# aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south



## AlexanderIII

Dear all,
this is from a book by W. Eugene Kleinbauer, Antony White and Henry Matthews about the 'HAGIA SOPHIA' templ in Constantinopol.

_The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixthcentury replacement, seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south._

I am ashamed to confess that it seems not clear. It would be clear if the sixthcentury replacement of the pre-Justinianic church was _aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees _clockwise or counterclockwise. The _at an angle of about a couple of degrees _ explicitly implies rotation (it's not "to a degree"). The direction of a temple's longer axis usually is West -- East. Probably the authors mean the position of one of the South corners of the old temple (point A) kept its position_, _while the ground plan of the new building was congruent to (with) the ground plan of the old one rotated_ a couple of degrees further toward the south _*around point A*. Does this make sense?


----------



## se16teddy

Without more  context, it is unclear. If required to guess, I would say that the author was thinking from the viewpoint of someone looking at the building from its main western entrance, and that the west end of the old church was a little to the south of the west end of the current building.


----------



## sdgraham

The sentence is not the best and would have been better without "at the angle of," but:

"It would be clear if the sixth century replacement of the pre-Justinianic church was _aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees _clockwise or counterclockwise. "

No. Compass headings are far more precise than "clockwise" or "counterclockwise," especially since we don't know from what you have provided which direction the church is pointed.

"The _at an angle of about a couple of degrees _explicitly implies rotation"

Not in the English I grew up with.  (but it would have been better to avoid "at an angle of.")

The original is perfectly clear that the new church points more to the south than the old one did and there's no point of introducing doubt with a "probably."


----------



## AlexanderIII

se16teddy said:


> Without more  context, it is unclear. If required to guess, I would say that the author was thinking from the viewpoint of someone looking at the building from its main western entrance, and that the west end of the old church was a little to the south of the west end of the current building.


Yes, Se16teddy, I agree. But how can a reader guess they mean they are looking from the main entrance? Why not from an altar? The altar is of more importance!   I'd say this should be stipulated for unles this goes without saying. On the other hand they explain in the book much more simple things. (By the way, can this really go without saying?)

Here are 4 more sentences that preceed the one in question:

_A number of architectural blocks  belonging to the portico were excavated by Alfons

Maria Schneider in 1935, who demonstrated that the centre of the entrance portico projected from the monumental colonnade and featured a pedimental porch with an arcuated lintel. As Schneider showed, the style of the sculptural ornament of these blocks discloses that they were carved in the time of Theodosius II. The stretch of the early wall to the east of this portico is most probably the eastern wall of the atrium rather than the church itself. It is constructed of alternate bands of brickwork and of 
mortared rubble work, faced with courses of small, very roughly square stone (currently capped by several courses of modern masonry). _


----------



## AlexanderIII

sdgraham said:


> The sentence is not the best and would have been better without "at the angle of,"


I can feel this too.




sdgraham said:


> No. Compass headings are far more precise than "clockwise" or "counterclockwise," especially since we don't know from what you have provided which direction the church is pointed.


This is an old Orthodox tradition and Hagia Sophia was at first an Orthodox temple. This orientation is still so not only in Russia.


sdgraham said:


> "The _at an angle of about a couple of degrees _explicitly implies rotation"
> Not in the English I grew up with.  (but it would have been better to avoid "at an angle of.")


Do you, Sdgraham, mean the South wall of the new templ was parallel to the old South one and situated further to the South? Then really _at an angle of about a couple of degrees _has nothing to do with the description.


sdgraham said:


> The original is perfectly clear that the new church points more to the south than the old one did and there's no point of introducing doubt with a "probably."


 I am not with you, Sdgraham. Could you explain please the meaning of_ the new church *points *more to the south than the old one did. _Suppose we are looking at its ground plane. What must I do with its longer axis to get its new direction? If it's rotation which corner keeps its position?


