BIG TIME

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 14th, 2015 10:33am PST - promote requested by Januari.

"Many people, many good people, need the Mormon Church for their own spiritual and emotional well-being."

No, they really don't. They might think they do, but they're wrong.

Gotta disagree with you, sweetpea.

I mean, how would you feel if someone lectured you on personal choices you have made that they don't agree with?

The people who don't "fit" the church, any church, leave. Some don't know how, and many do.

If you truly believe in the basic human right to make choices for your own self, you would not talk like this.

Are there some "non-good people" who hide in the church? Sure. They hide outside the church, too.

There is no perfection in this world. Choices are made, choices are lived with, choices are changed.

Respect for fellow human beings, though. That should be our standard, yeah? If we are good people?

Leaving aside that the mormons are on barely on the legal side of sexism, racism and homophobia (to say nothing of the unfathomably dubious origins), if someone WANTS to stay in the church, well, that's their problem.

I'd probably think they're kind of an asshole, but whatever, maybe they have a nice (aka white, straight) community or something.

None of that explains why you think that anyone (good or otherwise) NEEDS the mormon church.

A sense of community, or spiritual well being can easily be had outside the mormon church (or any church for that matter). I admit that it would be difficult if your whole family was in the church, but it'd be difficult if your whole family was in the klan too.

I think if someone is in a particular church -- or not -- or whatever they are personally drawn to -- IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS TO JUDGE THEM.

If they need it, they need it. Whatever happened to them in their childhood, or whenever -- the church -- whatever church -- or non-church -- fits them.

You are an atheist, right? I don't know if you grew up in a church or not. I don't know why it is so terribly important to you to be an atheist.

But it FITS you.

It is the height of judgmental righteous behavior to look at anyone else's choice and say it is wrong.

Am I a Mormon? No. I agree with you. How this church started is the height -- or the depth -- of religious absurdity. How anyone can choose this church as an adult? How can that be.

And yet. My brother -- who has a Master's Degree in Aerospace Engineering from USC, military pilot, history buff, wide stripe of artistic urges and talents -- this guy chose the church in his early 20's. For his own reasons. Because he needed it, coming from our family of origin.

To quote Jerry Maguire -- it completed him. And like love, it is illogical and not for anyone else to judge.

You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

Now, the Mormon church getting involved in the laws of the land? I got a big beef with that.

But as for individuals, making individual choices, for individual reasons.... I gotta say I don't see much difference between your judginess and any Catholic priest laying down "God's law" about how people are "supposed to" believe and behave.

You see that, don't you? There is no difference between your judgement and any religious person's judgment?

You're still missing my point.

No one NEEDS (your word) a church to "complete them". I'm not saying there are no positives to belonging to a church (sense of community, charitable works, etc), but those can all be found elsewhere.

This is demonstrably true and has nothing to do with being an atheist.

I really don't care if someone else is religious or not, as long as (as you say) they're a good person. Frequently, that's in spite of or even in direct contradiction to their churches teachings. And quite frankly, as you don't suck at your religion, I really don't care what you believe. Problem is, lots of people really do suck at it, as we were sadly reminded once again this weekend.

One more thing:
>> You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

What gave you the idea I don't like judging other people? I judge people ALL THE TIME.

It's how I decide who I want to be friends with, who I want to employ, hell, even which pub I want to go to. If you don't judge, you don't think. I just don't judge people for things I don't have a problem with (gender, sexual orientation, race, etc). On the other hand, I ABSOLUTELY judge people if they are spiteful, petty or have terrible taste in music

No, I have zero problems with the church judging people for immoral acts. I just vastly disagree with them on what constitutes an immoral act (they generally seem to be pretty down on two people loving each other if they don't have the right set of genitals, I'm more opposed to child sexual abuse, for example).

So yeah, I judge.

I'm sitting here judging the hell out of those assholes in Paris for example. And there's "nothing wrong with that. Judging is human."

oh, and some good news....

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/thousands-file-resignation-letters-from-the-lds-church

@ChaosEngine

I'm not missing your point. Your point is that you think they shouldn't be in a church you don't approve of. I say it is none of your business.

You can cherry pick a word or two out of what I say. Doesn't change the fact that you say they "shouldn't" be in a church you don't approve of.

