1. Comment #91883 by Russell's Teapot on November 29, 2007 at 1:56 pm

As always, a great video from Pat. I need to sit down some time and watch the videos he posted before I subscribed :)

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

2. Comment #91886 by room101 on November 29, 2007 at 1:59 pm

..what a waste of an enlightenment...

And...

if you want me to believe something, provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule...

Amen. This is exactly how I feel regarding debating xtian idiots. Less debate, more mockery. I'm loving this guy more and more...

Other Comments by room101

3. Comment #91892 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Gotta love the Pat:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

4. Comment #91903 by Anubis on November 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

He makes good points. Sitting back, being polite and hiding under the radar sure hasn't helped atheists throughout history. The splash that all of the new atheist books have made recently is a healthy sign that maybe something will change now.

Other Comments by Anubis

5. Comment #91906 by Tomcat on November 29, 2007 at 2:32 pm

All hail the new atheist prophets! For their strategy has brought us fame and glory. We must understand that all strategies have been tried before this recent surge in book sales! It is the only one that works! This is the one true coming of our messiahs!

Other Comments by Tomcat

6. Comment #91934 by HoyaSaxa87 on November 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Let me preface this by saying that I am of the same mind as you all and would love a world free of religion.

That said, the works of Prof. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and the rest have done an incredible job of effectively bringing many atheists our of the proverbial closet (myself included) and providing a basis on which to build around, but at this point, "giving the verbal finger" to religion is only going to further mobilize the faithful.

Sam Harris's speech at the AAI conference encouraged us to take on each issue as it comes. If people try to teach religion in science class, put it down. If the US government inhibits stem cell research on the basis of religion, prove that he is violating the Constitution, but what needs to be realized is that simply saying "you're all full of crap," (which i agree with) and "therefore you're not worth having a discussion with," is going to get us nowhere.

Other Comments by HoyaSaxa87

7. Comment #91940 by tieInterceptor on November 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Pat for president! :)

maybe we should burn Sudans embassy in London for the scandal of the teddy bear 15 days prison sentence.

just kidding,

but I wonder what they would say in the middle east if we torched it.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

8. Comment #91961 by CruciFiction on November 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Pat is a real treasure. His videos deserve maximum exposure.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

9. Comment #91978 by will young on November 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm

That made my day!

Other Comments by will young

10. Comment #91989 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:57 pm

"What a waste of an Enlightenment."

Priceless!

There is a deep joy in seeing someone so profoundly sane.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

11. Comment #92050 by cranium on November 29, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Pat, you're an inspiration! I love the way you stand up to the anti-intellectual bullies. You're gifted with a brain AND a spine, and I admire you for it.

Other Comments by cranium

12. Comment #92051 by Jack Rawlinson on November 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Pat just keeps getting better and better. This is totally where I come from.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

13. Comment #92063 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:00 pm

HoyaSaxa87 said

simply saying "you're all full of crap," (which I agree with) and "therefore you're not worth having a discussion with," is going to get us nowhere.

When having a discussion with a theist, to say "You're not worth having a discussion with" is, as you quite rightly point out, going to get you nowhere.

Much better to simply say "You're full of crap". Honesty is the best policy.

Other Comments by monkey2

14. Comment #92159 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 1:48 am

Religious extremism definitely prompts a tougher approach but the age of the enlightment did not come through open insult and vulgar rants. The "polite atheists" may have condescended on Pat but his response is to suggest we condescend on everyone else. Doesn't make sense.

You may argue that religion is unworthy of the authority it has but that's besides the point that it has the authority anyway whether we like it or not. Once you've dealt the extremists the verbal fingers they deserve how do you plan to enlighten the masses? By setting a good example maybe?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

15. Comment #92163 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 1:59 am

monkey2 wrote

Honesty is the best policy.

I can't disagree with that but once you understand the religious mindset you'll realise that most of them 'honestly' believe what they profess they do. There lies the case for polite debate. Unless you're dealing with a professional apologetic then there's reason to appeal to people's common sense in a tone appropriate to the seriousness of the topic at hand.

Smart ass dick-headedness is for smart ass dickheads. Let the decent people have their way with the well meaning majority.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

16. Comment #92165 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:03 am

Once you've dealt the extremists the verbal fingers they deserve how do you plan to enlighten the masses?

Precisely by showing that religious belief is no more worthy of respect than any other set of beliefs.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #92167 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 2:07 am

Phil rimmer


Hitchens does that really well in his God is not Great. Very effective and not vulgar. You can deconstruct religious beliefs through polite discourse. Of course I'm not talking about Abu Hamza and the like.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

18. Comment #92174 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:28 am

Vinelectric.

