Indignant Lies

“No one is such a liar as the indignant man.”

– Fredrich Nietzsche

Before we attempt to understand what Nietzsche might have meant, first we need to know the nuances of the word, indignant. It is an adjective describing the inner feeling and/or outward expression of righteous anger, resentment, or ire at something one finds strong displeasure with; unjust, offensive, or insulting. Liar needs little explanation – it’s someone who doesn’t tell the truth.

So, Nietzsche’s meaning? I take it to be that whenever I go on a rant about something, where I think something is just WRONG!, I protest (usually at length) so that all who care (or I think should care) know where I stand on the issue and are never left in doubt – all the while knowing, sometimes, deep down, that my indignant protest doesn’t accurately reflect me; there is a dissonance between what I think/say, and what I really feel. I am telling a lie.

Because I know what I think/say is what I want to believe (I know it’s the right thing) but it’s wrong (because it’s not the way I really feel). I’m not being honest.

To others, or myself. To be completely honest (and I hope, after you examine yourself to see if in some measure you’re just – at times – as unthinkingly duplicitous as I sometimes am, and can thus forgive me), here are a couple of examples:

• I believe in open borders. Truly, I do. I “think” people should be freely allowed to come and go and live anywhere in the world they want. And I get indignant whenever the subject of immigration control comes up. But, at the same time, I “feel” angry about immigration – legal or otherwise – because I find myself and “my kind” becoming more and more the minority to “them” instead of the majority I and “mine” historically have been. I find myself confronting language(s) and culture(s) I cannot relate to, there is no resonance with my inner self, I am discomforted that I find myself now in the minority and I “feel” that there should be greater immigration restrictions. (A response in-kind to the restrictive immigration policies by those nations where I’d be with “my kind” but I am unable to move to, even if I thought I might?)

• I believe in gun control/restrictions. Truly, I do. And I proclaim that whenever there is another mass-shooting. I indignantly say I don’t “think” every Tom, Dick or Harry needs to have a – or multiple – weapons capable of turning human beings into Swiss cheese, full of holes, with semi-automatic military-grade rifles or pistols. But, at the same time, because of the ever increasing number of armed assaults, car-jackings, strong-arm robberies on our city streets, the increasing number of home invasions by armed assailants, or the drive-by shootings at innocent civilians by gang members, I am beginning to “feel” the need to have my own gun. (A response in-kind, because of the prime imperative of life – survival – to resist and defend one’s own life (or the lives of innocents) by meeting force with equal force?)

Can you see how such dichotomies of “thinking” and “feeling” can lead to lies, to one’s own self, if not to others? (Not to mention the havoc it plays on my political leanings – think Liberal, feel Conservative!) Search yourself to see where you feel one way and think/speak another way.

Ever find yourself indignant about something? What are your differing feelings hidden behind what you indignantly think/say?

If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll realize you’re sometimes the liar.

To yourself as well as others.

– Bill


More On Conspiracies Theories: A Layman’s Take On Them

“Bill: The articles cited were very interesting (although I will admit I didn’t finish the Wikipedia one). I find it dismaying to learn people are more inclined to see patterns where there are none. It’s hard to interact with someone who believes in conspiracies all around them! Thanks for an interesting blog.”

– [I received this email from a reader commenting on yesterday’s post (Illuminating the Dark: Conspiracy Theories). What follows was my response back.]

Thanks for your comment! Yesterday’s post cited the explanations psychologists give for some people’s beliefs in conspiracy theories. They made sense to me, but what do I know, I’m just a layman. Besides, like most regular people, esoteric jargon (e.g., “pattern-seeking”? Or “agency”?) turn me off – I have to have them explained before I can understand what follows.

Not to belabor the issue, but here is my take – in layman’s terms – on conspiracy theories, based only on my 70 years of experience with people:

We humans are curious creatures, we seem to have an inexorable, unexhaustive need to know and understand, even the apparent unexplainable. And it’s the unexplained that drives us crazy, to the point where we will concoct an explanation that fills in all the holes so that we can move on. Religion is a good example – while it can’t be proven there is a God, it can’t be disproved either, and believing in one sure fills in a lot of holes by explaining things in general.