It is judgement coming from you about someone else's life choice. And that is what religious people do towards others.

Bottom line -- humans aren't 100% rational beings. Including yourself, in my opinion.

I look at the facts. And the facts are there are people who "need" religion and there are people who don't. How do I know these are the facts? Because the world is full of religious and non-religious people, and a multitude of churches, some of whom kill each other over tiny differences. As it has always been, so it shall be, until we stop being human.

And yet, as a purportedly rational person, you shake your fist at millions of people and tell them they are wrong.

Nope. They "need" these religions, or they wouldn't exist.

Period.

I've been reading these news reports closely.

I am afraid that the people resigning aren't "core" Mormons, with temple recommends. I am afraid they are people who have already drifted away from the church and now they are making a political statement that isn't going to make a difference to the church leadership.

One person was quoted, in another news report I read, that they hadn't gone to church in 17 years and they were resigning today.

Having said that -- I am 100% convinced that the Mormon Church will eventually allow gay people full membership. Because, even if few of these resigning are "core" members of the church, more and more gay kids are coming out of the closet. And as they become more visible, as they are more and more accepted as human beings "made in God's image", it will be harder and harder for parents' to choose their church over their children.

And there is a mechanism for change in the church -- hence full membership for blacks when it became impossible to continue the overt 1800's racism of the originators.

It's coming for the Mormons. When loads more people quit and take their 10% tithing with them... well, the Mormons are excellent business people. They aren't going to cut themselves off from their revenue stream.

I say it will be within 30 years. Maybe even sooner.

OK, you're clearly not reading anything I write.

My point is NOT that "they shouldn't be in a church you don't approve of".

My issue is with your assertion that some people NEED the church. It's not cherry picking, it's the central point.

And I never used the word "shouldn't".

Once again, I have no problem calling out someone for belonging to an awful organisation, anymore than I would for a clan member or boko haram.

And clearly, at least 1500 people decided they don't "need" the church any more.

Just because people like a thing, doesn't mean they "need" it and it doesn't mean it isn't bad for them.

As for it being none of my business, well, you posted the video, I'm entitled to comment. And when the religions stop forcing their bullshit on everyone else and actively harming others, then it'll stop being my business.

In the meantime, you're goddamn right I will shake my fist at "millions of people" and tell them they're wrong. So what? Millions of people believe in creationism. Millions of people still think women are second class citizens. Millions of people are dying because some fucking morons told them not to use a condom.

Millions of people are wrong.

@ChaosEngine

Just like with religion, there is no point in trying to get a point across to someone who doesn't want to hear..

I think I am listening to you. You think you are listening to me.

I KNOW you aren't listening to me.

I'm not that interested anymore in attempting to get my point across to you, dear Chaos. You want perfection in the world, which is a zealot's point of view. I can live with the horrible imperfection of humanity -- because I have no other choice. I have all of human history as support for my point of view.

The suffering of the idealist. I know it well. I have it in certain areas of my life. I can't stand seeing office systems that can be improved but human need for fiefdom's block efforts to make things better. I suffer and suffer and rail and shake my fist as I know in my ideal world things can run more smoothly. I've been in the same office for 30 years and have made some progress, but I am finally realizing I have to stop and just let it be. As an idealist, it drives me crazy.

But it's all good.

This. Is. The. Human. Condition.

NYT says it outright. Most of those resigning haven't gone to the church in a long time, and you know they haven't been tithing.

Need to get the tithers to step up to the plate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/us/mormon-resignations-put-support-for-gays-over-fealty-to-faith.html?emc=edit_th_20151116&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=4
0977923&_r=0

That goes to show that those people, people who said they "needed the Mormon Church for their own spiritual and emotional well-being" really didn't need it. Does it not?
I must stand with @ChaosEngine ...absolutely no one needs any church for spiritual or emotional well being, but many many people have been convinced BY the church that they do need it.

@newtboy

Wishful thinking on your part, Newt Dear. You both dearly want people to not want religion.

Billions of people choose religion. Some fake it. Some leave. Some hate it.

My brother grew up in a secular household and has been a devout Mormon for 40 years. I grew up in the same household, and find the idea of organized religion intellectually embarrassing.