I have passionate debates with my friends. We respect each other, but we don't respect each others ideas. They spoil their kids. They vote for idiots. AGW's a joke/not a joke. Onlookers are quite aghast. However, we take turns to buy a round of drinks and come back for more next week.

Simply saying we want to be able to debate the role of religion in society and that we want to call you an idiot when the occasion demands it, is part of snatching religion back from self-serving priests and putting it into the hands of individuals so they can decide for themselves. I see no pressing need for politeness per se. Impassioned, earnest, and honest discussion and lots of it is what I crave. How can it be wrong?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

19. Comment #92233 by CJ22 on November 30, 2007 at 5:35 am

Fighting religious lunacy on a case-by-case basis is like engaging in a gigantic game of whack-a-mole, and I'm sure the theocrats will be highly delighted to encourage you to do that.

We won't get anywhere until we make our cultures unfriendly to religion in particular, and superstition in general.

Other Comments by CJ22

20. Comment #92255 by Incredulous on November 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

It had to be said and Pat said it.

Anyway, the faithful will think you are rude simply for suspecting that the ideas on which they have developed such strong and persistent cognitive webs of faith are, well, wrong.

I have no wish to waste the one life I have on this earth engaged with some believer's elongated death prattle, when I only want the person to provide evidence for his beliefs.

Nice one Pat. Their beliefs are a joke and should be treated as such at every opportunity. Respect for religion? You won't find it here with me, Especially after the events of the last few days and of course, the religion fuelled madness of 7/11 and 7/7.

Other Comments by Incredulous

21. Comment #92312 by Scott McMeekin on November 30, 2007 at 9:11 am

I'd never even heard of Pat's material until I saw it on onegoodmove the other day. Went to YTube and watched them one by one. Sometimes he tends to linger on the personal insults, but even taking that into account I didn't spot anything that he said that wasn't patently obvious to most of us, or was untrue.

It's good stuff. Stronger stuff than Richard, but as I said, none of it is wrong, unreasonable or untruthful. Well worth a look if you haven't. With the Sudan incident, I'm firmly of the opinion that we do need more people speaking plainly, concisely and openly in a similar style.

Scott.

Edit: Now that I think about it, a worthy exercise is to watch some of the response videos that Pat gets. If you want to get some idea of the mindset of a lot of young muslim men these days, they're an interesting watch.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

22. Comment #92337 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:10 am

Damn, this guy is funny. The day I saw his first video about a month ago, I watched all of them that day.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

23. Comment #92343 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:17 am

I have to say that I didn't much like this video, and I have to agree with Vinelectric.

However, perhaps I should be careful what I say, as I got seriously flamed on PZ Myers' site by putting forward this point of view :)

I will simply say that I have had some very interesting and effective debates with theists.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #92353 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 10:35 am

Hi, steve,

Just went to PZ's site to have a look. What the fuck? These idiots were acting like a lynching mob and they called themselves 'rational'. Sheesh! Welcome back.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #92354 by ADePSP on November 30, 2007 at 10:38 am

All Pat's YouTube vids are worth a watch... A little staunch but I think there's room for all kinds of Atheists...

Other Comments by ADePSP

26. Comment #92363 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:56 am

Bonzai. Yes, it was a little bizarre.

My real objection to this video is that it seems to me to be just a touch ... rude. My reaction to someone who is good mannered to me, even if deluded, is to be good mannered back, well at least at first.

Pat sets too high a standard for others. For example, I would imagine that most people think that 'first person' experiences, such as feelings, dreams etc. can be evidence for God, or the supernatural or whatever. They think they are being reasonable when they try and explain their faith to others. To simply mock them, which is my reading of this video, is inappropriate I think. I think it is inconsiderate.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #92364 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:56 am

Hello steve99,

will simply say that I have had some very interesting and effective debates with theists.

I've had many interesting debates with theists, but I can't say any have been effective. In what way were yours effective? I am curious.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

28. Comment #92372 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 am

For example, I would imagine that most people think that 'first person' experiences, such as feelings, dreams etc. can be evidence for God, or the supernatural or whatever. They think they are being reasonable when they try and explain their faith to others. To simply mock them, which is my reading of this video, is inappropriate

But to be fair to Pat, he is targeting Dogma. He doesn't care what people believe. He scorns when others push un-evidenced belief in his face. It is their behaviour he seeks to comment upon.

