Please see the show notes in the post directly below this one. This is to fix my feed. I had forgotten when I include mp3 files in my show notes that PodPress uploads the first mp3 as my podcast and not the designated file. Stupid Podpress. I bet they use Windows.
See post directly below this one for the show notes including links to the mp3 files for the two complete shows referenced in this one.
[...] 45, Baptist Behaving Badly, my critique of Dr. James White’s treatment of Dr. William Lane Craig FIXED [...]
William Lane Craig claims to be a Christian, yet he sides with Romanism concerning soterilogy and has said so quite plainly and has made the plain statement that he believes Calvinism to be heresy. So it is no surprise that Dr. White would be harsh towards him, especially when his apologetic undermines the gospel. Dr. Sanders is a rank heretic who also claims to be a Christian so again who cares if Dr. White doesn’t seem nice to him, especially in the eyes of someone who you claimed is not used to theology and the importance of such a false god being presented. One might as well critique all of the apostolic writers who had quite the sharp tongue against false teachers.
Hello Bob, please quote me where my critique was that White was harsh. In fact I said I prefer White’s harsh style. Please provide that evidence Are you saying that all is fair as long as the opponent is wrong enough?
Please deal with my points than a strawman. There are people right now choking on their egg mcmuffins at someone claiming that my criticism was that someone was harsh.
Harsh is my middle name though I have mellowed somewhat as I got fatter.
When it c
Harsh was a word used in place of “snobbery” or “arrogant jerk” etc.
Great podcast. I am 100% with you on your praise of Dr White. I have been a fan since seeing him on the John Ankerberg show discussing KJV Onlyism. And then years later finding his web site was a blessing too. I don’t think I have missed a podcast of his in years. I have learned so much and have been so blessed by his teachings. I have purchased many many debates and a couple of books and plan on financially supporting him very very soon. But! Isn’t there always a but after complimentary words. But, I agree with your critique, “he comes off many times as frankly an arrogant jerk.” I agree with you that he must be “blissfully unaware.” I hope he listens to your podcast, DOES NOT critique it on the Dividing line, but takes what you have said to heart and with out any response begins to pray for Gods wisdom and intervention in his life about this issue. He can be used so much more for the kingdom of God if he could tone it down. IMO
Thanks
Ralph
God bless you Ralph, you heard my intentions perfectly. Thank you.
Bob, use my words please, harsh is not the same. I know many mild snobs. In the intro to my podcast I mentioned that he can come off jerkily, there is no excuse to be a jerk, no matter how vile you think the heretic is. But that was a passing comment, did I not continue to say that such things can be notoriously subjective and my goal was to focus on weightier matters such as publicly critiquing a show that one didn’t bother to listen to first, which is what White obviously did leading to
him sticking his foot in it over the Hunt comment.
Do you think it is proper as a teacher to publicly critique someone before listening to what they are talking about unless you preface your comments with “well I haven’t had a chance to listen to this but here are some limited comments….”
Do you understand what arrogance it takes to accuse Craig of thinking Hunt, the author of one of the worst antireformed screeds EVER, is a Calvinist? I can’t fathom it.
you will remain justified in your own sight much in the same way that accuse of White. Have at it.
Was my question too hard for you?
frankly you came off as an arrogant jerk.
Admitted, that was a snarky response. I apologize. Would you now care to deal with my question?
Well, you did state that Dr. White did acknowledge that it was another book. Craig has been blatantly historically ignorant in the past as he has stated that he sees “no difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism” to him, “Calvin was a Hyper-Calvinist” so I don’t find it surprising that he doesn’t have great confidence in Craig. Anyway, It was a 7 second comment. Your critique about it went on for at least 7 minutes. Given his rightful disdain for Molinism, Romanistic Soteriology, and the Apologetic that in the end argues for the “greater possibility of there being A god” I see no reason for him to “apologize.” about a passing mistaken comment. BTW, Dr. White isn’t in a debate in the clip you posted. He is doing HIS webcast knowing that HIS listeners, who are for the MOST part Calvinists, also deny the Molinist view as Unbiblical/Heretical versus the Biblical/Reformed view.
I will be more than happy to respond to you in full once you give me a straight answer to this question:
Is it proper to publicly and stridently critique another when you have listened to the showyou are critiquing.
