Letters: Chemist doesn’t know Christianity

Elitism abounds, and today’s version is a chemist. Assuredly he knows much about the chemical bonds of his field and most assuredly he knows nothing about Christianity. As judge and jury, the chemist condemns all religions as women-haters. And to think that all these centuries have passed as we waited for his revelation.

He charges that all religions have conspired for a universal and everlasting plan to subjugate and marginalize women.

Christianity does neither. He ignores what happened as Christ met the woman at the well or Christ in his work with Rahab the prostitute. The soul and spirit given by God take a humanly different form but they are not male or female before him.

The “church” has made many mistakes, some Catholics notwithstanding. For example, Galileo was put under house arrest for agreeing with Copernicus when the church did not agree with Copernicus about the Earth’s movement about the sun. The church continues to make mistakes, but that is not Christianity. The Crusades were a mistake — but enough of that.

The chemist’s mistake is to see all things from a male perspective. It seems he (I guess it’s a he) and many others can only see women as equals if they achieve the same things that men achieve. There is no mention of womanly achievements that are separate and apart from what men have achieved. It’s like saying a crape myrtle can never achieve the success of a pine tree. After all, the pine is much taller and “tall” equals success. What about the blossoms on a crape myrtle, or its ability to be formed into a beautiful hedge? These too count for success.

Christ brought a message of love, dedication, sacrifice and salvation to all who would accept. And it’s free ... in fact it makes one free. There was and is no coercion to believe. The message is presented and it’s up to each one to accept or reject. All who force agreement are not acting as Christians who follow Jesus Christ. His ministry, although brief, was profoundly honest and truthful about an offer, not a demand.

And finally, I would note when the time comes for me to settle my life accounts with the Lord, I will be confronted with what I did. There will not be a mention of male or female, rich or poor, educated or ignorant, powerful or weak or any such man-made standard. My actions as I lived with other people, both those who loved me and those who hated me, will be the sole test for my soul. “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ.” The Bible, Galatians 3:28.

Bill Fontaine

retired retail manager

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 20/08/2012

When I was a Christian, I avoided the ideas of anyone reputed to be an atheist or agnostic. I trusted my mom's advice that by doing so I risked my religion. I am reading David Hume, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." He points out that religion deals with the supernatural; to take interest in the supernatural, you have to convince yourself the natural is not true. For example, when someone is dead, they are not dead; they can be supernaturally revived. When I was a Christian, I never believed those resurrection stories--never believed any eyewitness account by someone who had an agenda. Yet, I persuaded myself to believe in Christianity itself. I was that inculcated! And indoctrinated! I'm just fortunate that in my seventh decade I am open minded enough to read Hume, 1746, translated 1902. I still trust nature but no longer those who would speak against it.

2) Comment by Sandy - 20/08/2012

Indeed, Hitler did use religion to justify what he did to the Jews. That does not mean that religion killed the Jews. It just means that someone who hated Jews needed an excuse to do what he wanted to do anyway, and he picked religion. Twisting religion to evil purposes does not make religion evil. Do you honestly believe Hitler would have acted any different if he did not have religion to justify his actions?

3) Comment by chem - 17/08/2012

It is certainly true that there have been "evil" people that might, or might not, have had religion as a catalyst. Hitler, just to go there, used christianity as justification for what he did to the jews. It is in his writings and speeches. Religion has been around for millennia and thousands of generations. Religion was rarely questioned until the last couple of centuries, such was the stranglehold that religion had on the masses. And while there certainly are examples of people acting in very bad ways that, on the surface, looks like religion had nothing to do with it, I suspect that some religious justification is lurking underneath, perhaps from a too stern religious upbringing. Regardless, religion, especially the monotheistic ones, allow people to do evil things, including mass murder, and all they have to do is accept their particular savior on their death beds and all is OK. What a bunch of *****

