Inclusivity

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's right, you just assumed that because I didn't specify, that I meant that it is a punishment (period) for everyone, regardless!  I never said that though, did I?  You just assumed it.  Which can only lead me to conclude that you think I am an idiot or something.  Because only an idiot would come to that conclusion.  Clearly it is not a punishment for the righteous.  That is a given that doesn't even need to be stated.  You don't give people the benefit of the doubt Ahab.  You need to start trying.  

 

No, it was because you didn't specify that your statement as it was was wrong.  Separation is punishment only when viewed in a very narrow context and your statement did not supply that context.  And you're saying I should have assumed something that you didn't write, as if you expected me to read your mind to find words that you did not use.  I've heard about people like you who expect others to do that.  Better to just state what you think while using enough words to let others know what you are thinking, and to be correct when you say something.  

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, it was because you didn't specify that your statement as it was was wrong.  

Before I say what I am about to say, I just want to specify that what I am about to say is wrong: 

Sorry, I guess I should have specified that.

 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Before I say what I am about to say, I just want to specify that what I am about to say is wrong: 

Sorry, I guess I should have specified that.

 

... if you wanted to correctly convey your idea to someone else, like me, for example. 

I accept your apology and forgive you for what you did which was wrong.

[pogi]

Sorry to put you all through another round of this.  It is infectious apparently. 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

What we need now is more separation, I think.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think you may be thinking about role playing rather than having a double mind.  Sometimes you role play as The Nehor and at other times you put on a costume to go out and fight crime.

I'm sure you still have the same mind regardless of what role you are playing. 

A double-minded person is someone who actually changes his or her mind on occasions, thinking one way sometimes and then doing a mental flip-flop at other times, and then flip-flopping again, and again, and again, and again... frequently in contradiction.

One of my minds disagrees with you and the other has no idea what you are talking about.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Before I say what I am about to say, I just want to specify that what I am about to say is wrong: 

Sorry, I guess I should have specified that.

 

Well said.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One of my minds disagrees with you and the other has no idea what you are talking about.

Hmm.  So I'm still seeing some hope for one of your minds.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I don't understand any of this.?

"God suggests vengeance should never be except by him."  Huh?   All that says is "Thou shalt not take vengeance, leave it to me to judge others"   You take that to mean that his whole mission is vengeance?   Uh, strongly disagree.  Semantic confusion.

I get why you got confuse.  My mistake.  God says you and no one should employ vengeance.  He says vengeance is his.  Not yours or anyone else's.  I did not say that means all he is, I suggested his take is it shouldn't ever be except when hes vengeful.  

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

"That would suggest the opposite of it is the LAST thing God is about."

How exactly does it "suggest" that?  The opposite of what?  What do you mean by saying God is "about" anything?  Just jumbled words, sorry I am not understanding.

You suggested vengeance is the last thing God is about.  I'm pointing out according to his teaching you are incorrect.  He says vengeance is his and is not for anyone else.  

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"That's a silly concept of God."

I am not sure WHAT exactly is a silly concept.  It might help if you state clearly in a full sentence what position you find "silly" when stated it to be about God.

"He's the one who is vengeance and is not about pure love at all. "

Sorry, I presume this is kind of a conclusion, but I am not following.   Seriously.   If you want to discuss this I am willing but I will do my best to be logical about it all, and logic requires clear definitions and semantics.

I don't want to play games throwing out one liners-  we have all had enough of that this week-  - it could be a good serious theological discussion I think if only we could define things a little better.   God's vengeance or lack thereof could be an important topic I think

 

 

 

I'm game.  Define your terms.  

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

He plainly called them workers of iniquity, other translations use "evil doers", "wicked people", workers of lawlessness", "law breakers".

I simply gave one example of that.  

He is talking about two-faced people.  Whited sepulchers that are full or rotting nastiness.  

You are misinterpreting it if you think he is talking about people acting in good faith. 

