KHS Uniform Committee Meeting

[Guest Paul]

Another typical Paul post, condescending and patronizing. I love the father/son attitude he adopts in his posts, he's the father lecturing his son. If you disagree with him, you're not listening ot trying. Express your opinion and it makes him sad. And of course, he "knows" Kearny Christian does not worship God. Amazing perception he's able to get from the typed word. Here's a news flash for Paul; there are many educated, intelligent people that don't subscribe to your loony atheist point of view. It that makes you sad, so be it.

The history of this brief non-discussion is this (I call it a non-discussion because your side is neither listening nor saying anything.):

“Kearny Christian,” so-called, complained that I never change my mind. Someone correctly pointed out that I used to be a Christian until I changed my religion many years ago. I added to that with a post explaining what happened, and adding that I had also changed my politics, with a very brief explanation of that. Those are two major areas of my life where I have changed my mind, and I did it because I listened to what others had to say – so there’s evidence that refutes KC’s biases - which of course was not what "KC" wanted to hear, so he/she ignored it.

You may say this point doesn’t amount to much to anyone but me, and if you did say that you would have a very good point. But apparently my willingness to change my mind is important to “Kearny Christian,” who took the time and trouble to make my modes of thought an issue, but then called my life experience "manure" when I pointed out that his/her claims were not true.

That is neither thoughtful nor Christian, in the best sense of what I understand Christianity to be: living out the best principles from the teachings of Jesus. Tragically, though it does reflect quite a lot about what Christianity has become in the hands of people who do not understand spiritual truth, ethical responsibility or intellectual honesty. Without realizing it, “Kearny Christian” told us a lot about what kind of preaching he or she is getting in church:

1. In his or her church, snappy comebacks have completely displaced thought.

2. What passes for truth with "KC" is not the real truth, but whatever he/she wants to believe. In other words, KC’s church isn’t about what’s real, it’s about whatever fantasies are being promoted; success is not finding God/Truth, success is convincing yourself that you’re right, all the easier when you have a support group telling you so.

That second point is why it’s true that “KC” does not really worship God. First and foremost, “KC” worships his or her own opinion. That’s a tough statement to make to anyone, but the only reason it’s tougher than “KC’s” wisecrack about manure is that it’s true.

When presented with the facts, “KC” had a choice. He/she could have said “I didn’t know that” and changed his/her mind. Or “KC” could have asked me for more information, or asked me why I posted a particular thing that “KC” found offensive. There are probably dozens of useful discussions we might have had. But instead, “KC” summarized everything he/she had to say about the matter by firing off an insult, apparently because that allowed him/her not to really think about the reality of my life – which apparently was important to him/her for whatever reason.

As I’ve said, I’d like to have a meaningful discussionm especially with people I don't agree with and who don't agree with me - that's where miracles are possible, where real change happens. I’ve tried to have one ever since I’ve been here, but you folks have wrapped yourselves up in this way of doing things and thinking about things, which makes any responsible discussion impossible.

In other words, if you want me to treat you like an adult, then act like one.

[Guest Guest]

Educated and intelligent people respond on the merits, which is not what Kearny Christian did, or you ever do. Go back and read what was written, then respond intelligently and on the merits and without the juvenile remarks.

I thought "manure" spoke accurately and intelligently on the merits (or lack thereof).

[Guest Guest]

I thought "manure" spoke accurately and intelligently on the merits (or lack thereof).

Then you're a very sick person. A person's life is not manure.

[Guest Guest]

I thought "manure" spoke accurately and intelligently on the merits (or lack thereof).

Why is this religious argument?? Isn’t this about uniforms? Is God making the uniforms???

[WilliamK]

1. In his or her church, snappy comebacks have completely displaced thought.

2. What passes for truth with "KC" is not the real truth, but whatever he/she wants to believe. In other words, KC’s church isn’t about what’s real, it’s about whatever fantasies are being promoted; success is not finding God/Truth, success is convincing yourself that you’re right, all the easier when you have a support group telling you so.

That second point is why it’s true that “KC” does not really worship God. First and foremost, “KC” worships his or her own opinion. That’s a tough statement to make to anyone, but the only reason it’s tougher than “KC’s” wisecrack about manure is that it’s true.

