"Jerzy Jakubowski" <branchofjesse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9b3de8.0401300528.34f61641@posting.google.com...
> dmocsny@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message
news:<cac1ad88.0401291320.5403f396@posting.google.com>...
> > branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote in message
news:<b9b3de8.0401290438.54c5f319@posting.google.com>...
> > > dmocsny@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message
news:<cac1ad88.0401261515.40b8d04a@posting.google.com>...
> > > > kim <kimonnetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<utj3101stl90474cn3ha7urm3st0tjodhm@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On 22 Jan 2004 19:03:16 -0800, suse@pghmail.com (suse) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >ibshambat2004@yahoo.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote in message
news:<aa347590.0401221412.1a13c5fd@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > >> David O'Bedlam <thedavid@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:<20040122115009.P98755@shell.rawbw.com>...
> > > > > >> > Who's Uncle Davey?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A dashing, brilliant Christian,
> > > >
> > > > "brilliant Christian" is an oxymoron.
> > >
> > > That's right, Dan, we're all thickoes in the Christian church.
> >
> > Certainly, with regard to the religious habit of prematurely
> > discarding hypotheses.
> >
> > For example, Christians prematurely discard the hypothesis
> > that all the trappings and rituals of their Church are
> > just that: trappings and rituals that owe nothing to
> > any supernatural entity.
> >
> > Suppose God did not exist. Would anything change? The
> > business of the Church could probably keep churning right
> > along. We cannot easily disprove this possibility because
> > the world has thousands of mutually contradictory religions.
> > At most one of them might be correct, or possibly zero of
> > them are correct.
> >
> > Thus we know that almost all religions are able to maintain
> > all their trappings and rituals, and reliably produce
> > subjective personal experiences of religious revelation in
> > their subjects, *WITHOUT* being based on correct ideas.
> >
> > Since at most one religion can be correct, the above is
> > true either of all religions but one, or it is true of
> > all religions.
> >
> > So if you consider any one religion at random, the odds
> > strongly favor that religion being fundamentally wrong.
> >
> > > Only atheists have any brains.
> >
> > A Christian who fails to acknowledge the strong possibility
> > that his is one of the vast majority of religions that are
> > incorrect is making a strong argument for the above claim.
> >
> > > If it weren't for thickoes like us, all you atheists could be going
> > > round the shops buying bottles labelled 'H2O' instead of 'water', and
> > > 'C6H12O6' instead of sugar, but for us holding society back.
> >
> > Adolf Hitler was the first political leader to endorse
> > the idea of superhighways, showing there is no limit
> > to how wrong a person can be in one area while still
> > recognizing a workable idea in some unrelated area.
> >
> > Certainly some Christians made some scientific
> > discoveries unrelated to their religious beliefs.
> > This was especially common during the early days of
> > science when scientists had not discovered enough
> > about how nature actually works to begin discrediting
> > earlier religious explanations.
> >
> > But because scientists tend to study everything within
> > reach of their available tools, early scientists
> > began discovering things they could not square with their
> > received knowledge from the Bible. Even by the early 1800's,
> > well before Darwin's theory, European geologists were
> > finding it impossible to explain their field observations
> > in terms of a young Earth and a recent global Deluge.
> >
> > Over time, the increase in scientific knowledge led
> > to a reduction in religiosity, especially in those cultures
> > and subcultures where science has been especially influential.
> >
> > For example, as literacy and scientific thinking became
> > more influential in Europe, prosperity increased and
> > religious influence declined. The Church in Europe today
> > is far less dominant than it once was. It lost influence
> > because it lost credibility by presenting certain claims
> > about the real world as facts that turned out not to be true.
> >
> > > > Uncle Davey states as facts things he does not know to be facts.
> > > > That makes him a liar who invokes the "faith" excuse for his
> > > > lies.
> > >
> > > Faith means believing what does not pass as what you call a fact as if
> > > it was one.
> >
> > Your sentence is hard to parse, perhaps by design. Tell
> > me if the following example illustrates what you call
> > "faith":
> >
> > Suppose I believe Santa Claus exists. He lives at the North
> > Pole and every Christmas Eve he flies in a sleigh to deliver
> > presents to all the good boys and girls.
> >
> > Would you say my belief is an example of what you call "faith"?
> >
> > > Faith may seem close to lies to you, and maybe faith is to
> > > lies what love is to hate, if I may observe that in my thicko way.
> >
> > I cannot say for sure whether God exists. But I can say
> > with absolute certainty I don't have conclusive evidence
> > God exists.
> >
> > If I don't have conclusive evidence that God exists, and I
> > know I don't have the evidence, and yet I assert that God
> > exists anyway, I would say I am lying.
> >
> > What would you say I am doing?
> >
> > Define what you mean by "lying" and then we can discuss
> > whether you are doing that.
> >
> > > > If Uncle Davey were "brilliant" he would attach error bars to
> > > > his claims, to properly convey their uncertainty.
> > >
> > > I would have thought you, of all people, would have known them to be
> > > uncertain without a thicko like me telling you.
> >
> > So when the Bible says God exists and does all sorts of specific
> > things, it does not literally mean what it plainly says?
> >
> > And when Christians say they believe God exists, they really
> > mean they aren't sure?
> >
> > > We do not need 'peel banana before eating' labels on every opinion
> > > about the meaining of life we give. YMMV is not the subtitle, it's the
> > > badge of the channel and only disappears when the ad breaks come up.
> >
> > This is the sort of backpedaling that marked the decline of
> > the Church in Europe.
> >
> > If an institution consistently and steadfastly sticks to one
> > story for more than a thousand years, and then begins waffling
> > with, "Well, we really weren't serious about this part, and
> > that part," it undermines the whole enterprise.
> >
> > The average person is not interested in a probabilistic
> > religion. Nobody preaches fiery sermons about things that
> > have a 0.00001 chance of being true. Nobody dedicates
> > their entire life to something that probably is wrong.
> >
> > The human brain is not good at juggling thousands of possible
> > hypotheses simultaneously. People want to lock onto one
> > certain thing. So when a religion has to start waffling, it
> > endangers the basis of its emotional appeal.
> >
> > Occasionally a religion gets away with it, such as when the
> > Jehovah's Witnesses kept rescheduling the second coming of
> > Christ as each predicted date came and went with no change,
> > then finally punted by saying Christ did indeed return by
> > the final predicted date, but he returned in secret.
> >
> > Clearly, a religion's appeal owes very little to facts and
> > accuracy. It's like the way the taller Presidential
> > candidate won 19 of the past 25 U.S. elections.
> >
> > > > > >sure, he's articulate, but he's also a flaming hypocrite.
> > > >
> > > > Hard to know which part of the contradiction he's sincere about.
> > > > Admittedly, it's an interesting troll to pose as a creationist
> > > > christian whoremonger.
> > >
> > > I never stopped being a creationist even when I was completely
> > > backslidden.
> >
> > Learning about science is distinct from indulging in vice.
> > If people could learn about science by getting drunk and
> > whoring around, the average person would not be quite so
> > scientifically illiterate.
> >
> > For example, the average person might be able to accurately
> > present the evidence for the scientific findings he claims
> > not to believe.
> >
> > > That's when I did that stuff. I was far from God, but I was still too
> > > thick and not intelligent enough to be an evolutionist, even though I
> > > so wanted to be one so that I could get on with my programme of
> > > debauchery without checks from my conscience.
> >
> > Science can tell you *WHY* you have a conscience.
> >
> > Science can also predict the actual results of some particular
> > program of debauchery better than any other known method.
> >
> > > Now that I have found the woman who is right for me,
> >
> > How can any woman be right for you if you must disobey the
> > explicit command of God to be with her?
> >
> > Your evaluation of your wife is rational and atheistic.
> > I applaud that! What I don't applaud is your fear of admitting
> > what you really are: logically selfish in this area, rather
> > than faithful.