I'm simply repeating what is said.  You ate adding your take and then changing what he said...most likely because its more palatable.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think you may be thinking about role playing rather than having a double mind.  Sometimes you role play as The Nehor and at other times you put on a costume to go out and fight crime.

I'm sure you still have the same mind regardless of what role you are playing. 

A double-minded person is someone who actually changes his or her mind on occasions, thinking one way sometimes and then doing a mental flip-flop at other times, and then flip-flopping again, and again, and again, and again... frequently in contradiction.

Perhaps an on going problem here is that it seems that you are very definite in what YOU think a word or phrase "means" while others may disagree with your interpretation.  That in turn confuses the whole point you are trying to make.

Here you demonstrate that by defining YOUR categories as absolutely true and clear to everyone- ie: what the characteristics are of "role playing" as opposed to the characteristics of being "double minded" while others may not agree with your definitions.

Not to mention that I have never heard that Nehor is a police officer, but you might be right on that one.  Or on the other hand, maybe you plucked that out of thin air, or were joking.   Regardless it confuses the issue even farther

THEN you give YOUR definition- supposed to perfectly accurate and undebatable- of what a "double minded" person is- again while others may disagree with your definition of that phrase.

And others like me, may not even see how arguing about definitions of phrases is relevant to the substance of the argument at hand and while those are important issues.

Just trying to help.

Perhaps you could at least detail why this distinction is important to your point?

[Ahab]

 

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps an on going problem here is that it seems that you are very definite in what YOU think a word or phrase "means" while others may disagree with your interpretation.  That in turn confuses the whole point you are trying to make.

Here you demonstrate that by defining YOUR categories as absolutely true and clear to everyone- ie: what the characteristics are of "role playing" as opposed to the characteristics of being "double minded" while others may not agree with your definitions.

You think I did that?  I don't think I did that.  I don't think anyone can do that.  "absolutely true and clear to everyone" were not words that I used.  I think you are confusing my words with your words and ideas.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention that I have never heard that Nehor is a police officer, but you might be right on that one.  Or on the other hand, maybe you plucked that out of thin air, or were joking.   Regardless it confuses the issue even farther

Confusion runs rampant in the minds of many who do not understand reality.  It was a joke, based on something The Nehor said he had an interest in doing.  Think super hero instead of just a regular cop.  I like telling jokes.  A sense of humor is a good thing.

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THEN you give YOUR definition- supposed to perfectly accurate and undebatable- of what a "double minded" person is- again while others may disagree with your definition of that phrase.

"supposed to be perfectly accurate and undebatable"  supposed by who?  everything is debatable, in my perspective.  

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And others like me, may not even see how arguing about definitions of phrases is relevant to the substance of the argument at hand and while those are important issues.

Just trying to help.

Perhaps you could at least detail why this distinction is important to your point?

Which point?  That what people think is true and real is a matter of their own perspective?  How they see things from what they can see?  Are you talking about that point?  Why are you calling it my point?  Is it all mine and nobody else's?  Hmm.  Who knew?

[mfbukowski]

duplicate.

Dang_ I am so used to editing by clicking he bottom corner I keep thinking I am editing while actually quoting myself again.  Oy vey!

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is supposed to be a reply to @stemelbow but I keep messing up the edits.

I will re- do if necessary 

Quote

 

Well if we want to make it quick it certainly can be.   It may be "his" and not "for anyone else" but I don't see vengeance as a commodity waiting to be spent by someone.

Imagine some future UN saying that it is the sole entity who can declare war against an offending state- does that mean that there will be ANY future wars?

No I think the whole presumption there- if it was to be accepted etc- would be to stop war completely.   God is not forced to use "vengeance" at all- even if we stipulate that it is "his" to soley use if he so desires.   And besides what is the difference between "vengeance" and "natural consequences" and how would one determine which is "happening" if indeed it ever DID "actually happen"?   Headline: "Confirmed- Proven that God Used Vengeance in Originating Covid Virus"

Good luck on that one!    One would have to psychoanalyze God in order to "prove" that he was afflicted with the emotion/desire to be "vengeful" 

Plus of course we have the issue that scripture is hardly infallible, and because it says that in some book written perhaps thousands of years ago, it is a correct description of God.

