The accusation has been not infrequently levelled at me that I believe that my own way of home educating is the best and that other people's methods are at best ineffective and at worst actually harmful to the children concerned. This is of course perfectly true and I make no apology for it. The only thing I find a little astonishing is the gross hypocrisy of those making this charge. The fact is, we all think that our way of doing things is the best way and that if only others emulated our wise and good ways then whatever process is involved would be a accomplished more smoothly and efficiently. This is true of hobbies, professional activities, child rearing or any other human activity which one cares to mention.
I have known a number of people whose hobby was cross stitch. This is a very genteel pastime and you would think that those who undertook it would be very tolerant of others, but every single person who I knew that ever did cross stitch had her own way of going about things, a way that she was convinced was better than anybody else's. Some regard a different technique for back stitching as little short of heresy. I have observed the same phenomenon with mechanics, sportsmen, window cleaners, psychologists, and parents. All are absolutely sure that their way of doing the thing is best and that if only everybody else followed their lead then everyone would be a good deal happier and the whole world would run more smoothly. I don't see home education as being any different from this. Of course all those who undertake it believe that their way is so much more gentle/firm/sensible/effective/compassionate/ethical/respectful/educational/kind/holistic than anybody else's technique. This is human nature. Of course it is not at all true; some of us are actually harming our children, while others are doing brilliantly. Unfortunately, there is no objective way of deciding which is which. If I have hinted that I believe some parents to be neglecting their children's education by their crackpot methods, they for their part have more than hinted that my own daughter's childhood must have been a nightmare and that my own system sounds cruel!
As I say, there is no way really of deciding which way of home educating a child is the best. Besides, it probably varies greatly from child to child. The point which I am trying to make is that it is ridiculous to reproach me for thinking that my way of doing things is the best and that others should follow my wise advice. Of course I feel this way; so does everybody else. I have not the least doubt that those who criticise me so bitterly think that the way that they are doing things is far better than mine. This is only natural. We all love our children and want what is best for them, however mistaken we might be. It is very rare for a parent to set out on a course which she honestly thinks is harmful for her child. Even in cases like that of Khyra Ishaq I am quite prepared to believe that the mother actually though that she was doing the best for her child. Most of us would say that she was mistaken, but she herself almost certainly was not intending to act in a wickedly cruel fashion. Her obsession with her own weight and with food intake led her onto a wrong path; she was not an evil person.
So it is with all human activity. Whether we are washing up, teaching our children to read or painting a door, we all have our own special way of going about the business that we feel is the best possible way of doing it. I like to rinse the dishes under running water when they have been washed and the sight of somebody smearing them with one of those dirty rags that the English call 'tea towels' makes me cringe! I am sure that others regard my own way of washing up as a little bizarre. So it is with teaching our children. Of course I think my way best; I wouldn't do it otherwise. Just as those slackers who leave their children to fathom out the alphabetic code for themselves imagine, however deluded they might be, that their way is the best. It is hardly sensible to criticise me for believing that I have the best method and thinking that all other home educators should adopt my methods. It would be strange if I didn't feel that way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The fact is, we all think that our way of doing things is the best way and that if only others emulated our wise and good ways then whatever process is involved would be a accomplished more smoothly and efficiently."
ReplyDeleteOf course we do and I have no objection to others taking a different route to me. I do object when others attempt to stop me from choosing the education that we think is most suitable for our children, and this is the problem most autonomous educators have with you. You don't just think that your way is better, you think that other people shouldn't be able to educate in the way they choose and campaign against their methods.
"If I have hinted that I believe some parents to be neglecting their children's education by their crackpot methods, they for their part have more than hinted that my own daughter's childhood must have been a nightmare and that my own system sounds cruel!"
Hinted! Have others 'hinted' in newspaper articles and consultation responses that you are harming your child and something needs to be done about it?
"As I say, there is no way really of deciding which way of home educating a child is the best. Besides, it probably varies greatly from child to child. "
Exactly, so why attempt to stop or discredit styles that you dislike? How do you know that AE is not ideal for some children and the best way for them to reach their potential?
"The point which I am trying to make is that it is ridiculous to reproach me for thinking that my way of doing things is the best and that others should follow my wise advice."
