Thursday, April 11, 2013

Ron Weinland: I Am In Prison and They Visit Me Not

ht: Painful Truth


Poor Ron Weinland, the Church of God's most infamous convicted felon, is whining that some of his ministers are not  visiting or communicating with him while he is in the slammer with Big Bubba.

Mike, on the False Prophet Ron Weinland blog,  has an excerpt from a letter that Weinerdude sent out recently to his fledgling ministry: Closer Service and Fellowship.

Ron is concerned that some of his disappointed members are "flirting with sin" and are filled with "bad attitudes". It seems some of Ron's devotee's are having a little fun while the boss is in prison while some are leaving the silliness while Ron can't do anything to them.
Yet not all have responded well and some are not growing spiritually as they should and could be. The greatest times of testing through some of the most difficult trials (in fire) provide some of the very best opportunities of overcoming and growth we could ever hope to have. Such things are (can be and should be) received as awesome blessings afforded to us by our great God and very loving Father. These are moments, while in God’s most loving care and concern for us, where the mind can receive some of the most exciting advancement in transformation of mind that is possible.

When I have made statements, even up to the very last of the messages I gave in sermons, about some leaving “this way” even up to the very end, I know that such statements just do not “seem” possible to most. Yet, it should be sobering that we have just had two from the ministry who have chosen to leave this one and only true way that God has given to all of us. A little letting down here and there (a little slumber), some flirtation with sin, a bad attitude (from selfishness) that is allowed to express itself just too often, and then all of the sudden one is struck down.

Ron is demanding that his ministers maintain more contact with the members.  What more can Weinerdude expect from his so called ministers?  They have been well trained in the Church of God to look down their noses at the lowly members, to use them for their own purposes, and to wring every last dime out of them.  They are only following the example they have seen set by Ron himself! Instead of being servants they are task masters. Ron's ultimate concern is that the with every member that leaves the income drops.  Audra and Laura wont be able to have their expensive shopping trips anymore!

Are all of you seeking to sacrifice for other brethren? Do you push yourself and go out of your way (over and above) to fellowship (perhaps even longer at times) with others in person, by email, or phone conversation? Isn’t that part of your ministerial job, let alone part of your Christian duty? Is that part of what God expects from His “servants” who have been given opportunities to be a source of some added strength and encouragement to brethren? One may ask, “But what difference will it make if I do such small things?” It will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if you don’t do them! One’s life in the ministry is one of service and it is especially manifest in the “little things” one does toward others. If one isn’t continually focused on doing even the little things, then the BIG ones will never come. If we are “faithful” in a little, then we can be given much more. If not, then what? Is ordination in name only (for being esteemed before others) or does it carry great meaning and purpose from God and His Son toward us for the sake of the Body?
Then Ron does what I have been waiting on him to do since he was sent to prison.  He pulls out the Matthew 25:31-46 card to intimate his pathetic ministers.  He is pissed that some of them have failed to visit him in prison or contact him.  Their failure to "come to him" is a measure of their spiritual weakness that has serious spiritual ramifications.

There are some verses I am now going to refer to and you should read all in their complete context, but I am only going to quote a few here. The whole teaching of Christ in this is in Matthew 25:31-46.
 “For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me in, being naked you clothed me, and being sick you visited me. I was in prison and you came unto me” (Mat. 25:35-36). Jesus was asked, by those who were living righteously, about when they had done such things unto him: “The King shall answer unto you, ‘In as much as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me’” (vs. 40).
In times past, I have referred to these verses to explain a lack of understanding of these verses, as this is first and foremost about those “in” the Church and of those being called into it. Doing as Christ said unto any of these is to do so unto him (his Body). The purpose for mentioning this here is because I have been more than a little dumbfounded that within God’s ministry there are some who have not communicated with me (come to me) here. This is only about “you” if this fits you. Do I “need” to hear from everyone? No. But everyone should have come (needs to have come) to me. The bottom line is that this is indeed a measure of where you are spiritually. If it is simply out of neglect or one of putting it off (or some other menial reason), then it is “still” a spiritual measure that should be sobering to every person.
Then to further lay a guilt trip on his disappointing ministers, he says that when they neglect to see him in prison they are actually neglecting Jesus Christ!  Every minister and his wife should have been visiting Ron in prison.  Since they have not they have been spitting in Jesus Christ's face.