Regarding you being "game" and "defining terms", remember I said, quoting you where I have inserted quotes here:

So I have given you my observations on the issue of God's "vengeance"- the next step would be, I think for you to give ME some definitions and tell me why what I have not already said is somehow irrelevant or incorrect. 

Or of course let it go. 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm simply repeating what is said.  You ate adding your take and then changing what he said...most likely because its more palatable.  

You seem to always leave out the “evildoers” part in an attempt to portray them as believers reaching for heaven in good faith.  I am not changing anything.  You are leaving stuff out.  I am simply giving examples of evildoers to help you see one very likely interpretation that you refuse to acknowledge as even possible.

“most likely because its more palatable.”

Or because it is more in line with Christ’s comprehensive teachings, including that of whited sepulchers and wolves in sheep’s clothing, etc.  I am shocked that you think he would reject good faith seekers in such a harsh manner.  Probably because it is more palatable for you to reject Christ if you can paint him as a monster. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

Oops

Edited October 2, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention that I have never heard that Nehor is a police officer, but you might be right on that one.  Or on the other hand, maybe you plucked that out of thin air, or were joking.   Regardless it confuses the issue even farther

THEN you give YOUR definition- supposed to perfectly accurate and undebatable- of what a "double minded" person is- again while others may disagree with your definition of that phrase.

I think he meant to imply that I am billionaire playboy Nehor by day and Batman by night. He is right but I gave it up after I had a really bad day:

 

Also yes, Ahab has lots of private definitions of words that make his statements nonsensical to others.

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the contradiction right there- "trying" to be a part of something without joining it.  It's an odd stance.  Sorry- I just finally figured it out from your great comments- "I want to be a Catholic without joining".

Now THAT is something I can understand.     Just change a little of your doctrine for me please, and I will gladly return! 

On a personal note, I am sorry that we have been at odds sometimes in the past.

 

The traditional Latin mass really calls to you, doesn’t it? 😊 To me, too. It is Catholic, unblemished by Protestantism. 

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yep. He is talking about me.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

It's good to acknowledge our own sinfulness, our own inability to do what is asked for us. And then the confessional is there, open, with forgiveness waiting.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is supposed to be a reply to @stemelbow but I keep messing up the edits.

I will re- do if necessary 

 

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well if we want to make it quick it certainly can be.   It may be "his" and not "for anyone else" but I don't see vengeance as a commodity waiting to be spent by someone.

Imagine some future UN saying that it is the sole entity who can declare war against an offending state- does that mean that there will be ANY future wars?

I"m not saying because God said vengeance is his, suggesting no one else should be practicing it, that it means no one else will be vengeful.  I'm simply pointing out God is claiming ownership of the emotion.  We should shed ourselves of it, according to some of scripture (Granted many teachings are contradicted by other scripture...and this is one).  My only concern here is, what in the world does God think he should be vengeful about?  Seems like a deleterious emotion for him to embrace.  

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No I think the whole presumption there- if it was to be accepted etc- would be to stop war completely.   God is not forced to use "vengeance" at all- even if we stipulate that it is "his" to soley use if he so desires.   And besides what is the difference between "vengeance" and "natural consequences" and how would one determine which is "happening" if indeed it ever DID "actually happen"?   Headline: "Confirmed- Proven that God Used Vengeance in Originating Covid Virus"

I don't really get this point.  In my mind when scripture speaking for God says "I am vengeance" he/it is suggesting that in the end he'll sentence people to lesser stations of eternity to get back at them.  If you're suggesting as believers of old, and of course some today suggest, that GOd is practicing vengeance by sending natural disasters or disease, then I'd simply say..okay.  God is even more petty and silly than I would say he is, which he is both anyway.  

