Catholic Answers' Forums then Ahmed Deedat

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Daylight Saving Time and Arizona's Resistance

Good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday, Thursday type situation. That is where we are changing the time around because obviously far too many of you were figuring out when to listen.

We're just getting you prepared for a few weeks from now when all of you, you sheep, just follow after your leaders and dishonor and disrespect time.

Sheep or lemmings?

Either one. Same activity where you just, I mean, you know when you touch that clock, when you grab that clock, you know that what you're doing is a lie because you know that you're not falling backwards or forwards or springing backwards or forwards or whatever it is.

You know time isn't changing. The sun's getting up at the exact same time in the morning. It's setting. You know that. And so here is an example of mass deception, mass cultic hypnosis except for a few places where sanity continues to prevail because we're better armed than the rest of you.

Well, is it Illinois that doesn't do it or Indiana? I can't remember which one it is because if it's Illinois, they ain't armed at all. Well, the criminals are.

It's part of Indiana as I recall. It's not all of Indiana. It's a couple of counties in Indiana.

Yeah, it's really weird. It's very odd. But it could have been Illinois because they're not armed at all.

Can you imagine half of Arizona being on California time, the other half being on New Mexico time?

That would be really a mess.

That would be bizarre. But instead we're on our own time.

That's right. We are always on time.

That's right.

Mountain standard time.

That's right.

That's right. We are the only ones who are. When is that? When is that? End of October? I think it's the end of October now. They keep moving it.

I never take notice.

Well, but we have to because we've got these atomic clocks.

No, no, no. We set them so that they function off of Greenwich Mean Time.

Yeah, but some of them still flop around.

The clockmakers are starting to pick up on the fact that Arizona is smarter than everyone else.

That's right.

And they're making their clocks to be able to adapt to our way of doing things.

Oh, look at that. As of this year, all of Indiana now goes on and off daylight savings time. See? See? More proof of mass deception and the crumbling of Western society. 877 -753 -3341. I know everybody's going, who cares?

We don't care. And I understand that. But I know Arizona is not destined to succumb. We tried that. It was 1977, I think. We actually tried it. And in early July, it would be light at 10 o 'clock at night, and it would be 110 degrees.

And everyone's like, excuse me, this doesn't make any sense. And so we said, forget it. And so, no, we're not going to happen. And if it does, I'm going to ignore it anyways. I'm going to be a rebel and say forget it.

Catholic Answers, Anti-Catholicism, and Roman Catholic Apologetics

I got an e-mail while we're screening the 147 ,000 calls that come flooding in whenever we open the phone lines. Excuse me while my nose hits the microphone here. I got this, let's see, the 21st, right before we head up to Toronto.

The folks at Catholic Answers sent out an e-mail. And it was about, well, I'll just read a section. Anti-Catholic hackers wiped out our Catholic Answers forums at www .catholic .com. They could do it again if we don't upgrade our security immediately.

And basically, it's a big, long thing about how they need $110 ,000 to upgrade their security. It talks about, you know, they've been hit with DNS stuff and e-mail floods and port scans and IP address spoofing and blah, blah, blah, blah.

And everybody who knows anything about the Internet knows about all this stuff. I mean, we used to be a server called Undernet before we went to Starlink IRC. And the reason we went to Starlink IRC is the Internet was attacked, a DNS attack on the Internet servers and took them down, just wiped them out.

And it took quite some time for the Internet to come back. And we never bothered going back because there's a lot of really weird people on the Internet. And Starlink IRC is more family-friendly, and so we've stayed there.

And so we know about this kind of stuff, and there's really nothing unusual here except this stuff about anti-Catholics. Because remember, one of my biggest complaints against Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers is that if you're opposed to them in any way, you're an anti-Catholic.

I think it's quite honest. I think this is arrogant. I think it's arrogant of Rome to define everybody else's faith by her own. Well, we are the one true church, and therefore you are anti-Catholic if you oppose us and blah, blah, blah.

And I've tried to point out, when I refer to them, I don't refer to them as anti-Baptists. I don't refer to them along those lines. I have a couple of times when I was trying to make this exact point to point out how inane it is.