Please answer
Yes it is proper.
wow
I really don’t agree with your comment that short people have no reason to live.
If you didn’t say that, you can’t complain since I have no
obligation to read what you say before critiquing it, or do I?
Yes it is proper. As i stated, you will be justified in your own sight regardless. Have at it. It would be a treat to hear Dr. White critique this critique of him. Peace.
Whoa. Looks like someone commenting here needs to switch to decaf.
Seriously what possibly can you say to someone who thinks you don’t need to
actually listen to material you critique. If I were White I would be embarrassed to have that said in my defense. PLEASE any of you who value my work, if I ever do
anything so boneheaded as to speak before listening do not defend me, give me the godly kick in the rear I would deserve. Wow, I am truly shocked. What if Craig in mid podcast converted to Calvinism? What if he apologized for saying thee was nondifference with hypercalvinism, what if he clarified a statement he made in the first five minutes.
I hate to say it but Bob that is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
I apologize, I missed a “not” there – which was obvious from the context but nonetheless I reword
when you have NOT listened to the program you are critiquing
would your answer be the same?
Dee, Do you think it is proper to publicly and stridently critique another when you have not read the question YOU posed to the one you are critiquing?
you are equating an obvious typo? when it was a repeat of a question already asked and obvious in the context of the podcast?
wow
But to answer your question, since I know I have a habit of that exact typo I should have proofread, so that was wrong on my part, thus my apology to you
I am typing on an iPhone and am sight-impaired
I will try to avoid that again
now will you answer the question? sans your hostility?
he question without the obvious typo is:
Is it proper to publicly and stridently critique a program you have not listened to fully?
I neglected to include the word “not” in my prior post. I am sight-impaired and have problems at times posting on my iPhone.
Will you please answer the question as intended… and I believe you knew fully well what I intended since anything else would be nonsensical. Preying on a typo is one of the cheapest tactics there is.
I will be in meetings at work until this evening.
Thanks for this podcast. Iron sharpens iron.
I really feel sorry for you in your zeal to defend a man, not God, a man, that you can’t see logic. Yes, I agree Dr. White is an awesome apologist, and I too am a fan, but we should be able to rationally see the faults in our heroes of the faith.
You seem to be claiming that a typo is equivalent to what White did. In so claiming, you are proving to me that YOU haven’t listened to Craig’s show either because you would never claim something so inane.
Since I can’t get you to answer the question, I am going to assume that you would give the responsible answer and say yes, it would be improper to critique something one hasn’t listened to.
And I would agree with you that even if one listened to a program in full, that it is easy to make a slip of the tongue. In fact, several times, I said White when I meant Craig and vice versa which I fixed during post-production. White is live, so he doesn’t have that same luxury. THAT is the equivalent of a typo. And if there was just this off the cuff one mention of a four views book, then of course, White’s mistake in thinking he was referring to the earlier book would be understandable (but not his accusation that Craig thought Hunt was a Calvinist-there is absolutely no excuse for that). But that isn’t what happened. The whole show is full of Dr. Craig not only naming the book, but also naming his co-authors (and Hunt is not named once). The ONLY reason White made such a mistake is because he was shooting from the hip and commenting as he went along, and that is not a responsible way to critique someone publicly.
Now, knowing this, do you still have the gall to claim it was like an innocent typo? It is obvious that White never listened to the whole show before critiquing it. And that is wrong. Period. No matter if the person who did it is someone we admire. I admire White. But he screwed up this time, especially when that action leads him to make such a ridiculous accusation against Craig without apologizing for it. I made sever minor errors with you, and I did not hesitate to apologize.
Why don’t you hold this man to that standard? He was reckless in the way he handled this show. That doesn’t make him a bad man or a bad apologist. It makes him human. A human that should fess up to it rather than just moving along as if he didn’t accuse Craig of the utmost stupidity.