Also, we are highly suspicious creatures, not trusting anything outside our own personal knowledge/experiences or anyone outside our immediate tribe, people we intimately know and trust to protect us and to be honest with us and, because they and we have shared knowlege/experiences, think the same about things as we do. Everyone else are the “Others”. The government is a good example – our national leaders are so far removed from the common citizen (in education, wealth, social status, and power) that they are not of our tribe, so there is little reason to trust or believe them, they are part of the “Others”.

Put the two together – the need to know and a lack of trust – when we are told something has happened and we believe the “Others” know of it and could tell us, but don’t (or not to our satisfaction when they do), then we jump to the conclusion that they are purposefully keeping us ignorant for some nefarious reason. So we don’t trust them. It becomes some dark conspiracy, them against us. It may or may not be true, but it at least covers our need to know, it fills in a hole.

I noted some common conspiracy theories out there (the Kennedy assasination, UFOs, 9/11), but of course there are other “conspiracies” I could have included, those alleged – maybe real – that purport to minimize women’s or minority or voting or sexual or gun or religious rights, that some believe “Others” are trying to do to have control over them at their expense. (Note: I said alleged, maybe real. Some I believe might be true conspiracies. Some I believe just may be in some people’s imaginations. I don’t know firsthand – and I don’t personally know anyone I trust who does – so I try to remain neutral on these subjects rather than buy-in to what somebody else simply believes.)

And I agree, it’s hard – nigh impossible – to interact with someone who adamently believes in conspiracies. There just isn’t any way to dissuade them, to convince them they may be wrong. I find it easier to let them have their say without comment and avoid the subject as best I can when around them.

Even if by doing so, my silence and lack of a spirited “Amen!” leads them to suspect I might be among the “Other”.

And to challenge them is to allow them (and they will!) to double-down on their belief, believing it all the more.

It’s possible to be a “victim” (to use a term used in one of the articles cited in yesterday’s post) in many ways – the conspiracy believer feels they are a victim of a conspiracy, and I feel the victim having to listen to them tell me about it.

It’s a no-win thing.

– Bill

Illuminating the Dark: Conspiracy Theories

“So how can we determine what’s real and what’s not? We can’t [sometimes]…We can [only] pick and choose what we want to believe and rationalize it as best we can…Outside our limited senses…Out there, in the dark, [where] All Things Are Possible.”

― Richard B. Spence

And when we are there, in the dark where anything is possible, we search for light, for something that will illuminate what’s hidden by the darkness so that we might see what is and isn’t there.

Let me illuminate. An article I recently saw is entitled “Does the Illuminati control the world? Maybe it’s not such a mad idea”:

I mentally said, “Geeze Louise,” (well, not exactly those words), “that hoary chestnut?!” At first I assumed it to be an article trying to convince the reader that there is a conspiracy by a secret world-wide cabal of uber-rich who are orchestrating everything – governments, economies, religion, (you name it). I was pleasantly surprised that not to be the case, the article actually was about why we so readily accept such conspiracy theories. It really is a good read. (For in-depth background on the factual Illuminati:

I’m losing count of how many conspiracy theories there are out there – 9/11 an inside job by the government to justify Middle East involvement for oil, CIA/Mafia/Russia/Cuba behind the Kennedy assassination instead of a lone disgruntled fruitcake, government suppression of proof of UFOs and extraterrestrial aliens (even their manipulation of DNA to create us humans from a combination of theirs and ancient hominids), and on and on.

Which led me to search to find more information on why people believe in conspiracy theories. And, considering most such “theories” are scary, is there a reason why we must love to be scared? Two articles by Psychology Today illuminate understanding:

I know it looks like a lot of suggested reading, but these articles are short in length (except the Wiki article) but long in enlightenment. You need to read them for a full explanation, but here are a few snapshots:

• “We are constantly on the lookout for both patterns and agency. Pattern-seeking is essential for our survival, and the penalties for seeing patterns where none exist are lighter than those for missing patterns that really are there.” [Agency is the term used to explain that we] “cannot begin to understand the actions of others unless we attribute motives for their actions…The world is confusing and complex…we try to tidy it up.”

