Spike and Little Chester: The Perfect Picture of James White & Founders Ministries by Peter Lumpkins

What do Hyper-Calvinist James White (pp.95-96, footnotes 103-105) and Founders Ministries have in common?  It's hard to put in words.  But the little cartoon below says bunches.  Enjoy...

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Wyman Richardson]

Peter,

I don't think I've ever posted a comment here, and I'm reasonably sure I won't be posting anymore after this, but I must say that the only thing possibly sadder than the level and quality of discourse this site has sunk to is the amount of time I invested in stopping by. Really, has it come to this?

To each their own, I guess. Now on with your dismissal of my dismissal. :-)

With that, I am...
Wyman Richardson

[peter]

Dear Wyman,

Thanks. No I won't dismiss your point. Why would I?

On the other hand, I will continue to "sink" so to speak, if that's what you want to call a wee bit of funny.

It saddens me you won't be stopping by. However, I do wish you the best in ministry and God's grace abundant.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephanie E.]

As "calvinist" in the SBC, I'm speechless. Quite offended actually, not because I'm a Calvinist, but because I'm another Christian that is being treated so poorly by other believers. I know that there are Calvinists that are rude and brash, as well as some non-Calvinists, but that does not give us an excuse to not heed these words from our Lord, "A new commandment I give you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

[Chris Roberts]

Peter,

Thank you for making clear that your general argument is no more substantial than this cartoon. I recommend that you stick with cartoon clips rather than your usual posts.

[volfan007]

Man, Peter, this cartoon is funny. lol. Wow. I got more than a few chuckles out of this one.

Thanks,

David

PS. Some people need to really lighten up just a little.

[Ryan Moss (Australia)]

Little Petie Pumpkins, may live with his mommy, but he is the bravest keyboard worrior of them all...

Get a spine little Petie - the "hypercalvinist" would love to chat with you on the Dividing Line...

Grow up little Peteie Pumpkins...be a man

[Micah Burke]

Ryan,

Regardless of our mutual dislike of Mr. Lumpkins, his polemic and his attitude in general, your comment doesn't really elevate you above his level of discussion.

Micah Burke

[peter]

Dear Ryan

At least your comment doesn't contain vulgarity. And, as I did with your email (placed in spam) so I will now do with your comments from now on.

I wish you the best in ministry downunder.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve Grose]

Hey Peter, I would apologise for my countryman's comment.. most Aussies have a sense of humour somewhere...I don't know who he is.
Blessings,
Steve

[Wyman Richardson]

Alright, so my statement that I'd likely not post here again lasted about 8 posts, but I would like to say one thing else. I knew when I saw this post that there would be objections like mine and that those objections would be met with, "Oh, it's just a joke."

In fact, I do appreciate a good joke, but we all know that this issue is a serious and contentious issue that is dividing individuals, churches, and groups within the convention. Evidence on this very site reveals that. A lot of us feel that there needs to be a reasonable solution to what potentially could become a massive dividing point in the Convention. Some of us are actually praying for cool heads to prevail and for hearts to be united.

In all honesty, Peter, knowing all that you know about the dynamics of the issue and where the Convention is at at this point, do you feel that this kind of approach (joke or not) is likely to help move towards some kind of resolution or likely to exasperate things?

That's all. Not trying to be a killjoy. Not wanting to lose my ability to laugh (we are, after all, pretty funny folks, us SBCers), but in the climate that surrounds this issue, do you think this is responsible?

In short, Peter, (and I know this is forward of me), I think in light of the seriousness of all of this that you should just remove this post. Take it as a suggestion from somebody who has seen way too many internet exchanges turn way too ugly, usually, at least in part, because folks head down this kind of road.

And I too would like to ask our Aussie brother to not make comments like he did for the exact same reason. It is Peter's site and he may post what he wants. I'd suggest you respectfully explain why you object and not take the route you're taking.

Ok, back to my vow not to post here... :-)

Wyman Richardson

[Scott Slayton]

Peter,
To what extent do you think that some of your "humorous" posts fall under the words from Proverbs 26:18-19? I just notice that when some brothers and sisters are bothered by your posts, they are told to lighten up because it is only a joke.