4) Comment by prbeav - 17/08/2012

quirkmaguirk, it frustrates me that good neighbors bother to write then do not appreciate responses. Therefore, I propose to answer your question as I would have when I was a Christian. >>>> I try to live so ethically that people will approach me and ask why I am so good. I will reply, "Because I am saved by Jesus: may I share Him with you?" If they say, "No," it will indicate to me that the other party is not elect, as I am. That is, they were not chosen by God to believe in Jesus. Hence, I would have no concern for that person or their soul. >>>> No one ever asked me. Eventually, I came to think that was not an indication that I was bad as much as an indication the other party had a religion and did not want to change it. The thought arose from those occasions when I judged that someone needed to hear about Jesus and offered to share without being asked. >>>> Now, I appreciate every person who observes the no-harm rule and do not care to question their religion or lack there of. >>>> I have my thoughts about me and am happy to share them but do not want anyone to follow them for fear that I could be wrong about souls, which I think are mere intellectual constructs by ancient thinkers whose thoughts I do not follow.>>>>I hope you will consider this one view of how once a Christian thought about souls destined for hell: it was God's fault because he did not elect them.

5) Comment by Sandy - 17/08/2012

Your exact examples may very well be true, but I would indeed argue that your statement religion is to blame for most suffering in the world is wrong. There has been plenty of suffering unrelated to religion. Stalin killed about 20 million people, making Hitler look like a rookie, and it was solely about power. The man who treats a woman as a slave or lower form of life will do so regardless, although he may twist religion and use it as an excuse.

6) Comment by Sandy - 17/08/2012

You have to choose to believe in that place. That is why it is a choice.

7) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 17/08/2012

If you believe there is a place where you will be tortured for all of eternity it is not a real choice, that is coercion. And even so, that does not answer my question of how can you experience eternal bliss while knowing that at least one person you knew while alive is being tortured for eternity?

8) Comment by gofigger - 16/08/2012

It's a personal choice.

9) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 16/08/2012

In the 6th paragraph of Mr. Fontaine's letter he mentions a "message of love" and that, "the message is presented and it's up to each one to accept or reject." If you buy into this woo, then how is it really a choice? Eternal damnation in the worst imaginable place that a human mind could think of doesn't leave people much of an option, unless you don't believe the woo. Also, while I'm on the topic of hell, how can any person experience eternal bliss, heaven, while knowing that there are people in hell?

10) Comment by chem - 16/08/2012

I'm confused. Does anyone dispute the exact examples I gave? The bible, history, and current events clearly show that religion is to blame for most of the suffering in the world. I think it is outrageous for the clergy to say that AIDS is a curse from god for homosexuality. What about the people who got the virus from tainted blood transfusions, adult and children? Were they supposed to die also? 3000+ people died on September 11 because a group of religious wackos flew planes into buildings. Is it not true that the bible and koran talk of killing people for very minor things (sins). Does not each holy book talk about genocide when it comes to people who are non-believers? Are women not treated as subhumans in those very same books? Are there not "preachers" out there in this day and time that profess that women should submit to their husbands? In islamic countries, are women and non-believers treated worse than animals? And all of the above is done in the name of religion. You say its men that do these evil things and that is true. But they do these evil things because in their warped, delusional minds, they are doing the bidding of god as spelled out in "his" book. And if there is a god, why would he inflict such pain and suffering on innocent people if it were only the work of men. He could stop it in an instant. If there is a god, it can only be said that he is an evil sadist for letting such people suffer in his name.

11) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

I don't claim to, phil. That Catch 22 reference doesn't make any sense. Good book though...

12) Comment by HRoark - 16/08/2012

Sandy, implicit in your comment is the necessity of a church to deliver the message that "all are equal and all should be treated with love." Are atheists and other non-church goers excluded from that very humanist approach to civil society? If not, then the whole argument in favor of theology based society falls apart. This is what threatens religious idealogues, and they hate it.

