Sweet suggestions. My favorite has to be Primal Order lmao… So many nonbasic lands in EDH and I'm running all forests.
Any suggestions on what creatures to cut? The worst part of EDH is cutting stuff... am I right? I also don't want to compromise my ability to have win conditions and I don't know that I can drop another twenty bucks right now on the cards that double my manna and try to Hurricane and squall line people to death (even though it's a cool strategy)
I've seen other Azusa decks and they run that many lands. The thing is that by turn 4 I can have 8 manna so if I have enough draw I can do cool stuff. You might be right but the little I have tested it, it seems to have potential with that many lands.
I am trying to find out if this makeup will work. I read that Azusa decks can run like 50+ lands but I really don't know if I have enough removal or if it matters that much since I will be so quick. I'd like to have it work for 1v1 and multi since I only have 3 decks, but I don't know if that is possible. What do you guys think?
I really like the idea of tucks not tucking commanders. I feel it goes against the philosophy of commander while also being a huge downer.
This said, I feel like a lot more cards would need to be banned if so. Some may become too powerful. I like this though because it points out really op commanders.
I focused on 1v1 when I built this but given that I only have a few decks I would love for this to be able to do multi as well. Would I need to change a lot for it to be multiplayer compatible? What changes would I need to make?
This deck is based on ramping quickly with Azusa and taking advantage of cards that pump creatures for having a lot of forests or lands entering and just taking advantage of a lot of manna.
In this instance, Bob is not following your method. He is doubting his experience. What you are proposing is exactly my method - that Bob should critically examine whether his experience is really a valid way of determining truth. He will then conclude that it must not be, because if it were, various other experiences would also be indicators of truth, when he knows them to not be. Remember, Bob is not allowed to doubt his experience. Please provide a method in which he does not do that.
I didn't say Bob should not doubt his experience. I said that if someone had a true experience of God that was clear, it would be irrational to think one can have an objective test to find out whether or not it was from God, and to doubt what is already been made evident to the person would be irrational and might be not trusting to God.
However this is not the scenario you proposed. You said that there was a person who did not have an experience from God but believed he did. And my response was that Bob won't need to question his experience simply because it is a religious one. The foundation of confidence in his experience would be shaken because Bob would discover he tends to believe things for bad reasons by his life regardless of his faith. He would not embark on questioning his experience in God first. He would realize he believes things for faulty reasons and therefore his grounds for believing based on this experience would be undercut.
I am not sure I understand the analogy here. In the case of a profound religious experience, we were being asked to evaluate the strength of that experience as evidence for another proposition - that god exists. In this instance, I'm not sure what the corresponding experience and proposition is. If the corresponding experience is "the totality of all your experiences" and the proposition is "you are living in a perfectly realistic dream", then there is not much of question. We have only ever experienced one giant piece of evidence, and we have nothing to compare it to. John and Tracy should therefore both believe that they have no meaningful evidence one way or the other. Neither John nor Tracy is justified in believing they have any evidence which demonstrates that they are or are not in a dream.
[/quote]
So then, is John irrational to believe that anything he ever does is real? John, then, is not even rational to believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, that he has a wife, that he had potatoes for breakfast this morning. Consider another example… say we assume the world is real or say we even assume this is some kind of a dream. Think of what you had to eat for breakfast this morning. Now, all you have of this morning is a memory of eating breakfast. For all you know the world popped into existence five minutes ago with the appearance of age and memories of things that never happened. Another possibility is that highly advanced aliens implanted some false memories into your brain.
Given this possibility, are you rational to believe that you ate cereal (or whatever you had) for breakfast this morning? Perhaps the past popped into existence five minutes ago or aliens implanted a false memory in your brain? It seems obvious that you are. However, there is actually no objective test by which you can determine that these things happened. There actually isn't any evidence either. The memory of breakfast would appear the same whether or not the world popped into being just now with an appearance of age, or whether aliens implanted a memory in your brain.
It seems like this principle (that we must have objective tests to apply to beliefs based on experience) would entail that we are not rational to accept the most simple and obviously rational thing such as that you ate cereal for breakfast this morning.I gave the example because it doesn't question the whole of our existence (something you objected to with the dream example), but only one part… your eating breakfast this morning.