I would not reproach you for this. I might disagree and suggest my way is better, but I would not reproach you or campaign against parent led approaches any more than I would campaign against people using schools. That's your approach. Can you really, really not see the difference between recommending your way as best and running other methods down? It is possible to do one without the other and to be honest, I've rarely seen you recommend any method.
"Just as those slackers who leave their children to fathom out the alphabetic code for themselves imagine, however deluded they might be, that their way is the best."
Why the constant mis-representation of other peoples methods? I haven't seen others suggesting that you hot housed your daughter and kept her chained to a desk from 9 to 3 every day, so why do you constantly mis-represent AE despite repeated attempts over years to explain it to you? Maybe you are incapable of understand it for some reason, but surely you can see by the responses that you are missing something? We don't know that AE if best for all children whose parents choose it as a method, just as we cannot be sure that your methods are best for the children that receive it. However, we do know that many children thrive on it (as demonstrated anecdotally and by Thomas) so we know that either method can work. So why do you campaign against it? Unless you have some privileged evidence?
Simon says She was not an evil person.Khyra Ishaq mother was an evil person.Some people are like Ian Brady best thing is to hang them! it had nothing to do with doing the best for her child and any one who contacted them knew long before she left school that something was really wrong but failed to do anything! you must target your monitoring not waste visits on all home educators LA staff do not have the time to waste on home educators doing a good job.
ReplyDeleteOh oh, and here it comes:
ReplyDelete"Even in cases like that of Khyra Ishaq I am quite prepared to believe that the mother actually though that she was doing the best for her child. Most of us would say that she was mistaken, but she herself almost certainly was not intending to act in a wickedly cruel fashion. Her obsession with her own weight and with food intake led her onto a wrong path; she was not an evil person."
Simon Webb's attempt to tenuously link HE with Khyra Ishaq, by spouting the falsehood and hidden bullet that ALL parenting is totally subjective.
No Simon. To murder one's child by starvation is not the right of the parent. To suitably educate one's child according to one's beliefs and philosophy IS the right of the parent.
The rest of today's nonsense has been perfectly rejected by the first commenter.
"Have others 'hinted' in newspaper articles and consultation responses that you are harming your child and something needs to be done about it?"
ReplyDeleteVery odd! I had no problem with anybody else's consultation response and cannot see why anybody should object to mine. As for newspaper articles, why don't autonomous educators write a few for the papers themselves if they feel that strongly about it? It's a free country.
"you think that other people shouldn't be able to educate in the way they choose and campaign against their methods."
Of course I'll campaign about things if I feel that there is a problem with them. Why on earth shouldn't I? I don't think at all that other people should not be free to educate their children by different methods. My concern is with those who might not be educating their children at all.
"
Can you really, really not see the difference between recommending your way as best and running other methods down? It is possible to do one without the other "
Utterly grotesque! Autonomous educators are constantly complaining about schools and pointing out all the bad things about them. Some even say that schools would kill their children or render them sterile. Every time a child dies or suffers at a school, the lists are full of people posting gleefully, saying in effect, "See, that's what happens in schools!"
Not running down other people's methods indeed, I never heard the like!
Who on earth said that Angela Gordon had a right to kill her daughter? I can't believe that anybody would think such a thing. I was pointing out that she probably was acting in what she thought was a correct way. There are very few wicked people in the world, but many weak and misguided ones.
ReplyDelete"Simon Webb's attempt to tenuously link HE with Khyra Ishaq"
Leaving aside the split infinitive, Khyra Ishaq was home educated, although this was not really the point I was making here. It was just that this was a recent example of a misguided but probably well meaning parent. I could have given the example of parents I know whose children were kept to a strict macrobiotic diet. They meant well, but the kids developed a deficiency disease, never the less.
This is in response to yesterday's blog, but it is just as appropriate today:
ReplyDelete"Hmmmm, only slight problem here is that I am myself a home educator. I wonder if whoever posted this comment could tell me what the violence is which I have shown?"
You have openly stated that you agree with the CSF Bill. If this bill becomes law, the State will use the threat of violence or physical violence itself to force me to obey, to force my children to go to school, to take my children from me.
By your continued encouragement of this bill, you are NO LESS GUILTY of this violence, than if you had perpetrated it yourself.