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good luck on that one!    One would have to psychoanalyze God in order to "prove" that he was afflicted with the emotion/desire to be "vengeful" 

He's the one claiming ownership of that emotion.    Are you saying he's not vengeful?  It feels you are in one sense saying he is vengeful or can be, but in another sense its silly to say he is vengeful.  I agree with the latter if that's what you're saying.  Of course if that's what you're saying, then you, like me, find scriptural descriptions of him to be nonsense and absurd.  

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Plus of course we have the issue that scripture is hardly infallible, and because it says that in some book written perhaps thousands of years ago, it is a correct description of God.
 

Yes.  That is a much more palatable position to take--all of God's declarations in scripture aren't really him.  Its just some people's words put into His mouth.  But of course if that is so, where do we stop?  Scriptures can easily be declared as useless on such thinking.  As it is, and I think it's true, people read whatever they want into scripture, because well...God can't possibly be that stupid.  

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Regarding you being "game" and "defining terms", remember I said, quoting you where I have inserted quotes here:

So I have given you my observations on the issue of God's "vengeance"- the next step would be, I think for you to give ME some definitions and tell me why what I have not already said is somehow irrelevant or incorrect. 

Or of course let it go. 

Well for starters I don't know that there's a God at all.  To think He exists seems absurd on the face of it, particularly as he's described in scripture or by people generally.  On him, if he is, being vengeful?  I think it's a deleterious notion.  What could he possibly be vengeful about?  I mean to suggest if religion really has merit and scripture means anything, then God is vengeful.  But such a god is a tyrant.  

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to always leave out the “evildoers” part in an attempt to portray them as believers reaching for heaven in good faith. 

To be clear, and fair, he defines, in Matt 7, those who do iniquity, which I assume you mean by evildoers, as those who "build their houses upon the sand".  These are the people, says he, who hear his words and "doeth them not".  You are intent in reading into his words some idea that he really means these many believers are simply psychotic people who do really bad things like abduct and rape children--or whatever way you put it before.  I am simply letting his words speak.  
Whether people who do not do what he wants, or those who build their houses on sand are acting in good faith or not, is not really a concern of mine, as it pertains to what is said here.  

10 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not changing anything.  You are leaving stuff out.  I am simply giving examples of evildoers to help you see one very likely interpretation that you refuse to acknowledge as even possible.

I disagree completely.  YOu don't think he means "i never knew you".  The problem is, that's what he said, apparently.  So to me, you are stuck making up something to fit your beliefs or ideas.  Fine.  I mean read whatever you like into scripture. It makes it more palatable and matches your desires and feelings and such.  But to say I'm somehow changing something or reading it wrong, simply because I read it and leave the words to speak for themselves, is just a unresponsive point.  ANd it clearly is an attempt to change the meaning, and put words in God's mouth.  

10 hours ago, pogi said:

“most likely because its more palatable.”

Or because it is more in line with Christ’s comprehensive teachings,

No doubt it'd be nice if this were so.  But I appears to be the exact opposite.  Of course if we dig into other parts, no doubt, you'll prefer to read into his words some other notion that you read into his other words.  The string will get very long and very convoluted.  Of course, that is what scripture does.  And it's too bad.  But, again, to each his own.  

10 hours ago, pogi said:

including that of whited sepulchers and wolves in sheep’s clothing, etc.  

That certainly supports my point, not yours.  Are you saying wolves in sheeps clothing are psychopaths who abduct and rape children or something?  Where do you get these ideas from the bible?   

10 hours ago, pogi said:

I am shocked that you think he would reject good faith seekers in such a harsh manner.  Probably because it is more palatable for you to reject Christ if you can paint him as a monster. 

Of course "goof faith seekers" is a nebulous concept at best.  Every single person in the world acts in good faith at times and in bad faith at times...that may depend on how one defines acting in good faith (or bad faith for that matter).  Though if its true that all people do, then your notion of bad faith seekers are somehow all child rapists, then it seems, there is little point to faith at all.  Everyone agrees child rape is egregious beyond measure.  There's no point to judgment or religion at all.  

[Tacenda]

Brought back memories of the playground/baseball field in elementary school! Pretty creative, haha!

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

To be clear, and fair, he defines, in Matt 7, those who do iniquity, which I assume you mean by evildoers, as those who "build their houses upon the sand".  These are the people, says he, who hear his words and "doeth them not".  You are intent in reading into his words some idea that he really means these many believers are simply psychotic people who do really bad things like abduct and rape children--or whatever way you put it before.  I am simply letting his words speak.  

As I already pointed out, that is just one interpretation (King James Version).  "Evildoers" is just one alternative interpretation.  I gave several others too.  Most evil doers who hide behind their Christian façade do not suffer from psychosis.  I never said anything about being psychotic.   I just gave one example of evildoers.  Are you suggesting that abducting and raping children is not evil?  This kind of crap is more common then you think.  "Many" so called "Christians" are truly evil under the skin.  How can you refute that interpretation as unreasonable then?

Words don't speak for themselves without going through the process of interpretation.  You are interpreting his words, just like I am.  You are simply not allowing for alternative possibilities, despite your interpretation being out of character and very unlikely for Christ.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree completely.  YOu don't think he means "i never knew you".  The problem is, that's what he said, apparently.  So to me, you are stuck making up something to fit your beliefs or ideas.  Fine.  I mean read whatever you like into scripture. It makes it more palatable and matches your desires and feelings and such.  But to say I'm somehow changing something or reading it wrong, simply because I read it and leave the words to speak for themselves, is just a unresponsive point.  ANd it clearly is an attempt to change the meaning, and put words in God's mouth.  

I never took you for a literalist.  I guess when it suits your needs to paint him as a monster.  

Examples of you leaving out the point he makes about "those who do iniquity", other interpretations use "evildoers", "wicked", "law breakers", etc.  You paint them out to be good faith seekers and complete deny that they are evildoers, as if he never said it.  Your exact words:

Quote

"I never knew you" might suggest God can only, in capacity, get to know so many people.  The rest are destined to a lesser eternal station simply because he lacks the capacity. 

Quote

Yes, "many" who believe are those whom God never got to know.  That's why I mentioned capacity.  I wonder if he can only manage to know so many and the rest are cast off?  

Quote

Ok.  BUt again, it is God who doesn't know many people.  Either he refuses to get to knw them, or he's limited and can only know so many.  I wonder what would be the outlook if he were better at delegating. 

In these instances you are putting words in God's mouth by making a false dichotomy in the last quote, that the only possible conclusion is that "he refuses to get to know them", or "he's limited and can only know so many".  You make it about God's incapacity and incompetence and completely dismiss the part where Christ made it about "those who do iniquity".  Where did Christ say anything about capacity?  Your words, not his. 

More proof of you completely leaving out the evildoers part:

Quote

When jesus said god doesn't know many believers, many people who tried to pray to him and tried to do good, what do you imagine their "wickedness", as you tagged them with, to be?  

Again, you paint them out to be good faith seekers trying to do good and that I am "imagining" up that they are actually evildoers.  

I DIDN'T TAG THEM.  THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.  Face palm.  I am at a loss here as to why you think I am making this stuff up.  I'm not.  It is right there in the passage!  You are the one who is leaving it out. 

Quote

Oh no...sad to think you seemingly must conclude that "many" believers are those God never knew, or not "never knew" in your view, it was more like though they prayed and sought to do good by Him, He simply didn't appreciate their efforts, which to you means they practiced wickedness, evil and fraud.  Makes me sad to think you have to speak for God, correcting his words, and then also concluding there are actually many believers who are nothing but wickedness, evil and fraud.  To me that'd be a miserable mindset to be in.  But, you know, to each his own.

They did practice wickedness/iniquity/evil.  Again, those are not my words.  I am not correcting anything, I am simply trying to get you to open your eyes to a very important part of the passage that you refuse to even acknowledge.  

If you don't like that I conclude that rapists and murderers are "evildoers" for some reason, that is your problem.  My argument doesn't stand or fall on that point.  The only point is that they are evildoers.  Period. He didn't specify exactly what that is, because it would probably take a week to list all the evil that "many" Christians do behind their façade. 

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

As I already pointed out, that is just one interpretation (King James Version).  "Evildoers" is just one alternative interpretation.  I gave several others too.  Most evil doers who hide behind their Christian façade do not suffer from psychosis.  I never said anything about being psychotic.   I just gave one example of evildoers.  Are you suggesting that abducting and raping children is not evil?  This kind of crap is more common then you think.  "Many" so called "Christians" are truly evil under the skin.  How can you refute that interpretation as unreasonable then?

Words don't speak for themselves without going through the process of interpretation.  You are interpreting his words, just like I am.  You are simply not allowing for alternative possibilities, despite your interpretation being out of character and very unlikely for Christ.

I never took you for a literalist.  I guess when it suits your needs to paint him as a monster.  

Examples of you leaving out the point he makes about "those who do iniquity", other interpretations use "evildoers", "wicked", "law breakers", etc.  You paint them out to be good faith seekers and complete deny that they are evildoers, as if he never said it.  Your exact words:

In these instances you are putting words in God's mouth by making a false dichotomy in the last quote, that the only possible conclusion is that "he refuses to get to know them", or "he's limited and can only know so many".  You make it about God's incapacity and incompetence and completely dismiss the part where Christ made it about "those who do iniquity".  Where did Christ say anything about capacity?  Your words, not his. 

More proof of you completely leaving out the evildoers part:

Again, you paint them out to be good faith seekers trying to do good and that I am "imagining" up that they are actually evildoers.  

I DIDN'T TAG THEM.  THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.  Face palm.  I am at a loss here as to why you think I am making this stuff up.  I'm not.  It is right there in the passage!  You are the one who is leaving it out. 

They did practice wickedness/iniquity/evil.  Again, those are not my words.  I am not correcting anything, I am simply trying to get you to open your eyes to a very important part of the passage that you refuse to even acknowledge.  

If you don't like that I conclude that rapists and murderers are "evildoers" for some reason, that is your problem.  My argument doesn't stand or fall on that point.  The only point is that they are evildoers.  Period. He didn't specify exactly what that is, because it would probably take a week to list all the evil that "many" Christians do behind their façade. 

 

Pogi.  I laid out my position and you seem intent on misconstruing it.  I don't know why.  I'm allowing any possibility.  I don't care what you think of the passage.  Read whatever you like into it.  Keep doing so.  

Jesus clearly said he never knew them.  You can think he meant something else if you want, but there is little reason to change his meaning.  And you trying to correct me simply because you don't like the idea clearly conveyed doesn't really do much but change the meaning.  

He clearly defines those whom he never knew as believers who simply did not do enough and, metaphorically, built their houses on sand.  Sure he calls them evil and wicked for not doing enough and metaphorically building their faith foundation on shifting soil.  He certainly does not suggest one must be two-faced or real wicked, as in child rapists, to be ignored by him.  No.  He's talking about believers who don't do enough and calling them evildoers or those who practice iniquity.  

He could have meant something other than he said.  People make mistakes all the time.  I suppose that means God does too.  But saying he meant something else and pretending he didn't say what he said, is just guesswork.  Be my guess in reading anything you want into the passages to make it suit your agenda or desires or beliefs.  Fine by me. 

I will add, I would add your simplistic dichotomous view of humanity is kind of silly if you ask me.  I can't help your view.  I find it a sad one.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Brought back memories of the playground/baseball field in elementary school! Pretty creative, haha!

 

I'm sorry I shared this. I saw the youtube that pogi shared with the dumb and dumber guys and posted this w/o realizing what thread this is. I cannot delete it now. So apologize if this might be taken the wrong way. It doesn't have anything to do with any arguments or discussion on this thread.