Both of you are railing against the preponderance of evidence you are surrounded by. SOME people are drawn to religion. This is just a part of human existence.

I find it so odd that both of you want this fact to be incorrect. Humans create religions, which lead to churches. They have done it for millennia. How you can look at the evidence that surrounds you and say it isn't so baffles me.

It's all good. Just like my brother, you want to believe what you want to believe.

I don't try to argue my brother out of his dogma. So I'm going to stop trying to argue you guys out of your dogma.

Yes, you are quite correct, my friend, I do wish people did not want the terrible, disastrous, evil, war starting, family destroying, psyche destroying, basis for xenophobic hate called religion.

But that's not what I said or was talking about.

What I said is that absolutely no one NEEDS religion.
Some people are drawn to heroin...none of them need it.
Most things humans create are not necessities. Religion falls into that category. It's un-needed, and overall it's a huge 'negative' on society and humanity. Period.

You seem to have an issue I once had, the resolve of which has helped me in every aspect of life. ...that being understanding and paying attention to the difference between "need" and "want". (and I sincerely hope you can gain that understanding in a better and faster way than I did, and without ever being in need) No one needs religion.

@newtboy

I'll give you my brother's phone number. He went from secular to devout for a reason. You don't like the word "need"? Then pick another one and stop with the pedantic nit picking.

People choose to be religious all the time. There is a different word. They choose religion.

Why?

I have heard people say they "need" it.

I suspect that you have never had a respectful conversation with someone who chose religion. It takes time to get to motive. If you are lecturing them about how they are wrong, you aren't going to hear them.

So, I have a limit to how much time I am willing to spend talking to judgmental zealots who want to dictate how other people should live and think. I've reached it now.

(I hope you noticed that I in no way have defended religion from its excesses and crimes. I have stayed focused on individuals making individual decisions about their own lives. Rather Libertarian of me, isn't it?)

I have chosen a different word..."want". Some people want religion, because they think it helps them somehow. The same can be said for heroin...wanting something doesn't make it 'good'.

You can call it pedantic nit picking, I say the words have quite different meanings (one reason they are spelled and pronounced differently), and if people are lazy and use word/meanings they don't intend, I can't help but try to correct them in order to properly understand them before I can determine if I agree with them....(EDIT: or to determine what part I disagree with. In this case, I disagreed with the specific contention that anyone 'needs' religion, which you've seemed to have somehow read as a slight against religious people, and a directive for them to think as I do...which was certainly not my intent.)

I understand people SAY they "need" religion, but they have the same issue of not distinguishing between "need" and "want". No one has ever, not once, died from a lack of religion...but many have died from an over abundance of it (usually in others).

You would be incredibly wrong in that assumption. Much of my family is religious, as are many of my friends. We often have had respectful, deep theological discussions and they invariably come away with a new view point of what they had taken for granted, while I often come away with only a new example of how religion got it wrong or contradicts itself. I don't lecture them, I give them a chance to explain themselves, then I tell them where they seem to have strayed from reality (for example, with Christians, it's nearly always when they resort to the bible as proof of something).

Me thinks you protest too much, and understand me too little. I don't think I wrote any such dictation, I merely explained how religion is something people 'want' rather than 'need'. It is religion that is zealously judgmental, it's religion that dictates how other people should live and think, I only expressed my wishes on that front (after being prompted to do so by you), not any command. Please re-read.

(I hope you have noticed that I have refrained from targeting any one religion, as my remarks are applicable to religion as a concept and not directed at any sect.)

Well, given that I say "choose" many times but you keep going back to "need" -- I'm sticking with pedantic nit picking because you don't like that people "choose" religion, @newtboy

And if some humans have "chosen" religion for millennia, then that speaks to the human condition.

We are talking at cross purposes. You want the world to be different than it is. I accept it as it is.

Well, @bareboards2, given that after you say "choose" many times, you again go back to "I have heard people say they "need" it. ", as I read it, you are sticking with "need". If you now wish to only say 'choose' instead of 'need' I can now understand your meaning and move on.

If it's pedantic nit picking it's because I don't like that people are unclear...and I hate when they are unclear, then change/clarify their argument, chastise you for commenting on the previous (seemingly misunderstood) argument, then return to that argument.