BECAUSE you are a home educator (or more accurately an ex-home educator). And because, for 16 years, you enjoyed complete autonomy to educate your child according to your beliefs and philosophy, your behaviour is all the more treacherous and cynical. Talk about kicking away the ladder once you have reached the top; you are encouraging the outlawing of the ladder!
You previously stated that you have had no dealings with Badman/Balls. However, you HAVE benefited from this Bill and the surrounding HE debate by propelling yourself into journalism. You have continually attacked home educators and financially benefited from it. You have sold out yourself and the rights of all English and Welsh parents for 30 pieces of silver.
"Very odd! I had no problem with anybody else's consultation response and cannot see why anybody should object to mine."
ReplyDeleteYou just don't get it do you! YOUR consultation response and your endorsement of the CSF BILL is an ATTACK on parental rights and, as such, an act of pure violence. Other Home Educators' responses to the bill were in DEFENSE of their rights. You are the aggressor; that is why 'anybody should object to' you.
"As for newspaper articles, why don't autonomous educators write a few for the papers themselves if they feel that strongly about it? It's a free country."
Of course AEs have done this, but because much of the media (particularly the BBC) is bias, their voices are not as loud as yours. This bias was most evident when reporting Khyra Ishaq's case; even after all the welfare aspects of the Badman report have been disproved, he is still able to spout the same lies in the MSM.
As for it 'being a free country'; not if you have your way, eh Simon?
"Of course I'll campaign about things if I feel that there is a problem with them. Why on earth shouldn't I? I don't think at all that other people should not be free to educate their children by different methods. My concern is with those who might not be educating their children at all."
It is NEVER acceptable to campaign for the abolition of another person's rights. This again, is an act of pure VIOLENCE.
"Autonomous educators are constantly complaining about schools and pointing out all the bad things about them. Some even say that schools would kill their children or render them sterile. Every time a child dies or suffers at a school, the lists are full of people posting gleefully, saying in effect, "See, that's what happens in schools!"
Not running down other people's methods indeed, I never heard the like!"
State schools are tax funded, publicly owned institutions. Their purpose is to educate children on behalf of parents. It is perfectly appropriate to criticise schools if they are not fulfilling this function.
"Leaving aside the split infinitive, Khyra Ishaq was home educated, although this was not really the point I was making here."
ReplyDeleteShe was 'home educated'? Are you insane? She was removed from school so that her mother could starve her.
"It was just that this was a recent example of a misguided but probably well meaning parent."
No, her mother is not a 'well meaning parent'. Her mother is a freak of nature, in that, to starve one's child to death is the absolute opposite of all that is natural and instinctive in a human being. This woman is clearly insane, she is NOT a 'well meaning parent'.
"I could have given the example of parents I know whose children were kept to a strict macrobiotic diet. They meant well, but the kids developed a deficiency disease, never the less."
This is anecdotal nonsense and not linked in any way to the starvation of a child by an insane mother.
I like this bit; "or more accurately an ex-home educator"! I have noticed that other home educators are furious at the idea that their children become NEETS as soon as they reach sixteen. The point has been well made that a child continues to learn at home after that age and that it is therefore wrong to count a home educated child as being a NEET at seventeen. Do people really imagine that my daughter's learning at home stopped on the last Friday in June of the academic year that she turned sixteen? This is an interesting idea. I have not yet seen Fiona Nicholson described as an "ex-home educator".
ReplyDeleteI didn't use the issue of home education to propel myself into journalism; I have been writing for various magazines and newspapers for over twenty years. As for the threat of physical violence contained in the CSF bill, get a grip Anonymous, it is nothing of the sort.
Khyra Ishaq certainly was home educated, or at the very least her mother intended to educate her at home. The woman had terrible problems with her own body image and these were not helped by living with a madman. The whole business with food became an obsession and I rather doubt that she actually intended to starve her daughter to death. Had she not have been intending to home educate, I don't think that she would have bought all the workbooks and other educational materials. She couldn't cope with the eneterprise, it is true, but that was certainly her original intention. The macrobiotic diet bit is not nonsense. I was giving it as an example of something which I have seen. There were a few cases in the USA of children developing beri beri through this. I was making the point that even if a parent's intentions are very good, it can still result in injury to a child.
ReplyDelete"As for the threat of physical violence contained in the CSF bill, get a grip Anonymous, it is nothing of the sort."