I am actually not saying we know with certainty that the world is real or that you did eat cereal this morning. What I am saying is that we are rationally justified in acting as if this world is real… even if we cannot prove we are not dreaming… even if we don't know that we are not dreaming. Likewise, say that with religious experience we don't know with certainty that it is real. Perhaps, like our not being in a dream, we are incapable of knowing that we are not under a delusion. However, that doesn't mean, just as with believing you ate cereal this morning, we aren't rationally justified in taking the experience as if it were real. So it seems that to condemn belief based solely on religious experience because it cannot be objectively verified would also condemn even the most fundamental beliefs of all of our life. Even if those beliefs are such as, "we have had this experience, we cannot know it is real, but we take it as real, and act like it is." This is what you seem to think we do with our most important beliefs such as that there is a past… and you are rationally justified to do so. And if you accept this I see no more rational basis to condemn a religious belief that is also founded on experience.
Someone else gave me a long response for my second to last post and I am going to reply to them next.
So let's say two people, Alice and Bob, have two competing religious experiences. Both feel that their experience is genuine and clear. Alice's is real, but Bob's is not. You say that it is irrational for Alice to doubt hers, but surely it cannot be irrational for Bob to doubt his. So what can Bob do? And how can one know if they've had an Alice experience or a Bob experience?
Tiax, it seems to me that this is your objection to my view… that it would entail that Bob ends up believing an experience is from God, but is actually not from God. He does this because my view of justification would intail that justified belief is held by people with false beliefs who have, as it were, no way out of this epistemic situation. And on your view, you would say, that Bob would not be so stuck in this epistemic situation.
However, I see a number of possible holes in this objection. I would point out two things.
1. Perhaps if Bob is a rational person, he won't actually end up in this situation… or at least stay in it. If the experience was not truly from God it wouldn't actually be strong enough to justify belief. It would be something like Bob has experienced in other times in his life when he was not in a place of faith in God and it seemed to have either no connection or little connection to things which the religious text he adheres to. If the experience was not truly from God, Bob would probably realize in other areas of his life that he is overly gullible and over-interprets experiences. In such a case, he will naturally slip into less confidence about his experience and will realize that this experience could be his own imagination. If Bob really believes that he has a clear experience of God and actually has not, then he must have significant other problems that would tip him off to this fact.
2. There are many difficult scenarios that life leaves us in and it doesn't follow that we need to change our rational way of living to avoid all possible error. We may find that there is no way to prove that the external world is not just our imagination. We could be in the matrix and not know it, we could be dreaming in a higher sort of dream and not know it.
Consider another possible scenario, and I wool dike an answer to this the same way you wanted me to answer your question…
Two people experience life… one (John) is delusional, and the other (Tracy) is not. John is in a coma but he still has brain activity. Imagine John experiences a whole life as it were a dream… during his time in a coma he imagines he has a girlfriend who turns into his wife, and he imagines raising a family. Now how is John supposed to know he is in a coma? With no amount of questioning himself could he expect to discover that his world is not real but he is in fact in a perpetual dream… However, does that mean that Tracy, the one who is not under a delusion, needs to question herself to make sure she is not also in a coma? She also could never find out the answer no matter how much questioning she did. Now, and this is the question I would like you to answer directly. What objective test can you give such that John and Tracy will be able to tell whether or not they are truly experiencing reality or are in a sort of a dream? Are you aware that on your own view that people cannot even know if anything they ever experience is real? They cannot have any objectively verifiable reason to think they do have children, a wife, a career, a home, anything at all. They have an experience of life but there is no reason to think it is any more real than a dream.
Personally, on my view, just because something cannot be proven or objectively verified, it doesn't make it irrational to trust it. It seems to me that on your view that if some experience cannot be objectively verified such that we have some objective test to verify it, then it is irrational to believe. Do you agree? If so, it seems that everything you ever do is irrational as it relies on an irrational belief that anything we experience is real. If not, you don't seem anymore to have a principle of which to condemn justified belief in God based on experience.
Please address point #1 as I see it as the strongest.
Alice undergoes a religious experience.
Maybe it's from God, maybe it's not.
If it's from God, the Bible says she shouldn't doubt it.
If it's not from God, the fundamental truth imperative* says she should doubt it (as, for what it's worth, does the Bible - no false idols, right?).
How is she to determine whether she should doubt it or not?