[Coram Deo]

Mr. Lumpkins,

Could you provide the case for why you have designated Dr. White as a hyper-Calvinist so that it could be examined by your readership?

In Christ,
CD

[volfan007]

lol

[peter]

CD

More than once I've cited links. Indeed I have a link on this very post. Follow it.

Scott,

I do not know the other posts to which you refer. As for this one, I do not think it falls under indictment of Scripture. However, I'm sure you disagree...

Wyman,

It's perfectly o.k. to come back. As for reconciliation, my hope and prayer is, there will be no reconciliation to either a mindset or theological acquiesce to the kind of hyperism James White represents.

All,

I'm stunned there is so much controversy over this little cartoon. Doggone it! Mark Driscoll can get away with spoofing Jesus as one who farted and blew boogers and snot like some 'Blazin Saddles' buffoon.

Yet I put up a funny cartoon with not one questionable word in it, spoofing fallible human beings, and I am slammed as unloving, divisive, unscriptural, and unhelpful. Indeed some of the same ones who've defended MD's trash is here scolding me. Ummmm. LOL

With that, I am...
Peter

[The Seeking Disciple]

It seems the rife between yourself and James White has caused much anger among Calvinists. I would that we would wrestle against Satan for the souls of men than the way we wrestle over our theological positions.

Keep blogging! I love your site!

[Scott Slayton]

Peter,
The first post that comes to mind is the one the other week about C.J. Mahaney. Read the comments and there seems to be a serious distinction among those who agree with you between those who "get it" and those who "need to lighten up." I just think that you have a tendency to put up posts that you know will rile certain people up and then fall back on "hey, it's a joke." I am just wondering if there is a point at which it is wrong to post things that you know will get a reaction and then act as if those who react to it have no sense of humor?

[peter]

Seeking,

Thanks brother. I honestly wish this present contention did not exist. However, I appreciate your encouragement. I will continue to be in the dialog on Calvinism in the SBC making in some small way a contribution my own journey can bear...

Scott,

I put up things I think make relevant and/or telling statements, things including the absurd, the serious, the humorous, the political, the ethical, the inspirational, the satirical, the ironical, the theological, the biographical, the historical, the biblical, the philosophical, etc etc.

I suggest if you'd like to know a post's intent, pay careful attention to the tags. I am not perfect at it by any means. Sometimes I do fail to put a 'humor' tag when I honestly meant it as humor.

Nevertheless, know this Scott: I have no intention of changing my posting based upon whether or not what I post is popular--popular in Calvinist or non-Calvinist circles.

With that, I am...
Peter

[TurretinFan]

"I have no intention of changing my posting based upon whether or not what I post is popular--popular in Calvinist or non-Calvinist circles."

Why not be even more candid and say that you have no intention of changing your posting based on the truth of the matter?

-TurretinFan

[Coram Deo]

Mr. Lumpkins,

Is my follow up to your 11:19 a.m. response held in moderation?

Thanks for your consideration.

In Christ,
CD

[volfan007]

I think some people dont want to hear the truth, after Peter spells it out. Thus, they make statements to the effect of "Your not telling the truth, and you need to stop it."

David

[peter]

CD

I don't have "moderation" on individual comments, CD. Either all are moderated or none are. Typepad default.

Send me your comment via email (address in contact above) and I'll be delighted to log it for you. Then I will ask you if it is exactly as you sent it before I respond to it.

Or, another option is, send it to your buds--either RazorKiss or TurrentinFan neither of which has had problems logging here today--and let them post it. That way you can be sure I will not mess with the content (not implying you are concerned about it; just keepin it real).

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

David,

One never knows how much one is considered vile until moments like these. I'm just looking forward to some good worship tomorrow, brother. Whew!

Thanks always for the encouragement. And, know I'm glad you got a laugh.

With that, I am...
Peter

[RazorsKiss]

Who's my bud, now?

[David B. Hewitt]

Peter:

The cartoon is amusing; I did chuckle. The parallels you intended are clear, even if I think they are incorrect.

I must say though, especially with the interaction that has gone on here with you, me, Tony, Carrie, and even Dr. White, the fact that you are calling Dr. White a hyper-Calvinist is truly incredible (as in not credible).