----------



## velisarius

If it's any help, my information (a book on the church of Agia Sofia written by the Greek professor Theocharis Detorakis) says that: 
_"the orientation of the church does not run precisely east-west, as is usually the case in Orthodox churches, but is turned slightly towards the southeast, at an angle of 33.7 degrees. Procopiuus observes that the church was oriented "towards the rising sun"...the architects oriented the axis of the church toward the point on the horizon where the sun rose at the time of the winter solstice, since the church's feast was celebrated on Christmas Day." 
_


----------



## AlexanderIII

Velisarius, hi! What a luck you are here!


velisarius said:


> If it's any help, my information (a book on the church of Agia Sofia written by the Greek professor Theocharis Detorakis) says that:
> _"the orientation of the church does not run precisely east-west, as is usually the case in Orthodox churches, but is turned slightly towards the southeast, at an angle of 33.7 degrees._


_ The description is absolutely clear, though, I'd say, 33.7 degrees is not too slightly. Not a couple of degrees for sure! Velisarius, you are the greatest! The sentence is lame, that's what is extremely important!_


----------



## velisarius

The 33.7 degrees foxes me too. The description is of the new church by the way - the one built by Justinian.


----------



## AlexanderIII

I guess I know. The old temple was not pointed to the East sharp either, but to about 30 degrees South-Еast. The South-Western corner of the new one remained in the former place but the rest of the ground plane of the old temple shifted to the South or rotated clockwise. Do you think this makes sense?


----------



## AlexanderIII

And to make sense the sentence in question should read _The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixthcentury replacement, seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south-east, _should it not?


----------



## Andygc

If something should point east and is rotated a few degrees in a clockwise direction, it doesn't matter if you say a few degrees towards the southeast or the south, they mean exactly the same.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Andygc said:


> If something should point east and is rotated a few degrees in a clockwise direction, it doesn't matter if you say a few degrees towards the southeast or the south, they mean exactly the same.


The problem is, Andygc, the original sentence reads not rotated a few degrees in a clockwise direction, but 
_aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south. _It makes me think that it should be not South, but South-East. Than everything is clear.


----------



## Andygc

It really doesn't matter. A compass bearing of 100 degrees is 3 degrees to the south of a compass bearing of 097 degrees. It would be extraordinarily unlikely that anybody in a ship, boat or aeroplane would say "let's head 3 degrees more to the southeast". When talking about alterations in direction we usually refer to cardinal directions - a little more to the east, somewhat further to the north. The intermediate points are used to be specific (or approximately so) - "let's head southeast".

If you are describing a church, the normal orientation is assumed to be known by the reader. Saying it's aligned a few degrees to the south can only mean it has been rotated clockwise.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Andygc said:


> If you are describing a church, the normal orientation is assumed to be known by the reader.


 Well how can I learn that the normal orientation of a church is to the East and not to the West? I understand that the long axis of its ground plane is west -- east or east -- west.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Andygc said:


> It would be extraordinarily unlikely that anybody in a ship, boat or aeroplane would say "let's head 3 degrees more to the southeast".


That's because a ship or boat has a bow. The airplane cannot fly backwards, so its orientation is clear. But church has no bow. That's the problem. I'd say this should be stipulated for unles this goes without saying. On the other hand in the book  they explain much more simple things. (By the way, can this really go without saying?)


----------



## velisarius

AlexanderIII said:


> The old temple was not pointed to the East sharp either, but to about 30 degrees South-Еast.


In that case it tallies with my information that says it was 33.7 degrees to the southeast. The new church was about 3.7 degrees farther towards the southeast or "a couple of degrees" according to your writer.

I imagine that the altar was facing southeast, and that the 33.7 degrees are measured starting from due East. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## AlexanderIII

And to make sense the sentence in question should read _The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixthcentury replacement, seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south-east, _should it not?
The same question asked another way: does it go without saying that a chuch points to the East and not to the West? I cannot find any corroboration of such an opinion so far.


----------



## velisarius

Yes, I _think_ it goes without saying that byzantine churches faced East. When the Parthenon in Athens was converted to a Christian church in the sixth century, the orientation of the building was changed to face towards the East.

(Edit: I don't mean that they moved the building of course - changes were made inside, and the main entrance was moved.)


----------



## AlexanderIII

velisarius said:


> Yes, I _think_ it goes without saying that byzantine churches faced East. When the Parthenon in Athens was converted to a Christian church in the sixth century, the orientation of the building was changed to face towards the East.