ReplyDeleteThis is the very crux of the matter, Simon. The State always uses the threat of violence to force the population to obey. By supporting this Bill, you are condoning this violence. It is up to you whether you support it or not, but you must be aware of what you are doing.
"Do people really imagine that my daughter's learning at home stopped on the last Friday in June of the academic year that she turned sixteen?"
ReplyDeleteI suspect people see you as an ex-home educator in the sense that you are safe from interference by the LA and probably only feel antagonistic towards ex-home educators they feel are attacking rather than supporting their way of life. If you really cannot see the difference, there's not much hope for you as a human being.
You have clearly not been following the debate about home educated sixteen and seventeen year olds being classified as NEETs, Anonymous. Nor do you presumably remember the struggle to ensure that child benefit continued to be paid for home educated young people of this age who were not registered at a college. The fact that I am aware of these issues may suggest that there is not much hope for me as a human being; it might equally well suggest that I am a little better informed than you yourself about the problems faced by a certain group of home educators.
ReplyDeleteLOL. I claimed child benefit successfully for a 16 to 18 year old a few years back so I think I know something about it but it hasn't been an issue for you. The NEET figures are a joke. They don't know about most home educators (including mine) and those that they do know about are the most likely to be looking for work, training or education. Not sure how knowing about issues makes you more of a human being though.
ReplyDeleteWell, I couldn't really figure out from your rather confused comment, why you felt there was not much hope for me as a human being! You said,
ReplyDelete"I suspect people see you as an ex-home educator in the sense that you are safe from interference by the LA and probably only feel antagonistic towards ex-home educators they feel are attacking rather than supporting their way of life. If you really cannot see the difference, there's not much hope for you as a human being."
It's a little wooley, although I dare say you know what you meant.
"This is the very crux of the matter, Simon. The State always uses the threat of violence to force the population to obey. By supporting this Bill, you are condoning this violence."
ReplyDeleteUltimately of course, everything the state requires of us or forbids us to do, is enforced with the threat of violence. As Chairman Mao Tse Tung said,
"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun".
There is from that point of view, nothing uniquely horrible about the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. If you refuse to pay your gas bill, ultimately physical force might be used to enter your home, if you do not pay your taxes, you could eventually be dragged into court and sent to prison. The state always has force in reserve, presumably because as Machiavelli decided, it is better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved. From that perspective, I am aware that just as with any other law that one cares to mention, the ultimate sanction is physical force and imprisonment, but that, as I say, applies in the end even to laws forbidding the dropping of litter. The CSF Bill is nothing special in that regard.
"I claimed child benefit successfully for a 16 to 18 year old a few years back so I think I know something about it but it hasn't been an issue for you."
ReplyDeleteIt's probably a silly question, but how on earth do you know enough about my life to make this confident assertion? In fact it was very much an issue for me five years ago, although it is hardly your affair and I am not about to go into details. I had to fight long and hard about this very thing.
OK, it does seem obvious to me but I'll spell it out if you need the help. You are attacking some home educators and attempting to remove current freedoms. Fiona is supporting all home educators, even those that choose different methods, to her and attempting to maintain freedoms. If you cannot understand why people might feel differently about you compared to Fiona (Simon wrote, "I have not yet seen Fiona Nicholson described as an "ex-home educator".") there's not much hope for you as a human being. You lack even basic levels of empathy.
ReplyDelete"It's probably a silly question, but how on earth do you know enough about my life to make this confident assertion? In fact it was very much an issue for me five years ago, although it is hardly your affair and I am not about to go into details. I had to fight long and hard about this very thing."
ReplyDeleteIt was you that brought the issue up as though it had some relevance to what had gone before and suggested that I knew nothing about it! Now you complain when I make the same mistake.
Did you attempted to home educate you older daughter after she finished school at 16? I believe it's still impossible to claim child benefit in that situation. You have to be continuing to home education.
ReplyDelete"Well, I couldn't really figure out from your rather confused comment,"
ReplyDeleteLooking back I can see that I hadn't copied as much of the previous post as I'd thought. I'd intended to copy and post the bit about Fiona as well and obviously the second part of the reply would have made more sense if I had. Sorry bout that. Hope it makes more sense now.