> >
> > > I have stopped
> > > this other lifestyle, and I have been able to be restored more closely
> > > to the beliefs and practices I had before I fell away, the truth of
> > > which I never renounced, but was not strong enough to abide by in the
> > > face of temptation.
> >
> > If a person is fundamentally weak, religion may be a safer
> > crutch than booze and hookers, but occasionally religion
> > turns out to be even worse, as 9/11 demonstrated.
> >
> > Science isn't a solution to all of man's problems yet. But
> > as scientific progress chips steadily away at the mountain
> > of man's problems, the temptation to lapse into faith
> > (i.e. wishful thinking) declines.
> >
> > For example, rain dances aren't nearly as common as they
> > once were, at least in the advanced countries. The mechanization
> > of agriculture and the spread of social welfare programs for
> > farmers made them less susceptible to the vagaries of
> > the weather. Now as long as the weather is good somewhere,
> > society has mechanisms in place to even out the benefits
> > through trade and transfer payments.
> >
> > > > > >someone who
> > > > > >preaches from the bible, chapter and verse, maybe should be home
with
> > > > > >his 1st wife and kids in england instead of whoring around
europe.
> > > >
> > > > Only if he believes what Jesus said about marriage. Well,
> > > > according to the people wrote it down years later.
> > >
> > > I do. But Jesus doesn't say 'Let the wife decide what country the
> > > family are gonna live in, even when he does all the earning, she does
> > > all the spending, and his job is in the country she doesn't want to be
> > > in'. Paul has a word in such cases 'if the unbelieving depart, let him
> > > depart. The believer is not bound in such cases'. I was abandoned, and
> > > in the end I was on the receiving end of that divorce.
> >
> > But Jesus said, "What God hath joined together, let no man
> > put asunder." Are you saying Jesus ranks below Paul?
> >
> > And why were you abandoned? Did you obey the Bible's command
> > to love your wife as Christ loved the Church?
> >
> > How many women would run away from that kind of love?
> >
> > Could you run away from Christ's love?
> >
> > > Christian principles on me now mean to have that whole sinful episode
> > > repented of, to get it right next time, and to ensure the children of
> > > the first marriage are provided for. All these are done. That is all I
> > > can do.
> >
> > You may not be able to bring your wife back. But you can
> > obey Jesus' absolutely clear command to refrain from
> > committing adultery with another woman right now.
> >
> > If you want to rewrite your own self-serving Bible that's
> > well and good. I can't imagine your version would have
> > fewer mistakes than the original. But if you do that,
> > and claim to be a "Christian," you need to clarify how
> > your definition of the term differs from God's definition.
> >
> > Since you seem a bit rusty on the game rules Christians claim
> > to live by, let me refresh your memory:
> >
> > 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto
> > him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4
> > And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
> > made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For
> > this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
> > his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no
> > more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
> > let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then
> > command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He
> > saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
> > suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was
> > not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
> > except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
> > adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
> > adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so
> > with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All
> > men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For
> > there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:
> > and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there
> > be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
> > heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
> >
> > So, did your wife fornicate before you put her away? Be a good
> > Pharisee now and go for the loophole. Certainly, don't take
> > Jesus seriously when he suggests you should cut your balls off
> > to avoid committing the sin of adultery.
> >
> > Jesus had to be kidding, right?
> >
> > > > > >instead he whined about his controlling (ex) mother-in-law, and
then,
> > > > > >when he found a prostitute who was sufficiently nubile for his
tastes,
> > > > > >finally found the balls to divorce his wife officially and start
a
> > > > > >"new" life with the his rescue project. baby in the works from
the
> > > > > >start; screw the kids from the former marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >just for the record, this is information i garnered from his
poasts in
> > > > > >soc.singles. google furiously for it; i won't provide references.
if
> > > > > >you choose to believe in your deity, go for it; i won't argue. i
think
> > > > > >davey is shit, and given the susceptibility to spin of some
rather
> > > > > >vocal contributors to this froup (as in nilo), maybe those
> > > > > >contributors want to do some more homework. only reason i posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >btw, "formerly occultist" is news to me, but makes sense. davey
> > > > > >doesn't work on rational. maybe that's why ilya and nilo like
him.