This is not a matter of what I feel about such a matter (though I am in full agreement with God’s spirit), but it is a matter of asking how does Christ feel about your neglect toward him. In addition, this is “every” person’s responsibility in the ministry and not just of a husband or wife’s duty (of those ordained). Such attitude or neglect also reflects something that is spiritual. What kind of friendship, what kind of love, and what kind of gratitude does such a thing reflect? It reminds me of the ten lepers that I recently quoted. I’m not just speaking of that shown toward me, but toward Jesus Christ and God our Father. What does this say about that which God has provided to such a small remnant while all the others scattered are malnourished and suffering greatly from continued famine? What does this say about that kind of response toward the one God gave as an apostle to lead, feed, help mold, and to share his life with you? If one will respond to God’s physical leader on earth in such a manner, then please acknowledge that there is shown far less care and concern to the rest of God’s Family!
To further reinforce this blasphemy by his ministry he warns them that they will "not enter the promised era".

So, will there be even more within the ministry itself who will not enter into the promised era (promised land) that is right before us? I for one pray that such will not be the case, but without repentance it will be.
 Maybe none of them are interested in spending eternity with Ron in the lake of fire!

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

People still follow this guy?

Joe Moeller said...

What a narcissist! POOR ME!

Remember the old Baretta TV show (that starred Robert Blake) theme?...

"Don't Do The Crime IF You Cant Do The Time"

Applies to Weinland. Time to man up.

Joe Moeller
Cody, WY

Head Usher said...

I wonder if Paul wrote any whiny letters like this from prison that got "lost" by the later Catholic church fathers.

"The greatest times of testing through some of the most difficult trials (in fire) provide some of the very best opportunities of overcoming and growth we could ever hope to have."

And sometimes a "trial" is just the consequence for being a world-class screwup. Kind of like the "trial" that is probably being inflicted upon his anus right about now.

"We have just had two from the ministry who have chosen to leave this one and only true way that God has given to all of us."

There you have it, in black and white. I feel sorry for anyone who believes this statement. I applaud these two "ministers" for taking the first and most important step toward getting their lives and sanity back. Getting sent to prison was the most helpful thing Ron Weinland has done for his followers ever.

"Is ordination in name only (for being esteemed before others)...?"

I am glad that Ron has admitted that this is one of the main purposes for "ordination." It is also a means of control and a means of tapping into another person's resources for the indefinite future. When you see one man "ordain" another into an unpaid position, you are watching a leech attach itself to a man's blood supply. In return, they get to be "esteemed before others."

"When I have made statements...about some leaving 'this way' even up to the very end, I know that such statements just do not 'seem' possible to most."

I hope Ron is wrong about how possible leaving "this way" seems to most. I feel sorry for anyone in Ron's group who is so brainwashed that leaving Ron's "one and only true way" has never yet crossed their mind.

Anonymous said...

Ron said A little letting down here and there (a little slumber), some flirtation with sin, a bad attitude (from selfishness) that is allowed to express itself just too often, and then all of the sudden one is struck down.

LOL. He's perfectly autobiographical in that observation!! LOL.

Painful Truth said...

This is no different than ministers or members visiting the sick. They don't!

Your lucky if they show up at your funeral, except the few who want your family to hand over your possessions.

Such is the luv found in harmstrongism!

Corky said...

Letters to the "homies" hehehehehehe.

Painful Truth said...
This is no different than ministers or members visiting the sick. They don't!

Some members visited my mother on her death bed - no ministers. The ministers? They were "too busy" to make a 90 mile trip to have a graveside service for her. I had to take care of that myself - well, me and my "don't care" drugs...

Douglas Becker said...

Obviously, Jesus wants Weinland to work in a prison ministry....

Douglas Becker said...

Special note to Cult of Herbert Armstrong leaders: Income Tax is only 4 days away, so remember the lesson that Ronald Weinland is teaching you!

Byker Bob said...