Religion is superficially about belief in God, revealed knowledge, and a moral code. But fundamentally, religion is belief in belief. It is the promotion of what one desires to be true over what actually is true. It is a promotion of faith and a corresponding subjugation of reason. In this mindset, a belief is judged on the comfort, utility, or other perceived benefit of believing it, not on whether it is actually true.

The Christian and the Muslim will both insist that they believe what they believe because they know it to be literally true. They'll insist that they would not believe it otherwise. They can't both be right, and I see no reason to believe that either is right. The reality is that both chose their religion because it is what their parents and/or society taught them, and they continue to believe it only because they desire it to be true. Truth doesn't factor into it at all. It's just a label applied on the surface to create an illusion of legitimacy to protect their precious faith from the threat of unfettered reason.

[Guest Guest]

Not standing for the pledge is not disrespectful at all. It doesn't denigrate or diminish anyone. It's the expression of a point of view, and in Matthew's case that point of view is that outward and superficial shows of patriotism don't mean much. What matters is behaving like a citizen. It's like the difference between going to church and living a good life. What's the point of going to church, then lying, cheating and stealing all week long?

By contrast, denigrating someone for expressing an honestly-held point of view is disrespectful. In fact, it's disrespectful to the soldiers who have fought for our freedom and who are serving in our military right now.

It's a pity that the people who keep beating this horse to death never actually address or discuss any of the values behind their outrage.

Not standing for the pledge is rude and shows a lack of manners. Is that a plain enough values lesson for you?

[Guest Guest]

This really hits home. Letting go of the religion I was brought up in was one of the hardest experiences of my life, but also one of the most important and meaningful. I matriculated to the University of Michigan straight off a dairy farm at the age of eighteen. In my little rural hometown, we had heard of people who weren't Christian, but I'm not sure I fully understand that they really meant it. Fortunately for me - as I see it now - my two roommates freshman year were Jewish. The RA was an atheist. My closest friends on the hall was a Sikh. This forced me to confront the question "Why is my religion better and truer than theirs." When I realized that I had no good answer, honesty and a genuine concern to do what was right left me no choice but to let go of my old religion.

In those days, I was also a Republican. It was 1972. I cast my first presidential vote for Richard Nixon. Then I saw the outright lying and deception that he was practicing, aided by quite a few Republicans. I'll admit, I've seen my share of dishonest Democrats, but I'm not the only one to observe that when it comes to dishonesty, Republicans seem to win that unsavory prize. For the first time in my life, I began to see a different perspective than the one I had learned on the farm. I began to understand the value of openness and especially the anti-democratic power of excessive concentrations of wealth. So in 1973, immediately after the "Saturday night massacre," I became a Democrat, and have remained so all my adult life - not so much because I think the Democrats are great and wonderful, but because I see the Republican willingness to hand the store over to corporate interests as abhorrent.

It's interesting to watch my-way-or-the-highway types lambaste me for supposedly having a closed mind and supposedly forcing my views on others. I guess what I have to say bothers them - not that they're projecting or anything. What else can I tell you.

Why are those reasons that you had to let go of your religion?

[Guest Guest]

Not standing for the pledge is rude and shows a lack of manners. Is that a plain enough values lesson for you?

What's rude is forcing people to pledge allegiance on command, especially in a country that is supposedly free. Is that a plain enough values lesson for you?

What you don't understand is how these rituals get turned into something else. Matthew doesn't do it to be rude. He does it to stand up for something more important than the ritual.

What's also rude is not listening and not trying to understand. Before you criticize a person, you should hear what they have to say. The Bible says you should walk a mile in their shoes. Have you done that?

If you have done that, then you should be able to repeat Matthew's reasons why he doesn't stand for the pledge. If you can't do it, then you're criticizing someone without having the courtesy of listening to them.

So go ahead, you show us who's being rude.

[Guest Guest]

Why are those reasons that you had to let go of your religion?

He just told you: "This forced me to confront the question "Why is my religion better and truer than theirs." When I realized that I had no good answer, honesty and a genuine concern to do what was right left me no choice but to let go of my old religion."

You're the same person who also posted at 9:15, two minutes before this post, right? Before you preach to others about respect, shouldn't you show them respect of listening to them?