But their response is always, well, you're an anti-Catholic because you say we're not Christians. And so the Mormons say you're anti-Mormon, and the Catholics say you're anti-Catholic, and I imagine the Muslims think you're anti-Islam and blah, blah, blah.

And everybody defines it. Of course, when I refer to them, I refer to them as Roman Catholic apologists. They defend the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not going to define them on the basis of my beliefs.

I'm sitting here seeing how long it will take for Rich to see the phone ring. We put it in front of you. We're going to have to attach a big old flash of light. It's just going to blind you every time that goes off.

Anyway, so it really sounds odd, given the fact that they will use the term anti-Catholic of me to refer to hackers as anti-Catholic. Folks, if you've learned anything about hackers, and we used to have a guy who would come into the Starlink IRC, and we eventually came to know him as Galxtron.

And the guy was just nuts, okay? Probably some kid, and he's down in the basement, and his parents don't know what he's doing. And he's obviously very bright because he can spoof various IPs and do various and sundry kinds of attacks and things like that.

And just some person with a computer and some computer knowledge. He wasn't anti-Baptist or something when he would come in and act like he was someone and attack me or whatever, and all this kind of silliness.

It would just never cross my mind to define him on the basis of my theology or something along those lines. It just doesn't make sense. But all of a sudden, these people attacking the Catholic Answers Forums are anti-Catholics, just like I am.

That helps to create this paranoia that we see in the Catholic Answers Forums that we saw last week when we had the Mickey meltdown. And so, notice something that says here, One time, hackers clogged our internet capabilities by hitting us with 2 ,000 spam emails per second.

This came right after we launched our now famous Voters Guide for Serious Catholics just before the 2004 elections. Just a coincidence? Not likely. Well, who would be wanting to do that? Protestants? Protestant anti-Catholics?

Or liberals? Or maybe liberal Catholics? Liberal Catholics or anti-Catholics? I guess. I don't know. This whole thing about anti-Catholic this and anti-Catholic that is just really silly. So you go through this whole email, and it's all about, We've got to have all the security, and we need $110 ,000, and the whole thing is, help us defeat the anti-Catholic stuff.

When I've complained about this, what they've said is, Well, look, we're not anti-Baptist because we say you're a Christian, but you're an anti-Catholic because you say that we're not, blah, blah, blah.

Well, I found it sort of interesting that on Jimmy Akin's blog this morning, it wasn't a Jimmy Akin article, it was, I think, Michelle Arnold, but she made reference to something over on Mark Shea's blog, and it was about, you know, Ratzinger is German, and they're saying, you know, is Ratzinger the new Luther, the anti-Luther?

You know, it's been about 500 years, and I guess some Roman Catholic had said that most heresies have about 500 years. This was mentioned on Akin's blog, and so that would obviously make Protestantism a heresy.

And then there's a reference to Mark Shea's comment, and I'm reading it right off of his website here, off of his blog, and it says, it would be like God to put ground zero for a return to the faith in the country where so much of the poison came from.

Well, what's the poison? Well, the poison would be Luther. The poison would be the Reformation. And so on the one hand, well, we're not anti-Catholics because you're Christians, but you're poisonous.

The double standard that these folks have to live with to keep up the appearance of us versus them, and I sort of feel sorry for conservative Roman Catholic apologists because they're living in a tough world right now.

Let's give them some credit here. They're living in a tough world because, let's face it, they know that most of their leaders are really not where they are, and they know that the people that they're having to sort of prop up and say are guided by God and everything else won't do anything about the rank liberalism that is all over Roman Catholic education and all over the Roman Catholic system.

And they're pretty embarrassed right now by this archbishop that just, man, reading this guy's story was really something else. The excommunication basically of this archbishop by the fact that he has just set apart Malingo, Archbishop Malingo is his name.

And it's pretty amazing to read the story about this guy and how the Zambia archbishop, I just got to read this because, I mean, if this was my church, I would be just embarrassed out of my mind that this guy was still an archbishop.

Check this out. A Vatican statement, let me back up here, Pope Benedict XVI has excommunicated a Zambian archbishop, Emmanuel Malingo, two days after he ordained four married men as bishops. A Vatican statement said he had been automatically excommunicated under church law because of his actions.