In order to make that determination, she has to find out whether the experience is from God.
Which you have defined as doubt.
She has to doubt God in order to determine that she shouldn't doubt God.
And if she tries to escape this trap by not doubting the experience from the outset, then she may be worshiping a false idol, and she has no way to tell.
It seems to me that you might be assuming from the outset that her experience is ambiguous or unreal. For if it was both unambiguous and real, it seems that it wouldn't be irrational to accept it without doubting it.
This scenario only works out well for Alice if you assume from the outset that her experience is from God. Which is blatantly begging the question.
This is the logic… consider a possible scenario (doesn't have to be actual). Alice does have a genuine experience of God which is clear enough such that doubting it is like doubting that killing innocent people for fun is wrong (something else quite possible to do). Would she, in that instance, need to, or be rationally obligated to try to figure out something is real that she has already seen is actually real?
Of course I cannot assume in this discussion that God exists or such people like Alice exist who have such experiences. I don't think I am using circular logic. I am only saying that it could be that such people like Alice exist and that they would be rational if they did. And it seems clear that you disagree with that.
On another note, any doctrine that tells us "do not think critically about this doctrine" is throwing up a huge red flag. Anyone can get away with anything using that line. How many dictators over the ages have told their subjects, "Do what I say, and don't question it"? Surely a God who is actually omniscient and omnibenevolent would have nothing to hide, and confidence that his perfect commandments could stand up to any level of critical scrutiny. Furthermore, teaching his followers to think critically about their experiences would help them greatly in avoiding those false idols. Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Interestingly Galileo was a believer in the Christian God and I think I recall reading that essay where that quote comes from. I am not saying, "don't question anything." In fact, I question pretty much everything everyday… much to the annoyance of people around me sometimes. I am saying that I think it is possible for someone to have an experience that is clear enough that doubting it is irrational just as doubting one's existence as Descartes tried to only led to the collapse of his theories. Perhaps questioning is ok, but doubting a different thing. I guess we might have to get into more detail before I have my views set on this.
It's not disbelievers job to prove God doesn't exist. It's a Christian's job to prove he does.
Seeing as proving or disproving something that people tend to be very closed-minded about, despite what side of the fence upon you sit, agreeing to disagree is about as far as we're likely to get to a consensus.
I don't think that discussion is pointless if that is what you are implying. Personally I used to be an atheist, and finding that there were rational responses to objections was helpful in my journey to become a Christian. Also, were you agreeing with the quote from Jay? I wasn't sure. If so, I have a response.
This strategy will and has led a large number of people to trust that they have experienced other, false Gods. Is that acceptable for a means of justifying our knowledge? Surely not.
My whole point is that there was no method or strategy. I wrote a long post, I would think you would take my points in detail and respond to them.
Avenger of Zendikar, Kamahl, Fist of Krosa, Overrun, Craterhoof Behemoth, etc. You are green and should be making the flyers respond to you. Don't run any of the narrow crappy cards above - run threats that help you win the game.
Surely just as you feel you have had more significant religious experiences within Christianity than other religions you previously investigated, there are also those who converted away from Christianity and found more profound and significant experiences in their new religions.
What objective method can one apply that would lead these people to conclude that they are mistaken and should return to Christianity, but would not lead you to the same conclusion that you should return to one of your former religions? It seems to me that the methods you list could not accomplish this. What value are these methods if they cannot distinguish between the person who has found the correct religion and the person who has converted away from it?
Tiax, I appreciate the question... I found it quite intellectually stimulating to answer. I don't know that there is some formula or method to discover what is a true experience of God and what is not. But that doesn't mean that the experience of God could not be trusted. After all, if there is indeed a God, He is quite capable of giving one an experience that brings confidence of His existence. Why think that a method would be necessary to discover His existence? Why think that God can be discovered through mankind's reason? Western thought in the Enlightenment thought that you could use method to discover all truth. However, in the hundreds of years since then that view is no longer the consensus in philosophy. For example, Descartes attempt to rest all knowledge on reason (I think, therefore I am), is no longer taken seriously, for, if nothing is being assumed, it should only be concluded something like, "there is thought." There is no objective method to discern whether or not we are currently in some kind of dream, whether or not we are in a sort of matrix, whether something is morally right or wrong, whether or not we are in love, etc… I am not even sure that there is an objective method we can apply to know when to trust someone. It seems more of an intuitive experience, telling when someone is trustworthy.