As if! Jeez, you'd think by his misappropriation of scripture that he was actually in prison for the sake of Jesus, or because of spreading the gospel. How dare he tap into St. Paul's own quite different experience and imply that his situation even bears faint resemblance.

Weining Pussy belongs in jail. He failed to render unto Caesar what is Caesars, flagrantly, deliberately, and to his and his family's enrichment.

BB

Assistant Deacon said...

This guy makes Lance Armstrong seem sincere.

Velvet said...

"I applaud these two "ministers" for taking the first and most important step toward getting their lives and sanity back."

Try a golf clap. NZ "elder" and wife went with Pack. Not sure who the second one is, or where they went, because I have not been keeping up with it all.

I will say this, though: Unlike Thielogical Bob, I honestly don't think Weinland is drinking his own Kool-Aid, even though it sounds like he is. Five years after the Tribulation That Wasn't, he's just tap-dancing to hang onto whatever fanatic few remain.

Anonymous said...

From my memory there were a few other cases of ministers or church employees bilking the membership and ending up in jail. Some of them were hushed up, just the same way a bank hushes up how some of it's funds got lost.....and of course there were probably others who never got caught.

Head Usher said...

"NZ "elder" and wife went with Pack. Not sure who the second one is..."

Well, that is too bad. Weinerdude can lead people to the Seine, but he can't make them jump in. I was being optimistic.

"Five years after the Tribulation That Wasn't, he's just tap-dancing to hang onto whatever fanatic few remain."

After the tribulation was supposed to begin and it didn't, at least not in any obvious way. After the tribulation was supposed to have ended because of Jesus' return, and he didn't show up, at least not in any obvious way. And he bought himself an extra year of wiggle room, and that year has passed and still no Jesus, at least not in any obvious way. How much more can he get away with distorting the timeline to avoid having to confess that he's a false prophet? And now he's in prison to boot. Things aren't looking up for the future of his splinter group.

For the next three years, Ron's remaining idolaters will be subjected to prison missives about Jesus' "invisible return" and glorious millennial rule which will all be totally indistinguishable from satan's evil world btw, so much so that Ron will not be released from prison. For three more years they'll have to hear about more "revelation" of nothing meaningful from Ron's god.

By the time he does get out, how many people will still believe that Ron is telling them the truth about prophecy or anything else? If people decide to leave, there isn't much he can do about it from prison, can he?

Hopefully they'll all leave in the next three years. Unfortunately they'll mostly probably flee into the welcoming arms of other HWA imitating false prophets. But you can't force people to be sane.

Leonardo said...

No, you can't force people to be sane, that's true. Just like you can't force them to openly admit error on their part. And I think at the core that's what a lot of this is all about, be it Ron Weinland or many others. Every ex-WCG/COG member who blogs here at this site has had to pony up and acknowledge, somewhere along the line of their life journey, that they were hoodwinked, duped, deluded, deceived in one way or another by HWA's slickly-presented ideology. Just like HWA had previously been hoodwinked by COG spokesmen like G.G. Rupert and such. But sooner or later, even if one was raised up in the church, and had no initial choice in the matter, eventually the celestial spark of reason kicks in and starts prompting you to begin asking legitimate questions. And this takes guts to follow through on. An internal fortitude that many people just don't have. It's not easy to admit to having gullibly fallen for truth claims that have virtually no basis in reality or fact or reason or in the empirical world. None whatsoever. Probably most of us ended up believing because, at the end of the day, and when all is said and done, we WANTED to believe! It gave our lives a strong sense of purpose, of order, of security – well, at least until reality eventually came knocking, as it always does and always will.

Weinland is as phony as a three dollar bill, though he most likely has some serious mental problems accompanying his deceitfulness. Even his beloved scriptures say that:

“If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal [like a tax evader!], or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” (I Peter 4:15-16)

Weinland can delude himself that he’s suffering “as a Christian” but deep down he knows the facts of the matter. He in jail because he broke the laws of the land, even though scripture enjoins Christians to…

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men – as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. (I Peter 2:13-16)

And these apply to all his followers. They can only run from reality for just so long.

Velvet said...