[edit]Steve, I've just been over to PZ's place to look at the Condell stuff. My Goodness, now they were rude. Gosh, I like here quite a lot too. Maybe in knowing the people around you and being known a little more, saying nuanced stuff isn't such a risk. Maybe when I talk about being impolite, I mean "robust".

Other Comments by phil rimmer

29. Comment #92390 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 pm

In what way were yours effective? I am curious.

I managed to make some progress in changing minds. I have one friend who seems to be on the path from theism to agnosticism.

He scorns when others push un-evidenced belief in his face. It is their behaviour he seeks to comment upon.

Well, I know it is only a matter of tone, but he did not suggest commenting on their behaviour - he suggested mockery and ridicule. Just a little to 'in your face' for my tastes.

Other Comments by steve99

30. Comment #92418 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I think its possible we all have someone (or some type) in mind when Pat Condell is describing what he would say to an offending religite.

I have occasionally mentioned here a good friend who is a staunch Roman Catholic. From his conversation, you couldn't tell. When challenged about this he explains the privateness of these matters and adds that it would be ridiculous to argue or discuss matters from a religious perspective with others, because there has to be a common vocabulary and common concepts and plenty enough exist in common parlance. I don't know how, but his brilliant conversation seems utterly without dogma. This is a man Pat Condell himself would treat with respect.

However, I know exactly the sort of person I would be brusque or rude to; the Wee Flea, who comes looking to "mix it", to prove himself and the merit of his ideas. But, always the rude dismissal is to the idea not the man.


PS
As Condell is disinterested in a persons thoughts he can only be concerned with their behaviour.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

31. Comment #92423 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:10 pm

This is a man Pat Condell himself would treat with respect.

Actually, I am sure he would. Which is why I find this 'in yer face' video irritating... it is putting on a front for provocative (and comic?) effect, while giving the appearance of sincerity. Or maybe I am wrong.

Other Comments by steve99

32. Comment #92425 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm

My Goodness, now they were rude.

One thing that did unsettle me was PZ starting a new thread, supposedly based on an argument of mine.

Here is what he wrote:

Here's how it works. An atheist says something assertive about religion; religious sympathizer retorts, "Would you say that to your dying grandmother? You atheists can't give any consolation to the dying or grieving, and all you can do is flip a finger at believers." There is usually a tone of high moral indignation, as well, and a smug expression of superiority that the faithful have over the godless.

I struggle to find any resemblance to what I posted, or any reason I gave for appearing to be either a religious sympathizer or 'faithful', or claiming that atheists could not give consolation.

Maybe it was not based on what I posted, even if others claim it was. Who knows?

All I can say is that I have a somewhat reduced level of respect for the site, even if the cephalopod posts are a lot of fun...

Other Comments by steve99

33. Comment #92429 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Steve,

I am amazed at the nastiness of the 'rational' folks at PZ's. This is an eye opener.

They talk about how it is possible to be decent and kind without God but in the next breath acting like a bunch of jerks even to one of their own over a minor disagreement. The dogmatic, self righteous mindset and herd mentality exhibited by these people are exactly like that of the religious fundamentalists.

In contrast, I was treated with courtesy and respect in some moderate Muslim site even as an in your face atheist. With the exception of one or two people, most of them were genuinely interested in hearing different points of view. I was a more aggressive poster.

Actions speak louder than words, these kind of fanatical behaviour of atheists will only damage their own cause.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #92439 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Actions speak louder than words, these kind of fanatical behaviour of atheists will only damage their own cause.

I know. It is depressing. I only hope the civility and reason shown here most time helps to counter it.

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #92468 by smithyboy on November 30, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Sidfaiwu asks Steve99 about the value of polite debate with religious people, and others seem to be suggesting only ridicule is worthwhile. My own experience as a previously 'religious type' is that well-made reasonable arguments did have an effect on me and eventually I changed my mind and became an atheist. I spent a long time weighing up the arguments and was not swayed in any way by ridicule. Indeed I suspect ridicule might make 'strong-minded' types like me just dig in deeper. So I would encourage Steve99 in his approach. Perhaps the ridicule suggested by others helps in other ways, but I am not so sure. Perhaps it just makes the 'riduculers' feel better and the 'ridiculous' worse, and reinforces an us-versus-them mentality on both sides. If it does the latter then I am not keen because I don't see this as a war between atheists and the 'religites'; a war which the atheists need to to win. I would prefer to see us as all part of one group seeking to move toward the truth together. (Sorry if that sounds corny.)

Other Comments by smithyboy

36. Comment #92588 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I like this guy. And I'm one of the biggest critics of my fellow atheists.

... really well-spoken.

Whoever thinks he's crude is just using the word wrongly.