• “[W]e humans have an assortment of cognitive biases that can distort our judgments and allow us to maintain beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some of these biases include the tendency to see patterns where none exist, and to interpret new information and recall old information in ways that confirm our expectations and beliefs. However, most of the time we’re unaware of these biases and overly confident that our perceptions represent the objective truth.”

• “Usually when we’re scared….our…well developed threat response system let[s] us know something is not quite right [and]… This sophisticated system triggers a chemical cascade meant to help us survive: adrenaline, endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, among others flood our bodies and minds. But this response shares a lot with other high arousal responses, like when we’re happy, excited, and surprised. The context is what is important [is] whether we put a positive or negative spin on [it].”

Of course, the psychological and related physiological explanations in these articles that show why so many believe in conspiracy theories – and seem to happily and excitedly get into them – prove nothing.

Maybe they are a deflection from the real truth…

Planted by the Illuminati.

– Bill

Disturbing Presidential Musings

“Is it not strange that the more someone has, the less he feels he has? Envy can never be sated.”

― Jeff Wheeler

“We sometimes congratulate someone…only because we [are] jealous.”

― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

Consider the person who has obtained the highest political office a free people can offer, what should be the apex of personal satisfaction and achievement.

Consider that person is the President of the United States.

Who, apparently, is not sated with what he has accomplished, apparently feels he has less than what some other national leaders have, and demonstrates his jealousy and envy by congratulating them for achieving what he cannot.

And what might that be, that he is so envious and jealous of? Their actual (or like) utter authority and control, their dictatorship, over their government and people.

Don’t believe that? Let’s see what he’s recently said:

• “He’s [Chinese President Xi Jinping] now president for life, president for life. And he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

• “I’ve already said, he [Russian President Vladmir Putin] is very really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, ‘Oh, isn’t that a terrible thing’ – the man has very strong control over a country…but…he’s been a leader, far more than our [presidents have] been a leader.”

• “I just wanted to congratulate you [Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte] because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you’re doing] on [your country’s] drug problem.” [Duterte has boasted about his pretrial, extrajudicial executions of some 6,000 “suspected” drug dealers and users.]

• “Frankly, he’s [Turkish President Recep Erdogan] getting very high marks”. [From who? Our President? Human Rights Watch has called Erdogan “a setback for human rights and the rule of law.” Erdogan has also accused members of democratic institutions of conspiring to overthrow him.]

• “We agree on so many things…He’s [Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi] done a fantastic job…” [He assumed power through a coup. Our State Department says he uses “excessive…force by security forces, [there are] deficiencies in due process, and the suppression of civil liberties.” Human Rights Watch notes his government has “maintained its zero-tolerance policy towards dissent.”]

• He [Saddam Husssein] did that so good…They didn’t read them their rights. They didn’t talk.” [referring to Saddam’s executions of those both our president and he called “terrorists”, those fighting to wrest control from him and institute a more democratic government.]

• “[I]f Gaddafi were in charge right now [Libya would be better off than it is now.]”

• “[S]hows you the power of strength,” [referring to China’s brutal crackdown on democratic dissent and protest in Tiananmen Square.]

Thank all that’s Holy, our Constitution’s separation of powers – where either Congress or the Supreme Court, or both – can stop a president from usurping powers beyond the law, and the United States will remain a free, democratic republic as it was intended.

Unless, of course, the Congress and the Supreme Court isn’t packed with like-minded, or sniveling, toady members, that allow a President to do what he wants to do.

As I said in my post, “Demagogues and Democracies – The Rise of One and the Fall of the Other” (Oct. 19, 2016), “…all it would take is the president, in response to some real or manufactured “threat” to national security and the safety of citizens – due to, say, increased terrorism and fear – to declare martial law – suspending parts or all of the constitution – and for the other two branches of government, congress and the supreme court, to acquiesce to the perceived will of the people behind their leader. I say, ‘it could’ because there is precedent. Lincoln…”

I’d say it’s strange that a US President, the most powerful person in the free world, seemingly pines for the ultimate power of a despotic dictator.

But maybe not, given all the other strange things he’s said.

Envy knows no limit.

Nor does the thirst for power.

– Bill

What’s a Man to do with all his “Stuff”?

“He drank some more wine, feeling he was about to commit a forbidden act. A transgression. For a man should never go through a woman’s handbag – even the most remote tribe would adhere to that ancestral rule.”

― Antoine Laurain

And that’s exactly why I need to man-up, commit a forbidden act and transgression amongst (almost) all men, and get my own.

Man Bag, that is.

I’ve thought about it for years and have mentally debated the pros and cons over how logical and utilitarian a bag of my own would be versus the stares and giggles behind my back that I would receive if I had one, out and about in public, and versus having to ask my wife to carry my overages in her handbag – those things I need but haven’t enough pockets for and having to, at times, violate her privacy by rummaging through her purse to get them if she’s not immediately at hand or asking her to do it herself and hand whatever to me if she is. Even if she gives me her blessing to do so or doesn’t mind doing it herself, I always feel awkward.

It isn’t a problem when it’s cold enough to wear a coat (more pockets), but in sunny California that’s a rarity; our “cold” days are usually in the low-to-middle 50’s (F), where a good hoodie is sufficient (only one or two days a winter is it arguably cold enough to wear a proper coat, and so far this winter I’ve only worn mine once – not that I actually needed it, but it’s a nice one I spent good money on years ago and feel I need to wear it once every winter to justify its cost).

I’m not talking about one of those ubiquitous messenger bags one sees slung over the shoulder of all those preppy schoolboys that eschew a backpack (no demeaning offense intended, I dress a bit preppy myself) or those coat and tie young professionals as they scurry hurriedly along sidewalks between appointments in city center. I’ve no idea what they have in them; laptop or tablet, phone (no, that can’t be, they all seem to have that at ear), papers and files, pens and paperclips? Perhaps, also, some energy bars?

I don’t need anything that big, neither my laptop nor tablet is internet connected (and I distrust WiFi outside my own home), so why tote them, and being retired with no meetings to attend, I’ve no need to lug an office – everything of that sort I can manage on my smartphone.

But I do need my phone, car key and fob, house and other keys, wallet, handkerchief, my prescription sunglasses (and regular ones), eyeglass lens cleaner solution and rag (to clean off those smudges that somehow inexplicably appear), fingernail clippers, pocketknife, small change, a pen (I dislike using a provided one to sign anything when out – who knows what Typhoid Mary just handled it?), a cigar or two, and whatever other small things a grandchild might foist upon me while out with them (that they’re tired of carrying). All those things people of a certain age (polite euphemism for “older”) need.

All too many things for regular slacks, or shorts. I could wear cargo pants with all those extra pockets, except I find them silly, all puffed out like a hamster’s cheeks full of food, or giving one the appearance of a pear, narrow at the top and wide at the bottom.

And, unless I’m hiking in the mountains, I don’t like backpacks; they’re for a much younger sort with stronger backs than I, and I don’t trust someone behind me not to surreptitiously unzip a pocket and thieve from me unnoticed. And, given my age-related forgetfulness, I’m apt to lay it down somewhere only to later walk off and leave it. Nor do I really like a “fanny pack” for the same reasons. I do have one, that I sometimes use in the summer when I’m wearing just my nylon 2-pocket sports shorts. But then I wear the pack in front and feel like a kangaroo carrying a Joey (and it’s awkward in a car having to use a seatbelt).

I need some means to carry those necessaries. Perhaps, especially, my phone, having read something the other day – new among the continuing debate over possible negative health effects to our brains from the constantly generated RF signals of mobile phones while holding them to our ear as much as most people do (it is now recommended you use the speakerphone function or earbuds) is the report that men who carry their phone (as I do) in their front pants pocket risk chromosomal damage to their testes, lowering their fertility (not that I care about that, I’ve bred all I want already), and also increasing their risk of testicular cancer. That last part I don’t need.

That leaves only the choice between a belt-bag (but diligent online research can’t find one that has adequate height, width or depth without looking like a colostomy bag worn on the outside of one’s clothes), or continuing to make the wife continue serving as my porter on our trekking around.

So you see my problem. I want something that doesn’t look hippy or dork-ish or effeminate, or terribly eye-catching, just utile. Suggestions welcomed, especially from any man with my problem who has solved this dilemma.