"If you cannot understand why people might feel differently about you compared to Fiona (Simon wrote, "I have not yet seen Fiona Nicholson described as an "ex-home educator".") there's not much hope for you as a human being. You lack even basic levels of empathy."
ReplyDeleteI can understand very well why people might feel differently about me compared to Fiona Nicholson. I am still unable to see why she is not constantly referred to as an ex-home educator, since her son is now no longer of compusory school age. You evidently do see why this should be and so we should perhaps leave it at that. Tell me, are you really incapable of discussing this without throwing in gratitous jibes about my status as a human being? I feel that this sort of thing shows you in a poor light, although I suppose that's up to you really.
You may have a point. It's probably a bit late for discussions with someone one disagrees so stongly with. You appear to see people calling you an ex-home educator as a slight. I can't see any reason to question it repeatedly if you see it as a neutral statement of fact (you wouldn't be a registered home educator under either system). I'm suggesting that people may choose to do this partly because you react in this way and appear to feel slighted because they feel attached by you and want to return the attack though in very minor way. They do not feel the need to slight Fiona because they feel supported by her. Does that make any more sense, despite the late hour?
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Leaving aside the split infinitive..."
Oh dear; not that rotten old chestnut.
If you must try to be pedantic, don't confuse matters of style with grammar; split infinitives are not - and never have been - grammatical mistakes.
Of course its a matter of style. Split infinitives tend to make for awkward and inelegant sentences. In the example to which I objected;
ReplyDelete"Simon Webb's attempt to tenuously link HE with Khyra Ishaq",
it would have been just as easy to write;
"Simon Webb's attempt to link tenuously" This flows better; the combination of words in, "to tenuously" have a displeasing and stacatto effect.
You speak as though stylistic considerations are somehow secondary to grammar, but I am far from convinced of this! In any case you might do well to consult Fowler's Modern English Usage, where both aspects of the split innfinitive debate are dealt with exhaustively.
"They do not feel the need to slight Fiona because they feel supported by her."
ReplyDeleteThis is quite irrelevant as to whether or not Fiona Nicholson is an ex-home educator. There is something essentially sly and cowardly about saying offensive things to people, such as telling them that there is no hope for them as human beings and then not signing your name. If you wish to be this unpleasant, is it asking too much that you at least have the courage to tell me your name so that I know who is being so rude?
I suppose that my main objection to the use of the term "ex-home educator" for somebody whose child is sixteen is that it suggests a very narrow view of what constitutes a home educator. Presumably the mother of a four year old cannot be a home educator either; home education, like compulsory schooling evidently begins at the age of five and ends on that last Friday in June!
ReplyDeleteSome of us have a broader view of home education than this and think of it as a process which might begin at birth and continue long past the age of sixteen. I suppose that those who regard me as an ex-home educaotr because my daughter is now sixteen, also regard those other parents whose children are sixteen or seventeen in the same light? And an inevitable corollary would be that those sixteen and seventeen year olds who were home educated up to the age of sixteen, at which age of course home education ends, must now be NEETs. It's obvious really. If they were being home educated up to that age and the home education stops at sixteen then unless they are registered now in college or school, or have jobs, then they must be NEETs. They're certainly not home educated any more! I really think that somebody should notify the Child Benefit people of this.
"If you wish to be this unpleasant, is it asking too much that you at least have the courage to tell me your name so that I know who is being so rude?"
ReplyDeleteI suppose that explains you then. You publish your name so it must be OK for you to be unpleasant and rude to others with gay abandon.
"I suppose that my main objection to the use of the term "ex-home educator" for somebody whose child is sixteen is that it suggests a very narrow view of what constitutes a home educator."
ReplyDeleteOf course it's quite a narrow view of what constitutes a home educator. It's the legal definition. Otherwise every parent in the country would be able to call themselves home educators and start claiming child benefit for their child at 16 for instance. BTW, is Fiona's son at college or is Fiona still home educating him and claiming child benefit?
"There is something essentially sly and cowardly about saying offensive things to people, such as telling them that there is no hope for them as human beings and then not signing your name."