> > > > >
> > > > > MMMMMRRRRROOOOOOOOWWWWWRRRRR.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing these Kim comment will be content-free.
> > > >
> > > > > Wow. Who pissed in your cornflakes?
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to be annoyed by liars. If one has intellectual
> > > > integrity.
> > >
> > > Not like Christians, especially ones that are anything less than
> > > non-fallen angels in human form. Christ came it says to call sinners
> > > and not the righteous, but woe betide anyone who takes that one
> > > seriously.
> >
> > Why do Christians claim to be better than everybody else?
> >
> > You, for example, think you have a better handle on truth
> > than scientists.
> >
> > > > If someone prattled on about being a baseball player, then
> > > > habitually violated the rules of baseball, most people would
> > > > react in the way people usually react to pompous windbag
> > > > hypocrites.
> > > There is one way to play baseball, or rounders, as we call it. I don't
> > > remember in my thickness any works righteousness versus salvation by
> > > faith and repentance dichotomy in that or any other game for the under
> > > 13s.
> >
> > There's no doubt the ability to rationalize and excuse exceeds
> > the capacity to sin by a comfortable margin. The Pharisees
> > were certainly good at it.
> >
> > When you get to heaven, do you expect to see a lot of pedophile
> > priests? You know, the same priests who protest abortion as
> > "murder"?
> >
> > No wonder they want Catholic women to produce more children!
> >
> > > > Humans apparently have evolved a genetic sensitivity to
> > > > hypocrisy. Pretending to be something you are not tends to
> > > > annoy people in every culture. Therefore the annoyance was
> > > > probably adaptive in the ancestral environment. Of course
> > > > Usenet is a different environment so our ancestral instincts
> > > > aren't as useful here.
> > >
> > > If I had hidden what I am, then you could have had more call to label
> > > me a hypocrite, but the dilemmas of my soul have been laid bare here
> > > often enough. I certainly don't make myself out to be good because of
> > > the faith. It is sinners Christ came for and I qualify more than most
> > > on the bad side.
> >
> > Are you saying whoremongering is a sin?
> >
> > Are you saying divorcing your wife and marrying another woman
> > is a sin?
> >
> > I don't think people object to your sins so much as they
> > object to your insistence that you do not sin. See above,
> > where instead of admitting you are an adulterer you present
> > excuses.
> >
> > You can't control what your first wife decides to do. But
> > you can control what you do with your dick thereafter.
> > Jesus said you are better off if you chop your balls off.
> > Do you believe Jesus meant that?
> >
> > Now, to my way of thinking, if you're going to tell Jesus
> > he's full of shit on the divorce/adultery thing, you are
> > setting yourself up as your own God. Not that there's
> > anything wrong with that, but until your name is "Christ"
> > that means you are not a "Christian."
> >
> > > > > IIRC, Davey wasn't being complimentary when he quoted the bible.
> > > > > Knowledge does not necessary go hand in hand with belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you also forget to mention is that he loves his children and
> > > > > hates his ex-wife and provides for them. Would it have been
better
> > > > > for him to stay with his ex when he dislikes her?
> > > >
> > > > It would have been better, according to Davey's stated beliefs,
> > > > if he obeyed the Biblical command to love his wife. That is
> > > > his first wife, his real one, not the fake one he has now,
> > > > according to what Davey's precious Bible says.
> > >
> > > Wifey is as wifey does.
> >
> > You can still obey Paul's command to love her as Christ loves
> > the Church.
> >
> > Did Christ stop loving you when you ran away?
> >
> > > You call Yelena a fake wife and the first one a real one.
> >
> > No, that's what Jesus calls her. If you don't like that,
> > go argue with Jesus. Maybe you can change his mind.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned there is nothing "immoral" about
> > divorce and remarriage. But there is something immoral about
> > claiming to be a "Christian" while being something else.