Why East and not West? It's clear that the flock standing before the altar faces the East, but what about the whole building?
I found. Nave in French means ship (vessel). The main nave of a church faces East or West, so one tip of the building is like a bow.
But on the other hand there are other naves too: side and transversal. If we cannot say where their bows are how can we be sure that the bow of the main nave is in the East? Becouse the Sun rises somewhere there? Becouse the light (of truth) comes thence? But in the evening the light comes from the West. By the way the South is a very good direction too. In the daytime the sunlight comes mainly through the windows facing South (in the nothern hemisphere) and this goes on longer than from the East or West. And the Saviour in the altar looks westwards. So how about the bow and light of truth?

And this description I like better. NB southeast.


velisarius said:


> If it's any help, my information (a book on the church of Agia Sofia written by the Greek professor Theocharis Detorakis) says about the new church of Hagia Sophia - the one built by Justinian.: _"the orientation of the church does not run precisely east-west, as is usually the case in Orthodox churches, but is turned slightly towards the southeast, at an angle of 33.7 degrees. _


----------



## AlexanderIII

Some more arguments. All the movement in the sky seems to be directed from East to West. The Sun, the Moon, the stars rise in the East and move to the West, as everything in the world moves from its beginning to the end. So are the humans -- from womb to tomb, to the afterlife. Is it possible for the vessel of the church in the sea of life with its congregation aboard to follow the opposite direction? For the righteous there is no need to flee from the death so why not sail in harmony with the rest of the cosmos to the West? To barge against the current is more likely to the man of the romantic XIX century.

And one more ponderable consideration. A person governing the movement, a pilot, a navigator, a driver, a coachman, a horseman, a cyclist always faces the direction of the movement. Most animals have eyes in the head (and not it the tail) to allow the better view of what is ahead. Who is responsible for the sailing of the church? Be it a priest addressing the congregation or the Saviour whose main image is in the main altar both face the West, the entrance, the opening (aperture) of which allows the view of the further course of the vessel. The view in the opposite direction is blocked.

The ships of the antiquity sometimes had superstructures at the stern. It is clear why it was so. The middle of the vessel was occupied by the oarsmеn. With its bow the vessel rammed adversary boats so the space close to the bow must be reserved for the warriors to operate.















The entrance to the church (in the photo above) is in the left.
The conclusion: it cannot go without saying that the bow of the chirch is in its Eastern side.


----------



## velisarius

Sorry, I don't see what ships have to do with the question. The Jews, and hence the early Christians, worshipped facing towards the East, I believe. This was also the practice in Christianity. There  are some churches that are exceptions to the rule, for various reasons. The fact is that the main apse normally faces East and the main entrance is usually from the West. In Greece it's a well-known fact that if you are out walking and you get lost, you can find your orientation by observing any wayside chapel, because the main apse will almost always be pointing  East. (As far as I know, in English we don't talk about the "bow" of a church.)


----------



## AlexanderIII

Dear Velisaius, see post #19 first.


----------



## velisarius

I don't see the problem. In the text you are translating it's clear that the church was an exception to the E -W axis rule, though of course the church still faces nearer East than it faces South, West or North. The presence of side-chapels and additional apses doesn't change anything, in my view.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Let me resume.
We started from _The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixthcentury replacement, seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south. _(initial sentence)

Andygc said that "_a couple of degrees further toward the south_" is quite clear for anyone in a ship, boat or aeroplane. 

To this I rejoined that it is so because all these vehecles have a forward part, while it is not clear where is the forward part of a church. It it clear that an altar of an Orthodox church is at its Eastern (or south-eastern it does not matter now) wall.

The church is often likened to a ship. A pendentive in Russian is often called "vellum". Nave in French means ship. So probably the authors of the book, as Andygc, thought that in a church we can discern a "bow" (a forward part) that indicates the direction of its movement. So where is this bow? Is it the eastern or western part of a church? So my post #20 answers this question. It looks like a church (as a ship in the sea of life) sails westward. So for a church "_a couple of degrees further toward the south_" means a couple of degrees anticlockwise_.

