"Curso del buen forista"

[LucasGabriel]

Hermanos en Cristo:

Bueno, comencemos con la propuesta de formar una “curso del buen forista”.

Listemos los temas que debería tener el “apunte”. O sea las materias que debemos formar. Pero sólo debemos listarlas, es decir, escribir todos los temas que crean que deben tratarse.

El método es así:
"Por ahora" todos aportamos los temas que deberíamos conocer como foristas. Sólo los "temas" o "subtemas" sin explicarlos, sólo escribirlos.
Yo los voy sacando y recopilando en un archivo y les doy un poquito de orden. Después los vemos todos juntos ordenados y aportamos a cada tema para llenarlos y luego pulirlos.

Vamos que las generaciones de foristas nos lo van agradecer!

Bueno, a poner muchas ganas! Que después hay examen!! ( Noooooo...)

Ah! y aportemos un nombre al curso!

Aporto un tema:
La gramática (aporten subtemas de esto también, que este dentro de gramática)

Casi me olvido! . haber los más inspirados Comencemos con una oración para que nos guíe en esta tarea.
_________________


Carmelitas Descalzos Seglares

[ultravioleta]

Lucas Gabriel,Mil Gracias
oremos primero que todo,
Empezemos...

[Jose Francisco]

Aqui les va mi aporte.

Primer Tema: "A mi no me hace falta este curso".

Explica la necesidad de tener un curso como este. Dirigido especialmente a todos aquellos que creen que no les hace falta el curso.
_________________
EPJ Chama
Encuentros de Promocion Juvenil
Por Cristo: +, +, +!!!

[ultravioleta]

Perfecto José Fransisco , que alguien se anime a poner algun prólogo y una linda oración, por fas,

algun hermano inspirado, como dijo Lucas Gabriel?

[ultravioleta]

Lucas Gabriel: Sugiero los temas:

1)"El Foro no es una competencia I todos tenemos diferentes carismas"

2)"El foro no es una competencia II Unidos en CRISTO, vivamos en comunión, compartiendo, aprendiendo y practiando la caridad en el Foro

4) ¿como responder a una agresión?

[Enrique Basaguren]

Jajajaja.

Ahí les va un Reumen hasta ahora:

1) ¿Por que se necesita un curso?
2) Gramática

-------------------------

Míos

3) Finalidad de los foros

4) Objetivo de los epígrafes

5) Objetivo del aporte

6) Estructura de un aporte
- ¿Por que el aporte debe ser susciento?

7) Netiqueta, y Normas de intervención


Hasta aquí los que se me ocurren.

Saludos a Todos
_________________
Dios les Bendiga

[LucasGabriel]

Muy bueno hasta ahora todos los aportes, cuanta productividad!

La oración..la oración...ya vendrá alguien (carisma) con una oración..

Ah! Enrique, disculpa que no entiendo : Susciento - Netiqueta
Lo demás buenísimo!
_________________


Carmelitas Descalzos Seglares

[LucasGabriel]

Ah! netiqueta: Normas básicas de comportamiento en el ciberespacio: correo electrónico, chat y mensajería instantánea. Perdón
_________________


Carmelitas Descalzos Seglares

[Reynaldo Figueroa]

Me permitire hacer una Oración a San Jose:

Enseñanos José
como se es "no protagonista",
como se avanza sin pisotear,
como se colabora sin imponerse,
como se ama sin reclamar.

Dinos Jose,
como se vive siendo "numero dos",
como se hacen cosas fenomenales
desde un segundo puesto.

Explicanos, José,
Como se es grande sin exhibirse,
como se lucha sin aplauso,
como se avanza sin publicidad,
como se persevera y se muere uno
sin esperanza de que le
hagan un homenaje.

[Fabrem]

Dado que nadie nace sabiendo, parece excelente idea la del curso sobre "Cómo participar en foros.


Hay que comprender que a veces el problema no es de conocimiento, sino de recursos, pero si la carencia de recursos es tal que no puede asegurar un estándar mínimo de desempeño, puede resultar lesionada severamente la misión del instrumento corresondiente.