It also seems to me that to ask for a method as to whether an experience is from God is to put faith on the foundation of doubt. Try in your relationships to doubt everyone, it has actually caused me quite a bit of difficulty in my own personal life. Imagine a scenario. Imagine God really did give someone an experience of Him that was clear enough such that the person should believe that this was from God. Now, if this person who has already been given a clear experience tries to apply a method to find out whether or not the experience is from God, is he not doubting what God has made clear to him? Is he not then doubting God? Why should God make relationship with Him have doubting God Himself as a necessary part of the relationship and what brings a person close to God? In fact, doubting communication from God seems to be thought of as one of the greatest sins in the bible. (i.e. Moses doubting God would bring water out of the rock during the exodus) Why should God put one of the greatest sins as a necessary condition to know that God is communicating? Thankfully God is gracious to those who doubt (such as myself… everyday), but my point is that to expect a method to "find out" if an experience is from God might be fundamentally a flawed way to reason.
I was accusing you of making claims which had already been responded to. The complaint is not personal; it's dialectic. No one is benefited when people are having a repetitive argument.
And you're doing the same thing to FoxBlade and Tiax. Read Tiax's newest post very carefully. It's the most succinct statement of the problem with your reasoning that we've been trying to get you to address since this discussion started. When you respond, don't just repeat some variation on "I believe my religious experiences and interpretations thereof are more reliable than other people's", because that does not resolve the problem - it is the problem.
I am not just repeating myself. I am really trying to answer people's objections and I am reading their posts and responding to their newest points as best I can. Fruitful discussion requires mutual charity and if you are going to accuse me of not responding to something point out what I am not responding to and I will respond directly to it. I enjoy answering difficult questions. (Tiax's post I was already planning to respond to today) I also want to make clear that I don't intend to argue that Christianity is true because I believe I have experienced God… and I hope that is not your understanding.
I've had to repeat myself too often in this post to take this claim seriously.
This is why I haven't continued discussing with you. I don't find it helpful to discuss with someone when they are accusing me personally. I'm not upset about it, but I thought you deserved an explanation. I am all about getting into depth as I am with Foxblade, I just feel no one is benefitted when people are having a contentious argument.
Any suggestions on what creatures to cut? The worst part of EDH is cutting stuff... am I right? I also don't want to compromise my ability to have win conditions and I don't know that I can drop another twenty bucks right now on the cards that double my manna and try to Hurricane and squall line people to death (even though it's a cool strategy)
Here it is
Moved to Multiplayer Commander Decklists - Wildfire393
Good points
Hippie Azusa rebels against deforestation
I focused on 1v1 when I built this but given that I only have a few decks I would love for this to be able to do multi as well. Would I need to change a lot for it to be multiplayer compatible? What changes would I need to make?
Hippie Azusa rebels against deforestation
I have barely playtested it. I am getting a few cards in the mail (some good draw cards and such) but I'm not sure what to cut. Any thoughts?
I didn't say Bob should not doubt his experience. I said that if someone had a true experience of God that was clear, it would be irrational to think one can have an objective test to find out whether or not it was from God, and to doubt what is already been made evident to the person would be irrational and might be not trusting to God.
However this is not the scenario you proposed. You said that there was a person who did not have an experience from God but believed he did. And my response was that Bob won't need to question his experience simply because it is a religious one. The foundation of confidence in his experience would be shaken because Bob would discover he tends to believe things for bad reasons by his life regardless of his faith. He would not embark on questioning his experience in God first. He would realize he believes things for faulty reasons and therefore his grounds for believing based on this experience would be undercut.
[/quote]
So then, is John irrational to believe that anything he ever does is real? John, then, is not even rational to believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, that he has a wife, that he had potatoes for breakfast this morning. Consider another example… say we assume the world is real or say we even assume this is some kind of a dream. Think of what you had to eat for breakfast this morning. Now, all you have of this morning is a memory of eating breakfast. For all you know the world popped into existence five minutes ago with the appearance of age and memories of things that never happened. Another possibility is that highly advanced aliens implanted some false memories into your brain.