Why are you defending that? Because you don’t like Craig? Shame on you. We don’t have differing standards for how we treat people with good theology, people with bad theology, and heretics. Your comment smacked of theological bigotry where it is okay to discriminate against someone and treat them poorly based upon their intellectual views. It isn’t. Seriously, accusing Craig (and the tone in which White accused Craig of this was totally belittling) of thinking Hunt is a Calvinist is like accusing me of thinking Left Behind should be appended to the Bible as Revelation Part Two.
thank you turretinfan, that means a lot
For what it is worth, the “Dave Hunt” that Dr. White was referring to was not the “What Love is This” Dave Hunt, but rather the “simple foreknowledge” guy who co-authored the “Four Views” book on divine foreknowledge with WLC. Two different Hunts. I believe a portion of your concern about Dr. White’s treatment of this issue may have been premised on a case of mistaken identity.
I realize that doesn’t address all of your concerns, but perhaps it makes Dr. White’s mistaken surmise about WLC a little more reasonable.
Thank you TF!!!! That does soften it somewhat indeed. But not entirely as I am sure you understand. The main thrust of my concern was that WLC wrote a book with this guy who expressed a simple foreknowledge view, yet allegedly, is so beknighted that he thinks, AFTER writing a book with the guy, that he is a Calvinist. That is still egregrious, though you are right, not nearly as egregious as if it were the other Dave Hunt.
I learned something new, I didn’t know there were two Dave Hunts. Dave Hunt came on my radar with the What Love is This book.
If I wrote a book with someone that was definitely not a Calvinist, I would hope that if someone thought I was saying they were a Calvinist, they would not jump to the conclusion that I was that idiotic. WLC is not likely to confuse an Arminian for a Calvinist. He is likely to confuse a hypercalvinist for one, but not an Arminian. And that is the problem. I just think White was eager for cheap shots and did not give any benefit of the doubt.
I thank you soooo much for that information. I didn’t mention in my podcast that I thought it was the WLIT Dave Hunt, but it was. Thus, on my next podcast, I will post that clarification and my mistake, though it only softens my concern somewhat, the core does remain.
And please don’t forget the main point… White did not listen to the podcast before critiquing it. If he did, I doubt he would have done the majority of what I criticized. He would have caught that it was a different book, and I think he would have caught WLC saying God is responsible for everything and not claimed that WLC did not say that.
I have a huge problem with one Christian publicly critiquing the work of another without first reading (or listening in the case of a podcast) at a minimum the whole program.
It saddens me that no one who has expressed for White will concede that this is obviously what he did. Or I could pull a stunt and claim that although he listened to it, he still made those mistakes…. but that would be wrong…. and uncharitable, like saying WLC doesn’t know what his co-authors are.
Greetings:
It’s the AJ here (”arrogant jerk”). How are you? I was directed to your recent podcast by someone who seemingly has been engaging someone relating to part of my critique of WLC, specifically, relating to his very shallow and very poor representation of the compatibilist position. I have to wonder why it is so few folks are offended by Craig’s comments about Calvinists (the only “false” group he could think of in his debate with Christopher Hitchens—coming to his mind before Roman Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, I guess) but, if someone dare point out that WLC is promoting an old (and now abandoned) Romanist philosophy that turns God into something far less than the personal and sovereign Yahweh of the Bible, well, we are baaaad.
In any case, I wanted to provide DeeDee Warren with a little bit of info that she might wish to take into consideration in possibly withdrawing what seemed to be her primary objection to my comments. First, please note that when one searches for the book being discussed, the first one you come across is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Foreknowledge-James-K-Beilby/dp/0830826521
Now, if you will listen carefully to what I actually said (not what you ASSUMED I said), you will note that I said “David Hunt,” not “Dave Hunt.” Just an oddity on my part? No. Look at the authors of the book. One is David, not Dave, Hunt. As the description says, “David Hunt of Whittier College weighs in on the simple-foreknowledge view.” Notice I mentioned the simple foreknowledge view as well. Why? Because, of course, there is more than one David/Dave Hunt in the world, and I well know the difference between David Hunt, who teaches philosophy at Whittier College (he is currently on leave) and Dave Hunt, the elderly sage of the Berean Call. I well know Dave Hunt would never be able, by simple lack of training and background, to engage in such a discussion, and I can’t imagine any publisher asking him to do so. So, the reality is, all this “do you really think WLC is so “retarded” as to think Dave Hunt is a Calvinist?” stuff was, of course…completely off mark. I properly identified the person I was talking about, and, unfortunately, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. The David Hunt I was referring to was, in fact, one of the four contributors to the 2001 book, and yes, I assumed that was the book referred to in the webcast. I had good reason to: half of the authors were the same between the two books! WLC and Gregory Boyd contributed to both volumes. And, btw, if you wish to fault me for turning the podcast off once it got into the closing comments, adverts, etc., well, what can I say?