13) Comment by Sandy - 16/08/2012

Very good letter. I am sorry you feel the way you do chem. Your experience of church, religion and Christianity is very different from mine. I recognize that the flaws you speak of do exist, but those are human flaws. I suspect that your views of Christianity were formed from a few bad experiences. There are churches that preach what you are talking about, but there are many more that teach a positive message where all are equal and all should be treated with love. My church is a community of people who care for each other and are there for each other and anyone else who is in need. I am sorry that you have not experienced that type of religion.

14) Comment by phil - 16/08/2012

DMJ - the catch 22 is that you do not know either.

15) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

How arrogant must someone be to think that THEY know the true will of a god? Nobody knows if there's a god or what he wants us to do....they only have their opinions about it. Some of these opinions are based on reason and logic; some are based on fear and superstition. We should discard the ones based on fear and superstition. Every time someone tells me that they know what they couldn't possibly know (if there's a god, what he wants, what happens after you die, etc.) I instantly know they're either lying or delusional. It's usually the latter. Self-delusion is powerful. It's kept religion alive and kicking for thousands of years.

16) Comment by phil - 15/08/2012

For those here who are religious I have to say that "religion is born of violence, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry" is really a false statement. There are forces of good (God) and evil (the devil) in play here on Earth. God did not intend that religion be based on violence hatred intolerance and bigotry. That is the doings of Satan. Satan uses religion as one method to create evil and then also twists the minds of people into believing that religion itself is evil. If there is one thing the Devil hates, it is the spread of the TRUE word of God.

17) Comment by nimby? - 15/08/2012

mans' strength is also his weakness ; his emotions . they can aspire to the heights unknown , also lead to the depth of depravity . man is the most evolved creature on this planet , he is also the most irrational . I will continue to seek the wisdom of my higher power . his usual advice is to trust my 1st instinct , he is very wise ....

18) Comment by chem - 15/08/2012

prbeav: you are correct. Since there is no god, it is obviously not the problem. Gods and religion are a man-made construct. Men use religion to control others and to justify there evil deeds. Ultimately, it is man that is the problem.

19) Comment by Chucky - 15/08/2012

He knows his Christianity, and it may not be yours.

20) Comment by prbeav - 15/08/2012

I like chem's comment. I had the impression: God is not a problem but religion is the problem.

21) Comment by chem - 15/08/2012

Religion is born of violence, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry. It is contemptuous toward women and abusive toward children. The same, and worse, is applied to "nonbelievers." That term, of course, defines atheists, agnostics, and those that believe in another religion. God tells someone to take his son and sacrifice him -- a cozy religious term for murder. Then, at the last moment, god tells this man not to do it. But what about the trauma the poor child was put through? So much for a loving god. The story, as told, is one of a conceited, maniacal god that gets off on making people suffer, especially a child. What is to be thought of the clergy of the major monotheistic religions that tell their "flock" that it is better to get AIDS than use a condom. The Vatican's president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez de Trujillo warned people not to use condoms because they were purposely made with microscopic holes to let the AIDS virus in. What of the religious figures, Islamists mostly, but supported by Jews and Christians, that the smallpox and polio vaccines were a scheme by the West to poison people. The list goes on and on. Religion IS the problem, not a way out of any problem.

22) Comment by potkcalb - 15/08/2012

The president, like any other citizen, has the right to express his views on religion.Is he pandering? My guess is that he is sincere but who knows? He is not precluded from doing that by virtue of holding public office. Personally I would like to see an atheist or a Wiccan elected president, not because I'm advocating atheism (I'm not) nor because I'm a witch (I'm not) but because it might signal and end to the unproductive brouhahas over religion and the waste of space that these comments (including mine) take up.