> >
> > > Why isn't it the other way round?
> >
> > Perhaps Jesus will tell you why he said what the Bible says
> > he said. I certainly can't. To me it looks like a mix of
> > some interesting literature with a big bunch of ancient
> > superstition.
> >
> > > Who irons shirts? makes food? likes to spend time with me? never
> > > refuses physical comforts? always happy to see me? never shouts? is
> > > always able to understand and see eye to eye with me, and me with her?
> > > bears three children?
> >
> > What does the Devil come as?
> >
> > 2 Corinthians 11:14 - And no marvel; for Satan himself
> > is transformed into an angel of light.
> >
> > > Does that sound like a fake wife to you?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you think Satan has deceived me, so how could
> > I trust what I think it sounds like?
> >
> > Since you claim to be a sinner and no better than me, perhaps
> > Satan has deceived you too. He sent you this beautiful young
> > prostitute to lead you into temptation.
> >
> > I'm not Jesus, so you're asking the wrong guy. Go ask Jesus
> > why he would send you a woman who would tempt you to sin
> > against Jesus' explicit command.
> >
> > By their fruits ye shall know them---remember that one? The
> > fruit of this second wife is your sin of adultery.
> >
> > Didn't you read in Proverbs what fate awaits adulterers?
> >
> > > Then I wish you by your own standards a genuine wife, one who does
> > > nothing but shout and scream, one who is even physically abusive, who
> > > doesn't even like spending time with you and wishes your enemies to
> > > triumph over you so she can laugh, one who turns your own kids by her
> > > against you and allows her mother to rule in the home and decide what
> > > is and isn't good for the children, who tells you last if she tells
> > > you at all what is going on, or even what country she is going to liv
> > > e in, who discloses herself as a catholic after marriage, while
> > > maskerading as something else prior to marriage, one who does no work
> > > and just spends everything you have, and then ends up taking you to
> > > the divorce court and wins from you more money than she could have
> > > earned in her entire life if she hadn't met you.
> >
> > That sounds like the way every sinner treats Christ.
> > And yet Christ keeps on loving them.
> >
> > > That's what you are calling a real wife, so I wish you that.
> >
> > Hey, I'm not the one who claims to live by the book that commands
> > you to love your wife as Christ loved the Church.
> >
> > I look at a command like that and say that's bunk. I'm never
> > going to love anybody more than I love myself. I would never
> > volunteer to get nailed to a cross for *anybody*. Not even
> > my dear old Mom.
> >
> > And like a good Pharisee, you reject the plain command of Christ
> > and search for the loophole, so you can continue to feel
> > self-righteous and better than other people.
> >
> > > > I don't personally have a problem with Davey's claimed
whoremongering
> > > > nor his personal attacks on the integrity of marriage, but according
> > > > the Bible I read, God does.
> > >
> > > Your problem is with religion not based on works, then.
> > >
> > > Either we should have religion based on works, or if not then we
> > > should be atheists. Well, you had your chance to persuade me to be an
> > > atheist, but your arguments didn't hold water.
> >
> > I'd settle for persuading you to stop lying.
> >
> > And it's not a question of whether my arguments "hold water."
> > Clearly you believe whatever makes you feel best. I can't promise
> > the truth is necessarily going to make you feel good.
> >
> > The truth only makes humans feel better on average, and over
> > long time scales.
> >
> > For example, in 500 B.C. it wouldn't make primitive farmers feel
> > better if you told them their rain dance was a waste of time.
> > You also needed some additional knowledge about better ways to
> > find water.
> >
> > I don't know that being honest would make you feel better. It
> > might not. But I would respect it.
> >
> > > > If God is OK with Uncle Davey, that's wonderful, but it does raise
> > > > the question of what God would not be OK with. I'm also wondering
> > > > at what point God changed his mind on things.
> > >
> > > You're like the elder brother of the prodigal son in Luke 15. I'm sure
> > > he wondered exactly the same things.