Por otro lado, en cuanto al contenido del curso, hay que preguntarse primero cuál es el problema que se quiere resolver con la inducción de ese conocimiento específico en el campo de la participación en los foros.

Digo esto, porque si la participación ya está normada por los valores cristianos, no hace falta un curso para participar en los foros, como no hacen falta cursos para participar en una cena o en una reunión de trabajo o en una recepción. Es que es difícil resolver con la enseñanza específica para la participación en los foros una necesidad de virtud que debe preceder a toda actividad del cristiano, y que no es privativa de ningún campo.

Creo que la necesidad de instrucción se cubre en un 80% con las normas de participación que ya están publicadas.

Adicionalmente creo que servirían guías o normas específicas para debates o discusiones, una de las cuales es, por ejemplo, es comprender bien, bien lo que el otro escribe antes de responder.

Voy a copiar en seguida parte de un documento en inglés que explica diferentes falacias. lo que ya puede servir. Lamentablemente no tengo ningún ejemplar en español.

[Fabrem]

Este listado de falacias es un tanto largo, pero creo que vale la pena.

ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM / APPEAL TO FORCE
The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.

For example: "... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man". The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example: "Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances.

For example: "It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing the opponent's argument.

This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion.

For example: "Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

Examples: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise." "Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example: "A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.

For example: "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.

For example: "Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women." "The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion.

For example: "Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject.

For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between: "Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation" and "Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the specific.

For example: "Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.

CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION
This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases.

For example: "Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."

SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC These are known as False Cause fallacies.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause.

For example: "I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event.

For example: "The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

PETITIO PRINCIPII / BEGGING THE QUESTION
This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument.

For example: "Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.

Another example is the classic: "We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION / FALLACY OF PRESUPPOSITION
This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question.

One example is the classic loaded question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like: "Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: "How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?" or "Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

IGNORATIO ELENCHI
The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more favourable light.

EQUIVOCATION / FALLACY OF FOUR TERMS
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument.

For example: "What could be more affordable than vendedor software? But to make sure that it remains vendedor, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

AMPHIBOLY
Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

ACCENT
Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized.

For example:
"We should not speak ill of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our friends"

FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION
One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the whole.

For example: "The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."

The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items.

For example: "A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

FALLACY OF DIVISION
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its parts.

For example: "You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item.

For example: "Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT
This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

"A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "...IS A TYPE OF..." FALLACIES / FALLACY OF THE UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar.

Examples: "Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?" "Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?" "Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication given earlier.

DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about B.

CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".

ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITATEM
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITATEM
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else.

ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.

ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex question.

NON SEQUITUR
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected with it.

RED HERRING
This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.

REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

STRAW MAN
The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

THE EXTENDED ANALOGY

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about anti- cryptography legislation: "I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it." "Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King." "Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

TU QUOQUE

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it.

For instance: "You're just being randomly abusive." "So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem.

AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.

AD HOC

There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation: "I was healed from cancer." "Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer." "So, will He heal others who have cancer?" "Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

[Esther Filomena]

Bueno mis hermanos:

Creo que deben enseñarme a ser mejor cristiano y seré buen forista.

Si no damos paso a Cristo que hable por nosotros, ningún curso, ningún tratado, nada sirve. Peor si esta en ingles: (perdon Alejandro )

Porque un corazón duro, no aprende nada.

Porque no rezamos antes de escribir? Creo que si estamos enfadados, se nos pasa y escribiremos algo mas cristiano verdad?


“Velad y orad, para que no caigáis en tentación; que el espíritu está pronto, pero la carne es débil." Mt 26,41


Paz y bien
_________________
Esther Filomena

[Jose Francisco]

No se si sea un tema, pero ahi va otra idea:

Antes de abrir un tema (epigrafe) nuevo, revisar la historia del foro para no estar repitiendo los mismos temas una y otra y otra vez.
_________________
EPJ Chama
Encuentros de Promocion Juvenil
Por Cristo: +, +, +!!!

[LucasGabriel]

[LucasGabriel]

Gracias por la oración Reynaldo. Necesitabamos pedir siempre esa ayudita con la que no podríamos hacer nada. ¿Podría incluirse en las oraciones de los foristas dentro del curso?