By the way, this is right next to a picture of Malingo with a South Korean woman that he married at a Mooney wedding. One of the mass Mooney weddings. Not Mooney, that's Chicago, wrong place. Mooney, you know, Sung Young Moon?

Archbishop Malingo, 76, who now lives in the U .S., that's a good place to be if you're the Zambian archbishop, I think, you know, performed the ordination ceremony in Washington, D .C. on Sunday. The Catholic diocese in Washington immediately declared the installations to be invalid.

Correspondents say that Archbishop Malingo has long been a controversial figure in the Roman Catholic Church. Why would that be? Because six years ago he married a South Korean woman at a mass wedding in New York organized by the Korean-based unification church, the so-called Moonies.

He was later persuaded by the Vatican to renounce the marriage, but has since rejoined his wife. The Zambian preacher was nominated Archbishop of Lusaka at age 39, a post he held for 14 years, before a disagreement with the Vatican over his activities as a healer and an exorcist.

He was recalled to Rome in 1983, but managed to keep his rank of archbishop. How? I have no clue. Archbishop Malingo then gained a strong following in a church where he had been stationed near Rome because of his reputation as an exorcist.

But Catholic officials accused him of promoting African indigenous beliefs by performing mass exorcisms and healing ceremonies. Mr. Malingo announced earlier this year that his new mission was to persuade the church to allow priests to marry.

Well, there you go.

Wow.

You know, I can say without the slightest bit of doubt or hesitation that Malingo would not have lasted long amongst us Reformed Baptists.

You know what I mean?

He wouldn't have been around for a long period of time. So you got to feel sorry for these folks, because they've got to try to, you know, defend the Vatican as infallible in matters of faith and morals and all that kind of stuff.

And, you know, the Pope's infallible when he speaks to faith and morals. An infallible church has never made an error. You know, and you've got to really stand on your head to work with Honorius and stuff like that.

But then you've got this kind of stuff. And it really, you know, makes people go, hmm. And they know the liberals are there, and they don't do anything about it. And, in fact, the liberals, you know, end up in high church office.

And it's tough. It's tough to be a good Catholic apologist today. Because to be an apologist, you've got to actually believe what you believe is true. And you've got to be conservative enough to be concerned that other people also believe it to be true.

And it's tough to be in that situation these days. But, evidently, Archbishop Malingo doesn't have any problem with his apologetics. He just, you know, doesn't seem to recognize the difference between the Catholic Church and the Moonies.

That's pretty amazing. 877 -753 -3341. Let's go ahead and talk with Adam real quick.

Hi, Adam.

Hey, Dr. White.

What's up?

I wanted to thank you for your help last week when I was calling about Eastern Orthodoxy. That's not what I want to talk about today, but it was helpful. And I wanted to tell you I can empathize with you about what's going on at the Catholic Answers Forums.

Because I was actually on the Catholic Answers Forums a couple of years ago.

You're not the anti-Catholic hacker, are you?

No.

Okay. Just checking. Just checking.

That's just crazy. I think these folks over there are just paranoid, you know. But anyways, I think I remember talking to you and your channel about how I was suspended from there and I didn't figure out why.

Oh, yeah.

And you told me to write a note to the administrator.

Right.

And I did that, and I copied my note to you. And apparently, I got a message back three months after I sent that note. And apparently, what they told me is since my nickname, my nick was Martin Luther, I was violating the terms of service by using a name that was not my own.

Oh, yeah. So, all those folks on the board there, those are their real names, huh?

Yeah, well, C .C. is on there.

Yeah, there's...

C .C. was a saint of the Catholic Church. Oh, I was... I just...

So, Catholic Head is... that's his actual name is Catholic Head. Yeah, right. Okay, I believe that. No, as I recall, I don't remember the specifics, but as I recall, about two years ago, yeah, about that same time frame, I had gotten a note from one of the administrators basically saying that if I had a problem with anything I saw personal on the Catholic Answers forums, that I should contact this person and let them know.

And I said, well, you know, I appreciate that. I honestly don't spend a whole lot of time reading these. Generally, I'm directed to particular threads because my name comes up or something like that. But my issue is not wanting to censor these people.

