike? Criminal?
This is pretty much what happened on May 13, 1985, in Philadelphia, when several occupied townhouses were bombed and left to burn by city police and firefighters. This was done, it was said, for political purposes; the occupants had a political agenda which ticked off city authorities. An entire city block was destroyed, and while the city did pay the property owners, no police or fire authorities were found culpable for their handling of the destruction.
Similarly, consider what happened to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993. They too were an organized group with a political agenda that ticked off the authorities. The B.A.T.F. gave them an ultimatum, which they refused. In the ensuing battle, hundreds died, including children. Nothing, essentially, was done to the federal officials who brought this to bear, whoever set the fire, or how.
It was this inaction, this perceived injustice, which caused one terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, the B.A.T.F.'s headquarters, two years to the day after Waco. Perception is everything. Whether there was an injustice or not, someone thought enough that there was that he decided a large-scale terrorist act was called for.
What we are planning for Osama bin Laden and his ilk is nothing more than another M.O.V.E., another Waco, but on a larger scale.
OK, they attacked us first. Or did they? Yes, they hit us first. But to stand in the shoes of some over there, we struck first. What did we do? We exist, that's what. We're evil in their eyes. Granted, the extremists did the act, but we have a couple of extremists ourselves, incluing the current occupants of the White House.
It is wrong to strike back. That will show that we're evil, in case anyone over there doubted it.
*
Back to 2007. I find it difficult to believe that my words weren't prophetic here.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Nailbiter transfers (Sept. 6, 2007)
A transit topic, for a change. I use the term "nailbiter" when referring to a connection between buses that is not supposed to be doable. The reference, of course, is to the nervous habit of biting one's fingernails when worrying whether something is about to happen -- like missing a much needed bus connection.
I am writing a little blurb for an upcoming transit event for which I am developing some sample bus schedule formats. To explain the terminology therein, I wrote the following. Please look it over and tell me what you think. Is it clear enough to understand? Is it too wordy? Too technical? What would you change, and why?
Thank you for your suggestions.
Therefore, even when as many as five minutes separate the two -- e.g., 11C not due until 12:49, but the 500 left at 12:47 -- it is often possible to make the transfer. However, if either one is off schedule by more than a minute or two, you may miss the connection, or have to run to make it. Practice and luck, therefore, play large roles.
So while on one hand you can save a lot of time with nailbiters, OTOH they are inherently not reliable.
* * * End original post * * *
* * * Original comments from 2007 * * *
Pittsburgh Storm
I remember this issue occurred alot with the 44L Library Shuttle with the 47S. All transfer points have to be timed and should have at least four minutes between arrival and discharge to facilitate a bus potentially being late.
Stuart Strickland
Less a matter of timed transfers, rather that the transfer point is upstream of the time point. More accurately, the *most upstream transfer point* is upstream of the time point. They usually do overlap some, but sometimes it's possible to make a connection that would not be possible if you went by the time points alone.
I am writing a little blurb for an upcoming transit event for which I am developing some sample bus schedule formats. To explain the terminology therein, I wrote the following. Please look it over and tell me what you think. Is it clear enough to understand? Is it too wordy? Too technical? What would you change, and why?
Thank you for your suggestions.
*
Nailbiters explained. The timepoints given for the West View termini of the 11C Perry Highway, the 11D Perrysville, and the 500, are all in West View Park Shopping Plaza. All, however, must circulate through the plaza and 1/2 mile of West View Park Drive. The inbound 11C crosses the path of the 500 headed Downtown about two to three minutes prior to the West View Plaza timepoint, and correspondingly the 500 gets to that same spot about two to three minutes after leaving the plaza.Therefore, even when as many as five minutes separate the two -- e.g., 11C not due until 12:49, but the 500 left at 12:47 -- it is often possible to make the transfer. However, if either one is off schedule by more than a minute or two, you may miss the connection, or have to run to make it. Practice and luck, therefore, play large roles.
So while on one hand you can save a lot of time with nailbiters, OTOH they are inherently not reliable.
* * * End original post * * *
* * * Original comments from 2007 * * *
Pittsburgh Storm
I remember this issue occurred alot with the 44L Library Shuttle with the 47S. All transfer points have to be timed and should have at least four minutes between arrival and discharge to facilitate a bus potentially being late.
Stuart Strickland
Less a matter of timed transfers, rather that the transfer point is upstream of the time point. More accurately, the *most upstream transfer point* is upstream of the time point. They usually do overlap some, but sometimes it's possible to make a connection that would not be possible if you went by the time points alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)