I guess I’ll have some more wine – or maybe some more-manly beer – until I sort this out.

– Bill

Possible (but Unproven). Is the Truth Out There?

“Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. There has been a certain amount of reverse engineering that has allowed some of these craft, or some components, to be duplicated. And there is some group of people that may or may not be associated with government at this point that have this knowledge. They have been attempting to conceal this knowledge. People in high level government have very little, if any, valid information about this. It has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn’t come out. ”

― Edgar D. Mitchell

If you, like I am, are growing weary of all the news and social media claims yet unproven but possible about Russian interference in our politics, the claims yet unproven but possible about the causes of our mass-murders, the claims yet unproven but possible about climate change, the claims yet unproven but possible about he-said-she-said sexual dalliances of political and entertainment figures, allow me – just for the fun of it – for a moment to go farther afield, back to news and media discussions that have been equally controversial but have fascinated us for at least the last 70 years and popped up again in the news as recently as this past December, only to go relatively unnoticed in light of everything else going on in the news. At the very least, it’ll take your mind off those relatively less important unproven yet possible claims above.

In my post on the 19th, “Divining the Universe”, I wrote about the unproven but possible physical aspects of our universe. Here, I’ll take a slightly different slant on the unproven but possible, whether we have – or still are being – visited by extraterrestial beings.

Mitchell had a doctorate from MIT in science, was a navy captain, test pilot and NASA astronaut who piloted the Lunar Module of Apollo 14 and spent 9 hours on the moon as the 6th person to walk on it. And, yes, he also believed that our planet has been visited by aliens from space, and that the government (and/or other entities, especially a secret group officially called MJ-12) has covered it up, beginning with the Roswell incident.

And he wasn’t the only astronaut to publicly say so: Gordon Cooper (who claimed to have personally seen UFOs), Deke Slayton (also observed a saucer), and Brian O’Leary (who, as a respected physics professor at Princeton said, “There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted [by aliens].” Astronaut Chris Hadfield notes, “I don’t know of any astronauts who think we’re alone in the universe.” That’s pretty convincing.

Because, to be selected as a member of our astronaut corps, each was among the very best, “The Right Stuff”, highly educated, rational, scientifically trained, observant, logical, and fearless, that America had (has). And not given to flights (no pun intended) of fantasy.

And what they all said has credibility, given what has been publicly reported before – but especially – beginning with the UFO crash in Roswell, NM, in 1947 (when the military publicly announced it had recovered a crashed saucer and alien bodies, only to be denied days later, claiming it was a fallen “weather balloon”) and UFOs observed over Washington, D.C. in 1952 (seen on civilian and military radar, civilians and military personnel on the ground, also by civilian pilots and crewmembers and by pilots of scrambled Air Force interceptors, who gave chase before the UFOs suddenly disappeared, to the great concern of the Truman White House).

President Truman publicly admitted that every DOD meeting with him included discussion about UFOs. Eisenhower, who succeeded him (and who claimed to have seen a UFO) was not made privy to CIA or DOD investigations and threatened to order the army to invade and take over Area 51 (in Nevada, were the Roswell remains allegedly were housed) unless he was told about the Roswell incident. No army takeover happened. Kennedy, who succeeded him, was assassinated 2 weeks – perhaps coincidentally – after his similar written demand to the CIA for everything this government had on UFOs and aliens. No subsequent president has apparently made such a demand (although Reagan claimed to have seen a UFO, as did Carter, who once tried to make public government UFO files).

Principally because of the events at Roswell and over D.C., various intelligence agencies (including the CIA) and Pentagon undertook systematic evaluations of UFO sightings. The most famous was Project Blue Book by the Air Force. It started in 1952, and it was the third study of its kind (the first two were projects Sign in 1947 and Grudge in 1949). A termination order was given in 1969, and all activity ended in January 1970 when it was reported that no UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force ever indicated a threat to our national security or were beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge, and there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as “unidentified” were extraterrestrial vehicles. Of 12,618 UFO reports studied, it concluded that most of them were misidentifications of natural phenomena (clouds, stars, etc.) or conventional aircraft. According to the National Reconnaissance Office, a number of the reports could be explained by flights of the formerly secret reconnaissance planes (U-2 and A-12).

