court used the wrong version of the bankruptcy code. According to Mr. Flanders, the bankruptcy court erred by using the current version of 11 U.S.C. § 523 rather than the version that had been in effect when his bankruptcy petition was filed. Mr. Flanders claims that if the earlier statutory version had been used, the bankruptcy court would have concluded that his debt to Great Northern Transportation Co. had been discharged and that the bankruptcy court had enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction over dischargeability. Prior to this appeal, Mr. Flanders had not questioned the bankruptcy court’s or the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s reliance on the current statutory version. Thus, we consider this argument forfeited. See Foster v. Hill (In re Foster), 188 F.3d 1259, 1264 n.5 (10th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Flanders points out that • he raised
holding that issue not raised before the postconviction court was forfeited for the purposes of appeal holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that an appeal point was forfeited because the litigant failed to make the same argument when appealing from the bankruptcy court to the district court holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue