Well my friends, it's been a while, but I'm going to jump right in.
As I'm sure most of you know, Heath Ledger is no longer with us. Normally I wouldn't write about something like this, but bear with me here.
Celebrities, like it or not, are already constantly the source of rumours and gossip and loads of unwanted--and frankly, undeserved--attention. So-and-so gets pregnant, it's all over the internet. What's-his-face makes out with That-one-girl and everyone's talking about whether or not they're dating and what kind of STDs the hapless "couple" may or may not have transmitted to each other. And don't get me wrong...Sometimes this kind of hilarious drama can be quite the guilty pleasure (like the nauseating but still quite funny picture I found today of Jared Leto and Paris Hilton making out. Dear lord.). There's a certain line though, that has to be drawn, and I think that line is when someone dies.
Naturally it's something that's going to generate discussion when a famous person kicks the bucket, for whatever reason. If they were loved, if they were hated, if they were on every drug known to man or if they were in a car accident, it's going to be talked about. There's just a time when it's too much, and today is that. Sure, talk. Speculate. But don't have a streaming video from his apartment building so you can catch a glimpse of his body being removed (I'm looking at you, TMZ). Don't start looking for pictures of his family and juicy details about how they're doing because, guess what? They're probably miserable as all hell, and people feeding off of their misery for their own perverse pleasure is just sickening and undignified.
That's not what really motivated me to write this entry, though. What I'm really upset by is this information I happened upon online, and it's absolutely infuriating:
WHAT. THE. EFF.
We all (or, most of us. I wish it was all of us) know how outlandishly crazy Fred Phelps and Phriends can be, but this is just disgusting beyong belief. First it was funerals of dead soldiers, and now this. To be honest, I'm not even sure what commentary I can provide because when I saw this I was absolutely speechless. How do you react to so much hatred and ignorance and....bizarre zealotry?
I'll leave that up to you. All I can say is that things need to change, and the fact that these people even exist is upsetting to the highest degree.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Actually, first it was Matthew Shepard's funeral...
Here is a partial list of some of church's activities...
These people are hate-mongers of the highest order. But (and I want to wash out my own mouth after saying this), they do have a right to say the things they do. The essence of free speech is that one must protect unpopular speech (after all, why would anyone need to protect popular speech). It is unfortunate that these people are so obsessed with their hatreds, but the best we can hope for, I think, is to look at them and learn by seeing what this much hatred can do to someone, and to see first hand what the ugly face of discrimination really looks like.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
They've got the right. That means that we've got the right to label those who say "God Hates Fags" as "Bat Shit Crazy."
...They honestly picketed Billy Graham? Boy, I never thought the Christians would have a figurehead to help them "keep it real."
--Samus
(if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention)
ah, in 1998 i was but a wee child of 11 and had no knowledge/concern that they were in existance. the soldier funerals are just the most recent thing that came to mind.
and yes, they do have the right to say whatever crazy stuff they want...just the fact that this is what they're choosing to say is what i find to be upsetting. i don't want (well i do, but you know what i mean) them silenced, i just wish there weren't so many people who thought that this sort of behavior is right.
--stacie
That sort of behavior isn't right. However, my preferred method of dealing with such non-christian scum would likely be considered assault.
I am a christian. I am not a pacifist. Neither was Christ.
So what happened to all of these things that they "were going to or planned to do?" Are they just poorly organized or is whoever wrote this article trumping things up? Not that they would have to mind you, since their actual actions are damning enough. I just sort of find an article that cites more proposed plans than actual actions a bit odd.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
In some cases the protests were blocked. Kansas, for example, passed a law banning protests at funerals in response to this church's actions. Sometimes, the group merely threatens to protest (for the media attention, no doubt), but doesn't actually show up. In a few cases, the group has carried out their protests in alternate media, by buying local radio ad time (for example).
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Sheesh, those are some crazy guys. I mean really. I wouldn't be surprised if the picket the next Harry Potter movie now that Dumbledore has come out.
I mean, it's just silly. Do they actually think that they are going to accomplish something this way?
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
Yes, and they are accomplishing it. They exist to give Christianity a bad name.
Well, I know that they do accomplish that. I don't think, though, that that's what they want to accomplish. Who knows? Maybe I could be wrong.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
WBC is not a christian church.
They are a family of lawyers that purposely promotes hostile situations in order to find someone upset enough to assault them. Then they can sue the person and the city.
They also seek to degrade the christian church.