Now, I am sure I could gather together a whole lot more to say if I wanted to put aside my current projects and go back and visit an old WLC podcast, and one of my own. But I have no interest. The above is more than sufficient to explain that sometimes, just sometimes, we all hear things badly.
James White
Evidently, as I was writing my above, TF posted similar information. Let me add another item:
You seem very focused on my comment that Craig identified two of his fellow authors as Calvinists. Are you seriously going to defend Craig’s accuracy in identifying Reformed beliefs? Have you listened to the quote I provide from him in the opening of Radio Free Geneva? Wherein he explicitly states that he doesn’t know what the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist is, and that he thinks Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist? Join this with his Hitchens comments, and the many misrepresentations we documented a few years ago on the DL when we went through his entire presentation on soteriology, and you would have more than sufficient ground to understand the statement. BTW, in looking at those very authors, one is clearly Reformed. The other, however, holds a view that one would have to strain a bit at to fit into a meaningful or historical Reformed moniker.
In any case, all I can say is I hope your listeners will be more generous in listening to you than you have been in listening to me on this particular subject.
James White
Hello Dr. White, I am disappointed by your defensive response. First, I didn’t call you an arrogant jerk in toto. I said that you can at times come off as one…. and in the same breath said that I can as well. Playing the martyr isn’t becoming.
I would like to clarify one thing here you said before responding further:
nd, btw, if you wish to fault me for turning the podcast off once it got into the closing comments, adverts, etc., well, what can I say?
Are you claiming you listened to the whole podcast except for the closing comments and adverts? If that is not what you are claiming, what is the point of that statement?
This is precisely the kind of statement you would expect Caner to answer. I do hope you answer it. I would like your answer before commenting further because it certainly seems to me that IS what you are claiming, but I want to ask you if it is.
And please see my response to TF vis a vis Dave Hunt. My criticism, albeit a toned down version, remains just as valid.
I was able to admit my misunderstanding, why can’t you admit you critiqued a podcast you didn’t listen to in full? And when I say in full, I am not including the closing comments and adverts. Let’s exclude those. You didn’t listen to the whole thing minus the closing comments and adverts. Why can’t you admit that?
PS: If you think I am being irresponsible and sinning against you, contact me privately at idrankthekoolaid@mac.com, and I will put you in touch with the elders of my Church. I spoke to an elder before doing this podcast.
While I have your attention, how far back do you keep your chat room transcripts? Something happened a while back (you were not directly involved) that I want to see if my memory is correct. Can you do a search for deedeewarren and send me the transcripts for my last two visits?
If you are wondering if you know me in any other way, you might remember I transcribed the Son of God, Lord of Glory tape (it was tapes at that time) for you. That is one of the best tapes I have ever heard.
Dr. White, it is apparent you haven’t listened to my podcast either before critiquing it. You are not dealing at all with the substance.
Yes, I do have confidence that Craig would know the view of someone who was a co-author with him on a collaborative project. I am well aware of his other deficiencies. Are you accusing him of being so bad that he would think the David Hunt in that book is a Calvinist? Seriously?
And Dr. White, admit it, you didn’t listen to the podcast you critiqued by WLC. Why is that so hard to admit?
Dr. White, I want to be clear to you and everyone here:
This paragraph appears to be saying that since you didn’t listen to the closing comments and adverts that it is understandable that you confused the books as two of the authors are the same. Is my understanding of what you are intending to communicate correct? If it is not correct, what are those several sentences intending to communicate?
1) I just took the time to listen to what I said about Craig on the 10/26/2010 DL. I focused not upon what you did, but upon the key themes I have focused upon for many years in responding to WLC. I specifically noted examples of misrepresentation/shallow representation in my comments. The material you started your webcast with was all background material prior to my playing Craig’s comments. I think it is fair to say your criticisms regarding Dave Hunt (taken to some real extremes in your written comments on this page), which have been shown to be based upon your ignorance as to the actual identity of the author in the 2001 work, were unfair and inaccurate.
