51. Darwin 'was committed to publish'

Comment #28875 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm

No one in England has ever lawfully been burned at the stake for being a witch. This witchcraft buisness is rubbish.

52. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28833 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 6:36 am

It is in fact true that the united states has a far better separation of church and state that the united kingdom. The queen is head of the church of England. There is a requirement in schools in the UK for maintained schools (ie those funded by the state) to have a collective act of worship every day of largely a christian nature. The fact that the UK is a largely secular country and most children take great pains to ignore school assembely.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/foischeme/subpage.cfm?action=collections.displaycollection&i_collectionID=159

As for morlaity. I think it would be perfectly possible to construct a notion of moral behaviour though a conscious rejection of christianity. It is perfectly possible to form moralities around political beliefs as marxism does. If you believe in commonality of humanity and socialist principals and that people only have one existance, that existance being on this earth then there is a greater emphasis on improving the conditions of those worst off. The Catholic church long told the poor that their povery made them holy. Similaly a political morality might be constructed by a conservative who believes in the free agency of the individual to be allowed to improve his lot.

53. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28710 by cheshirecat on March 30, 2007 at 1:01 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pSaMPzjOc

54. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28692 by cheshirecat on March 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I can't afford to keep a butler any more.

55. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28680 by cheshirecat on March 30, 2007 at 11:31 am

"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby..."

What is it called when you obsess about not collecting stamps, write books about not collecting stamps, argue that not collecting stamps is damaging our children and that the world would be a better and sunnier place if collecting stamps was wiped from the earth. Collecting stamps causes most of the worlds problems and is an evil that needs to be stopped. I have never heard anyone who didn't collect stamps speak about it on a lecture tour and end up argueing with fundamentalist stamp collectors who believed that collecting stamps was a moral neccesity.

Not a very good analogy is it?

56. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28662 by cheshirecat on March 30, 2007 at 9:46 am

I think that in the end Mesliers book and Voltaire were intelectual dead ends. The French revolution and Robspiere's 'cult of reason' saw to that. After all you can take anything too far if you obsess about it. The movement ended in excessive anti-clericalism.

57. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28519 by cheshirecat on March 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm

"This definition would capture all Christians who, by definition, worship Jesus Christ, son of Mary"


Have you never heard of the trinity. Jesus christ is God you ignorant heathen.

58. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28478 by cheshirecat on March 29, 2007 at 10:37 am

How many thousands of pages was this book supposed to be? And why should an argument be avoided simply because of the intellectual fatigue of a few readers?

If he researched the paper himself and then referred to the results in a popular work or referred to someone else's study and explained why it was a good study.

59. God Is on Our Side. Does That Mean War?

Comment #28370 by cheshirecat on March 29, 2007 at 2:02 am

Hitler was a teapot. It says so here.

http://www.dirtgalleryla.com/ck_hitlertea.html

60. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28297 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Why not write a book for atheism rather than against religion. I cannot see that religion will ever go away so the goal needs to be more limited.
To give humanism a status alongside other modes of though should be the goal. To give it a literature that rivals other religion. Most of the people who care and hold logically coherent systems of belief have already worked Dawkin's arguements though at university with their friends. As for the rest who are indifferent or to whom religion consists of a mix of astrology and vague belief in a god I do not think they read the book or much care. The old story - 'well i've seen a ghost so there must be something going on musn't there?' attitude still prevails in some places.

We need a thoughtful and positive book. For all I disagree with Dawkins he has been one of the publishing events of the year. However I think there is too much bad reasoning going on there. Too much polemic that will be easily used against humanists especially in America. Some are bound to turn the 'God delusion' in on itself to become the 'Dawkins delusion'. I think if there is a Dakins delusion its the belief that Richard seems to have that non belief makes you a better person. I see no reason why non belief should make you more charitable or more willing to listen or even more rational or logical. People disbelieve in God for the strangest reasons just as people believe in God for the strangest reasons.

61. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28286 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Oh I completely agree that most of the arguement against is weak (some is remarkably good). Christian music and writing is of a very poor quality of late. Even if you go back 60 years to the greatest archbishop of Canterbury in modern times you find it to be substantially better. William Temple's christianity and the social order is typical of what used to be written. I have no doubt that there is good modern christian wrting. I think the problem is most christians song writers get caught in the emotion rather than actually saying anything meaningful in music. Most of it is hardly John Wesley or Donne for that matter ( and I think his spiritual writing was the equal of his poetry - he preached his own funeral sermon wearing a shroud and then went home and was dead within three days - genius).

There is a criticism to the God delusion.

Its knowledge of religion is not sharp enough - I think to attack the violence of the old testament is to misread its place in christian thought.

I'll give an example or two. People give the old eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth quoptation and say this why the bible is immoral.

but in Mathew it says

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: / But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The story about Abraham sacraficing his son is about trusting in God whatever he says not about sacrificing things.

the books of the Kings - are about war becaus they are essentially the foundation myths of the jewish people.

Also the premise that religion harms society is not backed up except in anecdotal fashion - I doubt that there is any truth in it except in specific cases.

The case against religion is made but not for alternative values. Maybe this is beyond the scope of the book but any good book on atheism should counter the arguement that atheists have no values.

The points often made sneeringly. not the best way to win people over. Be generous to your opponents and your arguement will be all the more powerful.

I do not think any christians will leave because of the God delusion. I think the books were written out of irritation with Richard Dawkins.

62. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28267 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 3:06 pm

In this article, RD cuts through the BS of religion and gives it straight, tells it like it is. No punch pulling or "respect" here.


Does the man on the street with a can of special brew that screams 'there is no God' at the sky not perform a similar feat. He claims that religion damages society but produces no statistics or evidence to back it up except for the tiresome arguements about Hitler and suicide bombers. (the point is these are exceptions to all rules). For someone who claims to be a scientist he does little science, produces little evidence and holds unreasonable views about religion and its relationship to people.

How is he advancing the understanding of science among the public as his role should suggest? Scientists should be calm and composed and write books on science.Everything he writes at the moment has a pent up agression in it. Who are we persuading here?

63. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28232 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm

You know this crap will be bandied about by the evangelicals

I quite agree that this is dissapointing because I think that there is quite a convincing secular critique you can make against Dawkins on his percieved role of religion in society.

64. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28214 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:31 am

Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?

65. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28213 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:29 am

"but every single reply is a nail they are hammering into their own coffin"


err... yes.

66. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28212 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:28 am

"more people riding on the coattails of Richard"

Richard Dawkins was riding on a critique of the most translated the most printed and the most argued about book in human history. Let us not forget who got in first on this one.

But everybody has a right of reply.

67. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #27919 by cheshirecat on March 27, 2007 at 8:40 am

Just found my old copy of 'mission to mars' by patrick moore in which Mars is described as having a thin oxygen atmosphere and animal life. Seems to be that Moore is rather dissapointed that there isn't life on Mars. I feel the same way. I would bet that they will not find anything remotely akin to life on mars though.

68. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27617 by cheshirecat on March 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Belief in God is entirely compatible with a normal mental state. Whether such beliefs are wrong is another matter. Some of you seem to be suggesting that religious people have some sort of mental condition. I think this is partly some of the 'us and them' mentality displayed here. You must blacken your opponents. "Engineers who believe in God are not proper scientists, and anyway engineers are not scientists anyway."

Engineers have to build things. They need a conception of practicality cost and manufacture. They need to go down to the fab shop and get their hands dirty finding out how things are put together. I think that is how they differ from physicists, though presumably physicists have to build a lot of their lab equipment.

The point about anthropologists seems to be a good one. Richard Dawkins is always bleating on about how his own work indicates the sheer improbability of God where as it seems to me that history and anthropology point out the inconsistencies of belief in one god over another far better. After all why should a god not chose evolution to create the world if he did it at all. The problem of the different conceptions and inconsistencies in the view of that god provides me with a far sharper critique of religion.

69. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27351 by cheshirecat on March 24, 2007 at 7:51 am

After all did not Hitler once say that people believing in God enabled him to invade Poland.

I believe he was interviewed in 1938:

Are you particually religious Mr Hitler?

Yes I am as a matter of fact. Me Stalin and Pat Robertson are all Quakers. We hold prayer meetings organise charity events together. My faith has inspired me to seek the unity all the German people in one glorious new empire and wipe out once and forever the impure blood in our nation.

I think this quote proves the danger of apparently liberal christianity. Sam Harris is right. If you are a liberal christian like Hitler you are basically supporting the terrorists.

70. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27340 by cheshirecat on March 24, 2007 at 6:14 am

The problem with Harris is that like his opponents on the religious right in America he is moved by hatred and contempt to write what he does. He should look to himself before criticising intolerance in others.

71. Sea floor records ancient Earth

Comment #27333 by cheshirecat on March 24, 2007 at 5:03 am

In a word no. You can tell simply from the language. It is too highly coloured and full of rhetoric. You will note the similarity between it and the language of the conspiracy theorist in the way it makes assertions.If you say a thing and then have to add "This is fact!" you clearly have not proved it or indeed its relavence to the arguement that you are making. This is someones pet theory based in fact on a theory that is actually competed with plate techtonics (theory of the subduction of one plate under another) for a while but ceased to be taken seriously. Its main exponent who was a serious scientist (unlike neale adams who draws cartoons for a living) is now dead. He was Samuel Warren Carey.

72. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26817 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 8:20 pm

"cheshirecat, your posts have been reduced to nothing more than flailing rants. It's unfortunate because I enjoyed your first posts"

I have been awake a considerable time longer than any man should and still have good sense it is true.

73. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26807 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm

We are argueing about Christianity. They are not Christians. I did not say stoning someone to death was a good thing but a product of the Jewish law which is repudiated in the gospells.

How do you interpret the plainly spoken but immoral command of your lord and saviour Sam Harris in his wicked apologia for torture?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

74. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26799 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 6:15 pm

No, I am not in any process of reconciliation, because my position is that of an absence of belief. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you meant by this?

If you don't know now you never will. I cannot make you self aware with regard to your own perspective on this matter.


Where did I say I believed in God by the way?

75. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26798 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm

But how else are we to take this command, if not literally?

Read Marks Gospel.


1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

most scholars take this to be the repudiation of the Jewish Sabbath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_2#Plucking_grain_on_the_Sabbath

76. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26790 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Just thinking about religion in Scotland. Here is a man which the reverend Ian Paisely once described as a bit of an extreemist.

>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=224442004

and his ballad written by Dick Gaughan

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/songs/texts/pastorjack.html

his obituary

http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=225132004

77. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26788 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm

"As I have stated before, it is the practice of "interpretation" which enables the believer to reconcile his vicious god's commands with his conscience"

How a religion is interpreted is the religion. You cannot separate the interpretation from the religion.

And remember that you too are in the process of reconciling your beliefs by entering into this discussion.

78. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26787 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 4:45 pm

"You STILL didn't answer the question. Here it is again. Do you think it was moral for people living in 600 BC to stone people to death for working on Sunday? Yes or no?"

No. but I do drown kittens.

79. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26780 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 3:55 pm

But your logic says the God of the old testament is a vicious bastard, therefore christians are vicious bastards. This is simply not bourne out by fact and ignores most of christian teaching to pursue a particular characterisation of believers.

At school we had the idea that Christians were these pale faced earnest sorts of people who you laughed at because they were too serious moral and didn't drink. How did we end up with these two different views.

80. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26775 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Nobody in the christian church was stoned to death for working on the sabbath. That is a jewish law. The sabbath is a saturday which is not the christian holy day. You could be punished for practicing a trade on a holy day by church law for which you would be fined or have to perform a pennance. However this was primarrily because your fellow craftsmen would be annoyed at you getting one up on them by outcompeting them in the production stakes. This stoning to death thing is a load of nonsense.

81. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26759 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 2:20 pm

You might call a child middle-class. Is this child abuse also? Perhaps the child would be unhappy with their parents bourgeois values. They might hate being taken to the RSC and being subjected to shakespeare at an early age. Forced to read the guardian. Mummy why do we always buy the Guardian. I want to read some of Mr Boris Johnsons rigorous journalism. No dear, in this house we shall have but one God and that will be marks and spencer.

82. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26757 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm

"But if you insist that I am required to agree with that claim before I can speak on the subject, you are indeed asking for more than just knowlege of what claims they have made."

I am not saying that as you well know.

83. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26749 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"By saying that being a theologian is a prerequisite for talking about religion, Dawkins' critics end up creating a barrier for entry to the topic where the only people allowed to talk about religion are believers"


The barrier for entry to the serious debate is not belief but knowledge.

84. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26748 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

iwentdowntotheriver -

"We have a job to do?"



What is the job we have to do?

85. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26746 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Dawkins addresses the flaws in the notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":

Yes he plainly denies it by getting his Bible and going 'ooo look at genesis' it makes scientific claims. He totally ignores the fact that it was never taken literally exept by the exceptionally stupid.

St. Augustine, in the Literal Meaning of Genesis

"What is the light itself which was created? Is it something spiritual or material?"

Dawkins does not understand that the meaning is gained not through the words as he sees them but read in the minds of those who do believe. Therefore theological interpretation is important.

Besides the theory is Goulds theory. See his essay.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

86. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26731 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

"What? Where is it EVER said that the NT supersedes the OT? Someone has obviously NOT read the bible here, and it isn't me. But let's assume you're right -- so now god can change his mind? What happened to his omniscience?"

I did not say that the new testament uperseeded the old but the old Jewish laws. Gregory the great says the following concerning women being admitted to holy communion soon after childbirth.

"For as in the Old Testament the outward works are observed, so in the New Testament, that which is outwardly done, is not so diligently regarded as that which is inwardly thought, in order to punish it by a discerning judgment. For whereas the Law forbids the eating of many things as unclean, yet our Lord says in the Gospel, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." And presently after He added, expounding the same, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." Where it is sufficiently shown, that that is declared by Almighty God to be polluted in fact, which proceeds from the root of a polluted thought. Whence also Paul the Apostle says, "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure." And presently after, declaring the cause of that defilement, he adds, "For even their mind and conscience is defiled." If, therefore, meat is not unclean to him who has a clean mind, why shall that which a clean woman suffers according to nature, be imputed to her as uncleanness?"

and again on not taking the old testament literally of which there is a great tradition gregory speaks thus:

"When a woman is delivered, after how many days she may come into the church, you have been informed by reading the Old Testament, viz. that she is to abstain for a male child thirty­three days, and sixty­six for a female. Now you must know that this is to be taken figuratively; for if she enters the church the very hour that she is delivered, to return thanks, she is not guilty of any sin; because the pleasure of the flesh is in fault, and not the pain; but the pleasure is in the copulation of the flesh, whereas there is pain in bringing forth the child. "

87. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26639 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I agree with much of what you say. I am willing to believe that Dawkins is lucid but not uniquely so.

When people attack him for not knowing any theology they have a point. Dawkins counters that it is not neccesary to know any theology to attack a belief in God which is true if he did not contend constantly that religion is somehow responsible for most of the evils of the world and a form of child abuse. To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)

88. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26637 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:43 pm

When people criticise Dawkins and say that he is actually a religious man they mean not that he believes in God but that he has the rhetorical style of a puritan minister lecturing his flock on their sinns.

89. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26636 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:40 pm

No you misunderstand me not through a role of the dice.(though is not everything down to luck in the end) He would have studied other subjects in another age and have been equaly learned in scripture latin greek and the classics. He might have even been an advocate science and natural theology. The point is he would have cared deeply about the subject because it is in the mechanics of his mind to wonder at such questions where as it is not given to others to be interested in the great question.

90. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26632 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Thats exactly it though. Theres nothing to make me think that we won't be still having this discussion in 100 years time. (well obviously we shall be dead). I don't see how sam harris or Dawkins differ substantially from the village heretic who gets called up in front of the bishop in the 1400s for saying that 'when a man or woman dieth in the body they also dieth in soule as the light of the candell is quenched by blowing.... so the soule is quenched by the death of the body'. Or the common statement that heaven and hell are on this earth.

Dawkins has always said if he had been born before Darwin he might have found the watchmaker arguement convincing. I have a hunch he would have become one of the great fire and brimstone men of his age.

91. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26621 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 5:46 pm

" Caesar Best says "I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before," and one can appreciate his feeling of frustration "


Can you apreciate that theologians feel the same thing about Richard Dawkins books. I don't know what the God delusion says thats new. If someone could put one of Dawkins supposed revalatory statements about religion to me pithily i'd be grateful.

92. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26601 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 5:00 pm

"Not only are they riding on RD's coat-tails, but wait for it, they are plagiarising each other's ideas - in this case David Robertsons "Dawkins Letters" "

People have been doing this since the advent of printing. It is a popular form, its not copying anyone.

I also don't understand your point about seraphim. Are you saying he has spelled it wrong?

93. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25726 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 8:38 pm

I'm willing to bet that there are more church of England vicars who don't believe in God than US congresmen. Every so often you read in the paper about one who says "I've always believed that God was a metaphor for the whole of creation". I think it is more damaging to your career to disbelieve in God if you are a US politician than if you are an English Vicar.

94. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25708 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Sorry I was slightly impolite back there. Nothing personal intended but all this Nazi Germany stuff does wind me up. When Hitler gets mentioned you know that is the point when the discussion and sanity ends.

I really think these critiques of Dawkins/Harris are valuable.Dawkins and Harris have produced polemics. They sell well but i'm not sure they do us any favours.

"Atheism: A Very Short Introduction" by Julian Baggini is a much better book.

This is its synopsis.

Atheism is often considered to be a negative, dark, and pessimistic belief which is characterized by a rejection of values and purpose and a fierce opposition to religion. "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction" sets out to dispel the myths that surround atheism, and shows how a life without religious belief can be positive, meaningful, and moral. It also confronts the failure of officially atheist states in the twentieth century. The book presents an intellectual case for atheism that rests as much upon positive arguments for its truth as on negative arguments against religion.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804243

Its better and shorter. I honestly consider Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to be making fools of us all.

95. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25697 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Besides this is a good article. Dawkins and Sam Harris have a simplistic view of religion and morality that needs correcting.

96. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25696 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Because

1. I don't believe him. Prove it.

2. If some allied soldiers did see this it just proves how rare it was that it goes undocumented except by anecdote.

3. This does not prove that they were morally dubious people. They may have behaved better than their counterparts for so believing.

4. If they believed that God was with Germany. So what? They did not start the war. You can argue about Hitler all you like but the Nazi party was not religious except in trying to surround itself in Niberlungen style mythology.

5. One anecdote does not make a concrete case as you seemed to think. Religion may drive people to do many things. You must prove that primarily it drives them to war.

6. Stop discussing Hitler. If he was or was not religious it makes no difference. Don't you know any other history? People say "Hitler believed this therefore its bad" and expect it to end the arguement. Watch Fox news they do it a great deal.

97. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25686 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I thought the Communists published the 'Morning Star'. I don't think this review is even from the real British communist party.

Their paper is here

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/

I'm guessing these people hold meetings in a shed. Or probably the church community centre.

98. When They Came for the Homosexuals...

Comment #25682 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Thats horrible.

99. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25680 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 5:32 pm

"Just how dangerous can religion be in 21st century Britain?"

I don't know but i'll bet it never gets anywhere near the problems that the communists caused us.

100. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25678 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm

"Of interest you might find"

No actually. I find your anecdote cretinous in the extreme.