Unless you were doing so in jest, I can see no reason for you to assert that Dr. White is hyper, especially that in videos he has posted on his blog recently he not once but twice met even Tony's condition not to be considered HC.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that for now.

sdg,
dbh

[peter]

All,

James White writes on his latest blog:

"...[I] fired up the MacBook long enough to get my mail. Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was directed to what can only amount to his published response of my documentation of his false accusations. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the level of "dialogue" amongst many when it comes to the substance of their argumentation against Reformed theology" (embolden mine)

Interesting to say the least. But also quite embarrassing--at least it should be to White. How? Well, White is correct about one thing and strangely incorrect about another.

While I did send him an email after I read his blog that he "cannot post [here] anymore" as you can see below, I did not direct White to "what can only amount to [my] published response" toward his documentation of alleged false accusations against him (White links my 'Spike & Chester' cartoon indicating I directed him to this satirical funny as my official response LOL).

In fact I did not mention my latest blog ("Spike" satire) at all. Nor did I even mention the subject of the contention (Tony, Reymond, etc.). I only addressed one thing--his failed comment on my site.

Below is the full content of the email:

"So, Mr. White, you could not log on, ah? I have a few word filters. Perhaps that was it. As for any other reason, I have no idea. I most certainly did not do anything whatsoever to prohibit your logging on. But, how strange Calvinists--particularly those sympathetic with your position and are, of course, your 'minions'--are pretty much the only ones who, to my recollection, ever have these type of issues. Strange indeedy... " (ellipses original; i.e. my email ended with the ellipses. I didn't even put my name at the end but left only gmail's canned signature)

Nor did I have a link to "Spike" at the bottom of the email. Why would I? My cartoon stood on its own and had nothing to do with Tony, Reymond, or White's contention of falsehood on my and/or Byrne's behalf. Only in White's mind are the two connected.

Naughty, naughty, Mr. White. You should not tell things that are not true*. Especially after you just finished your long sermon to Tony. After all, you shouldn't be afraid to let your readers know your real reason for checking my site--you have me in your reader! :^)

What a double Georgia-hoot! James White "directs himself" to my site for my "public response" to his "irrefutable" evidence of a "discussion" (i.e. precisely one quick question and one quick answer) only to publicly portray it to his readers as me personally directing him to consider my rebuttal. Yes siree. Mr. White. You got me right where you want me, I'd say.

More seriously, I'm beginning to think knee-jerk, emotive verbal emissions is virtually the entire repertoire in James White/and White's followers' responses to those with whom they contend. An exception to that, is David Hewett who, while posting things here to which I could not agree, nevertheless remained on this site free from the slurs, slams, and sludgy remarks characteristic of AOmin.org.

I challenge any reader who has a mind to, do the google and see. This is standard procedure with his approach. Hence, I now am one of many whom James White slurs if you happen to be on the wrong side of the issue.

And, it is for this reason, absolutely no peace between Calvinists and non-Calvinists can even be considered as long as SBC Calvinists remain supportive of James White and his ilk. I have no intentions whatsoever in stopping the resistance to this type of alliance. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

*of course, White can claim he did not mention that I directed him to "Spike" but that he simply was directed to the site by another. Ummm...

[Andrew]

Peter,

I have not been following this discussion between the two of you, but I do have to say that you should stop referring to Dr. White as a hyper-Calvinist. I have become quite certain that you do not know what that means.

I'm not saying that to be blunt and I realize that I probably come off as a jerk by saying that, but it is very important that we understand the categories we place other people in, as well as the categories we place ourselves in. It will be difficult for us, those of us that consider ourselves to be Reformed, to take what you say seriously if you don't seem to take what we say seriously.

[Javier]

Peter,
In his interview with Pat Robertson, Ergun Caner said;

Pat Robertson: What about the concept of kismet? It is fate. Isn't that deeply involved in the Muslim religion?

Ergun Caner: Absolutely. I always say to my students that Islam is hyper Calvinist. Islam believes that if you are a believer in Islam, a believer in Allah, great. If not, it is our job to kill you and send you to hell faster. If you kill us, we go to paradise. It’s the only eternal security that a Muslim has.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/657944/posts

If Caners definition of hyper Calvinism is fatalism like Sunni Islam, then are you using the term similarly to Caner?