A small percentage of Blue Book UFO reports remains classified.

But the closing of Blue Book didn’t end things officially, it was just revealed this past December 2017 by The New York Times that the Department of Defense has been running an off-the-radar program to investigate UFOs and those who say they’ve encountered them.

Former Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada takes credit for starting the new investigation, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, and securing its $22 million budget. “I think it’s one of the good things I did in my congressional service,” he told The Times. “I’ve done something that no one has done before.” According to The Times, there are still scientists working to identify unearthly metal alloys recovered from UFOs, even though the new program was officially defunded in 2012 (one has to wonder if something newer hasn’t been created to continue the effort).

This is a true “X-Files” meets the Pentagon, and like the tagline for The X-Files, “The truth is out there.”

But, maybe, there are some truths that will never be proven.

– Bill

Clarifying My Position on Guns and Gun Control

“I am coming to see the middle path as a walk with wisdom where conversations of complexity can be found, that the middle path is the path of movement. . . . In the right and left worlds, the stories are largely set. ”

― Terry Tempest Williams

I have to agree with the quote, there can be no conversation searching for an agreement on moving forward towards ending a problem if both the right and left extremes are unwilling to compromise and find something in the middle both sides can agree to live with. It is only on the middle path where we can find movement towards resolution.

Guns and gun control is one such conversation I’ve had with myself and I’ve come to a position in the middle of the gun debate with a compromise that I can live with. It is as unrealistic to demand a total ban outlawing gun ownership/possession altogether as it is unthinkable for allowing everyone to own any kind. So, I can accept guns, but with reasonable restrictions.

And since a reader emailed me about my last post, “The New O.K. Corral” , and said she was unable to discern exactly what my position on guns and gun control is, to clarify for her and anyone who is unclear, and perhaps persuade others to agree:

Where I stand on guns and gun control –

I accept the Supreme Court’s decision that the 2nd Amendment entitles civilian citizens (in good stead) to buy and possess firearms for self-defense in their home. I also accept that individuals should have guns for sport (target shooting and hunting) – subject to exhaustive back ground checks for criminal convictions and mental health issues, and after undergoing rigorous training and certification in their use – and should have the right to carry a concealed weapon (subject to the same checks and training) when they’re out and about in the public.

Why self-defense?

Because of the status quo, the fact that there are bad people out there that have guns (it’s stupid to only have a knife – or less – if someone pulls a gun on you), and I believe in the principle that force should be met with equal force.

What weapons?

I am opposed to any type of automatic or semi-automatic, and believe they should be outlawed for civilian possession – both rifles (read: AKs, ARs, etc.) and semi-automatic shotguns, as well as pistols (read: 45, 9mm, etc.). I can only support bolt-action rifles, single-shot or pump shotguns, and revolvers.


Those types of guns (automatics and semi-automatics, with 10-15+ shot magazines) were originally made for the military for mass killing with a less frequent need to reload, unlike those sufficient for target shooting or hunting – bolt-action rifles (generally a 5-shot magazine), single-shot or pump-action shotgun (generally a 5-shot magazine), or 5/6 shot revolvers, all of which have (relatively) limited magazine capacity that requires frequent, time-absorbing, reloading.

And because I reject as patently absurd the premise, that while the purpose of the 2nd Amendment at the time it as written was to enable the citizenry to defend itself against an oppressive government, that it is still a valid concern today, or that we might be invaded by a foreign army that so overwhelms our military that armed civilians need to fight. Therefore, there is no reason military-style weapons need to be made and sold for civilian consumption.

Bottom line: Automatic and semi-automatics are for killing people, not sport. If you can’t hit your paper target, or the animal you’re hunting, with a single shot, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. With respect to a concealed weapon, if you need more than 5-6 shots to stop and drop someone, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.

So…I believe we should have the right of arms, but restricted to what is a reasonable purpose for sport, and a reasonable deterrent/defense if assaulted.

I am not so naive to think that bad people won’t still kill good people using a gun. But those I find to be reasonable restrictions will lessen the likelihood of further mass killing, which is what the conversation should really be all about.

But that’s just my opinion.

– Bill