Curing cancer (long and ranting)

[Guest guest]

I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by

the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and

progress seems to be very slow.

Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:

1. Not enough money is going into research.

That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money

for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and

smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money

in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.

2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to

protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.

Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and

their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company

executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,

blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than

cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing

research.

3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts

and solve the problems.

I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of

scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow

minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard

for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or

medicine.

Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses

working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have

a lot of extremely bright people working too.

And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that

progress has been so slow:

4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.

Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of

100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.

Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of

many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized

into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced

by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes

with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,

and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -

some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years

and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at

all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling

molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone

at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve

dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a

submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely

difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and

which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals

and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living

cells.

Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for

example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in

the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered

in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been

discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is

to learn.

This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!

Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for

those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -

bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is

different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes

wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is

still very poorly understood and something that no one has

ever yet been able to stop.

In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.

It's going to require thousands of highly educated and

intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most

difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the

co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem

of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well

funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.

I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the

first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive

study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,

I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not

willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,

if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature

without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA

replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,

phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,

cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the

rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern

cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well

intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative

pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.

You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of

electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep

understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_

harder than either of those endeavors.

People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,

capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that

they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never

looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know

how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single

chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and

never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of

cancer.

When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this

or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, " Don't you

believe yourself! " It was good advice.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Or, more succinctly, to quote your

erstwhile Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who was erroneously mocked when

he said:

" The message is that there are known

knowns - there are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns -

that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are

also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know. And each

year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. "

All the best

Terry Herbert

in Melbourne

Australia

Diagnosed ‘96: Age

54: Stage T2b: PSA 7.2: Gleason 7: No treatment. Jun '07 PSA 42.0 - Bony

Metastasis:Started ADT Aug '07: May '08 - stopped ADT. Jan '10 PSA 5.20

My site is at

www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

It is a

tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn’t know, and the less

a man knows, the more sure he is that he knows everything. Joyce

Carey

[Guest guest]

To Alan and List:

Alan - Thank you for this extremely thoughtful post. FWIW, it is

appreciated, at least by me, very much.

Despite the slow progress, but given the fact that there are many, many very

talented people working to defeat this scourge of a disease, I firmly

believe that it will someday be eradicated from the face of the earth, same

as was smallpox. Progress may appear to be slow, but we learn more about

this disease each and every day. No mater how minimal it may appear to be,

all progress is good.

If one is discouraged about progress, it is helpful to stop, turn around,

and look at your " back-trail. " You will be amazed and encouraged at how far

you have come.

If I may be so bold as to speculate, it is my hope that a root cause for

all types of cancer will someday be identified, and that this cause can be

attacked and eliminated.

In the meantime, we must " keep on keeping on " . Each day that we are looking

at the topside of the grass (or in my case, about a foot of new snow) is a

good day.

Enjoy the day, and enjoy the company of your Loved Ones.

Peace!

Coy

, Michigan USA

Curing cancer (long and ranting)

>I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by

> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and

> progress seems to be very slow.

>

> Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:

>

> 1. Not enough money is going into research.

>

> That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money

> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and

> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money

> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.

>

> 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to

> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.

>

> Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and

> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company

> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,

> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than

> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing

> research.

>

> 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts

> and solve the problems.

>

> I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of

> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow

> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard

> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or

> medicine.

>

> Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses

> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have

> a lot of extremely bright people working too.

>

> And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that

> progress has been so slow:

>

> 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.

>

> Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of

> 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.

> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of

> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized

> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced

> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes

> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,

> and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -

> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years

> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at

> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling

> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone

> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve

> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a

> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely

> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and

> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals

> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living

> cells.

>

> Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for

> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in

> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered

> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been

> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is

> to learn.

>

> This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!

>

> Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for

> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -

> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is

> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes

> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is

> still very poorly understood and something that no one has

> ever yet been able to stop.

>

> In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.

> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and

> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most

> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the

> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem

> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well

> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.

>

> I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the

> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive

> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,

> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not

> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,

> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature

> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA

> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,

> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,

> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the

> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern

> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well

> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative

> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.

>

> You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of

> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep

> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_

> harder than either of those endeavors.

>

> People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,

> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that

> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never

> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know

> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single

> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and

> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of

> cancer.

>

> When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this

> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, " Don't you

> believe yourself! " It was good advice.

>

> Alan

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> There are just two rules for this group

> 1 No Spam

> 2 Be kind to others

>

> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we

> cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at

> other options.

>

> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

I firmly believe.....but cannot prove....that when scientists find a total cure for all viruses, we will also have a cure for cancer. It is my belief that cancers are caused initially by viruses. Jim Schwindt.To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 5:38:19 PMSubject: Re: Curing cancer (long and ranting)

To Alan and List:

Alan - Thank you for this extremely thoughtful post. FWIW, it is

appreciated, at least by me, very much.

Despite the slow progress, but given the fact that there are many, many very

talented people working to defeat this scourge of a disease, I firmly

believe that it will someday be eradicated from the face of the earth, same

as was smallpox. Progress may appear to be slow, but we learn more about

this disease each and every day. No mater how minimal it may appear to be,

all progress is good.

If one is discouraged about progress, it is helpful to stop, turn around,

and look at your "back-trail. " You will be amazed and encouraged at how far

you have come.