[volfan007]

Javier,

Hyper Calvinism is fatalism. And, some extreme five point Calvinism...that some wouldnt label hyper Calvinism...is nothing more than fatalism. Is it not? When you carry it out to its logical conclusion?

David

[Javier]

David,
If Peter is calling James White a hyper Calvninist I want to know how he's using it, to my knowledge Peter hasn't defined this term, which is always controversial and can be irresponsibly used. Its a conversation stopper, and Peter seems very good at it...at least right now.

[peter]

Andrew,

Thanks. Look. I'm very stingy with theologically labeling people on this blog and elsewhere. So I do not disagree with your assertion concerning the importance of understanding "the categories we place other people in, as well as the categories we place ourselves in"--especially if those categories are deemed either unhealthy or very negative. Granted.

Granted also Hyper-Calvinism fits the description "unhealthy or very negative" (my terms not yours).

Nonetheless, to my knowledge--and a simple google check on my site can verify this--I've given that designation to no one else since I've been blogging. The only exception might be a lengthy exchange I had with "Byron" over the nature of the GC with the result I indicated he sounded much like "Hyper-Calvinists."

I have also argued for a pragmatic distinction between "hyper-Calvinism" (little "h") and "Hyper-Calvinism" (capital "H"). No need now to rehearse that. Just so you'll know I sparingly use this term--extremely sparingly.

With that in mind, Andrew, I have to say I cannot help it if you do not agree with me on whether I know what I am talking about when I refer to "Hyper-Calvinism" and labelling James White "hyper-Calvinistic." So be it.

Nor am I interested in giving you a line by line reasoning why I think he fits the mold. Know as Tony Byrne has mentioned often, if I misunderstand White's position, so do some sophisticated scholars as well. Now perhaps we are all wrong. That may be the case as well.

However, Andrew, please understand: I am not making a mere subjective conclusion. Theologians Curt Daniels, David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, and others have made convincing arguments along these lines, carefully documenting their assertions about the nature of Hyper-Calvinism.

Hence, I suggest take such in consideration when you log on here indicating theological ignorance. I may be theologically ignorant as well as biblically ignorant, for that matter. But until new information surfaces--not the sheer personal sludge coming from AOMIN.org presently, nor tit/tat condemnations against White critics--but carefully composed written arguments why and/or how James White escapes the blade of sophisticated theologians who offer serious, well-thought positions, I shall continue to use "Hyper-Calvinism" as a descriptor for James White.

And, Andrew, if such a designation makes me really look theologically ignorant, So be it. I am content to look theologically ignorant not only in your eyes, but countless others who log on and say so. My personal satisfaction as a fallen yet redeemed human being made in God's image and remade in Christ is not dependent in the least whether I look theologically astute to occasional readers of this site.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate every one who would wade through some of my lengthy and sometimes poor attempts at irony, theology, biblical truth, denominational politics, etc. for one slither of solid spiritual truth.

Even so, I will speak what I think to be the case--even if what I believe to be the case--goes against the grain of the majority of my readers and/or those commenting on my site.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Javier

Please do not make this about Ergun Caner. No need. Nor am I dependent on "Hyper-Calvinism" being analogous to Islamic fatalism, though there are strong similarities between the philosophical underpinnings of fatalism and Calvinistic determinism. Hence, the repeated historical denials by strict Calvinists they are are fatalists.

Now, read carefully the comment I left Andrew. Also, follow the link I provided for David Allen's paper. He is hair-splitting accurate in the distinctions he draws concerning Hyper-Calvinism. In other words, he carefully, responsibly, soberly, biblically, and theologically defines his terms. No "conversation stopper" with him for there is no vagary about what he speaks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

David,

Your disagreement with my labeling White "Hyper-Calvinist" I take seriously. Please before you leave, read my comment to Andrew. I do not throw labels like that around.

Also, I'm thankful at least one of those who bore the brunt of my little funny found it amusing even if the categories are not perceived to be well taken. Agreed. Were I you I would not either!