> >
> > So why was Jesus always busting on the Pharisees?
> >
> > The Bible has a lot of harsh things to say about a lot of
> > people. Paul, for example, wasn't too open-minded about
> > downplaying the importance of "works" when it came to faggots.
> >
> > > > Is there any sort of behavior, aside from acknowledging a Nilo
> > > > fault, that is incompatible with being a Christian?
> > > >
> > > > -- the Danimal
> > >
> > > I acknowledge all her faults, but I don't know what they are.
> >
> > She tolerates your dishonesty, for starters.
> >
> > Ask Miguel for a list of Nilo atrocities.
> >
> > Also Google for the folks who counted Nilo as a friend at first
> > and later regretted it.
> >
> > > Since she has looked for only good in me, I have extended to her the
> > > same courtesy.
> >
> > Nilo has made no attempt at all to look for honesty in you.
> > Which is good, because she wouldn't find much.
> >
> > -- the Danimal
>
>
> I've seen this, and I might make a fuller answer when I get back home,
> as I'm in the back end of beyond at the moment, which is why I'm
> posting over the internet and not over my newsreader. (Old JJ from way
> back coming in handy again - I invented him after I promised to dump
> the Isidora impersonation I had, he was based on this Polish guy who
> my daughter went up to in the hardware shop and hugged. I said "Don't
> do that!" to my daughter in English, and he replied, in good English
> but with an accent. "It's okay, I like children. What's your name? I'm
> JJ." Yelena and I thought that he was probably called something like
> Jerzy Jakubowski but called himself JJ so that English speakers like
> us - he hadn't heard that we could speak Polish because I adress the
> kids in English - would break our tongues on it. And a sock was born.
> Jerzy Jakubowski also is the Polish equivalent of George James, the
> name we had picked for our son, as you remember, if George Bush would
> have invaded Iraq by the time he was born. And he not only did but
> even declared the war over the same day he was born, May 1st, so I was
> very happy to keep my word, and George W. James is already crawling
> around now.)
>
> All I can say at the moment is, let's say you danial are right about
> the first marriage being the only valid marriage. Okay. Let's say
> there's no forgiveness and no starting from scratch even in this our
> gospel day. Fine, that's my worst case scenario.
>
> In that case, my first wife's true husband is one Michael Bolik, her
> first husband. I was her fake husband, and that was only a fake
> marriage. That means my marriage to Yelena, who was not married
> before, is my first real marriage and her a real wife. That is then
> even more borne out by the wifey is as wifey does argument, which
> shows that number 1 behaved like the archetypal fake wife, and Yelena
> in comparison is like an angel in human form.
>
> If you honestly think that leaving without provision three children
> and a wife who has never put a foot wrong to go back to two children
> who are well provided for anyway and a woman who is unable to pass a
> day without giving vent to her immense aggression and totally
> antisocial worldview, then you have an odd view of what my duty needs
> to be in these circumstances.
>
> And then you talk about me about honesty, hypocrisy, and things like
> that. I could see your point if I were claiming everything I ever did
> was okay, but obviously it's not. I did a lot of bad things, I made a
> big mess. I took some punishment in a monetary way, but I still
> believe there is forgiveness with God for people who screw up their
> lives. The gospel is for people who know that they have screwed up,
> and for those who reckon they are basically okay, it is hard to accept
> that we depend for salvation purely on someone else's deserving, and
> not our own.
>
> Christ says "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out", so in
> the end what is the worst thing is to allow earlier failure to stop
> you from coming to a God who has promised forgiveness of even the
> worst sins and accepting that forgiveness.
>
One thing that Danimal lacks as an atheist is faith; and with a lack
of faith, there is a lack of hope. One definitely sees that in his
long lamentations about his self-described loser guy status and
his diatribes against his usenet "adversaries" (such as myself) who
don't buy into the "i'm garbage" "my life is hopeless" schtick.
One wonders at times if Danimal (and a couple of his soc.
cohorts) aren't on a multi-year sabbatical
from ... well .... life.
la n.
la n.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
|