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Religion is superficially about belief in God, revealed knowledge, and a moral code. But fundamentally, religion is belief in belief. It is the promotion of what one desires to be true over what actually is true. It is a promotion of faith and a corresponding subjugation of reason. In this mindset, a belief is judged on the comfort, utility, or other perceived benefit of believing it, not on whether it is actually true.

The Christian and the Muslim will both insist that they believe what they believe because they know it to be literally true. They'll insist that they would not believe it otherwise. They can't both be right, and I see no reason to believe that either is right. The reality is that both chose their religion because it is what their parents and/or society taught them, and they continue to believe it only because they desire it to be true. Truth doesn't factor into it at all. It's just a label applied on the surface to create an illusion of legitimacy to protect their precious faith from the threat of unfettered reason.

Smells like more manure.

[Guest Paul]

Why are those reasons that you had to let go of your religion?

There are many ways to answer that question.

1. Because I believe religion should be about what is true, not just what we want to believe. When people make religion more about what they want to believe than about what is actually true, they turn it completely inside out and upside down, and transform it from an instrument for good into an instrument of evil. Instead disciplining themselves to be instruments and servants of the truth, they want the whole world and all of reality to serve them. Listen how people talk about their religions: some people in every religion think God listens only to them. It’s a natural temptation, but it is the exact opposite of what the religious life demands. You couldn’t be more anti-religious than some of the hypocrites who wear their religion on their shirtsleeves and think everyone is going straight to hell but them. Not every Christian or Jew or Muslim, etc., believes this, but the scriptures of every monotheistic religion support that view. William K says it beautifully in the post just before yours.

2. Because religion should bring good people together, not rip them apart. Religion could have been a force for unifying humanity behind common values and purposes. Instead, its history has largely been one of division. This arises directly from literal interpretations of theistic beliefs as true. In other words, the more seriously you take some religions, the more damaging they are.

3. Because religion should unify everything. That is what the original Latin term religare means. When a religion divides me from my brothers and sisters, who are equally of good will as I am, it ceases to be religious.

4. Because there should be no conflict, or any separation between religion and science, or between religion and life. When I was thinking of religion as the collection of stories and practices unique to my Catholicism, religion was what I did on Sunday. Life was what I did the rest of the week. There are useful lessons in all the religions, but as long as a religion is about ancient stories and parochial practices, these divisions will persist. When I gave that up, I was able to be truly religious for the first time in my life. In other words, if I was going to serve the divine and be a religious person, I had to give it up.

5. Because religion is about what we worship, what we hold sacred and highest. The choice was, what was I going to worship: the truth, or my own wishes and opinions. Many people just worship their own opinion. You can see it in how they write and speak about things. Try to engage them in a discussion - it's impossible because they don't listen and they refuse to evaluate their own beliefs critically and with an openness to change. That is what I have seen here at KOTW for the past year and a half, consistently from some people and occasionally from almost everyone, including myself.

6. Because I believe religion is mainly about serving, not about being served. Religion does comfort people, but that's its secondary value. Its primary value is to show us how, and remind us to serve the greater good. If I had held to my former religion just because I was brought up in it or my family or my culture believed in it, or because I wanted to or it made me feel better, that would have been selfish. To me, a religion that is not about service is no religion at all.

So when I realized that there was no reason to think my religion was any better than the Jew’s or the Sikh’s or the atheist’s, I had to let it go. It wasn't an option. It was a moral imperative.

You’ve asked maybe the most important single question in the whole field of religion. No doubt I'm leaving out a great many other good ways of answering it. Still, I hope this answer is useful to you.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

There are many ways to answer that question.

1. Because I believe religion should be about what is true, not just what we want to believe. When people make religion more about what they want to believe than about what is actually true, they turn it completely inside out and upside down, and transform it from an instrument for good into an instrument of evil. Instead disciplining themselves to be instruments and servants of the truth, they want the whole world and all of reality to serve them. Listen how people talk about their religions: some people in every religion think God listens only to them. It’s a natural temptation, but it is the exact opposite of what the religious life demands. You couldn’t be more anti-religious than some of the hypocrites who wear their religion on their shirtsleeves and think everyone is going straight to hell but them. Not every Christian or Jew or Muslim, etc., believes this, but the scriptures of every monotheistic religion support that view. William K says it beautifully in the post just before yours.