23) Comment by DMJ - 15/08/2012

Phil, atheists believe goodness (and badness) is inherent in all people, in varying degrees. We believe the 10 Commandments (some of them, anyway), the Sermon on the Mount and all the relevant moral teachings of the Bible are manifestations of this inherent goodness. This is why Confuscianism and Jainism had (better) versions of the Golden Rule that pre-date Christianity by centuries. People are kind, generous, wise, etc. They are also petty, jealous, stupid and cruel. You'll find examples of all of these traits in the Bible....just like you'll find examples in all people. Still confused? Don't be. You're overthinking it. We don't need religion to be good people. I don't believe in god, yet I'm not out stealing, raping and killing....because I don't want to, and I wouldn't like it very much if someone were to do it to me. That's not the type of world I'd like to live in. Morality doesn't come from religion. Religion comes from morality....often incorrectly.

24) Comment by nimby? - 15/08/2012

potkcalb , and why not ? they made a ruling on the ACA and gave their interpretation . also , our president expresses the view there is a god . is this how he truly feels or is it merely vote pandering ? will there be another explanation coming from the white house ?

25) Comment by potkcalb - 15/08/2012

Try to get on track Phil. I do not have a book of atheism nor have I ever heard of one. Please do not attribute something to me that I know nothing about. Incidentally, I make no claim that there is or that there is not a supernatural entity. I have never heard of or seen any evidence of one, but in accord with most scientists I do not claim to know more than I know.

26) Comment by prbeav - 15/08/2012

@phil. I have read many of your posts and do not expect to influence you so write merely to share my response to your post. >>>>Some of your peaceful neighbors have faith in what exists; in other words, they trust and are committed to existence. They employ humankind’s process for understanding; it uses discovery, evidence, and dependability. They respect the unknowns, especially whatever power/chaos may be controlling existence. They have the impression that super-existence does not exist, based on the fact that no one has ever repetitively observed--not merely reported--super-existence, such as un-natural worlds or un-natural beings. The process works in both physics and human relations. >>>> Consider Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics,” wherein he states that humans who behave according to understanding do not need doctrine. He said, “Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence, social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult. Such cooperation, however, is essential to make human life possible and tolerable.” With this idea, it seems unlikely that the reader would lie. >>>>By repetitive tone, everyone understands that your posts cannot be expected to express appreciation for your equal, secular neighbor’s viewpoint. I hope this helps.

27) Comment by phil - 15/08/2012

potkcalb - Please read my previous post and see if it fits your last post. Tell me where to go to find your book of Atheism. Was it handed down by generations of people who actually believe in nothing?

28) Comment by potkcalb - 15/08/2012

Sorry to tell you this Phil but the Bible is a book of myths and legends, truths, and half truths, fact and fiction, allegories and parables, fantasies and superstitions, interpretations and reinterpretations, scribes and transcriptions, compiled over a span of approximately fifteen hundred years by forty or more authors few of whom ever met. And as you know nimby the Supreme Court could not, would not rule on a belief.

29) Comment by phil - 15/08/2012

DMJ - you talk about the bad done by religions. How about the bad done by atheists? The only way atheists can promote atheism is to bash religion because atheism has nothing concrete to stand on or be for. We both have read all of the Bible so we both know what is in the Bible. I still believe in the basic concepts of the Bible like the 10 Commandments - and the sermon on the mountain and other wonderful teachings in the New Testament. What do atheists believe in - nothing?

30) Comment by nimby? - 15/08/2012

still wondering how the supreme court would rule as to whether there is or isn't a god , and the after effect of the ruling ....

31) Comment by DMJ - 15/08/2012

Arin, that's fine. Don't believe me. Read it for yourself. All of it. I counted over 700 instances in which hatred and/or violence (which includes child abuse, rape, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide, torture, public humiliation, bigotry, blood sacrifice, etc) were advocated by god and his prophets..... in the Old Testament alone. Have fun...

32) Comment by nimby? - 14/08/2012

that a person in spite of "overwhelming facts" , constant verbal assault will stand fast in their belief speaks of their character . it also says a lot about those applying implication ....

33) Comment by nimby? - 14/08/2012

as I agree the bible is a wonderful work of fiction and as to the hypocrisy of most christians I will say I have more faith in my higher power than I do my fellow man ....