...and if some humans have "chosen" opiates, then that also speaks to the human condition in the same way. Misguided people often choose things they not only don't need, and often, in reality, things they don't even want, because they ignore or don't know the down side of their choices.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can accept (regard as true) the world as it is while also wanting it to be different. I accept (regard as true) many things that are not as I WANT them...I only refuse to accept (reconcile myself to) things that are not as I NEED them to be.
Accepting (regarding as true) something is the way it is does not preclude one from not accepting (reconciling one's self to) that thing.
(the issue again is, IMO, in word definition, but this time it's the fault of English...as "accept" means both 1.'to regard as true' and 2.'to reconcile oneself to'. I meant the former, while you seem to mean the latter. I often wish English did not have these multiple definition words...one that really gets me is "theory", which means completely different things to different people in different situations, a difference that has caused terrible damage in it's exploitation.)

Hey! We got on the same page!

I did put "need" in quotes, because I am quoting people. Not to be pedantic. Ha.

Yes to everything else. Communicating. It is a bitch. English. Dang. And doing it via the internet? It is less communicating and more dueling monologues.

I think we did really well, though, over all, @newtboy. Thanks for sticking in with me.

It's even worse when one is the type of person who thinks the best compliment they ever got was 'Newtboy doesn't think the way normal people do.' That's certainly not helpful when attempting internet communication, and maddening for all when people invariably expect you to read into their posts and understand some unwritten or miss-written parts...something I am completely incapable of doing properly.
Thanks for not bailing just because I'm a sesquipedalian pain in the ass.

Whoa, let's not go nuts. Chaos Engine's point and yours was clear from the beginning - there's a difference between what people actually need and what people choose, say they need, or think they need. That difference was clearly communicated, numerous times, and BB2 decided to go on a weird rant about zealotry instead of owning his fuck-up.

That doesn't make him a bad person, or wrong in the grand scheme of things - I just don't want the actual truth of the matter to be overshadowed by your spirit of goodwill and understanding. Your communication was clear to a 3rd party, as was ChaosEngine's. I'm all for building bridges and meeting others halfway, but not through unnecessary self-criticism.

Thanks, and I'm glad at least some one could follow my brand of Mobius logic. That doesn't negate what I said about myself and communication, but perhaps my thoughts weren't as garbled as I thought...this time.

Her. I'm a her.

@Babymech.

I'm sticking with my point of view, by the way.

It's all good.

On a side note not dealing with the particulars that started the conversation.

Whats a choice and what's a need can be argued forever depending on many variables and from whose perspective. When is something a need and not a choice, and need for who. Where is the line drawn.

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone here actually feels pretty much the same, but the words just got in the way

For my 2 cents, as I see it, only air, water, food, and shelter fall under 'need'. ANYTHING else is want.
I'm a hard liner/Spartan thinking that way, I know, but my dad taught me that lesson early, and while I can't agree with his teaching methods, I do agree with the lesson. Seeing things that way makes one a happier person in the end, because then (at least for most people in the US) one can't help but feeling that one's NEEDS are all met and seeing that the things they don't have are all just superfluous things they want.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper?

Fascinating read into how one of the Westboro daughters came to leave the church. Not that I wish to equate Westboro to Mormonism quite, it just gave me greater sympathy for those trapped inside, and an insight into how even the most hardened dogma can be eroded if given enough time and compassion.

@bareboards2 @ChaosEngine and @newtboy Most want a particular church, or prefer a particular church. But a very few NEED a particular church--ie., they can't live without one. Take my mother-in-law. She survived a fire that nearly killed her, was forced to have sex with animals by her abusive father, was beaten by her husband, then lost all her children to DCF and well that sums up her life. It is easy to chalk up her reliance on Jehovah's Witness' faith as her "choice," but then that is denying the biological need to be accepted and loved in a certain manner. Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself.

No one "needs" food, water, air or shelter. We can all just choose to lie down and die. In fact, people do it all the time.

@eric3579 is right. That word "need" triggered a huge amount of personal association by some folks that I just don't have with it.

It feels like I was trying to build a floor of many planks, and someone came along with 4 inch stiletto heels and is grinding that one point of "need" in an entire floor with their right foot.