My issue is just demonstrating that they generally are really into just attacking individuals without ever dealing with substance at all. And even last week when we talked with Mickey, when I would ask for examples, we couldn't get examples.

And then when I dared to say that I had had Catholics contact me and apologize for her kind of behavior, oh, you say that, but she basically said I was lying. And since then, I've had like two more who have contacted me and, you know, got to admit that those folks are there.

But my goodness, my experience in reading those threads is the few voices of reason that pop up and go, you know, probably I shouldn't ought to be doing this because it's sort of like hypocritical, just get buried in the avalanche of silliness, which isn't unusual in a lot of computer forums.

Let's face it. I've never been there, but people in channel have told me that, for example, the Yahoo forums, I guess, are just filled with Yahoos for some odd reason. And, you know, there's this voice thing that we do not allow you to mention the name of it on the program or in channel, but you can actually talk to other people on this one thing.

I guess it's just filled with lots and lots of wackos on that thing, too. So, you know, having a computer does not give you the first bit of common sense, you know.

That's true.

So, you know, who knows.

You find all sorts of wacky stuff online.

Yes, you most certainly do. So, but, you know, honestly, I haven't taken the time to go back to the forums. I'm trying to avoid just throwing my hands up in the air and giving up on this project that I'm supposed to be finished with by now.

And so I just haven't had time to even bother to go back.

I did want to say one thing, though, and I don't mean this as really to be mean or anything like that, but the people that I've seen you debate and things like that, I'm a biblical languages major. And when I read commentaries and things like that and people quote Catholic scholarship, generally the people that they quote are not the James Aikens and the Carl Keatings and folks like that.

So I was thinking, you know, maybe part of the reason that you're getting the response that you're getting is because you're not really dealing with the best the Catholic scholarship has to offer.

Well, as I've said many times, the best of Catholic scholarship is not apologetically minded. The best of Catholic scholarship is significantly more ecumenical in its orientation and in fact pluralistic today.

And that's the point is that I've said many times there is a major gap that exists between mainstream Roman Catholic scholarship today and mainstream and historical Roman Catholic apologetics because the two really don't go hand in hand.

I mean Roman Catholic historians as a whole recognize, for example, the centrality of such things as the donation of Constantine, the pseudo-Isidorean decretals in the creation of the entire papal mechanism and hierarchy.

And with the exposure of those things as frauds, the organization still exists, but the foundation was wiped out a long time ago. And so how are you supposed to defend the claims of Vatican I when the history just isn't there to do it?

You can't.

Until you get what you got last week, what you got last week.

Well, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. But as long as those folks are out there and as long as they're following after the Tim Staples of the world, who I heard a number of years ago saying that every single early church writer ever found believed what Rome believed about Matthew 16. Now that's just simply...

That's ridiculous. That's pure fiction.

That's ridiculous.

But how many people are going to... How many Roman Catholic scholars, for example, are going to make commentary about what Tim Staples is saying? And yet who's on EWTN and who's on the radio and who's in the forums and who's putting this stuff out but these very people?

And so, yeah, that's why the Catholic... In fact, it's really interesting just to examine the few times they've tried to get some conservative Catholic scholars involved. They've not done well. I mean, the hit piece they did on me where they attacked a footnote in an article and even then I was able to cite numerous sources demonstrating the sources they were using were downright laughable.

It's just sort of... I don't know. They have to spend a lot of time and effort and energy keeping this aura up that all is well in Rome. And the fact of the matter is it isn't. Once people get into the church, unless they just stay focused only upon the Alphonsus Liguri-type Marian piety, let's not look outside of any of this.

If they actually start looking around the church and start looking around at what's going on, it's not long before they realize that every single argument that may have convinced them to become Roman Catholic is actually more valid when used against Roman Catholicism.

And so, you know, that's just the way it is. And sometimes you do have to... It is difficult for me to keep in mind, and I mentioned this on the blog, you've got your Mitch Paklas out there, and so there's a level of scholarship that you need to practice in responding to them.

But for every one of them, there's a dozen Art Sipos and this Lilac fellow who was writing in and some of these other folks that are just way out on the fringe someplace.

And so...

I don't get it, James. You know, I go to a Lutheran school here, and I have many wonderful Lutheran friends and we talk about issues and we talk in a calm manner. And finally, why do people have to have so much acid in their pens when they write?

