 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 May 17 - 08:49 AM That's a lucky number in some traditions!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Raggytash Date: 14 May 17 - 10:30 AM Try reading John B Keanes novel The Bodhran Maker. It gives a very clear and highly amusing insight into the power of the church and it attempts to control pastimes such as dancing. To my mind a very good book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jackaroodave Date: 14 May 17 - 10:37 AM "Evidence can be disputed, but it is still evidence. Just don't ask for proof, because God and the afterlife are not amenable to proof." Keith, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to make up your own religion and write the theology as you go along. But you should be aware that you are contradicting Catholic doctrine as expressed by Thomas Aquinas and Vatican Councils I and II. Since amenability to proof is a pretty valuable attribute, by denying it and placing G-d on the same level as Baal or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are coming pretty close to . . . . blasphemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Mrrzy Date: 14 May 17 - 10:56 AM The plural of anecdote is not data. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 May 17 - 11:00 AM No Jackaroodave. I am not a Catholic, and it is a fact that there is no proof either way of God. Steve, It is pointless to refer to the laws of nature. If there is a God, He is outside of them. God and the afterlife have been deliberately put beyond scientific investigation by religions, Keith Another of your baseless assertions disguised as facts. Religions are too puny to do that. Stu, I said what evidence there is for life after death. Such things as ghost sightings, spirit messages, out of body experiences, near death experiences, children's past life memories etc. Not convincing and not proof, but evidence. Other explanations for them are easily found, but they remain evidence. Now, where is the evidence against? Dave's vision? Ireland's ridiculous blasphemy laws make for much more interesting discussion. Trying to discuss the existence of God gets no-where. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Donuel Date: 14 May 17 - 11:06 AM Does GOD support slavery? (real question) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 14 May 17 - 11:16 AM "Such things as ghost sightings, spirit messages, out of body experiences, near death experiences, children's past life memories etc Not convincing and not proof, but evidence.." Huh? That's a load of words separated by commas. Where is this supposed evidence? I can show you evidence of the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex, evidence that has stood up to robust and thorough scrutiny. Show me the same for a ghost. "Now, where is the evidence against?" This is a fallacy. You posit the existence of this "evidence", it's up to you to support your argument with facts and provide evidence of the "evidence", it's not up to anyone else to disprove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 11:17 AM Now, where is the evidence against? Dave's vision? Of course it is my vision. It is as valid as the visions that other religions are based on. More so because it is contemporary. As evidence it is better than Moses's burning bush, Jesus's devil or Mohamed's anger Gabriel any day! What is your point? Steve - We have another tenet of our faith. Beer makes you clever. I scarified and reseeded the postage stamp of a lawn today and was wondering how to bed in the new seeds. 1 can of Fosters and 1 can of Hobgoblin later I discovered that an old stainless steel bin and a 50 litre sack of compost make an excellent lightweight roller. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 11:21 AM Sorry for the italics not stopping after "Dave's vision?" I suspect it was an act of some god or another trying to get his own back. :D tG
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 May 17 - 11:31 AM I can show you evidence of the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex, evidence that has stood up to robust and thorough scrutiny. Show me the same for a ghost. Obviously I can not, but I am aware of a vast number of eye witness reports. They do not convince me either, but an eye witness report is regarded as evidence in any court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 May 17 - 11:32 AM That's the, er, spirit, Dave! Your post is a pile of vacuous twaddle, Keith. You can't just claim anything you like and call it evidence. Spirit mediums are frauds and I think you know it. People who report near-death experiences of the "seeing the other side" variety are copycat deludees on the whole. There are no ghosts, goblins, leprechauns, fairies, poltergeists or moving virgins. In all of history there has not been a single corroborated instance of any of those things, nor has God shown himself (I require nothing less than a chariot of fire blazing down from heaven if you don't mind. Whether he's bearded is optional). You're supposed to have a scientific background yet you appear not to know what evidence is. Odd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 May 17 - 11:53 AM Spirit mediums are frauds and I think you know it. I know that many and probably all are, so I did not reference them. People who report near-death experiences of the "seeing the other side" variety are copycat deludees on the whole.