_In reality the orientation of the new church of Hagia Sophia church does not run precisely east-west, as is usually the case in Orthodox churches, but is turned slightly towards the southeast, at an angle of 33.7 degrees. So the reality contradicts the sense of our initial sentence because this sentence  is lame.


----------



## Andygc

Alexander, the writer of the text has assumed that his readers will know something that to him is a universal truth: churches "face" east. The orientation of the nave is conventionally east-west, but the altar is always at the eastern end. As I said before, in English we say turned towards the south, not turned towards the southeast, *because we refer to the cardinal points* when describing relative alterations in direction. If you want to write English, use the English way of describing directional change (unless you want to write like a Greek professor writing in a language not his own). The original sentence is not at all lame and is perfectly clear (I make no claim as to its accuracy). It is, however missing at least  one word: "_The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixth century replacement, *and* seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south."

But although I found it perfectly clear, some people didn't:_


sdgraham said:


> The original is perfectly clear that the new church points more to the south than the old one did and there's no point of introducing doubt with a "probably."





velisarius said:


> In that case it tallies with my information that says it was 33.7 degrees to the southeast. The new church was about 3.7 degrees farther towards the southeast or "a couple of degrees" according to your writer.





AlexanderIII said:


> In reality the orientation of the new church of Hagia Sophia church does not run precisely east-west, as is usually the case in Orthodox churches, but is turned slightly towards the southeast,



Actually,  the text states that the older church was aligned further to the south than its sixth century replacement.

EDIT
Ah, I find that the quotation we were given was incomplete. The "and" comes later. It does help to have accurate and complete context in quotations in the original post, rather than a misleading fragment.
"The pre-Justinianic church was smaller than its sixth-century replacement, seems to have been aligned at an angle of about a couple of degrees further toward the south, and consisted of elements that were standard features of Constantinopolitan church planning in the early Byzantine period: an atrium, perhaps a narthex, and an aisled basilica with galleries."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/981364


----------



## AlexanderIII

Andygc, everything is clear in your post except: is it really a universal truth that churches "face" east? I'd rather say head east (if to liken a church to a ship). Why not west? Do you think so (if you do) because the altar at the eastern wall is the most important part of a church?

Where is the "head" of a church? That's the most crucial question of this thread. Altar is at the eastern wall of a church, that's for sure, but does it mean that a church faces (heads) east?  I've found a lot about this likening in Russian though the sources do not stipulate where the "head" (bow) of the ship is. A bell tower is like a mast, it has been already said about vellum and nave. Do you think the only mast can be at the prow of a ship? (see the picture above)


----------



## Andygc

Alexander, 

This is both a cultural and a language question. I am a native BE speaker. In my language and culture, churches "face" east*. The majority of old churches in Britain were built as Catholic churches. The altar and the choir are at the eastern end of the nave. The congregation sits facing the east. The church looks to the east, towards the Holy Land. It faces east. It is entirely possible that the early evangelists adopted a pagan habit of worshipping by facing sunrise, but they rationalised it as facing the Holy Land, so they built their churches to face east.

A church is fixed. I have no cultural or linguistic concept of a building having a head. The only head a church has is a person. The head of the Roman Catholic church is the Pope. The head of the Anglican community is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I can't use "head" in any other way when discussing churches or any other buildings.

The position and shape of towers and spires varies considerably. I would not think of them as in any way resembling the masts of a ship.

* But not true of many non-conformist chapels and many modern church buildings.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Ok. Does not St. Paul's cathedral (in London) face Queen Anne Statue? Or it faces East? Does not it face in the direction its facade faces?

To avoid possible misunderstanding: which of the churches in the picture is turned South?


----------



## Andygc

St Paul's Cathedral faces very slightly north of east. The west facade faces west.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Andygc said:


> St Paul's Cathedral faces very slightly north of east. The west facade faces west.


And what about pictures? I ask just to be on a safe side.
And what about The National Gallery? Does it not face Trafalgar Square?