Know it was refreshing to not get slammed as a vile, putrid excuse for a Christian for putting up such a biblically and theologically bankrupt cartoon which makes God sick at His stomach. Now maybe you thought such. Granted. But the cool thing is, you didn't write it ;^)

Grace, brother. And, though I did think you may have 'beat around the bush' so to speak in your exchanges here (as I indicated to you), I meant it fully: your exchanges are warm, welcoming, and needed...a definitive upgrade from the normal slough I experience often.

Grace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steven]

David,

Does this mean that Libertarian, free will, Arminianism is Pelagianism when "carried out to its logical conclusion?"

Reformed theology (or Calvinism, if that's what you prefer) is far from fatalism. Scripture is laced with the idea that God does things for His purpose and His purpose alone. Fatalism simply attributes all things to chance. Big difference there ;)

These accusations can fly back and forth all day from both sides but the real issue is dealing with the texts honestly and consistently. Scripture teaches both God's sovereignty over the salvation of His creatures as well as man's responsibility in how he responds to the gospel. If you really want to get to the heart of the matter then sit down with both sides and examine the key passages in context without all the ad hominem.

Thanks for listening to me ramble,
Steven

[Tim Merki]

If all Truth is God's Truth and we are as Christians are God's people, what does it mean when we are not truthful? (truth includes omissions and commissions)

Tim M

[Jeff Krause]

Man, and some wonder why I am...now a Presbyterian. At least the federal Vision is a theological issue and not just Ad Hom bashing. You have much to learn Peter. But then, if you do feel so strong about the issue, you could always debate Dr. White (that would be a formal debate, not just a talk on the phone or in a hallway some where). This makes me think of the Greg Bahnsen saga. Everyone was real brave behind the keyboard but no one would debate him on the issues. This is the same in some ways. Says a great deal, don't you think!?!

JK

[Andrew Disque]

Peter,
You said ,
"Naughty, naughty, Mr. White. You should not tell things that are not true"

James did not specify that you directed him to your blog, did he? He said he checked his email, and in the course of doing so he "was directed" (HINT: he probably receives email from people other than Peter Lumpkins). It is you who should be embarassed in this case.
When I had read James' post it was obvious when he wrote, "what can only amount to..." that you clearly did not make reference to contention at hand in your email, but rather that HE (James) regarded your post as your published response.

Which brings me to why I came to visit your blog today... (it was not to see the video). No actually I came here to find a response from you.

SO: have you confessed yourn false accusation that James made up a conversation with Tony Bryne about Reymond being hyper?

Just wondering if, when I come to your blog, I am reading the words of a man of integrity.

~Andrew D

[Jim De Arras]

You intended to cause anger, you cannot deny that without lying. White is right, you are not worth bothering with.

[Matt]

Yall needa be Independent Fundamental! Then yall wouldn't be fightin an debatin an discussin. Bout little things like doctrine at least. Our Lord were certainly fundapendent, and He were certainly Baptiss. So were John. But anyway, Lord bless yall. If yer wonderin what an IFB is doin on a SBC site, then yer not alone. The Lord blessed the little fishies so He can bless my two cents if He so desire, I reckon. Selah

[peter]

Andrew,

Look at the footnote of my comment above recording James White's latest blog. I knew a bit of sophistry such as you've just spun would sooner or later come up. Sheer unmitigated nonsense, I'd say.

Now if you have a valid point to discuss, be my guest.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jim,

You've not a clue what I "intended." In fact, I haven't a clue what you intended by your comment here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew]

Peter,

Ok, I understand now that I have misunderstood what you have said. I’m not familiar with your blog (in fact, I feel that I must apologize because I realize now that this is borderline trolling), so I do not know what the distinction you make is. Of course, I am aware that it is not without precedent to make a distinction between two words based on capitalization, such as catholic and Catholic, but nevertheless, I have to say that a distinction between hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is an unnecessary clouding of the issue. We don’t make a distinction between methodists and Methodists, do we? At least none that I am aware of. I personally cannot help but think that your distinction between hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism appears to be an attempt to associate Dr. White with a specific belief that he does not actually hold, even if in the fine print you say that that is not the case. And that is why I think it is an unnecessary clouding of the issue.