[AURORA]

[AURORA]

[AURORA]

parece que DIOS dispone .................y bueno es asi .

[AURORA]

[Albert]

Herman@s:

La oración constante es el camino seguro a la santidad. No estoy proponiendo un tema, estoy indicandoles una de las formas de hacer de este curso uno verdaderamente fructifero. Dios les bendiga.
_________________

Transfíge, dulcíssime Dómine Jesu
Albert González Villanueva, OFS

[Jose Francisco]

[Denis04]

podrían ir dos breves reseñas?
Una que enseñe a aprender a leer sin saltarse frases y
otra para aprender a leer entrelineas....
estoy feliz porque recién aprendí a usar emoticons
pero me pongo triste porque no los usé antes
Aveces me averguenzo cuando nadie comenta mis respuestas,
entonces disimulo , mastico mi orgullo y pienso en lo que me llevó a este foro , contento con la respuesta de mi Fé, le digo a mis hermanos continuemos este camino que Fortalece la Fe.
_________________

CONFIRMADO

[Jose Fernando Ortiz]

[ultravioleta]

Denis04 , no te preocupes, a mi bastante seguido me ignoran,

saludos !!

[EduaRod]

[LucasGabriel]

[LucasGabriel]

[LucasGabriel]

[María Esther]

Apreciados hermanos en Cristo:

Hasta ahora puedo entrar a este tema y he leido cada uno de los aportes...más o menos detenidamente.

Creo que esa sería una regla de oro: leer todos los aportes para no replicar información o evitar malos entedidos

Ser Forista parte de las motivaciones particulares de cada uno y, como además de ser Foristas somos Católicos, deberíamos tener especial cuidado en las intenciones que nos mueven a participar, bien sea proponiendo un tema de discusión, bien sea aportando ideas a la discusión planteada por otro.

Así podíamos partir de lo que es cada uno como base de un verdadero crecimiento. Una pregunta inicial para cada uno de los que aquí participamos: ¿Qué busco?

De aquí depende buena parte de los elementos que nos hacen agradables o desagradables, densos o sencillos, coherentes o incoherentes, pepeadores o conciliadores.

Y, para ser sencilla me atrevo a proponer la características que debería tener el Forista Católico Tipo (o ideal)

1. Amabilidad
2. Caridad
3. Firmeza
4. Claridad tanto en el planteamiento de dudas como en la argumentacion.
5. Desapacionamiento: y aquí me quiero detener un poco. No importa cuánto hablemos... en estos temas nuestra opinión poco o nada influye en el otro. Cada uno viene con un bagaje de creencias y conocimientos que, en el curso del ejercicio de investigar, leer, refutar y argumentar, se va depurando.

Si nos permitimos tomarnos a personal las opiniones contrarias entramos, automáticamente, en un contrapunteo que daña el clima de los Foros.

Podemos defender nuestros puntos de vista sin llegar al extremo de estigmatizar al otro.

Esto reviste gran dificultad por cuanto nuestras caretas caen rápidamente. Nosotros mostramos (ante cada Forista y - no lo olvidemos - ante cada lector anónimo) la gama completa: desde el ateísmo hasta el fanatismo (y lo digo SIN hacer alusión a nadie en particular). En muy poco tiempo nos damos a conocer y somos facilmente etiquetables en lo referente a nuesto carácter religioso: relativistas, new agers, obedientes, tradicionalistas, progresistas, creyentes, ateos, panganos, fanáticos...

Así mismo se van creando grupos de apoyo en donde las simpatías y antipatías saltan a la vista.

Si mezclamos nuestros caracteres religiosos con nuestra forma particular de ser el problema se complica: conciliadores, agresivos, provocadores, tranquilos, irascibles, sensibles, fuertes... y todo lo que se nos ocurra.

Pero, independientemente de nuestra forma de ser y de nuestra formación y orientación religiosa, podemos aprender a no apacionarnos innecesariamente en pro del clima de esta comunidad que, aunque virtual, es verdadera Comunidad.

[María Esther]

Otra regla que debería aplicarme: leer el texto antes de enviarlo para evitar errores como los que cometí y por los cuales pido sentidas disculpas