----------



## Andygc

Sorry, the left church dotted outline is turned to the south of the solid outline. The National Gallery isn't a church and its principal elevation faces Trafalgar Square, so it faces the square. Churches are, to me, a special case because it is the arrangement of the whole structure which decides which way it faces, not a decision on which might be the principal facade. The principal facade and entrance of a cathedral is usually the west end. For an English country church the entrance is near the western end of the south side. Both types of churches face east


----------



## AlexanderIII

Thank you for your angelic patience, Andy!


Andygc said:


> Sorry, the left church dotted outline is turned to the south of the solid outline.


 Got it. The logic is clear.


Andygc said:


> The National Gallery isn't a church and its principal elevation faces Trafalgar Square, so it faces the square.


 You know, the sentence 'The National Gallery  faces Trafalgar Square' sits in the liver of every Russian schoolchild studying English.


Andygc said:


> Churches are, *to me*, a special case


That's what I've been harping on since yesterday's afternoon. *These are the key words. *It is so to the authors of the book in question but it does not go without saying, does it? Actually the definition (interpetation) of the verb 'to face' in this case is a matter of some agreement (convention).


Andygc said:


> The principal facade and entrance of a cathedral is usually the west end.


That's why I asked how I can learn a church faces East or West. The tricky thig is: if it faces east it faces west and the other way round. Because if it is a square with unequal sides than it has 2 bigger (and equal) sides both of which are facades. One is frontal the other is back.

Would you agree?


----------



## AlexanderIII

I can see myself that the word "bigger" in the previous post should be deleted. I am sorry.

So as far as I understand Andygc states that the situation with the verb to face stands like follows:
If it's said about a chrurch then is means east or south-east or something like this;
If it's said about any other building then in means the facade with maximal evaluation;

It reminds me a rule about differences between the Present Perfect and Past Simple.
If "already" or "yet" then the Present Perfect;
if "yesterday" or "in 1990" then the Past Simple;

I wonder if this rule (and this is a rule all right) is fixed somewhere in a grammer book or in a dictionary? If it is so, I'll eat my hat as the English say.

The only point in WR dictionary that has something to do with our case is:

50. to be placed with the front in a certain direction (often fol. by _on, to,_ or _toward_): The house faces on the street. The barn faces south.
What a front of a church is a lot has already been said.
So I am going to go on wearing my hat.


----------



## velisarius

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the apse where the main altar is, and which "faces" East, is in fact "round the back" of the church when you search for it from outside.

The main entrance, which may be quite grand, is on what might be called the facade - with columns and at least one large door. In that sense, this is the front of the church. By convention we say that a church faces East because that is the direction the altar faces - it's at the opposite end of the church from the facade and main entrance. (I am speaking about Greek Orthodox churches in general - there are surely many exceptions.)

I'm no expert, so I can't tell how the church was "rotated"  through a few degrees so that it was "aligned further toward the south". Since I know that churches are aligned so that the altar is towards the East, I concluded that it was a clockwise rotation. I don't think it makes sense to imagine that the (West) facade was turned further to the southeast.


----------



## AlexanderIII

velisarius said:


> Perhaps you are confused by the fact that the apse where the main altar is, and which "faces" East, is in fact "round the back" of the church when you search for it from outside.


 Velisarius, you underestimate me!


velisarius said:


> The main entrance, which may be quite grand, is on what might be called the facade - with columns and at least one large door. In that sense, this is the front of the church. By convention we say that a church faces East because that is the direction the altar faces - it's at the opposite end of the church from the facade and main entrance. (I am speaking about Greek Orthodox churches in general - there are surely many exceptions.)


This is and has been quite clear.
Actually the altar faces westward but it is situated at the eastern wall inside the church. If it were outside at the eastern wall then the crucified Christ would face east and the whole altar would do the same. What do you say to this, Velisarius? 

I guess I understand why the congregation faces east. All heavenly things rise (come) from east. Christ in his Advent they wait for must appear on the east. It evades me why this means a church faces east.



velisarius said:


> I'm no expert, so I can't tell how the church was "rotated"  through a few degrees so that it was "aligned further toward the south". Since I know that churches are aligned so that the altar is towards the East, I concluded that it was a clockwise rotation. I don't think it makes sense to imagine that the (West) facade was turned further to the southeast.