It's all good. Eric is right, I am 99.999% sure. We all agree, except for semantics.

Or...
c) get through it with the help of family and friends like literally millions of others have done.

Christ, you people act like no one has ever left a church before. No, it's not easy, but neither is it fatal.

I love the fact that I'm accused of idealism when I'm talking about something that objectively happens literally every day.

So theoretically one can feel the need to be a Mormon, and in spite of that remain a good person (even though one is aware of the publicly available information about the church). Ok.

I wonder how far we can go in forgiveness for weird needs. Out of respect for all the many good people who are also Mormons I shall present no embarassing examples of weird needs. Especially not my own.

Like its understandable for grandparents (or most other relatives) to be mildly racist and smoke, its also fine if they are Mormons. If they are good people. Beyond that I am not so sure. Not all churches and religions are the same.

Just gonna ask, since you commented as a person of knowing on this topic and; therefore, should have firsthand experience on the topic, have you ever suffered abuse Chaos? I don't mean a few licks here and there, or step-daddy hits you with a beer bottle now and then for six months to a year, I mean long term abuse, both mental and physical. Where you fear to wake up in the morning, but dread going to sleep far worse? If yes, I will leave the topic alone as you are someone who has "been there and done that", but if not, prepare for a rant my friend.

And on a side note, I agreed with you that MOST people DON'T need church, so the fact that you focus on "some" people needing it says you were really defensive...

Don't know about @ChaosEngine, but I did suffer that kind of daily abuse for 15 + years from an older brother who beat me daily, locked me outside in the winter rains at night, burned me repeatedly, cut me repeatedly, took advantage of my claustrophobia by wrapping me in blankets and sitting on me until I would pass out, killing numerous pets of mine, etc, and I NEVER considered turning to an imaginary friend for help...not once....and my friends and family were completely useless helping me with him, so I'm awaiting your rant with bells on.

My past is a) irrelevant and b) none of your fucking business.

So attack the argument on its merits or not at all.

Aw, you wait with bells on. You are quiet cute little Newt, but you forget that I said I would not rant if abuse did occur...now you did have abuse, so I can't rave...so guess by your own statements go ahead and keep waiting bud, because I was A-Pretty God damn clear, and B-you made yourself obsolete. Ha, irony.

YOU were the one speaking as though YOU knew the topic of abuse. So YOUR statements were irrelevant and none of our fucking business, so stay the fuck out of that topic please since you don't obviously want to debate it on fair grounds. Because that is the case, don't pretend that you can speak for people of abuse. You're like Doctor Google, no degree, yet beg like a dog to be believed.

And something I just noticed...so you "NEVER" considered turning to an imaginary friend for help...not once? (And I am in the same boat as you are on that one my friend.) But oh that sounds funny...almost sounds like the fact that you cannot do with God under any circumstances, that would imply NEEDING a more logical faith than imaginary God. For you it is a must, no? Or do you not get the Socratic logic behind that "need" of yours?

But as you and Chaos said, you obviously choose this need of logic, so it is not a need at all? You can just walk away with help, as Chaos said, right?

So, first, lets just notice that your position was A. you had abuse, I won't discuss it with you then or B. you had no abuse, I won't discuss it with you then. Right? ;-)
EDIT: I'm not sure how the topic of abuse came up, or weighs into this argument though.

As to your point here, yes, if I felt any "need" at all for faith, and I don't, I would absolutely need that faith to be based in logic and provable fact if I'm to believe it, and that disqualifies all faiths today.

EDIT: No, it's not a "need", it's a want...or more correctly a condition.

I was my own help with my brother/abuser...so I guess yeah, I always walk with help...I AM HELP! Odd that I'm so often unhelpful then, huh?

What are you talking about? I said NOTHING about abuse.

I was talking about people leaving a church, and yeah, that is something that I have experience of.

Besides, one doesn't have to have personal experience of something to comment on it. In fact, it's often helpful to be able to address an issue without the emotional baggage. There's a reason we don't allow crime victims to set the sentence of criminals, for example.

It is utterly unreasonable to ask people about their private lives in a public discussion. If they choose to volunteer that information, fine, but it's not a prerequisite to participate in a discussion.