>/I> I certainly challenge that baseless assertion disguised as fact. Do at least some reading. You could start with Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience A couple of interesting "past life" cases, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-too-much/201412/children-who-seemingly-remember-past-lives |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 May 17 - 11:54 AM Sorry, Spirit mediums are frauds and I think you know it. I know that many and probably all are, so I did not reference them. People who report near-death experiences of the "seeing the other side" variety are copycat deludees on the whole. I certainly challenge that baseless assertion disguised as fact. Do at least some reading. You could start with Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience A couple of interesting "past life" cases, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-too-much/201412/children-who-seemingly-remember-past-lives |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 May 17 - 11:56 AM Eye witness accounts are not counted as evidence in science unless they can be corroborated independently or replicated. Neither is a mass of separate unrelated eye witness accounts. At least you can actually see a hill of beans. I saw ball lightning once, over Epping Forest. Absolutely definitely. Without a shadow of a doubt. No-one else was around to see it as it was in the early hours and I was out trying to get the cat in (I checked for other reports and there were none) and I have no photo and no video. So that's that. My sighting is not evidence for anything. I can't expect anyone to believe me and I wouldn't try. But I saw it. A trained scientist, stone cold sober, clear as a bell, the weather conditions perfect. So what? So nothing, that's what. I haven't made any of that up, but I could have made the whole lot up for all you know. That's eye-witness "evidence" for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 14 May 17 - 12:13 PM "Obviously I can not, but I am aware of a vast number of eye witness reports. They do not convince me either, but an eye witness report is regarded as evidence in any court." Then there isn't a shred of actual evidence. Also, eyewitness evidence is only of value if it is backed up by empirical evidence. The use of such evidence in court is considered shockingly fallible, and people have been murdered because of it: Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 14 May 17 - 01:32 PM The point Keith 9s making is that although there is no proof for the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence being presented by witnesses. As an atheist myself, I know very well that there is no evidence at all for the non existence of God.....it is simply a matter of opinion, and I am sure none of you nice "liberal" people want to deprive others of opinions which differ from yours? Stop trying to obfuscate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Donuel Date: 14 May 17 - 02:10 PM As a hypnotist scores of people wanted me to help verify their own opinion of their past lives. I would not. It smacks of spirit mediums and not science, technology and neural science. Thirty years later, from what I have learned of cosmological theories regarding a holographic universe and a dark matter dimension and a multiverse I have become more 'flexible' in my judgement than Steve Shaw, who I invoke as a baseline of a skeptic. History proves even the most staunch skeptics are sometimes proven wrong in time. We, the rational, all may be partially right for the wrong reasons. Facts are fixed until replaced by a fact due to the occasional death of knowledge and gaps between civilizations in time and space. Truth is a river with eddies and currents that crosses cultures paradigms and POV. There are many rivers; some do not reach the sea, but all have more than facts floating in it. There are all sorts of stuff in the river including lies, conspiracy theories, fearful thoughts, fairy tales and garbage. We all live fairly close to some kind of River of truth. There has always existed a fact shortage in the water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 02:11 PM Anyone any ideas WTF he is on about? Maybe speaking in tongues? :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 02:15 PM One before last. Although the last one was pretty good |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Big Al Whittle Date: 14 May 17 - 02:32 PM he's saying reality is hard to quantify. we make qualitative judgements, from our experience - which is of necessity individual. it informed by all sorts of fragments swimming round in our consciousness. As TS Eliot - 'these fragments i have shored up against my ruin'. i suppose its the difference between Christian existentialists and atheist existentialists. Both acknowledge the random nature of existence. however the Christian existentialist looks upon the world with mysticism - searching for patterns (within and outside himself) which will imply a moral universe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 May 17 - 02:46 PM ".it is simply a matter of opinion, " But he claims to have evidence and that we have none Isn't that obfuswhatsit? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 14 May 17 - 04:11 PM Done it again, haven't you Dave? Go give yourself a good kick in the butt.....two or three kicks! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 May 17 - 04:20 PM There's a reason he often times signs posts with a clown face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 14 May 17 - 04:26 PM :0)...Oh he really deserved that Acme, the biter bit as it were. Besides, he was being most insulting to Don who is much more intelligent than Gnome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 14 May 17 - 04:34 PM No Jim, Keith has put forward examples of people who have experienced God or the works of God, but absolutely no one has any personal evidence that there is no God. No one can say there is definitely no God, because...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 04:45 PM Still not a clue WTF you are on about ake. Still speaking in tongues I see. The clown face reference was from someone who understands the significance so once again you appear to have missed the point. Shame you cannot figure out a village idiot emoticon to sign off with. :D tG BTW, Don also knows how to use a forum. Missing the mark twice is pretty bad even for you :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 May 17 - 05:14 PM The disputed existence of ghosts/fairies/God/moving virgins is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of producing evidence by the people who make these claims. If you make a claim that counter-intuitively contradicts all known laws of nature, then it's up to you to try to verify your claim with evidence. Proper evidence if you don't mind. It is not up to the rest of us to "prove" you wrong. The ball is entirely in your court. The existence or otherwise of God can't be a matter of opinion. It's far too important for that. So let's be seeing your evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 14 May 17 - 05:56 PM You are indeed fortunate Dave, that you have no need for pictorial evidence of your status in village or forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 May 17 - 05:58 PM What does that mean? Are you on mind-altering stuff? 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Greg F. Date: 14 May 17 - 06:30 PM No Jim, Keith has put forward examples of people who have experienced God Or indigestion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Mrrzy Date: 14 May 17 - 06:52 PM None of that para crap is evidence, nor is the beauty of a sunset. Evidence = reproducible peer reviewed etc. And "evidence of no god" is a phrase meaningless other than demonstrating in yet another way that you don't know even a little bit what you are talking about. As if further demo were required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 May 17 - 07:03 PM Not mind altering, Steve, that would most certainly be an improvement. Anything that could improve the posts of a bitter old man stuck firmly in 1930 with a fixation about anal sex could only be of benefit. :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Big Al Whittle Date: 14 May 17 - 10:46 PM i thought you were talking about Donuel's post, Dave. sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 May 17 - 02:28 AM "No Jim, Keith has put forward examples of people who have experienced God or the works of God, " No he isn't - he has put up everything from spooks to spiritualists Don't think he's got round to David Blaine or David Nixon yet - early days!! "No one can say there is definitely no God, because......" In two millenia nobody has been able to produce a single shred of evidence of his existence He remains, like the 'Flat Earth" theory, a primitive attempt to explain the world which has long been discarded Even the Church has been forced to backtrack on some of its long held outrageous claims like angels and eternal Paradise Now some of its most fundamental beliefs are being challenged FROM WITHIN The concept of a supreme being has always been an utter nonsense, yet people have been living under the threat of eternal damnation for questioning it since its inception. Hypocrites such as yourself target other religions, like Islam, for their faith, yet interference of the minds of children from their earliest days are passed through on the nod as long as the persecutors are of the right colour and culture or if they don't threaten "our jobs and apprentice training schemes" It is attitudes like this that expose the real threat of religion, or "our traditional values" as you choose to describe it. Religion, when practiced voluntarily and consciously, is fine. When the practitioners adhere to the humanistic ("liberal!!!") principles of their religion, it is even to be welcomed and encouraged. In the hands of bigots and hate-merchants such as yourself, it is tyranny's oldest and most effective weapon. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 17 - 04:30 AM Steve, Eye witness accounts are not counted as evidence in science I know, but it is in court which is what I said. We are not discussing repeatable experimental results. Ball lightning is a good analogy. It is not yet understood, but numerous observations such as yours show that it is a genuine phenomenon. Also, eyewitness evidence is only of value if it is backed up by empirical evidence. In any court, it is regarded as evidence. . Evidence = reproducible peer reviewed etc. Not a legal definition. This is a silly discussion. I said there is some evidence but no proof, and I have suggested some items of evidence as requested. The problem is that some here wanted to turn an interesting thread on blasphemy laws into yet another about religion and the existence of God! Pointless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 May 17 - 05:08 AM From: Mrrzy Date: 08 May 17 - 04:13 PM That was funny - nobody outraged. The comments were made a long time before the complaint and don't appear to have caused a major stir at the time. Fry's comments only really ask questions Christians also ask. At least looking at comments here, elsewhere online and talking to people I know, the impression I have is that most Christians disagree with the idea of a blasphemy law. It doesn't really seem a formula for Christian outrage does it? Does anyone know anything about the complainant? All I've found is that he wasn't offended but felt a crime had been committed. Was he Christian, atheist or of other belief? Was he aiming to cause Fry hassle? Was he aiming to bring this law to the attention of the public? Perhaps the aim was to trigger Christian outrage? Perhaps something else? It's a bit of a puzzle to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 May 17 - 05:13 AM " into yet another about religion and the existence of God! Pointless." No Keith inevitable and, unlike religion, logical Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 May 17 - 05:24 AM No, Al. There is lot of Donuel's stuff I don't understand but it is generally worth the effort to investigate a bit further. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: akenaton Date: 15 May 17 - 05:28 AM The origins of the universe are probably more unbelievable to humanity at our stage of development than God the creator. I do not think that humanity has much of a future on this planet, certainly the extent and origins of the universe are well beyond the scope of human understanding. If belief in a just and caring God gives pleasure, comfort and fulfilment to a large part of humanity then I for one agree with Iris Dement....Let the Mystery be!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 17 - 05:35 AM The job of a court is to hear testimony from every available source and then decide what is and what isn't evidence. That's why we have barristers slugging it out. Just because an assertion from an eye witness is presented to a court doesn't mean it will be accepted as evidence. Corroboration will always be required, if the court is fair and if justice is to be done. You are very confused about this despite your alleged scientific background. My standalone observation of ball lightning means nothing unless someone, preferably several someones, completely independent of me, also saw it at the same time and give descriptions that tally with mine. My careful description may well be added to the general body of alleged sightings, but it in no way confirms either that the phenomenon is real or that ball lightning is what I saw. I appear to be denigrating myself, but, as a scientist, I am trained to treat all evidence with scepticism, in case it isn't evidence at all. There's no other way if knowledge is to be advanced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 15 May 17 - 06:50 AM "there is plenty of evidence being presented by witnesses." Then where is it? All I'm suggesting that to make a statement saying there is evidence for whatever is being discussed and not producing said evidence makes the original statement worthless; it's not based on any firm, empirical fact. When that evidence is produced, then it should be subject to scrutiny and testing. "Stop trying to obfuscate." Asking for evidence isn't obsfucation, just the opposite. It's healthy to be skeptical and ask questions. It's how science works, it's how we discover new facts. Take nothing for granted, be open-minded and find out for yourself. "I am sure none of you nice "liberal" people want to deprive others of opinions which differ from yours?" Oh grow up Ake. What's the point of this statement? It's ignorant and reeks of insecurity and doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 17 - 07:28 AM Steve, Just because an assertion from an eye witness is presented to a court doesn't mean it will be accepted as evidence Yes it does. Along with any evidence to the contrary. Corroboration will always be required, if the court is fair and if justice is to be done. No. Corroboration just adds weight to the evidence. Justice is done when the evidence is all put in the balance. You are very confused about this despite your alleged scientific background. As I have just shown, the confusion is yours and has nothing to do with science. it in no way confirms either that the phenomenon is real or that ball lightning is what I saw Yes. I thought I said that. Stu., All I'm suggesting that to make a statement saying there is evidence for whatever is being discussed and not producing said evidence makes the original statement worthless; it's not based on any firm, empirical fact. There are no firm facts. I described such evidence as there is. When that evidence is produced, then it should be subject to scrutiny and testing That would be good, but how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 17 - 07:41 AM So if I tell the court that I was not in the area at the time of the burglary, even though I was, and get my friend to lie to that effect on my behalf, am I presenting evidence? If you can't produce testable evidence for apparitions, ghosts, the