"But sooner or later, even if one was raised up in the church, and had no initial choice in the matter, eventually the celestial spark of reason kicks in and starts prompting you to begin asking legitimate questions. And this takes guts to follow through on. An internal fortitude that many people just don't have. It's not easy to admit to having gullibly fallen for truth claims that have virtually no basis in reality or fact or reason or in the empirical world."

Hmm, well, the prophecy angle and such has no basis in reality or fact or reason or in the empirical world (and I certainly don't think I'll see TEOTWAKI in my lifetime), but everything, and I do mean every single thing, the Church taught about professing Christianity is 100% correct. And I only know this because it was demonstrated for me, in spades, by professing Christians.

Which isn't their fault, I mean, the whole world is deceived. But everything the Church taught about the Protestants and Catholics is absolutely spot on.

Leonardo said...

Velvet wrote: "But everything the Church taught about the Protestants and Catholics is absolutely spot on."

Velvet, it's unreflected upon and impulsive statements like this that continually get you into trouble. The fact is that MANY things the WCG taught about Protestantism, for instance, were incorrect. HWA would continually set up straw-men arguments, misrepresenting their views on a wide variety of subjects. I only learned of this later on because I had little understanding of Protestantism before and during the time I came in the WCG. But it's true. So your above statement is totally erroneous.

You claim the whole world is deceived. I would suggest you still carry around a great deal of deception within your own mind yourself, so glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sharon said...

Velvet wrote: "But everything the Church taught about the Protestants and Catholics is absolutely spot on."

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have seen posted on here lately. There is NOTHING that the Church taught about Protestants or Catholics that was correct. They lied about prophecy, they lied about British Israelism, the lied about doctrine, they lied about Catholics, they lied that the Church never set dates, they lied about those that left the church, etc. One has to wonder why she still glorifies the liars and they lying church.

Velvet said...

"The fact is that MANY things the WCG taught about Protestantism, for instance, were incorrect."

Oh, yes? And what would those things be, Anon? Instead of accusing me of making "impulsive statements" that "get [me] in trouble" why don't you try qualifying some of those statements with, you know, actual FACTS?

I will give you the facts you want: The Church always taught that professing Christians were hypocrites, they taught salvation by grace meant they could act as poorly as they wanted, and NOT demonstrate "Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself" and STILL think they would be saved, even though they bear truly rotten fruits; both the Evangelicals in the Church, and the Miller brothers DEMONSTRATED that for me, in a way far more convincing than any moldy books could ever do. So the Church was right, when it said the theology of professing Christianity is what leads directly to their attitude problems and bad behaviours towards others.

As for the pagan rituals the Church taught that the professing Christian churches engage in, again, that was DEMONSTRATED for me, quite clearly, at my grandfather's funeral: High priests in Druid robes chanting over my grandfather's casket, and the audience in the church talking back like robots or zombies or something; everything the Church taught about the pagan rituals of the Satanic churches of the world is absolutely correct; I know this NOT because I read it in the Church literature (or even the Bible), but I KNOW this now because I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES.

Anonymous said...

Velveeta has drank the FlavorAid!

"But, Mr. Armstrong said....."

Velvet said...

Those four words are nowhere in my comment above, Anon. Troll harder, I definitely rate that 0/10.

Unless you were serious, in which case, you haven't addressed the fact that my experiences in the world pretty much lined up exactly with what the Church warned everyone about.

Head Usher said...

"...my experiences in the world pretty much lined up exactly with what the Church warned everyone about."

My comment: My experiences in the church pretty much lined up exactly with what the church warned everyone the world would be like. As far as people go, those "in the church" were always a mixed bag. Those "in the world" were a mixed bag too. So what's the difference again? Actually, people in the world are a lot more tolerant and understanding because they don't usually have so much fragile ideology to protect all the time, which is what always brings out the worst in people. The church was basically full of fragile ideology that needs a lot of protecting to keep it from falling apart.

Of course, what I don't understand about being "in the church" vs. "in the world" is, even when you're "in the church," unless you're actually AT church, the rest of the time you're "in the world" anyway...sooo, not quite sure what there is to warn people about, unless you could leave the planet and go live on the moon or something. Just because you repudiate all the values of the world doesn't stop time and chance from happening to you. And just because you live in denial of the world, it doesn't really push it any further away.

Anonymous said...