Calling them a church or christians as they do no more makes them christian than I would be a hamburger because if I call myself one.
Also, interesting note, they did fundraising for Al Gore.
Yes they are. Just because they don't follow what you believe to be right doesn't mean they aren't a Christian church. Just like you do what you do because you believe it is right to God, and so do they.
Stuff from them never ceases to amaze me in how low humans can actually go.
No, they aren't.
That you want to hold that they are a christian church does not make them so.
Some suggest that he is actually a plant... people who used to support him:
http://www.cornswalled.com/2007/04/phelps-is-pro-gay.html
They are a group of lawyers who want to make christians look bad. As many assume that christian=conservative, they also do double duty by making conservatives look bad.
however, as you can see, they don't ACTUALLY care about the homosexual issues . . . they just want to make noise so when people think of christians, they think of these freaks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targets_of_Westboro_Baptist_Church
At BEST, they are a cult that seeks to destroy christianity. More likely, they're just liberal plants that got together as a family and made what they call a 'church' in order to further their anti-christian and greed-filled goals.
I don't want them to be...I could really care less what religion they are. Yet they still teach the Bible, and follow the doctrines of the Church, however they interpret the Bible differently than most Churches. If they aren't Christians, then neither are Unitarians since they don't believe in the Trinty, yet the Christian Church recognized them as Christians, so unless the Christian Church is hypocritical, then WBC is sadly a Christian Church.
And of course, it is all just one big liberal conspiracy. Which frankly I find that more absurd than them being a Christian Church.
they refer to themselves as "Tachmonite", not Christian. They believe that Fred is a "Great Prophet" and they are working on a 'new bible'
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_eve-tushnet_archive.html
(Search for 'phelps' as it is about 1/4 of the way down. There is a link to a livejournal page detailng it, which I can't access to quote for you due to work blocking livejournal)
They are not Christian. They are CALLED christian, especially by the media, because they are a 'church' and have 'baptist' in their name.
They are a cult, with a history of physical abuse common in all cults. They should be looked at as akin to Jamestown, another NON-christian cult.
Umm.... there's a large logical disconnect in there. You're saying that just because someone is CALLED christian, they must be because public opinion says that Unitarians are christian?
Phelps and his cult are NOT christian. This isn't my insane rantings, if you look, you'll find MANY churches have said the same thing, including the baptists that he claims to represent.
He is an abusive lawyer who was disbarred for his insane ideas and constant extorsion techniques, who just found a new way to do it after disbarrment.
I didn't say it was a 'liberal conspiracy' . . . I said that he is a plant. He is doing this to give christians a bad name. He is NOT a part of a christian church, and the association to christianity is only maintained because it DOES give christians a bad name.
After all, christians oppose homosexuality on a moral basis, so therefore we must agree with Phelps!
Phelps and the WBC are NOT christians, nor is their 'church' (i.e. cult) a Christian Church.
Repeating that they are, and referring to my suggestion that they are not as "absurd"
(It is important to ALSO note that Unitarians are not universally considered christians, as they do not believe that Jesus is God or that He ever claimed He was, which kind of ignores passages where he says he is. As to the eternal resting place of a Unitarian, I'm not sure.... however, the suggestion that Phelps and his cult are christian because Unitarians are considered christians is pretty silly.)
i feel compelled to weigh in on this argument...
whether or not phelps is a legitimate "christian" shouldn't be the issue here. i think most of us are intelligent and open-minded enough to realize that just because his church/"church" asserts itself as christian and has a very clear homophobic agenda does not make every christian person a crazy intolerant bigot.
the point is that, not matter what reason is behind their actions, what these people are doing is ridiculous and while they have a right to free speech their actions should not be condoned by anyone.
--stacie
I agree 100%.... I'd even go further and suggest that protests at ANY funeral ought to be removed from consideration as 'free speech'
The Constitution is not a free pass to be an ass to those who are mourning.
However, perhaps a compromise. They can abuse their right to free speech if the people related to the person they are protesting would be allowed to abuse them.
In the case of people who protest funerals, I think that is more than fair.
Yeah... One would think that cemeteries and funeral homes, or whatever, could just not let people protest on their property.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
That's the trick. These people tend to protest across the street from the cemetary, screaming loudly, while on public land.
There is even a gang of bikers, I forget the name, that go around to some of these funerals and physically get their bikes between Phelp's cult and the funeral.
When Phelp's merry band of scum get loud, they rev their engines so the mourning family doesn't have to hear it.
Good for the gang of bikers.