2) Yes, I listened to the entire podcast. What evidence do you have that I did not? It is only 24 minutes in length, but, I had the entirety of it right in front of me as I played the materials. I even noted during the show comments that were yet to be heard. How could I know that if I had not listened to it? I seem to recall that I had listened to it on a 55 mile bike ride prior to the webcast. I have the GPS readout of the ride, if you need that.
3) Clearly, I did not catch that the book was GOING to come out, I assumed it was a book that was already available, and then I took the time to look up the title, found one which included both WLC and Gregory Boyd. I have subscribed to the RSS feed of the program for quite some time. I do not listen to every single episode, but I normally do.
4) The issues I focused upon in this webcast were IDENTICAL to the concerns I had raised for years, and IDENTICAL to the issues I raised publicly at the presentation I made at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, less than a mile off the campus of Talbot/Biola ( http://youtu.be/6SNtuo7kGro ) a full year earlier.
I am sorry you did not like the presentation. I am sorry I did not realize a new book was coming out, and assumed the 2001 book, with two of the same authors, was the one being discussed. I do believe Dr. Craig extends little to no effort in accurately representing the Reformed view, and I documented that at least five times in this very webcast by playing his very own comments. However, I contend that:
A) the materials I played on the DL accurately represented Craig’s views, and his comments about Reformed theology;
B) the criticisms I leveled at his presentation of Molinism were accurate, both biblically, as well as accurate to the sources I cited, including his own published works.
Therefore, I would ask you:
1) Was the focus of the program on the key issues relating to divine sovereignty and the nature of God’s relationship to time?
2) Did I misrepresent Craig’s teachings on Molinism? If so, where?
3) Are these issues not central to the topic of how one does apologetics, and is that not a recurrent theme of my program, and my ministry?
I stand by my criticism of the WLC podcast and the philosophy/theology he presented therein.
James White
Dr. White, I thank you for the much more appropriate response (i.e. not a defensive reaction). I will respond in full. I have terminal turtle syndrome when it comes to writing, AND very few of my listeners read the blog, so I will respond in audio.
I am not trying here to be pedantic, but I truly want to represent you correctly… am I correct in understanding that you are indeed affirming that you listened to the podcast, minus the closing comments and adverts, PRIOR to your webcast, most likely while riding on one of your exercise bike rides?
The GPS is not necessary, but some of the energy it takes to do that would be most welcome. I am getting fatter than my doxie, and my doxie is mistaken for a pot-bellied pig.
I am a paralegal as my primary occupation and during the week often work ten to twelve hour days. I will try to post a response as timely as I can.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I must protest here in brief and will expound in full that although I was indeed mistaken as to Dave Hunt v David Hunt, that only soften the extreme of which you accused Craig, it does not by any stretch absolve it. You still accused Craig of being so daft that he didn’t even know that a co-author wasn’t a Calvinist… come on Dr. White, seriously…… I will expound upon that in my audio. I will shoot you an email when I have posted it.
You are focusing on issues (and you and I agree on many issues, I am Reformed) but I am answering your challenge that you often issue when people criticize your tactics. Expounding about how you addressed issues you always address is a red herring. We don’t disagree on most of the issues. It is how they are done. And no matter how much hay is made about my admitted mistake on David Hunt/Dave Hunt, the fact remains you accused WLC of something more than stupid, and you never apologized for it. I apologized here just in this thread three times each time a mistake of mine was discovered. Why can’t you apologize for that accusation? That really bothers me. It seems proud IMHO.
Dee Dee, I think you’re reading Dr. White correctly that he listened to the podcast (essentially the whole thing) while cycling.
I think you’re misunderstanding Dr. White’s concern about WLC. He’s not saying that WLC is daft in his treatment of Calvinism, but that he’s glib and unfair in his treatment of Calvinism. This is the same WLC who is now featured in the Radio Free Geneva intro saying that Calvin was a Hyper-Calvinist.
-TurretinFan
Thank you TF, no I am not misunderstanding. I think WLC is daft in his treatment of Calvinism at times, i.e. that quote in the RFG opening. But I do not think WLC is so daft that he can’t tell the difference between a simple-foreknowledge Arminian and a Calvinist, which is what Dr. White accused him of. I think that is a completely unfair, uncharitable, and unnecessary accusation.