Given this possibility, are you rational to believe that you ate cereal (or whatever you had) for breakfast this morning? Perhaps the past popped into existence five minutes ago or aliens implanted a false memory in your brain? It seems obvious that you are. However, there is actually no objective test by which you can determine that these things happened. There actually isn't any evidence either. The memory of breakfast would appear the same whether or not the world popped into being just now with an appearance of age, or whether aliens implanted a memory in your brain.
It seems like this principle (that we must have objective tests to apply to beliefs based on experience) would entail that we are not rational to accept the most simple and obviously rational thing such as that you ate cereal for breakfast this morning. I gave the example because it doesn't question the whole of our existence (something you objected to with the dream example), but only one part… your eating breakfast this morning.
I am actually not saying we know with certainty that the world is real or that you did eat cereal this morning. What I am saying is that we are rationally justified in acting as if this world is real… even if we cannot prove we are not dreaming… even if we don't know that we are not dreaming. Likewise, say that with religious experience we don't know with certainty that it is real. Perhaps, like our not being in a dream, we are incapable of knowing that we are not under a delusion. However, that doesn't mean, just as with believing you ate cereal this morning, we aren't rationally justified in taking the experience as if it were real. So it seems that to condemn belief based solely on religious experience because it cannot be objectively verified would also condemn even the most fundamental beliefs of all of our life. Even if those beliefs are such as, "we have had this experience, we cannot know it is real, but we take it as real, and act like it is." This is what you seem to think we do with our most important beliefs such as that there is a past… and you are rationally justified to do so. And if you accept this I see no more rational basis to condemn a religious belief that is also founded on experience.
Someone else gave me a long response for my second to last post and I am going to reply to them next.
Best wishes,
- Jeff
Tiax, it seems to me that this is your objection to my view… that it would entail that Bob ends up believing an experience is from God, but is actually not from God. He does this because my view of justification would intail that justified belief is held by people with false beliefs who have, as it were, no way out of this epistemic situation. And on your view, you would say, that Bob would not be so stuck in this epistemic situation.
However, I see a number of possible holes in this objection. I would point out two things.
1. Perhaps if Bob is a rational person, he won't actually end up in this situation… or at least stay in it. If the experience was not truly from God it wouldn't actually be strong enough to justify belief. It would be something like Bob has experienced in other times in his life when he was not in a place of faith in God and it seemed to have either no connection or little connection to things which the religious text he adheres to. If the experience was not truly from God, Bob would probably realize in other areas of his life that he is overly gullible and over-interprets experiences. In such a case, he will naturally slip into less confidence about his experience and will realize that this experience could be his own imagination. If Bob really believes that he has a clear experience of God and actually has not, then he must have significant other problems that would tip him off to this fact.
2. There are many difficult scenarios that life leaves us in and it doesn't follow that we need to change our rational way of living to avoid all possible error. We may find that there is no way to prove that the external world is not just our imagination. We could be in the matrix and not know it, we could be dreaming in a higher sort of dream and not know it.
Consider another possible scenario, and I wool dike an answer to this the same way you wanted me to answer your question…
Two people experience life… one (John) is delusional, and the other (Tracy) is not. John is in a coma but he still has brain activity. Imagine John experiences a whole life as it were a dream… during his time in a coma he imagines he has a girlfriend who turns into his wife, and he imagines raising a family. Now how is John supposed to know he is in a coma? With no amount of questioning himself could he expect to discover that his world is not real but he is in fact in a perpetual dream… However, does that mean that Tracy, the one who is not under a delusion, needs to question herself to make sure she is not also in a coma? She also could never find out the answer no matter how much questioning she did. Now, and this is the question I would like you to answer directly. What objective test can you give such that John and Tracy will be able to tell whether or not they are truly experiencing reality or are in a sort of a dream? Are you aware that on your own view that people cannot even know if anything they ever experience is real? They cannot have any objectively verifiable reason to think they do have children, a wife, a career, a home, anything at all. They have an experience of life but there is no reason to think it is any more real than a dream.
Personally, on my view, just because something cannot be proven or objectively verified, it doesn't make it irrational to trust it. It seems to me that on your view that if some experience cannot be objectively verified such that we have some objective test to verify it, then it is irrational to believe. Do you agree? If so, it seems that everything you ever do is irrational as it relies on an irrational belief that anything we experience is real. If not, you don't seem anymore to have a principle of which to condemn justified belief in God based on experience.