A-Where did you speak about abuse?! I told a story of abuse (My mother in law being forced to have sex with animals, beaten burned, raped, etc.) And your direct answer (to her reliance on the church DUE TO THAT ABUSE) was "c) get through it with the help of family and friends like literally millions of others have done. " Ie., her abuse CAN be gotten over in your expert opinon. I say fuck that. It cannot be gotten over more so than a physical injury like brain damage, since it started so young and destroyed her thought process in life. In a way she is a socialized feral child (In a way, but I know there are huge differences.) People like me and Newt, thankfully, didn't fully get brain-fucked and so can work on social issues.

(Irrelevant topic; did you know abuse can cause schizophrenia without genetic factors? Amazing... (Carlson 2011).)

B-It is not unreasonable when you get into a public conversation on a topic that you comment directly on.

C-Yes, tell rape victims you know their plight, I am sure they will acknowledge your lack of knowing...I mean I can understand Doctors with years and years of study. Or here is a better analogy. Pat a black man on the shoulder who's child has been shot by a racist cop and say, "I know the feeling bud."

D-If you have to explain why what you said was different than those examples, it wasn't different enough.

So then again, what is a "need" for humans? We have already went over the fact that water, food, etc., those are not "needs", as suicides definitely prove. In essence, humans, as thinking creatures, need nothing. The word "need" then becomes a useless word that we need to throw away

And the abuse thing came about one of two ways. Either Choas had very bad timing and wrote a response directly to my post about my mother in law "needing" her church on accident, or he did it on purpose. Either way it was a direct reply, and I simply asked him how he knew what she could or couldn't do. I feel that is like a person telling rape victims to get over it--with help of course...yeah...um...not cool...believing the magic cool aid that we can do anything if we just believe hard enough is logically fake. Like a big man in the sky who sends his flesh to free us of sin.

B) What I was saying is that if he had been through abuse, I would respect his past and stay quiet. But if not, he has no right to tell other people how to live their lives, deal with their problems, or get over stuff.

Well then, as I've shown, religion, or even friends and family, are not even 'needs' for happiness or safety, and indeed they often preclude happiness and safety.
EDIT: I did go to friends and family for help...they just didn't provide any. If they had, you might say I 'needed' them, but that would be wrong and assumes that I could not solve the problem without them...and at least in my case, I did. I certainly WANTED their help...I did not need it.
For humans to remain living humans, those are needs. I think that's about as far as I'm willing to go denying "need", although existence is certainly not a "need" for everyone....nothing's absolute.
No, we can do anything (within reason and the realm of possibility) if we just WORK at it hard enough. Belief actually gets in the way.

Well, I agree with him. People do not need to have the same experience as the person you are discussing to have something to add to the conversation, indeed being outside the situation may be quite helpful to see solutions one can't see from inside.

Ok, I think this got out of hand. My apologies. I wasn't talking about the abuse.

You said "Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself."

My reply was specifically about "that faith". I didn't mean that she would get through the abuse with the help of friends and family, I meant she would get through leaving the church. And yes, this has happened. Thousands of people left the catholic church in Ireland after the child abuse scandals, many of them lifelong devout catholics.

I would never suggest that anyone simply "get over" that kind of abuse, but I can see how you might have misinterpreted my post, so I apologise for that.

That said, people do get help for abuse without churches. There are plenty of secular options available (counselling, support groups, etc).

As for the rest, I still maintain that my direct experience of abuse or lack thereof has no bearing on the argument. I could tell you all kinds of things, but you wouldn't even know if they were true, to say nothing of a betrayal of trust on my part.

Or would you expect rape trauma counsellors they have to be raped to help victims?

As for the black man example, again, you know nothing about what discrimination I may or may not have faced (hint: the Irish didn't have too flash a time of it for a long time). I would never be so condescending as to say that I know ANYONES life, but that doesn't mean I can't empathise with them. Even if I've never been shot by a cop, I'm damn sure it's something I wouldn't like.

Thank you Chaos. When I read the reply the first time I was like...oh this fucker did not say that line spouted off by "Americanists," that one can do anything imaginable, but if they don't it's only their fault. This truly helps with understanding where you were coming from. I am grateful.