2. Because religion should bring good people together, not rip them apart. Religion could have been a force for unifying humanity behind common values and purposes. Instead, its history has largely been one of division. This arises directly from literal interpretations of theistic beliefs as true. In other words, the more seriously you take some religions, the more damaging they are.

3. Because religion should unify everything. That is what the original Latin term religare means. When a religion divides me from my brothers and sisters, who are equally of good will as I am, it ceases to be religious.

4. Because there should be no conflict, or any separation between religion and science, or between religion and life. When I was thinking of religion as the collection of stories and practices unique to my Catholicism, religion was what I did on Sunday. Life was what I did the rest of the week. There are useful lessons in all the religions, but as long as a religion is about ancient stories and parochial practices, these divisions will persist. When I gave that up, I was able to be truly religious for the first time in my life. In other words, if I was going to serve the divine and be a religious person, I had to give it up.

5. Because religion is about what we worship, what we hold sacred and highest. The choice was, what was I going to worship: the truth, or my own wishes and opinions. Many people just worship their own opinion. You can see it in how they write and speak about things. Try to engage them in a discussion - it's impossible because they don't listen and they refuse to evaluate their own beliefs critically and with an openness to change. That is what I have seen here at KOTW for the past year and a half, consistently from some people and occasionally from almost everyone, including myself.

6. Because I believe religion is mainly about serving, not about being served. Religion does comfort people, but that's its secondary value. Its primary value is to show us how, and remind us to serve the greater good. If I had held to my former religion just because I was brought up in it or my family or my culture believed in it, or because I wanted to or it made me feel better, that would have been selfish. To me, a religion that is not about service is no religion at all.

So when I realized that there was no reason to think my religion was any better than the Jew’s or the Sikh’s or the atheist’s, I had to let it go. It wasn't an option. It was a moral imperative.

You’ve asked maybe the most important single question in the whole field of religion. No doubt I'm leaving out a great many other good ways of answering it. Still, I hope this answer is useful to you.

The manure is really piling up, open the windows.

[Guest Guest]

What's rude is forcing people to pledge allegiance on command, especially in a country that is supposedly free. Is that a plain enough values lesson for you?

What you don't understand is how these rituals get turned into something else. Matthew doesn't do it to be rude. He does it to stand up for something more important than the ritual.

What's also rude is not listening and not trying to understand. Before you criticize a person, you should hear what they have to say. The Bible says you should walk a mile in their shoes. Have you done that?

If you have done that, then you should be able to repeat Matthew's reasons why he doesn't stand for the pledge. If you can't do it, then you're criticizing someone without having the courtesy of listening to them.

So go ahead, you show us who's being rude.

Well said.

[Guest Guest]

Smells like more manure.

What a pathetic excuse for a Christian you are. Look to the board in your own eye, hypocrite.

[Guest Guest]

Smells like more manure.

To you, of course it would. It's a function of the PU you're sitting in.

William makes excellent points, and you respond with a childish remark. Seriously, KC, what is wrong with you?

[Guest Guest]

What's rude is forcing people to pledge allegiance on command, especially in a country that is supposedly free. Is that a plain enough values lesson for you?

What you don't understand is how these rituals get turned into something else. Matthew doesn't do it to be rude. He does it to stand up for something more important than the ritual.

What's also rude is not listening and not trying to understand. Before you criticize a person, you should hear what they have to say. The Bible says you should walk a mile in their shoes. Have you done that?

If you have done that, then you should be able to repeat Matthew's reasons why he doesn't stand for the pledge. If you can't do it, then you're criticizing someone without having the courtesy of listening to them.

So go ahead, you show us who's being rude.

He's not being forced to pledge. He can simply stand. Part of having manners means not everything is always about your own personal crusade.

[speedy1]

When this topic was first posted, it was in reference to inforcing a dress code in the high school. It seems like evry other topic, religion and politics have been injected. Look, I see some of these kids going to school, some are dressed properly and the others look like they are going to a rave. Some of the girls look like they are on Project Runway, with the skimpy clothes and heavy duty makeup. Should there be a dress code? I believe that it should go back to the way it was when I was in high scool, girls had to wear dresses and look like girls and the boys had to wear a shirt tucked in their pants I think we grew up fine and did not feel like we were forced, it was just the way it was. I would also like to respond to the post about standing for the pledge, I love my country, I am proud to be an American, I also have the upmost respect and gratitude for those who served us in the military and those who are there now, including my son. So I WILL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE, BECAUSE I DO PLEDGE MY ALLEGIANCE, my country gave me freedom, they protect me from harm and give me the right to say what I want, so to stand for Old Glory is a small price to pay. As far as religion, it should be left in the home and in church, it has no business anywhere else, if you want to pray then it can be done, privately or quietly, and I am a devout catholic, my dad always said," Never discuss religion or politics with anyone, they are private matters" so I leave you with that!