34) Comment by potkcalb - 14/08/2012

One can only hope that some day in the future there will be no imbecilic babbling by people like JWT. And no chem, people like JWT do not, can not, and will not ever understand that evolution has nothing to do with origins.I know that you are unable to grasp it JWT but evolution has been repeatedly observed and tested. A scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Evolution meets all of those criteria. No other explanation meets any of them.

35) Comment by arin - 14/08/2012

Phil, don't believe dmj just because he claims to have read it. I'm sure he has read the entire ACA bill. Just saying..

36) Comment by chem - 14/08/2012

There is argument reason and logic and then there is argument from absurdity. The religious apologists use the latter.

37) Comment by DDD - 14/08/2012

Dear Mr. Fontaine: You could write a letter saying: "It's hot in Louisiana!!" and some of these folks would disagree with you. That's all they have to do, is argue. At least that's my opinion. I am sure they will criticize my opinion, too!

38) Comment by chem - 14/08/2012

JWT: All of the definitions you give say the same thing using different words. Evolution has, and is, being observed. It is observed by the extensive fossil record that shows numerous "missing links"; by the real time evolution of bacteria that have become antibiotic resistant; animal breeding; lab experiments with species that have reproductive cycles conducive to laboratories; and the extensive amount of data afforded by DNA analysis. You, like so many who don't know what they are talking about with regard to evolution, continue to bring the ORIGIN of life into the conversation. What part of, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, do you and the others not understand?

39) Comment by phil - 14/08/2012

DMJ: I will say that I can respect the fact that you HAVE actually read the entire Bible. I will not guarantee that I will read the paper you mentioned. I have no fear of reading it, I just am limited on time. However I think I get tested plenty by reading posts here anyway. I will add that at least I have 2 books I can read to tell me what my religion does believe. One is the Bible and one is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have read all of both, and not because I am super religious but because I am curious by nature. That is also why I have read many scientific books also. I suppose no book has been written to teach people what NOT to believe in. Concerning the "rival" remark by another here, not sure who you think is my rival, but it appears that there is someone else here who is willing to tell the religious view. I do not consider that person as being a rival.

40) Comment by jedleland - 14/08/2012

looks like phil has a rival

41) Comment by JWT - 14/08/2012

Perhaps chem, a definition of what you believe evolution to be would be a good start as there are clearly differences when references some science books and dictionaries. Examples pasted from source - Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition: "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." - "evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's - "evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers - Now since we are speaking of ORGINS - show me your facts and proof !!! - Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested, therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions of years to observe the ORIGIN of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only THEORY of origins that can be considered “scientific.”

42) Comment by HRoark - 14/08/2012

Did everyone miss the irony of this letter demonstrated by following quote: "The chemist’s mistake is to see all things from a male perspective." Truely, BILL, you are correct that any man presuming to present a woman's perspective on history is doomed to failure.

43) Comment by chem - 14/08/2012

This is yet another letter by another brainwashed person, fully immersed in their superstitious delusions. There is not enough space on this message board to go over all of the failings of religion, not only in the fictional stories of the bible, but in the true history of wars, oppression, torture, hatred, and bigotry that has been done in the name of religion. Religion is a danger to the advancement of the human race. We will be nothing more than what we are now as long as religion is allowed to flourish. Because of religion, we are the same hateful species, only much better at killing and torturing our fellow humans. The good news is that poll after poll has shown the world getting less religious. I certainly won't see a religious free world in my lifetime, but several generations in the future may see a world where only 10% to 20% still believe in those superstitions. Look at the hypocrisy of the religious-right wackos who throw their bibles up to everyone, but then have not the "christian" charity to look out for those less fortunate. But they will do whatever it takes, including sticking it to the lower and middle classes to bow down to their true gods, the almighty dollar and corporations. Sounds a lot like churches and television preachers -- give me your money and all will be well. God loves you and is omnipotent, but he needs your money. Give me a break.