If I may be so bold as to speculate, it is my hope that a root cause for

all types of cancer will someday be identified, and that this cause can be

attacked and eliminated.

In the meantime, we must "keep on keeping on". Each day that we are looking

at the topside of the grass (or in my case, about a foot of new snow) is a

good day.

Enjoy the day, and enjoy the company of your Loved Ones.

Peace!

Coy

, Michigan USA

[ProstateCancerSupp ort] Curing cancer (long and ranting)

>I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by

> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and

> progress seems to be very slow.

>

> Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:

>

> 1. Not enough money is going into research.

>

> That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money

> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and

> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money

> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.

>

> 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to

> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.

>

> Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and

> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company

> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,

> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than

> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing

> research.

>

> 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts

> and solve the problems.

>

> I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of

> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow

> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard

> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or

> medicine.

>

> Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses

> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have

> a lot of extremely bright people working too.

>

> And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that

> progress has been so slow:

>

> 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.

>

> Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of

> 100,000,000, 000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.

> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of

> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized

> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced

> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes

> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,

> and post-transcriptiona l modifiers of many different types -

> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years

> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at

> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling

> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone

> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve

> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a

> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely

> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and

> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals

> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living

> cells.

>

> Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for

> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in

> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered

> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been

> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is

> to learn.

>

> This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!

>

> Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for

> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -

> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is

> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes

> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is

> still very poorly understood and something that no one has

> ever yet been able to stop.

>

> In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.

> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and

> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most

> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the

> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem

> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well

> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.

>

> I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the

> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive

> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,

> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not

> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,

> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature

> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA

> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,

> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,

> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the

> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern

> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well

> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritativ e

> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.

>

> You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of

> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep

> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_

> harder than either of those endeavors.

>

> People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,

> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that

> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never

> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know

> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single

> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and

> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of

> cancer.

>

> When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this

> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you

> believe yourself!" It was good advice.

>

> Alan

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------ --------- --------- ------

>

> There are just two rules for this group

> 1 No Spam

> 2 Be kind to others

>

> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we

> cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at

> other options.

>

> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim

I do believe that many cancers are indeed caused by virus infection but I hope not all since they mutate at an unbelieveable rate we have to receive new flu vacines every year because of this for example. I doubt that they all will ever be eradicated.

In any case, I don't get much solace from thinking about if they get rid of this then maybe that will happen. Cancer is an extremely complex set of diseases I pray for more accurate testing procedures and effective treatment protocols. Much progress has been made but we need so much more.

As for me I am thankful for each day that I have and hope that some researcher finally gets a brilliant insight that helps us all. As I have said before they have to find a way to activate our immune systems to protect us. Mean time try to deal with the emotional devistation that we all have experienced with this disease.

Harry

Subject: Re: Curing cancer (long and ranting)To: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 7:51 PM

I firmly believe..... but cannot prove....that when scientists find a total cure for all viruses, we will also have a cure for cancer. It is my belief that cancers are caused initially by viruses. Jim Schwindt.

From: Coy <shootingcpa@ verizon.net>To: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) comSent: Fri, February 12, 2010 5:38:19 PMSubject: Re: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Curing cancer (long and ranting)

To Alan and List:Alan - Thank you for this extremely thoughtful post. FWIW, it is appreciated, at least by me, very much.Despite the slow progress, but given the fact that there are many, many very talented people working to defeat this scourge of a disease, I firmly believe that it will someday be eradicated from the face of the earth, same as was smallpox. Progress may appear to be slow, but we learn more about this disease each and every day. No mater how minimal it may appear to be, all progress is good.If one is discouraged about progress, it is helpful to stop, turn around, and look at your "back-trail. " You will be amazed and encouraged at how far you have come.If I may be so bold as to speculate, it is my hope that a root cause for all types of cancer will someday be identified, and that this cause can be attacked and eliminated.In the meantime, we must "keep on

keeping on". Each day that we are looking at the topside of the grass (or in my case, about a foot of new snow) is a good day.Enjoy the day, and enjoy the company of your Loved Ones.Peace! Coy, Michigan USA [ProstateCancerSupp ort] Curing cancer (long and ranting)>I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> the fact that we still have no cures for

most cancers and> progress seems to be very slow.>> Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:>> 1. Not enough money is going into research.>> That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.>> 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.>> Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing>

research.>> 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> and solve the problems.>> I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> medicine.>> Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> a lot of extremely bright people working too.>> And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that> progress has been so slow:>> 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.>> Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> 100,000,000, 000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> Nobody knows how to count them.

Those cells are composed of> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> and post-transcriptiona l modifiers of many different types -> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> which are way too small and too surrounded by other

chemicals> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> cells.>> Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> to learn.>> This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!>> Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> still very poorly understood and something that no one has> ever yet been able to

stop.>> In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.>> I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> without that, if he thinks it

isn't necessary to understand DNA> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritativ e> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.>> You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> harder than either of those endeavors.>> People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> they aren't able to do

it. However some people who have never> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> cancer.>> When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> believe yourself!" It was good advice.>> Alan>>>>>> ------------ --------- --------- ------>> There are just two rules for this group> 1 No Spam> 2 Be kind to others>> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs > different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some > men even with all options offered

chose radical options that you would not > choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we > cannot and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at > other options.>> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply> Try to change the title if the content requires it