[Guest QUEST 2]

When this topic was first posted, it was in reference to inforcing a dress code in the high school. It seems like evry other topic, religion and politics have been injected. Look, I see some of these kids going to school, some are dressed properly and the others look like they are going to a rave. Some of the girls look like they are on Project Runway, with the skimpy clothes and heavy duty makeup. Should there be a dress code? I believe that it should go back to the way it was when I was in high scool, girls had to wear dresses and look like girls and the boys had to wear a shirt tucked in their pants I think we grew up fine and did not feel like we were forced, it was just the way it was. I would also like to respond to the post about standing for the pledge, I love my country, I am proud to be an American, I also have the upmost respect and gratitude for those who served us in the military and those who are there now, including my son. So I WILL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE, BECAUSE I DO PLEDGE MY ALLEGIANCE, my country gave me freedom, they protect me from harm and give me the right to say what I want, so to stand for Old Glory is a small price to pay. As far as religion, it should be left in the home and in church, it has no business anywhere else, if you want to pray then it can be done, privately or quietly, and I am a devout catholic, my dad always said," Never discuss religion or politics with anyone, they are private matters" so I leave you with that!

WELL PUT .GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

[Guest Patriot]

When this topic was first posted, it was in reference to inforcing a dress code in the high school. It seems like evry other topic, religion and politics have been injected. Look, I see some of these kids going to school, some are dressed properly and the others look like they are going to a rave. Some of the girls look like they are on Project Runway, with the skimpy clothes and heavy duty makeup. Should there be a dress code? I believe that it should go back to the way it was when I was in high scool, girls had to wear dresses and look like girls and the boys had to wear a shirt tucked in their pants I think we grew up fine and did not feel like we were forced, it was just the way it was. I would also like to respond to the post about standing for the pledge, I love my country, I am proud to be an American, I also have the upmost respect and gratitude for those who served us in the military and those who are there now, including my son. So I WILL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE, BECAUSE I DO PLEDGE MY ALLEGIANCE, my country gave me freedom, they protect me from harm and give me the right to say what I want, so to stand for Old Glory is a small price to pay. As far as religion, it should be left in the home and in church, it has no business anywhere else, if you want to pray then it can be done, privately or quietly, and I am a devout catholic, my dad always said," Never discuss religion or politics with anyone, they are private matters" so I leave you with that!

I agree with you 100%. You stand for the pledge as I do because we love our country and we respect

those who have died defending our flag. We stand and pledge our allegiance because we live free

in the greatest country on earth. Then there's Paul and his brainwashed son, to them it's meaningless,

it's offensive and it's contrary to their leftist mentality. Like I've told Paul in a previous post, if every

adult male in the U.S. past and present was like him, we'd all be speaking German. Fortunately, you

and I and those like us outnumber the Paul & sons of the U.S.

[Guest Guest]

He's not being forced to pledge.

But he is getting a lot of shit for not standing for the pledge, something he has every right to do. Popular expressions are not the reason freedom exists in this country. Popular stuff doesn't need protection. Unpopular stuff does. Matthew makes a statement about the unconstitutionality of the current, post-1954 pledge of allegiance and that is his right.

I have no doubt that if you COULD force him to pledge, you would.

He can simply stand. Part of having manners means not everything is always about your own personal crusade.

So why should the pledge be about doing what everyone else is doing? Good reasons only, please.

[Guest Guest]

The manure is really piling up, open the windows.

Look under your own ass for the source, hypocrite.

[Guest Guest]

He's not being forced to pledge. He can simply stand. Part of having manners means not everything is always about your own personal crusade.

Then he's being forced to stand. Any way you cut it, you're forcing people to participate in something that should come from the heart - and it would if you would stop forcing it.