He is being RUDE, but not unjustifiably :)

Other Comments by Spinoza

37. Comment #92606 by monkey2 on November 30, 2007 at 10:35 pm

And here's his justification

Besides I don't think that I'm insulting anyone who doesn't deserve it a thousand times over. I also think that if we did a bit more insulting and a bit less pointless debating then religion might not have such a falsely inflated idea of it's own importance and there might not be so many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.

Other Comments by monkey2

38. Comment #92612 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:13 am

monkey2:

I see what he is saying, but I just think it is wrong, and for a good reason. As Dawkins and others have pointed out, there is has been something of a taboo about criticising religion. This is something that books by Dawkins, Harris and others is definitely starting to change.

I think we should make use of that change, and we should make use of it by taking the chance to debate and discuss these beliefs. My view, for what it is worth, is that encouraging people to proceed straight to mockery and ridicule is to dismiss this opportunity.

It also encourages a false sense of superiority, I believe. I mean, it is part of human nature to suffer from delusions in one way or another. We are all fallible in this way, I believe. The difference with religion is the way that the delusion is formalised and supported by preachers and religions institutions. The typical religious person is simply a 'victim' of birth or circumstance.

I would have been happier of Pat had specifically targeted preachers, bishops etc.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #92630 by phil rimmer on December 1, 2007 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I would have been happier of Pat had specifically targeted preachers, bishops etc.

Agree here, but there are many, many religious pro-active individuals, who would promote creationism in schools, deny access to condoms or good sexual health education, deny gay rights, demand sharia law etc., etc. And Pat really does target precisely the pro-active.

..many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.

Many of these people think they automatically have rights conferred on them by their faith. The rude, unapologetic, flat denial of those "rights" is a necessary first step and wake-up call that society has a new political agenda and that all people need to start thinking about that. The Rudeness of likening an anti-contraception stance to the desire for capital punishment for apostasy may be necessary to show there is no limit if religious dogma is to be imposed upon others.

Steve, I am most dismayed when people relentlessly pursue another's belief in God for its own sake. That is fatuous. (I even had a pang of remorse reading David Robertson's "Dark Night of the Soul" in his church magazine, and that was brought on by "Polite" atheist debate. The remorse soon evaporated when he reverted to his [mildly] malign influencing of others.)

So for me-

Polite with private faith.
Robust with intrusion into secular matters. [Edit I am very happy if they receive a bruise walking into Jefferson's Wall.]

Other Comments by phil rimmer

40. Comment #92633 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 2:13 am

And Pat really does target precisely the pro-active.

I know he does in general; I just did not see such targetting in this particular video.

Polite with private faith.
Robust with intrusion into secular matters.

Yes, I can certainly agree with that.

Other Comments by steve99

41. Comment #92646 by Comets on December 1, 2007 at 3:04 am

I just wanted to say that I found the unwarranted rude lambasting that Steve got over on PZ's site really depressing. It was a display of the worst kind of knee-jerk yobbish behaviour I've encountered in a long time. I've lost a huge amount of respect for both the site and PZ personally for the way it was handled.

I'm so glad that it's a different story on this site.

I for one think there is nothing positive to be gained by being rude for the sake of it.

Other Comments by Comets

42. Comment #92654 by suffolkthinker on December 1, 2007 at 3:43 am

I adore Pat's videos. A stident, funny and ptovocative voice of reason. His previous vodeo on the Islamofacists was so on the mark.

There may be times we tactially work with "moderates" from religious movements on certain issues like getting Gillian Gibbons out of a Sudanese prison but why bother debating with those who are beyond reason?

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

43. Comment #92658 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:05 am

Smithyboy,

Indeed I suspect ridicule might make 'strong-minded' types like me just dig in deeper.

Do you think there are people who would describe themselves as 'weak-minded'?

Other Comments by keith

44. Comment #92660 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 am

think we should make use of that change, and we should make use of it by taking the chance to debate and discuss these beliefs. My view, for what it is worth, is that encouraging people to proceed straight to mockery and ridicule is to dismiss this opportunity.

Let me first say that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the views of Steve99 as he does show respect, consideration and clear thought in everything he expresses to anyone.

I make a point of reading his posts before anyone's because I know it will make sense. But while I would like to be nice all the time, even I feel some faithheads are taking advantage of the rational person's desire to move forward and be inclusive in as pleasant a way as possible.

Rudeness for the sake of rudeness is childish. However, rudeness - I prefer bluntness - to make a point that an idea is understood and rejected surely cannot be.