ReplyDeleteWell it wasn't me that called you an ex-home educator, I just offered my theory as to why someone else might. I did suggest that there is no hope for you as a human being but also agreed that you had a point when you suggested it shows me in a poor light. Quite close to an apology but maybe not close enough so I apologise for that comment now. I do find it frustrating when you appear not to understand why others behave as they do when it's usually normal human behaviour in response to attack. But maybe you do understand and you way to attack back is to ridicule their logic. We all react in different ways for so many unknown reasons it's difficult to tell real from feigned mystification.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"In any case you might do well to consult Fowler's Modern English Usage..."
Where, as I recall of my moth-eaten edition, you will find that Fowler regards condemnation of split infinitives as superstition.
As for style, the original wasn't great but your reworking looks awkward.
All of this looks symptomatic of a deep-seated need for petty, unnecessary and inappropriate rules with which to beat people - and I don't only mean split infinitives!
"BTW, is Fiona's son at college or is Fiona still home educating him and claiming child benefit?"
ReplyDeleteOn Woman's Hour, Fiona described a typical day as one where her son got up, ate breakfast, argued with her and turned on the computer. I'm guessing both from this and the fact that the boy evidently has no GCSEs that he is still learning at home.
"All of this looks symptomatic of a deep-seated need for petty, unnecessary and inappropriate rules with which to beat people "
ReplyDeleteThe objection to split infinitives is not a rule, I can't think where you got that idea from. It is more to do with the fact that adverbs end in "Y" and make for ugly phrases when placed after "to" and before the infinitive form of the verb. You are, I imagine, no Latinist and so the findr points of this debate about Latin infinitives will probably not interest you! As I say, it is certainly not a rule. See also what Partridge says of this.
"I suppose that explains you then. You publish your name so it must be OK for you to be unpleasant and rude to others with gay abandon."
ReplyDeleteNot at all, Anonymous. There is something contemptible about anonymous insults, whether they are contained in a letter delivered by post or sent electronically on the Internet. I am proud of my own views on home education and happy to put my name to them. You are not and prefer to express your views and deliver your insults without giving your name. I suppose that it is possible that you do not feel as strongly about home education as I do.
So the only reason someone might make a decision not to leave their name must have something to do with home education? Other reasons, such as a fear of being found by an abusive spouse or a wish to protect a child from embarrassment, for instance, cannot exist or are irrelevant? If I were writing just to you and not, potentially, to the whole world I would probably give my name, but that is not the situation here. I really cannot see whey providing a name proves how strongly one feels about home education, but obviously we are all entitled to our views.
ReplyDelete"Not at all, Anonymous. There is something contemptible about anonymous insults, whether they are contained in a letter delivered by post or sent electronically on the Internet."
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean that insults from someone whose name you know are not contemptible? Can't really see the difference myself, neither is nice.
The term 'ex home educator' is not an insult Simon. Of course, ALL parents are 'educators' for the duration of their parenting. The term 'ex home educator' in this context refers to the fact that the CSF Bill will not directly affect you, since your child is no longer of compulsory school age.
ReplyDeleteYou are using this 'mock affront' and the 'split infinitive' pedantry as a distraction. This is typical diversionary tactics; let's focus on the real debate, yes?
I am neither affronted nor insulted by this! If it is a typical diversionary tactic, it was certainly not of my making. This started when I was called to give evidence at the select committee hearing. I just think that the joke has worn a bit thin now.
ReplyDelete"On Woman's Hour, Fiona described a typical day as one where her son got up, ate breakfast, argued with her and turned on the computer. I'm guessing both from this and the fact that the boy evidently has no GCSEs that he is still learning at home."
ReplyDeleteWhy is the lack or otherwise of GCSEs relevant to whether someone is still home educating or not? You can continue to claim child benefit and home educate after 16 even whether or not your child has GCSEs.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"The objection to split infinitives is not a rule"
Precisely the point of my original objection (the desire for rules appear to be on your part); so why did you make a snide aside to that other anonymous about something that is a trivial stylistic point? You really don't endear yourself - your profile ("about me") doesn't help either, particularly when you suggest that people shouldn't be rude to you - but I'm sure that doesn't bother you. However, it antagonises people and, along with the likes of Badman, Balls and Deech, only serves to polarise the debate.
I'm not a Latin speaker but I'm well aware of the suggestion that the objection to split infinitives arose from impossibility of splitting Latin infinitives, but I don't think this was ever a serious argument; what do you think?