It was clear without a picture what Andygc meant, I just wanted to make surу to be on the safe side.

You know, it seems that some native speakers know this thing about facing of churches but it is not reflected in grammer books of dictionaries -- otherwise some one would refer to it. This foxes me. 132 persons saw the thread but the reaction is more than languid.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Dear all,
now it's absolutely clear. 






То get the orientation of the old Hagia Sophia you should rotate (around the center O) ray 1 (see the picture) 30 degrees to the south. You get orientation 2.

To get the orientation of the new Hagia Sophia you should rotate the ray from orientation 2 a couple of degrees further to the south. You get orientation 3. 

Everything is simple and clear even if the church faces east (sharp). Rotation of a ray implies that it's point O (an axis of rotation) remains fixed while all the rest of it moves. So it's not a cultural-linguistic peculiarity.
Million thanks to Velisarius the Greatest, Cdgraham and (last but not least) Andygc !


----------



## Andygc

AlexanderIII said:


> To get the orientation of the new Hagia Sophia you should rotate the ray from orientation 2 a couple of degrees further to the south.


No, see my earlier post #25. The text describes the orientation of the old church compared with its 6th century replacement, not the orientation of the 6th century replacement compared with the older church. However, your understanding of the rotation needed is fine, you are just applying it to the wrong church.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Oh, yes, how silly of me! Of course you are right! Andygc, you saved my head from decapitation! Thank you!


----------



## AlexanderIII

I am really ashamed but today I again don't understand. Let me ask: is the church at the bottom of the picture aligned at an angle of about 30 degrees (I tried to do 30) to the south from its initial position? The rotation was around point O.


----------



## Andygc

Yes


----------



## AlexanderIII

1) Then Fig. 1 (in this post) also depicts aligning 30 degrees to the South -- all the body of the top rectangle shifts in this direction.



 2) White rectangle (at the top of Fig. 2) being rotated 30 degrees to the South will orient as the one at the bottom of Fig. 2 (if the point of rotation lies outside on the continuation of its longitudinal axis of symmetry and to the East of the initial rectangle);
or as the green one (if the point of rotation lies inside the initial rectangle on its axis of symmetry).

Let's compare Fig.1 from this post and the picture from my previous post (#39). We can see that the result of rotation depends not only on the direction of rotation (here to the South), not only on degrees (here 30) but on the position of the point of rotation. What do you say to this? Do you agree now that direction and degree of rotation is not enought to describe the result of aligning?


----------



## Andygc

The original text is about a church. We've already covered the usual meaning of "to face" when referring to churches. They face east. You are now considering a general case. If my house faces east and I build a new house aligned 45 degrees south of my old house my new house faces southeast. If I build a shed that faces west and build a new shed aligned 45 degrees further south my new shed faces southwest.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Do you mean we cannot say that Fig.1 (post #41) describes alingment 30 degrees to the South, if the rectangle is a church? And we can, if it is any other kind of building?

Then, Andy, is there a way to describe the aligning of a church as it is shown in Fig.1 (post #41)?

If I understand you right, the point of rotation (in case of a church) must always lie to the west of the rotated church.


----------



## Andygc

The point of rotation is irrelevant. Think of the building as an arrow. The arrow points in the direction that the building faces. If you turn the arrow does it point further north or further south? In your post #41 you have two churches facing east. The three rotated churches have all been aligned some 30 degrees to the north of the original two. 

If fig 1 represents a house facing south, the new house has been aligned to face some 30 degrees to the east of the original house.


----------



## AlexanderIII

I see. Thank you, Andy. I think I understand (for a couple of days at least). And all this is because the altar is supposed to be situated at the eastern wall of a church and to face the West!!! And if a church faces not [East..South] but some other direction, say, North-East (in the southern hemisphere)? How would you say about it's most important facade? That it ... what?... faces North-East?


----------



## PaulQ

There is an interesting article on the orientation of the altar of Christian churches in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_orientem. This will hold true for Hagia Sofia as the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches did not take place until the 11th century.


----------



## AlexanderIII

Thank you, PaulQ, for the link. I've read. Very interesting.


----------