Anyway, though, don't you have to get a permit to hold a demonstration on public land?
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
Not everywhere. depends on the jurisdiction and the number of protesters.
In some jurisdictions that require it, it is a 'shall issue' situation, in which they have to issue the permit unless there is something else previously scheduled for that spot at that time.
There was a protest by PETA against KFC by my work. I went down on my lunchbreak to take photos of the idiots and their "Fried Chicken is a Holocaust on a plate!" campaign, but they had already been arrested by the time I go there for not having a permit and for resisting arrest.
As it turns out, one doesn't have the right to resist arrest.
...but "Tachmonite" is actually a biblical term.
Tachmonite
=Hach'monite, a name given to Jashobeam (2 Sam. 23:8; compare 1 Chr. 11:11).
Jashobeam
Meaning: dweller among the people; or to whom the people turn
a Hachmonite man (1 Chr. 11:11) who was one of David's chief heroes who joined him at Ziklag (12:6)
He was the first of the three who broke through the host of the Philistines to fetch water to David from the well of Bethlehem (2 Sam. 23:13-17). He is also called Adino the Eznite (8).
This doesn't make Phelps any less nutty, but I thought it was interesting.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The trinity wasn't added to the bible until much later. Too bad tradition trumps historical evidence in these kinds of things.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Hmm... Interesting considering the biblical references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Such as Christ's reference prior to the ascension.
Don't forget God speaking "Let us make man in our image." back in Genesis.
and, of course, John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Of course, Christ also said that he and The Father were One.
In Micah (Micah 5?) it states that the messiah had always existed. (which only God has done)
In Acts (Acts 5?) lies against the Holy Spirit were said to be lies against God Himself.
And, of course, there are not MANY gods in Christianity, but only One God.
No, the Trinity was around for quite some time, thanks.
Without the context of modern christian teaching, none of those quotes have anything to do with the trinity.
For instance, in the traditions of many of the early Christians (that is c. 100 AD), the God from the Old Testament and the New Testament were completely different. In the gnostic tradition, the OT God was an evil lesser God that made creation to trap divine spirits in human bodies, and the NT God (i.e. Jesus) was the true God who came to tell us to transcend the flesh. According to Gnostic tradition, there were anywhere from 2 to 365 Gods.
Also, you're reading the bible as a unit. They aren't a unit. They're individual books, and the more you try to reconcile them with each other, the more you lose the message...which is that there is no message, because each of these gospels are different. On top of that, many have been added to.
The reason I say that the trinity wasn't around in the original texts is because it wasn't part of Christian teaching until...ah, shit. I need to get the dates and exact info from my professor on this one...when it was added by a pope when presented with a forged version of John. Despite historical evidence, most versions of the bible still use that revision.
Did you know that Mark originally ended when they came to the empty cave? Christ's ascension wasn't added until much later.
If this exchange has taught me anything, it's that I need to take much more thorough notes in my Christian beginnings class.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
The Trinity did not become an official christian doctrine until the 4th Century. The Council of Nicea considered the idea non-biblical until Arius of Alexandria offered an alternative interpretation of the relevant texts which suggested the triune deity. The "forgery" that you are talking about probably refers to the Comma Johanneum, an alteration to the original texts which is often used to support the concept of The Trinity. It is highly unlikely that The Trinity was an original christian doctrine, due to the fact that the idea of the divinity of the "Holy Spirit" was essentially formulated by Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria in the 4th Century.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Ah, then please explain what they EACH mean without the reference of a Trinity.
Total bs. The first christians were Jews. Their view of God didn't change just because they became Christians.
As God regularly states that He is the ONLY God, the idea that christians beleived otherwise is pretty silly. I would accept your belief under the context that they didn't have the OT from which to operate and where, therefore, wrong.
That they were wrong doesn't mean that the concept of the trinity was 'invented' later. It was always there and through research and compliation of hte bible into one book, we were able to trace it much more clearly.
The Trinity is not an invention of 'later christians' That's like saying that the world was flat until Gallilaeo discovered that it wasn't.
And, according to Lance Kates' tradition, they were wrong. What's your point?
I didn't know that you were able to tell me how I read the bible. I thought I had a good handle on how I do things.
THe gospels were written to different audiences, but there most definately IS a message: Christ.
I would suggest that your professor's 'education' on things biblical is not the most unbiased, nor does it seem to be taught that way.
I know that some people suggest that. . . however, that doesn't mean it is true.
Remember that just because your professor says it, it doesn't mean that they are right.
it has taught me that you might need a less biased professor. I know you've said you're not a christian. Are they?
This is just food for thought, but the OT has a lot of polytheistic things in it. For instance, the people of Israel are told not to worship Other Gods, rather than not to worship False Gods.
Also, the Egyptian gods clearly exist in Exodus. There are references of the Hebrew God being greater than the gods of the Egyptians. Also, the Egyptian priests are able to call on their gods to perform magic similar to, if less potent than, Moses' magic.
I suppose the Christian could attribute this to Satan, but Satan doesn't exist in the Hebrew Religion. The whole afterlife concept wasn't really an issue in the OT at all.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
The references to the Egyptian gods were in conversation, explaining God's greatness.
Remember that they are referred to as 'gods made by man'
Let's not forget that the chief difference between the Saducees and the Pharisees was the idea of the resurrection, which would require an afterlife (gotta go somewhere before you are resurrected)
Isaiah refers to hell as a bottomless pit of sorts (I think in chapter 14)
So, while I'd agree that the Jewish and Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell (especially how one gets there) might be different, I don't think it'd be too accurate to say that they just didn't believe in an afterlife.
Satan does not exist in Jewish tradition. Or most Jewish tradition anyway (there are a few wacky ones... I look up some nice myths for you when I get home). And at least, not the same way Christians view him. See: Chabad.org
The afterlife wasn't a concern to them, and still isn't among many Jews. That's not to say they didn't believe in one (they clearly did, though it might have been more in the context of the 'world to come', rather than 'heaven and hell'), just that it wasn't the most important thing to them. To Christians, on the other hand, it's alll about the afterlife.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
My friend is Jewish and we asked him what hell is like and his response was,"Hell is a place where Jews have no money." I then asked a rabbi and his response was the same as yours. That most Jews aren't concerned with an afterlife, but with there time here on Earth. Personally I take that philosophy to heart. I'm much more interested in the now than in the not clear future where Heaven and Hell might not even exist.
"eh, the serpent comes to mind." The serpent isn't Satan in the Torah (OT). It's just another animal. And in the Hebraic book of Job, his tormentor isn't Satan, but just an angel of the lord. I'm not familiar with the other books, and I'd want to check a Torah, which I don't have on me. (Internet Torah's suck)
As for the afterlife, I didn't say that Jews don't believe in it. I just said that it wasn't a big issue in the OT. What the afterlife is, in Jewish mythology, is very vague.
"Alliance - in international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third."
Ambrose Bierce
From what I've gathered from him, he seems very much pro-christianity, but he's also into the historical truths rather than the current religious dogma.
Your statement about Judaism isn't wrong, but it's ill-informed. The Jews at that time were a fairly diverse group. When Christianity was introduced, the diversity became even greater. We have historical evidence of at least four different Christian traditions (including a rudimentary version of the view popular today).
There were Jewish-Christian Adoptionists who denied that Jesus was in any way divine, but was rather adopted at baptism by God to do his works. They regarded the teachings of Paul as heresy because it brought an end to Jewish law, and followed a teaching similar to the book of Matthew.
There were also Marcionite Christians who followed the teachings of a guy named Marcion who in turn based his teachings off of those of Paul. I have to recant some of my earlier statements about the Gnostics, because I got them confused. The Marcionites were the ones who believed that Jesus was completely divine and not human. They supported this with such stories as that of Jesus walking on the wet sand without leaving footprints.
As for the Gnostic tradition (which I fucked up earlier), they believed that Jesus was not divine at birth, but was infused with the True God (I did get that part right) upon baptism. Furthermore, they believe that the True God left him at the moment of his crucifixion, which is how they accounted for him saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken/left me?" (because otherwise it would make no sense for God to speak to himself). The Gnostics were big on the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mary, Judas, Truth, Philip, Peter, and Thomas, all of which are found in the Nag Hammadi, which scholars believe to be a sort of Gnostic Canon.
The variety within early Christian teachings is even referenced by Paul in Galatians 1, when he says "6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" He isn't talking about gentiles here; he's talking about all the other disciples who are preaching different takes on Jesus. If you think the reformation was the first instance of Christian sectarianism, you're sorely mistaken.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Yes, there were many different groups swapping ignorance with one another.
That is one of the chief reasons why the bible was assembled... to consolidate scripture so that one could get at the truth of the matter.
That is also why people like Martin Luther insisted that the bible be printed in a commonly spoken language, so that the PEOPLE could read the scriptures for themselves.