It's interesting how you can only see it one way. When a person stands up for what he believes, that's not merely a personal crusade. He's making a point. Why must every single person do exactly the same thing? Why can't you understand that such things happen only in dictatorships?

You would have a better point if he wasn't an American citizen. That would be standing out of respect for the participants and the meaning of the exercise to them. As a citizen, he has a greater right to express himself about whether things like this are a good idea. It's called dissent; he is disagreeing with an overwhelming majority. In a democracy, we get to do that. He's doing what he believes is right. What skin is it off your nose, and what damage does it do to the country that he reminds us of our right to dissent? He's doing something very important, especially these days.

What you're really saying is that there is no room for even one person to disagree with the majority. Just where do you think that leads?

[Guest 2smart4u]

To you, of course it would. It's a function of the PU you're sitting in.

William makes excellent points, and you respond with a childish remark. Seriously, KC, what is wrong with you?

"makes excellent points" ?? You must be drinking the same Kool-Aid he's drinking. Manure was

an appropriate remark.

[Guest Guest]

There are many ways to answer that question.

1. Because I believe religion should be about what is true, not just what we want to believe. When people make religion more about what they want to believe than about what is actually true, they turn it completely inside out and upside down, and transform it from an instrument for good into an instrument of evil. Instead disciplining themselves to be instruments and servants of the truth, they want the whole world and all of reality to serve them. Listen how people talk about their religions: some people in every religion think God listens only to them. It’s a natural temptation, but it is the exact opposite of what the religious life demands. You couldn’t be more anti-religious than some of the hypocrites who wear their religion on their shirtsleeves and think everyone is going straight to hell but them. Not every Christian or Jew or Muslim, etc., believes this, but the scriptures of every monotheistic religion support that view. William K says it beautifully in the post just before yours.

2. Because religion should bring good people together, not rip them apart. Religion could have been a force for unifying humanity behind common values and purposes. Instead, its history has largely been one of division. This arises directly from literal interpretations of theistic beliefs as true. In other words, the more seriously you take some religions, the more damaging they are.

3. Because religion should unify everything. That is what the original Latin term religare means. When a religion divides me from my brothers and sisters, who are equally of good will as I am, it ceases to be religious.

4. Because there should be no conflict, or any separation between religion and science, or between religion and life. When I was thinking of religion as the collection of stories and practices unique to my Catholicism, religion was what I did on Sunday. Life was what I did the rest of the week. There are useful lessons in all the religions, but as long as a religion is about ancient stories and parochial practices, these divisions will persist. When I gave that up, I was able to be truly religious for the first time in my life. In other words, if I was going to serve the divine and be a religious person, I had to give it up.

5. Because religion is about what we worship, what we hold sacred and highest. The choice was, what was I going to worship: the truth, or my own wishes and opinions. Many people just worship their own opinion. You can see it in how they write and speak about things. Try to engage them in a discussion - it's impossible because they don't listen and they refuse to evaluate their own beliefs critically and with an openness to change. That is what I have seen here at KOTW for the past year and a half, consistently from some people and occasionally from almost everyone, including myself.

6. Because I believe religion is mainly about serving, not about being served. Religion does comfort people, but that's its secondary value. Its primary value is to show us how, and remind us to serve the greater good. If I had held to my former religion just because I was brought up in it or my family or my culture believed in it, or because I wanted to or it made me feel better, that would have been selfish. To me, a religion that is not about service is no religion at all.

So when I realized that there was no reason to think my religion was any better than the Jew’s or the Sikh’s or the atheist’s, I had to let it go. It wasn't an option. It was a moral imperative.

You’ve asked maybe the most important single question in the whole field of religion. No doubt I'm leaving out a great many other good ways of answering it. Still, I hope this answer is useful to you.

I just have a simple question and I was wondering what you views were of miracles? What is your explanation of them? You seem to have strong thoughts on religion and from what I know of miracles they are unexplained?

[Guest Joe]

Really s**ks for people like my brother. He's going to be part of the first senior class with uniforms. There has got to be a better way. Perhaps the first year should only require underclassmen to wear uniforms so those who have gone without uniforms for 11 years of public school don't have to suffer in their last year of school. I just hope this leads to lighter punishments for not having your school I.D. I got three detentions for drawing a mustache on mine when I was a junior. Wtf?