I have no problem with Dr. White saying WLC has misrepresented Reformed Theology in the past. He has. I have no problem with Dr. White saying that WLC can be daft on what Reformed people believe.
I DO have a problem with Dr. White accusing WLC of not being able to tell an Arminian from a Calvinist, that is beyond stupid.
That is the accusation that I believe Dr. White should apologize for. It was, well, mean. There is no justification for it. The other items are fair game…. I don’t disagree there. I have never said that no criticism is warranted, I am saying that we can take it too far. One can be right and make themselves wrong by their comportment.
WLC is daft in his treatment of preterism, my specialty so I commisserate. But I would NEVER accuse him of not being able to tell a dispensational futurist from a preterist.
Do you see what I mean?
I am not trying here to be pedantic, but I truly want to represent you correctly… am I correct in understanding that you are indeed affirming that you listened to the podcast, minus the closing comments and adverts, PRIOR to your webcast, most likely while riding on one of your exercise bike rides?
I do not know why you are asking this. I affirmed it, and, obviously, since I noted, repeatedly, “later on Craig will say this…” etc., it is obvious I listened to it. When I got back from my ride, I looked up the book, found the 2001, and given the presence of both WLC and Boyd, assumed that was the book. Again, a very minor and completely understandable error which was corrected rather quickly thanks to the chat channel.
I must protest here in brief and will expound in full that although I was indeed mistaken as to Dave Hunt v David Hunt, that only soften the extreme of which you accused Craig, it does not by any stretch absolve it. You still accused Craig of being so daft that he didn’t even know that a co-author wasn’t a Calvinist… come on Dr. White, seriously…… I will expound upon that in my audio. I will shoot you an email when I have posted it.
I repeat what I have said a few times now: Dr. Craig is not accurate in his identification of Reformed theology. Seriously, if he can say “Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist,” is it really that difficult to understand my concern? I knew what David Hunt’s views are (simple foreknowledge), and so my comment made perfect sense. But may I add that since you listened to the Reasonable Faith podcast yourself, did you catch Craig saying that the two Reformed authors actually ended up saying the same things? Yet, if you look at their respective positions, they are not the same at all. Craig puts them in the same camp even though they clearly have different views. He even ends up saying Boyd takes a compatibilist perspective (something impossible for an Open Theist, of course). So yes, I am quite comfortable questioning the accuracy of Craig’s identification of “Calvinists” even though I was wrong in this specific instance: he was not referring to David Hunt, whom I knew not to be Reformed (not Dave Hunt).
Expounding about how you addressed issues you always address is a red herring. We don’t disagree on most of the issues. It is how they are done.
An honest and fair appraisal of the hour long program would indicate that, of course, it was focused upon 1) playing a large portion of Craig’s own comments, 2) reading from his own book on the relevant issues, and 3) critiquing Molinism for the highly problematic and simply false system it is. Likewise, the direct attacks upon Reformed theology launched by Craig, and his host, were noted and responded to.
I am sorry you do not like my “tone.” I am sorry you attribute to me arrogance, etc. There is nothing I can do about that. You interpret my passion about these issues wrongly. I hope and pray your audience extends you more grace. But with this, I have invested far, far more time than I should have.
James White
Dr. White, I will respond via audio. I will email you when I do, and you can do with that what you will. I asked several times because the fact that you did listen to it is worse. It would have been more understandable if you just wrongly decided to shoot from the hip. By acknowledging you did listen, you show you did exactly what you accuse Craig of doing, and that was the main thrust of my criticism. That saddens me.
I too am very busy, so this is my last post on this until I post my response. thank you for the time you have given and for your work in Islam, it is a light in a very dark place in the world
Wow! I guess Dr. White will not let a little humility get in the way of being right. He doesn’t apparently understand that you can ruin the impact your message, your facts, and your witness, with a demeanor that denies the Christian love you profess. I’ve had to turn him off for a long time before when I soured on that attitude. This is an example of why I did. I guess I have to claim that this all happened on a hundred mile bike ride too so that I can get the dual effect of sympathy and amazement at the same time. (I used to ride a lot more miles than he does now but I never talked about it in the odd way he does.) Dee Dee, I’m sorry he got the little gotcha on you and could derail your analysis but you’re still right on.