afterlife or the existence of God, you are not producing evidence at all. You are presenting unsupported assertions, then you have the cheek to ask US to show that you're wrong. Frankly, you have no evidence for any of these alleged phenomena. Uncorroborated witness is not acceptable evidence. As a scientist I would never discount the possibility that you may one day present real evidence. Until then the burden of proof falls entirely on you and you're failing abysmally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: DMcG Date: 15 May 17 - 07:56 AM I find it odd that people who correctly roll their eyes and explain for the ten thousanth time that when a scientist uses the word 'theory' it has a special precise meaning that is different to the word 'theory' in everyday speech are unable to recognise that when scientist uses the word 'evidence' it is also different from the everyday usage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 17 - 08:22 AM Well it is different, I admit. But we could always modify the everyday use of the word "evidence" by calling it "acceptable evidence" or "honest evidence" or "evidence that stands up to scrutiny." Try applying any of those to, say, St Bernadette's claims and see where that gets us. My ball lightning claim isn't acceptable as it stands because no-one corroborated it. That makes my claimed sighting of passing interest only. Honest? How do you know I'm not making the whole thing up? You don't. If you'd known me for years as a man of integrity you might be more confident that I wasn't lying, but you still wouldn't know whether or not I was deluded or whether I dreamt it. Does it stand up to scrutiny? Well if you viewed me as a sober man of integrity you'd be inclined to take me seriously, but you wouldn't exactly stake your life on it, would you? The best you could do is say that the jury's out. And that's the best-case scenario. Of passing interest only. The witness claims to ghosts, fairies, Godly visions and the like that I've heard about seem far more dodgy to me. Ulterior motives abound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 17 - 08:51 AM If you can't produce testable evidence I was just asked for evidence, now it must be "testable" ? If you had asked for "testable evidence," as with proof, I would have told you there can be none. So if I tell the court that I was not in the area at the time of the burglary, even though I was, and get my friend to lie to that effect on my behalf, am I presenting evidence? It would be false evidence. Are you suggesting that everyone who describes any of those things I listed is lying? That is ridiculous. The explanation may not be spiritual, but it is ludicrous to suggest that so many people from so many lands and cultures over so many centuries are all colluding in trying to deceive atheists! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Mrrzy Date: 15 May 17 - 08:52 AM What does the legal field have to do with whether something is evidence or not? We're talking science, not courtroom. Even in courts, eyewitnesses aren't considered believable, read anything about it, till backed up by actual evidence, like data. Seriously. That's like saying you can't call a person Trans if their molecules don't have atoms on opposite sides of their molecules - entirely different magisteria. What a maroon! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 15 May 17 - 09:09 AM "There are no firm facts." There are apparently, no empirical facts at all. "That would be good, but how?" Seriously? How do people discover new medicines? Send rockets to the moon? etc etc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 May 17 - 09:09 AM We're talking science I am not. I was just asked for evidence, not testable evidence. If you had asked for "testable evidence," as with proof, I would have told you there can be none. What has Science to do with any of this. Science is about the laws of nature. If there is a God by definition they do not apply to God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Donuel Date: 15 May 17 - 09:22 AM In discussions about the ethereal I write from the right hemisphere for your right hemispheres. To speak of a god it is only fitting don't you think? If you have had a god experience it was certainly a temporal lobe and right brained experience. Certainly I am against all autocratic blasphemy laws. It is the action of a fundamentalist without scruples, morality or the words to express a personal experience that is reduced by left brained people as insanity. Even Steve Shaw would change his mind after a five year relationship with magic mushrooms. Shrooms are a valuable tool for those who reduce consciousness to a conscious left brained experience. It should be a requirement for all who engage in religious caretaking and scholarly awareness. I do not see why anyone should not understand facts are the poetic particle while truth is a changeable wave. Facts are fixed while truth is a culturally changeable fluid. Insight demands a combination of more than both in a quantum state sense. If you still do not understand, you must not punish those who do, don't you think? There is not a chasm between religion and science that people think there is. Life itself, even a microbe, is the technology we are just now understanding has answers billions of years old or newly emerging and evolving, unlike the latest MS app. |