I believe some of the latter comments on this blog entry indicate why Armstrong's "Place of Safety" teaching was so alluring to members of his cult.
It wasn't quite about going to the moon, but it DID give members the "carrot-on-stick" idea that they'd one day be physically "out of this world" and live in a magical place where sanitary napkins and toilet paper would rain down from heaven like manna.

-Norm

Velvet said...

"As far as people go, those "in the church" were always a mixed bag. Those "in the world" were a mixed bag too."

Of course this was (and still is) the case, but I was referring to religious systems, not the people in them; when I was growing up, it wasn't the people the Church decried, but the systems they had been deceived by. Which, I've got to say, having seen the clearly rotten fruits of that system, I do think the points made by the Church about the professing Christian religion (again, NOT the people, but the religion they are enslaved by), are correct.

Anonymous said...

Velvet, why are you constantly trying to justify the WCG? Their system didn't exactly produce the good fruit one would have expected considering all their claims to righteousness.

Head Usher said...

"Of course this was (and still is) the case, but I was referring to religious systems, not the people in them; when I was growing up, it wasn't the people the Church decried, but the systems they had been deceived by. Which, I've got to say, having seen the clearly rotten fruits of that system, I do think the points made by the Church about the professing Christian religion (again, NOT the people, but the religion they are enslaved by), are correct."

Velvet, I am calling you on your bullshit. The people in those systems collectively ARE the system itself. They are the exemplars of the ideology. They are the propagators of the ideology. Their behaviors play out the values of the system, collectively. You can make a distinction between a single individual and the system, but you cannot distinguish between the collective mass of people and system. They are one and the same.

This blog is dedicated to owning up to the rotten fruits of the system here referred to as Armstrongism. The system of Armstrongism is no better than the system it refers to as "the world," and might even be worse. The fruits of Armstrongism are at least as bad as the fruits of "the world." Especially since the system of Armstrongism was essentially the "worldly" system of middle American culture warmed over with some Jewish/sabbatarian extract for seasoning. The system of Armstrongism was 90% "worldly" to begin with. It was just nostalgia packaged up and sold as "righteousness." It's bullshit, and I'm not in the market for that anymore. You can't sell it to me.

Velvet said...

"The people in those systems collectively ARE the system itself. They are the exemplars of the ideology. They are the propagators of the ideology. Their behaviors play out the values of the system, collectively. You can make a distinction between a single individual and the system, but you cannot distinguish between the collective mass of people and system. They are one and the same."

OK, then fine, I haven't met one person yet who produced good fruit. Quite the opposite, in fact; however, because I do draw a distinction between the systems and the people, I neither judge nor condemn those who behave in the ways that they do, as a result of the systems they are in. The whole world is deceived, etc., and I also take that belief one step further than the Church did, and say that maybe it might very well be the case of God saying, "Guess what? EVERYBODY got it wrong!"

Head Usher said...

"...because I do draw a distinction between the systems and the people, I neither judge nor condemn those who behave in the ways that they do, as a result of the systems they are in."

So, you neither judge nor condemn all the people who "behaved in the ways that they did" in Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, the balkanization of the former Yugoslava, Rwanda, etc. When they give the classic Eichmann response of, "I was just following orders," you would say, "Okay, that's fine then," and give them a free pass?

Go ahead, stay in your bullshit zone. It's warm and comfortable.

Anonymous said...

Let's recap, Head Usher; we started off by discussing religious systems of the world, which I believe to be corrupt.

You criticized me for this, saying the systems are made up of people, some of which are good, some of which are bad, and they are NOT independent of the systems they believe in.

I replied that I agree the systems are made up of people, but I disagree that it is ONLY people in the systems, I believe at base the systems themselves are corrupt. At this point, we were still discussing he false religious systems of the world.

Now, all of a sudden, you are twisting my words, to make it seem as though I said things I never said, to the point where you are implying that I support Nazism.

I think YOUR comment speaks for itself, in that you can't even mount a good argument, you just resort to twisting what I've said around, merely to get a shot in. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do, you go right ahead. But it's going to stop any chance of dialogue, cold in the water.

Head Usher said...