Time and again I have seen some of the most intelligent and rationally thought through arguments simply crushed, not by an intelligent response, but by faithheads digging their heels in and say no you cannot move me from my belief.

I think Pat is merely displaying a heartfelt frustration at some of the comments made and in its way this rings a bell - ok, not a very genteel bell - with many.

We want to be straight and in your face but find it socially unacceptable to be so, when maybe it may not be such a good idea to give even short shrift to bad ideas.

Other Comments by Incredulous

45. Comment #92661 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:48 am

I can't help thinking that Pat and Steve are talking about different situations and as Steve pointed out, it's more than possible that Pat would be polite to Phil Rimmer's mate. However, I don't think this means that Pat is affecting a belligerent tone for comedic effect. I think the apparent contradiction lies in who he is addressing and where he is doing it.

On a one-to-one basis, with a real-life Catholic in front of me, I hope I would behave myself, keep my snide remarks to myself and try not to make anybody (including myself) look foolish. However, on an atheist website or on a youtube video there should really be no way for anyone to take the mockery and ridicule personally. Okay, Pat is mocking opinions that a lot of people hold dear, but there is nothing personal in this attack, any more than the chant, "You're shit, and you know you are" shouted by thousands of football supporters towards the rival team every weekend should be taken personally by one, overly-sensitive Aston Villa fan. No one has singled out this fan for individual abuse and neither has Pat: his attacks are on ideas, pure and simple.

I have to say that whenever we have these discussions about just how rude you should be and whether or not it is counter-productive to be so, I'm a little exasperated at what occasionally comes across, at worst, as a kind of sniffy self-righteousness and at best an aunty-ish fastidiousness. I have the impression that in some people's eyes, irritation and annoyance are emotions to be used tactically or not at all. The idea that someone might have an overwhelming desire to get something off their chest and that the impersonal arena of a website might be the ideal place to do so seems completely foreign to some kindly souls. Sometimes I'm really left wondering: Whatever happened to real people with real emotions?

Fine, on a personal level don't embarrass others. That's just cruel. But in the impersonal medium of the internet, while referring to a set of ideas that are subscribed to by millions, you should be able to let loose a little.

Other Comments by keith

46. Comment #92662 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 5:09 am

Keith, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I do think that Pat Condell's video was a bit over the top, if taken literally, and that it was legit for Steve to raise questions about it ... e.g. just how literally it was meant, blah, blah.

But your analysis of the bigger picture sounds about right to me.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

47. Comment #92672 by BMMcArdle on December 1, 2007 at 6:48 am

You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, how does writing it to someone else give it any value?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

48. Comment #92673 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 7:06 am

BMMcArdle,

You're assuming that because you wouldn't say something to someone's face that it can't have any value. Where did you get this idea?

Other Comments by keith

49. Comment #92674 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

There is a very useful discussion here, in my view.

Let me say first of all that I am in no way suggesting that politeness should always be the approach... perhaps only at first. I can't help feeling a warm glow when I see Hitchens go for someone who is clearly resistant to reasonable debate.

Russell summarises just what I feel... what would be the message if what Pat says here was taken literally?

It was pointed out to me elsewhere that I needed to understand the context of the video, and who Pat Condell was. Well, I had a good idea. But when someone throws something like this out on YouTube or wherever, I think they can't assume people know the context. Condell is not that famous.

I can only contrast this with the way Richard Dawkins behaves. In process of making 'The Root of all Evil?' there were some interviews which were not shown, but were available later, and linked to here. One of those included a discussion with the Bishop of Oxford. It was a perfectly polite debate, indeed Richard and the Bishop had worked together before, campaigning on matters of science teaching in the UK. But the Bishop is certainly one of those targetted by Condell - he expects people to believe things without what we could consider evidence. Yet would mockery have been the correct approach? Richard did not think so, and gained a useful ally against the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Mind you, this does not stop Richard having a go at those who aren't initially persuaded by calm discussion.

Me, I go for the Dawkins approach.

Other Comments by steve99

50. Comment #92676 by smithyboy on December 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

Keith
No, I don't suppose many people would describe themselves as weak-minded, and I wasn't intending to imply this. What I wanted to say was that people who tend to be confident in their views and to hold strongly to them are likely simply to dig in even deeper if subjected to ridicule. On the other hand, perhaps those who are less confident will be persuaded by ridicule. But I'm less concerned with the latter in any case, because they are not the opinion-formers. Having said all that, I should say that I see nothing wrong at all with trying to expose an idea as ridiculous or even trying to show a person that they are being ridiculous. And if they are offended by this, then so be it.

Other Comments by smithyboy