But, now, on to another point that seems to be the bulk of your response. You seem to think that I somehow believe myself to be some kind of authority over you. I get that from you talking about whether or not you and I agree, and how it does not bother you if I see you as theologically ignorant. I never said that it should, and I apologize if I in any way worded my statement in any way to suggest that that's what I meant. Like other fallen humans I occasionally fall into the sin of arrogance, but I promise you that I did not intend to suggest that you are somehow morally bound to submit yourself to my authority. When I suggested that you should take what we say seriously in order for us to take what you say seriously, I'm not talking about you holding my opinion in any kind of high esteem. In fact, I'm not even talking about respect. I'm talking about clarity in dialogue. Understanding what we say (and making it clear that you do understand what we say), and we will do the same for you. Without clarity in dialogue, the dialogue becomes meaningless. And that brings me back to the original point-- Clarity in dialogue means clarity in terminology.

[peter]

Jeff,

Please. "Debates" are your guys' things, remember? Besides why would I want to "debate" when I'm having so much fun with some of you guys?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Brian McLaughlin]

When you play games with the truth you drag the name of the Lord Jesus Christ through the mud. Making false accusations against James White because you either don't believe he is correct on a particular teaching of Scripture, or you just don't like bald guys, reveals your lack of love for the One who is The Truth. Very sad indeed.

Cast down your idols. It's so obvious.

[peter]

Andrew,

Thanks. And, I appreciate the comment. First, I did not rehearse the "h"/"H" out of not wanting to rehash a long discussion about it. I'm just not up to it now. Yet I assure you the distinction held up well under some pretty intense scrutiny both here and on Founders blog.

I will mention a 'shorty', however. I do so because the impression I evidently left with you has nothing whatsoever to do with c/C or m/M the way you've illustrated you understood what I meant.

The distinction I argued between h/Hyper-Calvinism had to do more with popular usage rather than theology proper. For example, it is everywhere asserted people do not know what "Hyper-Calvinism" is. Hence, it should not be used (heard that before ;^). Thus, Founders Calvinists particularly argued "we're getting slandered"; preachers are "bearing false witness."

What Founders and still many others do is completely overlook what was being said in many popular critiques. The fact is, many--perhaps most--were not attempting to give a theological assessment of a particular Calvinism and deeming it "Hyper-Calvinism" in the sense theologians argue the term. Instead they were using "hyper-Calvinism" to, in effect, reduce to "hyper-Calvinists" are overly aggressive Calvinists, activist Calvinists, if you please.

My point was and still is, if one does not hear what is being said, and the critique offered, there is no way one can appreciate what is being said. In fact, you made the case in your last comment about clarity! For Founders to continue to diss legitimate concerns in critiques and condemn those criticizing as "accusers of the brethren" is, in my view, absurd.

Nor may one argue that one and only one way of using a particular word is allowable. That too is rhetorical absurdity and goes against the linguistic norms.

It is in that sense I argued the h/H distinction. It has nothing to do with my understanding of White. It has everything to do with language usage. that's the 'shorty' Andrew.

Now as for my thinking you were asserting 'authority' over me, I must say, it never occurred to me, brother. But, if I gave the impression in the comment I penned, my deepest apologies, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kendall]

Here is my video tribute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoQnsg1bXsY

[Jeremiah Davies]

Oh man I just burnt my Popcorn :)

[Jeremiah Davies]

oh man I just burnt my popcorn :)

[AKuyper]

Is Mr. Lumpkins incapable of understanding and argumentation?

[peter]

AKuyper, et al

Those who simply want to register insults, do not waste the thread here for that. The lame "is so & so incapable of the most elementary rudiments of logic" comments are readily available at Tribalogue, RazorKiss, and any number of other James White 'minion' sites.

Now if you continue, I will flag you (listen up, RazorKiss. I'm giving fair warning ;^)

On second thought, I'm going to shut the thread down and open it back up come morning. Frankly, some of you guys have nothing better to do than troll and insult.

Good night all.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Brian,

Sorry. I haven't a clue how I am supposed to take your comment.

With that, I am...
Peter