44) Comment by DMJ - 14/08/2012

I've read the entire Bible, phil. I had to for school. I credit this experience, along with my historical understanding of the origins of the various christian churches as the reasons I am now an atheist. That being said, I do think the Bible has some wisdom. The Jesus character said some great things about love and forgiveness. I just don't think we need to believe in all of the other obviously untrue things in order to extrapolate the wise moral teachings. Oh, and there is no Book of Atheist. Atheists don't need a book telling them what to think and believe (that's kind of the point). But...I would recommend A Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris. He's not condescending like Dawkins or Hitchens. Give it a read, phil. If your faith is strong...test it. Seek new information, not validation of what you already believe.

45) Comment by DDD - 14/08/2012

Good letter. Agreed.

46) Comment by Whatnow - 14/08/2012

"His ministry, although brief, was profoundly honest and truthful about an offer, not a demand." Wonderful letter, Mr. Fontaine.

47) Comment by jedleland - 14/08/2012

opium of the masses man

48) Comment by phil - 14/08/2012

I guess religious people pick and chose some things, and atheists pick and chose not to believe anything in the Bible. Just curious - how many people here have actually read the entire Bible? If I could pick the book of Atheist apart, perhaps I would, so please let me know where to find the book that tells exactly what atheists do believe.

49) Comment by DMJ - 14/08/2012

Mr. Fontaine does what any christian does....pick and choose what to believe from the bible, which is fine. But he should know that's what he's doing and be honest about it, instead of deriding the good chemist for reading the bible objectively. I, for one, think it is a good thing that people, especially christians, pick and choose. I mean...it's a book written in the context of Bronze Age values. If we judged everything in it to be of equal value and relevance, we'd be selling our daughters into sexual slavery, stoning call girls, giving away all our earthly possessions and living like bums (like Jesus).... It's just not practical. It'd be a nightmare. The fact of the matter is...we all pick and choose, even we atheists. The bible has wisdom. It also has garbage, like the constant call to subjugate women, for instance. People living in a post-Enlightenment era, such as we, should know which parts to take to heart and which parts to relegate to the waste bin of ideas.

50) Comment by [e-mail] - 14/08/2012

Well, until that time that we meet our maker and HE settles the argument, I'm content to view women the old fashioned way, i.e. from the pure, and time proven male perspective. It's worked pretty well up to now.

51) Comment by prbeav - 14/08/2012

Mr. Fontaine, it seems you are so anxious to express what you think of Christianity you may be overlooking what the Bible says about it. For example, examine the coercion attributed to Jesus in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple." I consider this coercion--not an expression of Jesus' love, and the choice to use the word "hate" is inexcusable in my corner. This is only a small fraction of reasons I argue on the side of the chemist.>>>>In the past I had "my Jesus" and then it occurred to me I was being arrogant to think I could specify a Jesus other than the one described in the Bible. I stopped.>>>>We each have a path from absolute ignorance as an infant to our unique, peak, psychological maturity and should appreciate each person who progresses on their particular path without harming others. I appreciate the chemist even though we do not always agree. Likewise, I appreciate you even though I do not agree with you about either Christianity or your judgment of the chemist.

52) Comment by Triple - 14/08/2012

I wonder if Polito comments in these discussions? What do you think Chem?

53) Comment by chem - 14/08/2012

He's referring to the letter by Polito about a week ago. http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/3517225-123/letter- religions-abusive-of-women

54) Comment by Bighug - 14/08/2012

Bill is probably talking about comments made in this venue by the person who calls him/herself chem or chemist. I agree with chem on most subjects, including this one. Bill is the one who should study Christianity and see its flaws, including the way women are treated. Bill shows his true colors when he uses comparisons of different species to explain the differences between men and women. Works well to explain religion's attitude towards women, since most also put women in the category of cattle.

55) Comment by potkcalb - 13/08/2012

"As judge and jury, the chemist sees all religions as women-haters." Can someone, anyone, explain to me what Bill is talking about.