That people believed something at one time doesn't make it accurate or true.
Belief and perspective do not have a bearing on defining reality.
I am concerned with truth. That the later christians invented the trinity... just isn't. That they recognized the trinity is.
However, this doesn't have much to do with the non-christian cult that Phelps runs.
In the absense of the support of any actual, objective evidence, I would suggest that none of these historical interpretations are any more (or any less) ignorant than any other.
The problem is that there is no real consistency among the biblical cannons of even the major christian sects. The are vast textual differences between the Roman Catholic, Protestant (which has differences, even among the various Protestant sects) and Greek Orthodox bibles, and when you consider the less sizeable but still significant cannons of the Jewish tradition and other significant branches of christianity (such as the Slavonic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac and Ethioian Churches), the disparity becomes even more pronounced. To suggest that there is a single "correct" interpretation of the bible may be rhetorically convenient, but it really isn't an objectively supportable position.
That is just as true today as it ever was. Just because one believes in The Trinity doesn't mean that there actually IS such a thing. There might be, but the question remains open until someone comes up with some acutal, objective evidence to support one hypothetical answer over another.
Unfortunately, most of "the PEOPLE" aren't educated enough to actually read "the bible" themselves. Doing so requires a passing knowledge of at least two essentially dead languages, after all. In my experience, very few modern christians are adequately equipped to study the original texts of the bible, which leaves them having to base their opinions on translations that may or may not be representative of the real contents of these books. Historically speaking, we know for a virtual certainity that there are passages (some of which are quite sizeable) in the modern "bible" that are not found in the originals, even though they continue to be presented as such by devout but really not very well-informed members of these faiths.
They do when the "reality" you are attempting to define is purely subjective. The depth of one's belief is no substitute for presenting actual, objective evidence in support of one's opinions, and when it comes to the apologetic defense of religious interpretations, the simple fact is that no such actual, objective evidence exists, or if it does it has never been recorded.
That sounds like a semantic evasion to me. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the concept of "Three Divine Persons" did not appear in early christian writings until it was presented by Theophilus of Antioch in the late second century. It is probable that the concept was around prior to that, but not to any extent significant enough to merit notice in the early writings of the church.
True. Phelps is a complete nutter, and as I have said even I would never dream of trying to put that fruit in your basket, but to extend the metaphor I think that Phelps and his followers are a lot like the apple that fell out of the basket, and then began to rot on the ground. Every basket of fruit has a few nuts in it, and the christians are no exception. It would be unfair to try to paint christianity with the brush that this hate-monger represents, but to categorically proclaim that there is no connection at all between his church and the core christian philosophy is just not intellectually honest.
The difference between a devout religous person and a fanatic is the willingness to use force to exact compliance from those around you. Phelps is a good example of what happens when people loose perspective and become fanatics for their cause.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Also, you might want to check out the book The New Testament by Bart Ehrman. It's a wonderful (and surprisingly engaging) primer on 2nd century Christianity as well as the various gospels in their historical context.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Even I don't consider Fred Phelps a "real" christian, or his hate-mongering to be representative of christianity as a whole, but this (from the livejournal you cited)...
"On the other hand, I've heard rumors that Fred Phelps is in fact a plant, a ruse to vilify anyone who sees Homosexuality as a sin."
...is just about the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. If you have some actual evidence of such a connection, I for one would truly love to see it.
Phelps is accurately described in my opinion as a religious extremist, and is a "christian" just as much as the insane jihadists that are the target of our current "war on terror" are "muslims," which is to say they aren't really, but they do harvest their doctrines from an exaggerated interpretation of the more negative aspects of the religious philosophies in question.
Honestly, the things that Phelps says isn't all that far off from some of the things that a few of the anti-gay pundits that frequent Progressive U have offered us in the past. Their just a LOT more confrontational and tactless about it, and more willing to directly attack the people against whom they wish to discriminate.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
***Edited by mvenus929 on January 23, 2008.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
Once you are aware of the antics of the WBC (It is good to know that these hate mongers
exist), they do not deserve comment.
Heh, dear Comrade, they nixed your image.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
yeah, that's what someone else mentioned to me in a PM but on my screen it's still showing up, so I don't really know what to tell ya.
--stacie
On mine there's a big RED outline saying that Photobucket removed it for a TOS violation.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
super weird. oh well, i stole it from another website, so i guess that person stole it from somewhere else and put it up. it probably violated ToS because of the WBC...delicate word choices.
--stacie