Every group, let's face it, every group has people in it that can be rather acidic and acerbic. In fact, it's one thing... I mean, let me give you an example. I can be very acidic and acerbic, too. Every time I've debated someone who defends the murder of unborn children, I have been very acidic, very acerbic.

I've taken every opportunity that I could have to refute them right, left, upside and downside, and I always will. But I have proven repeatedly my capacity to dialogue with people in a fair and respectful manner when they will reciprocate.

And so it's the people who can never do that. Art Sipo could never do that. There's no way on God's green earth he could ever do that. He lacks the capacity to do so, and there are many others in the same boat.

And so I think there are times to be extremely straightforward. There are times to be very strong. I mean, Paul was very strong at times, and at other times he was very gentle. You have to have some type of mature wisdom to know which is which, and we try to model that.

But it's not always easy to do. Anyway, hey, Adam, thanks for your call. All right, God bless. Bye-bye.

God bless.

Exclusive Psalmody, the KJV-Only Comma Johanneum, and Congregational Overreach

All righty, let's continue on. I've actually got some clips and stuff to play here, but since we have more than one caller before we take our break, let's talk to Sean. Hi, Sean. Is it Sean or Scene?

Sean.

Sean, all righty. We have a Scene McLaughlin out here.

Oh, no.

He's a weatherman, so what can I say? What can I do for you, Sean?

Dr. White, last time I called you I was actually in Colorado.

Yes.

You remember that?

I'm sorry, I don't make an effort to remember.

It was concerning the Puritan board.

Okay.

Are you the one?

Paul, I am.

Oh, yes, okay.

All right.

I had made a couple of remarks concerning a dividing line that you did a couple of weeks ago. I don't actually have a computer in front of me at the moment.

Yes, and I made a comment at the end of a short blog article because there were two shots that were taken my way.

Right, and that was actually my buddy Rob.

Yes, one was about exclusive psalmody, and the other one was about the King James-only comma-johannium stuff, and I found in both instances, instead of it being any type of useful interaction, it was just basically, well, it's obvious he's never read anything worthwhile on this, or, well, that's not how to do apologetics.

No, I personally, if I would like to interject there, that wasn't what I was trying to indicate at all, and I don't think that my words actually lend themselves to that. When I was substantial work on the subject of exclusion of musical instruments from a Reformed perspective, the only thing I actually assumed was that you hold to the regulative principle being a Reformed Baptist elder.

I'm concerned by the fact that at the very end of it, it seemed that you needlessly brought our congregation into it and seemed to be a congregation of which you have no knowledge.

Actually, what I indicated was both people put the same church, and I misspelled church here, didn't I, put the same church at the end of their comments, and it was after, let's see, using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a good lesson on what not to do as an apologist.

That was the comment from, you know the fellow's name, I didn't bother putting the name there, Rob, I guess, and you had made the comment about the exclusive psalmody stuff, and I had made the comment, I said, well, I don't think I'm going to be invited to speak there any time soon, which probably would be the case, I would imagine, and I did find it rather odd that one church was producing so many folks that were taking these, what I find to be, I don't know, just odd shots when I'm not even participating on the board.

I don't think that it would be proper for me to do so. So I was like, well, okay, is there something going on in this one congregation where I'm the big baddie? I'm, you know, the bad guy? I don't know, no one's ever bothered to contact me and say, hey, you know what?

We as a group think that you really should stop doing what you're doing, or whatever, I don't know, but it does seem rather odd that two completely different attacks upon me would be coming from the same church.

That's pretty unusual, isn't it?

I would say coming from two individuals that happen to be members of the same church and happen to also frequent your posts, frequent the dividing line, read your materials.

I just simply point out that for some reason, when someone, and especially, I'm not getting back into the Kamiohanian thing, to be honest with you.

That wasn't mine.

I know, I'm just saying, that was at the end of that paragraph where someone has said, using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a good lesson on what not to do as an apologist. Well, first of all, there's no logical fallacies.

He didn't even read me properly. And secondly, there's just no reason to argue in that fashion, is there? I mean, especially since you haven't even begun to prove your point. It just seemed to me that it was the same kind of attitude, which was, well, obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about, without actually engaging anything that I've said on the issue.