Counter recap:

Maybe we can clear this up in a civil fashion. This is a very complex subject, BTW, I'll apologize if I've been too much of an asshole.

The two of us began by discussing a statement you made regarding claims made by the church about the systems in the world:

"...my experiences in the world pretty much lined up exactly with what the Church warned everyone about."

In the first place, from what I can tell, you seem to have been convinced by the church to think there's a big difference between the system of the church and the systems in "the world" and a big difference between the fruits produced by each of them. I disagree in that I think the differences in these two systems and the fruits produced by each of them are insignificant differences. The church is just as corrupt as the world it villifies. If "the whole world is deceived, etc., then the church is just as deceived as well. Systems that live in glass houses perhaps shouldn't throw stones, (especially not while teaching that people shouldn't be hypocrites).

BTW, I don't distinguish between a system whether it be a church, a company, or a nation. The dynamics are the same. They are groups of people who have a set of shared beliefs and values, and they all seek to protect the ideology they've invested in.

More fundamentally, I disagreed with the insinuation that the WCG/GCI point of view regarding the competition, religious and secular, is substantially meritorious and therefore WCG/GCI has an authoritative soap box upon which to stand, and therefore WCG/GCI is NOT substantially corrupt. I guess that could be your subjective Canadian experience, and I don't say you can't continue to claim that WCG/GCI isn't the greatest thing since the invention of the automated bread slicer, just to say that I don't see any way in hell that could be objectively accurate.

Continued…

Head Usher said...

Continued…

Next, there was another statement you made regarding another claim the church made:

"...I was referring to religious systems, not the people in them; when I was growing up, it wasn't the people the Church decried, but the systems they had been deceived by."

And the your recap of it:

"I replied that I agree the systems are made up of people, but I disagree that it is ONLY people in the systems, I believe at base the systems themselves are corrupt."

Objectively, a "system" is like a virus, whether benign or pathogenic, and it propagates through a group of people using their mental faculties. If you take away all the people, there is no "system" left. You might have artifacts, but those are not the "system" and have no meaning on their own. You cannot extract the "system" from the people, and then assign full credit or responsibility to the intangible "system" and leave the people out of the equation. People are not robots, even when their behavior might seem robotic. You cannot blame a "system" for corruption and excuse the human collective. No, ultimately the human collective bears 100% of the responsibility for their actions. This is why I cannot differentiate between the human collective and the "system." When it comes time to dole out all the responsibility, the "system" becomes nothing more than an illusion, a fictional construct, or an interpretation of human behavior by an observer. Truly, "system" is something that does not even exist. It is just a handle, or a turn of phrase.

Furthermore, since I maintain that it does not make any sense to divorce a "system" from the human collective, it does not make sense to say that a "system," on it's own is good or bad, any more than it makes sense to say that a hammer is good or bad. Whether it is good or bad depends upon how it is used. Systems and cultures will always be imperfect, no doubt, whether they are corrupt depends upon whether they are wielded to good or bad ends by people who have intentions. A "system" does not have "intent." So, I further contend that to divorce a "system" from the people within which it resides is to take a detour into nonsenseland.

As I said previously, I think it makes sense to distinguish a single individual from a "system" because at the individual level, it is possible to divide responsibility, and say part of the blame lies with the individual, and part of the blame lies with the inertia of the human collective (or some might say the word "system" here, but since I want to avoid confusion, I won't).

"Now, all of a sudden, you are twisting my words, to make it seem as though I said things I never said, to the point where you are implying that I support Nazism.."

Let's be clear, here, I don't think anyone would think I actually implied that you supported Nazism. I DID however explicity say that your logic could be used to exhonorate Nazis. Nazis have used your logic to defend themselves.

If you want to maintain that you can distinguish between the human collective and the "system" then it follows that it would make sense that you could divorce the "system" of the Catholic church from the collective set of Cathoics, excuse all the people, and blame all the crusades, inquisistions, and covering up for molesting priests on the intangible "system." You could do the same for WCG/GCI, Enron, Nazi Germany, you name it. A "system" is a "system," and it logically follows. I don't think I'm twisting your words at all, just following your reasoning to it's logical conclusion. I happen to disagree with what I perceive your reasoning to be from start to finish.