Please address point #1 as I see it as the strongest.
It seems to me that you might be assuming from the outset that her experience is ambiguous or unreal. For if it was both unambiguous and real, it seems that it wouldn't be irrational to accept it without doubting it.
This is the logic… consider a possible scenario (doesn't have to be actual). Alice does have a genuine experience of God which is clear enough such that doubting it is like doubting that killing innocent people for fun is wrong (something else quite possible to do). Would she, in that instance, need to, or be rationally obligated to try to figure out something is real that she has already seen is actually real?
Of course I cannot assume in this discussion that God exists or such people like Alice exist who have such experiences. I don't think I am using circular logic. I am only saying that it could be that such people like Alice exist and that they would be rational if they did. And it seems clear that you disagree with that.
Interestingly Galileo was a believer in the Christian God and I think I recall reading that essay where that quote comes from. I am not saying, "don't question anything." In fact, I question pretty much everything everyday… much to the annoyance of people around me sometimes. I am saying that I think it is possible for someone to have an experience that is clear enough that doubting it is irrational just as doubting one's existence as Descartes tried to only led to the collapse of his theories. Perhaps questioning is ok, but doubting a different thing. I guess we might have to get into more detail before I have my views set on this.
I don't think that discussion is pointless if that is what you are implying. Personally I used to be an atheist, and finding that there were rational responses to objections was helpful in my journey to become a Christian. Also, were you agreeing with the quote from Jay? I wasn't sure. If so, I have a response.
My whole point is that there was no method or strategy. I wrote a long post, I would think you would take my points in detail and respond to them.
Interesting point, thanks
Tiax, I appreciate the question... I found it quite intellectually stimulating to answer. I don't know that there is some formula or method to discover what is a true experience of God and what is not. But that doesn't mean that the experience of God could not be trusted. After all, if there is indeed a God, He is quite capable of giving one an experience that brings confidence of His existence. Why think that a method would be necessary to discover His existence? Why think that God can be discovered through mankind's reason? Western thought in the Enlightenment thought that you could use method to discover all truth. However, in the hundreds of years since then that view is no longer the consensus in philosophy. For example, Descartes attempt to rest all knowledge on reason (I think, therefore I am), is no longer taken seriously, for, if nothing is being assumed, it should only be concluded something like, "there is thought." There is no objective method to discern whether or not we are currently in some kind of dream, whether or not we are in a sort of matrix, whether something is morally right or wrong, whether or not we are in love, etc… I am not even sure that there is an objective method we can apply to know when to trust someone. It seems more of an intuitive experience, telling when someone is trustworthy.
It also seems to me that to ask for a method as to whether an experience is from God is to put faith on the foundation of doubt. Try in your relationships to doubt everyone, it has actually caused me quite a bit of difficulty in my own personal life. Imagine a scenario. Imagine God really did give someone an experience of Him that was clear enough such that the person should believe that this was from God. Now, if this person who has already been given a clear experience tries to apply a method to find out whether or not the experience is from God, is he not doubting what God has made clear to him? Is he not then doubting God? Why should God make relationship with Him have doubting God Himself as a necessary part of the relationship and what brings a person close to God? In fact, doubting communication from God seems to be thought of as one of the greatest sins in the bible. (i.e. Moses doubting God would bring water out of the rock during the exodus) Why should God put one of the greatest sins as a necessary condition to know that God is communicating? Thankfully God is gracious to those who doubt (such as myself… everyday), but my point is that to expect a method to "find out" if an experience is from God might be fundamentally a flawed way to reason.
I am not just repeating myself. I am really trying to answer people's objections and I am reading their posts and responding to their newest points as best I can. Fruitful discussion requires mutual charity and if you are going to accuse me of not responding to something point out what I am not responding to and I will respond directly to it. I enjoy answering difficult questions. (Tiax's post I was already planning to respond to today) I also want to make clear that I don't intend to argue that Christianity is true because I believe I have experienced God… and I hope that is not your understanding.
This is why I haven't continued discussing with you. I don't find it helpful to discuss with someone when they are accusing me personally. I'm not upset about it, but I thought you deserved an explanation. I am all about getting into depth as I am with Foxblade, I just feel no one is benefitted when people are having a contentious argument.