And especially, I think what bothered me about your comment was, I said in the phone call that you were responding to, I said, now look, I have no interest in getting into these arguments whatsoever. I think it's rather odd that I'm sitting here trying to get ready for the Cantor debate.

I'm going to be doing a debate with Bill Shishko that's going to demonstrate that we can discuss these issues in a meaningful fashion. I've got Spong coming up. I've got all this stuff that I think, dealing with homosexuality, defying the doctrines of grace at Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Now, these things are, I would think, somewhat important. And yet, in the midst of all that, I've got these sometimes Calvinists drive me nuts. We tend to argue about stuff that just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense at times.

And I've met, and I'm sure you've met, a number of Calvinists that get a burr under their saddle, and they get their one topic, and my goodness, they are willing to divide as fast as any Baptist ever has over that particular issue if someone dares to take a different perspective.

And it seemed pretty clear to me that when I answered that phone call, I was saying, look, I'm just going to answer this real quickly. I'm not going to get into arguments about this. If anybody wants to argue about this, just totally go away because I'm not going to get into it.

But here's just a few thoughts that I've had on this, this, this, and this, and moved on from there. And so when I found two people from the same church basically taking shots at me, and if you say I misunderstood your comment, it just came across that way.

And let's be honest about something about the Puritan board. There are times when Calvinists say things there that you end up with an entire milieu on that board where it just comes across like, well, sure, everybody understands that, don't they?

And it's like, don't disagree with this perspective because, you know, everybody understands that. And it's like, well, no, not necessarily. There's actually room for some disagreement on a couple issues here, you know.

And so anyways, that's how it goes, man.

I do admit I wasn't the people on the board that might happen to disagree with the church's position on the set of foreign people out there since there are a number of people on the Puritan board who do hold the unaccompanied exclusive psalm.

I was more, I guess, preaching to the choir, I guess would be the term if we believe in choirs.

Well, the point was, have I ever made this program a platform for campaigning against your position on that?

Certainly not.

And so I made a brief comment, obviously.

A brief segue from addressing where the Christ, or the Campbellites, and you immediately segued into, well, you know, what's funny is a lot of Reformed people have held this, too.

Yeah, talking about music in worship and the different reasons for all of that, and I simply gave my own understanding, and I've never made it an issue. If a church wants to engage in exclusive psalmody, I taught for a year at a Covenanter church in their high school, and they were psalm singers.

So what?

Which one?

Just up the street from where our church is, here in Phoenix, just north of Indian Street.

Oh, John McGinn's church?

I don't know who's there right now. There's been a lot of changes. So, little church, very small church, but taught there for a year. And it's like, okay, fine. What I find pretty odd, to be honest with you, and they weren't this way, obviously, because they allowed me to teach there, but is that a lot of folks who adopt these positions end up basically saying, we not only demand the freedom to do this ourselves, but we basically are going to look down on anybody who doesn't.

And, you know, for me, I think that that's a decision that the elders of that church need to make, and the idea of sort of, well, you know, we're more in tune with God because of this. That's where I start going, yeah, that becomes a problem.

And I would disagree with that, and I would disagree that I bear that kind of opinion. My best friend at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, but, you know, we still believe in the Lord, I would say.

Well, and that's how I try to respond to folks, but unfortunately, when I just, in passing, make reference to something, you know, the assumption is, well.

And I, in passing, make reference to your reference.

Except you said, well, it's obvious he hasn't read anything much about this, and it's like, well, how do you know that? How do you know I haven't?

That wasn't what I said.

Okay, what did you say? Because I don't, I didn't, I didn't even link to it because I wasn't, I was just, what is this?

Right.

Two paragraphs.

As I recall, it was something to the effect of how the program doesn't allow for any kind of in-depth explanation of his position, any kind of substantial treatment.

Okay.

All right. I mean, I'm not, honestly, Sean, I'm not even going to take the time to go to the Puritan board and look it up, because it just, I'm sorry, it just doesn't, it struck me that it was basically, and in fact, the people who commented likewise picked up on the yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, no one really knows our position, blah, blah, blah type thing.