Dave Armstrong said:Hey Dave,
If White would ever simply say he's sorry (as Peter noted), and messed up (like all of us have many times, being mere sinful mortals), this thing could be so over, and he would gain a lot of people's respect for such an acknowledgment.
While you're calling protestant apologists to admit their errors, do you have a similar call to repentance for Ergun Caner?
Thanks,
Evan
I haven't followed the Caner thing very closely (who has time for the endless Protestant internal disputes?; it takes all my time to counter Protestant theological errors), but from what I've seen, it seems that James White has raised some troubling issues about him and that he has fudged facts, just as White now appears to be doing.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree (again, from what I know about it, which isn't too much) that Caner's errors are far more serious than White's fudging about where he is currently teaching and whether he has a legitimate doctorate (he does not, of course).
That said, it doesn't follow that White should not set the record straight because Caner hasn't, nor that he should not because his fudging is probably far less than Caner's.
The attempt here is to determine hypocrisy and double standards, or inconsistency on my part (per the post title), but as you see, I am completely consistent in this instance, since I'm not a Caner advocate, and have no personal interest in how that turns out. That is Protestant controversial stuff.
I am calling for people to be honest and straightforward about themselves. I don't care if a person is a Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist monk, atheist, dog catcher. It makes no difference, since it is an elementary ethical issue upon which almost all men can agree.
The fact remains that White himself inquired (as he reported last June) as to his status at GGBTS. He knows what answer he received, but thus far has been silent about that.
One expects Bishop White to both mock and essentially ignore any critic or anyone who asks him a clarifying question. What else is new? He's been doing that with me for over 15 years now, and clearly it is his modus operandi with fellow Protestant critics as well.
Hey Dave,
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying. I'm glad that you agree that Ergun Caner has been dishonest. The reason I bring up the Caner situation is not because I think that Caner's errors would exonerate White's (in fact, I disagree that White has done anything unethical). Rather, my point was for Peter Lumpkins, on whose site the discussion was taking place, who ignores the mountain of evidence against Caner and has chosen to defend him.
"White's fudging about where he is currently teaching"
Dave, it seems that you need to be educated about the context for this dispute. I'll grant that you don't have time for "endless Protestant internal disputes." But I don't think you should then comment on them if you are ignorant of what has transpired. Peter Lumpkins' accusation against White is not about what White has claimed but what a *Christianity Today reporter* claimed about White. See here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3952
"and whether he has a legitimate doctorate (he does not, of course)."
Nonsense. Even if you want to call White's doctoral studies at an unaccredited institution not "legitimate," White has not promoted any false information here. He has always been very open about the nature of his degree. You may not agree with his value-judgment here, but that is a far cry from him "fudging facts"/lying.
"inconsistency on my part (per the post title)"
My post never accused you of inconsistency. It simply raised a question for you, implying that your answer to it would reveal whether or not you were consistent on this matter. It also serves to reveal the inconsistency of Lumpkins.
"As usual, I wasn't informed that I was mentioned in the post. Such rudimentary courtesies are exceedingly rare in the anti-Catholic blogosphere."
Again, my intention was to post my question to you on Lumpkins' website, in the context that the discussion was taking place, but Lumpkins deleted my comment (presumably because it contained an implicit criticism of Caner, which Lumpkins will simply not allow, hence his attack launched upon White). In any case, I assumed you would notice this post, which obviously you did.
Just to clarify, some of my reply above refers to Dave's post here:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-whites-stretching-truth-about-his.html
If I may, for Dave's Caner edification, see Ergun Caner’s Secret Biography and Ergun Caner, you moved to Ohio when you were 2 years old.
ReplyDeleteThose two posts give the foundation for Caner's actually upbringing vs. what has been said in print and numerous presentations over the years.
Anyone else note the delicious irony of a freewill holding Arminian who believes that God cannot restrict your ability to freely choose to do evil, is himself restricting people from freely commenting on his own blog? It's almost like Lumpkins believes he has more freedom than God does or something....
ReplyDeleteEvan said:
ReplyDelete"..You may not agree with his value-judgment here..."
I think you nailed here, Evan, though perhaps inadvertently. A doctorate is not a "value judgment", rather it is a peer-reviewed standard set via accreditation. Dave, or anyone else taking exception to JW's doctorate, is not questioning his value judgment; they are questioning his degree.
Matt said:
ReplyDelete---
A doctorate is not a "value judgment", rather it is a peer-reviewed standard set via accreditation.
---
Which is itself a value judgment.
You know how much a PhD is worth to an employer? Nothing. Don't believe me? Try getting an engineering job having a PhD in History.
What matters is the knowledge you've earned. The hope of the employer is that the knowledge on the diploma is relevant to the job, but PhD applicants still have to pass the interview. It's not a free pass to a job.
And when it comes to writers, it is the readers who are the employer. We decide whether we think someone's book is worth purchasing based on whether or not we think what he says is relevant, not whether or not he has a sheepskin in a picture frame. That's why I don't buy theology books from Stephen Hawking.
That's a good point, Peter. But it misses the point. The same can be said of a Masters, Bachelors, Associates or High School Diploma. Do you profess a certain expertise implied via your education?
ReplyDeleteI think there is at least some measure of subjectivity in the "legitimate doctorate" question. But I agree that James White has, to the best of my knowledge, always been open about the nature and history of his studies. At no time, that I'm aware, did he lie and say that his doctorate is an accredited degree when it is not.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that those who oppose White's claim to a "legitimate" doctorate will see and acknowledge the difference between a lie and a perspective. It may be argued that White is wrong about his point of view of his doctorate, but it has been proven to my satisfaction (and to that of many others) that Ergun Caner is a liar, and has been for years.
Let me put it another way. I have been involved in Government / Regulatory Compliance for a number of years. I am not a lawyer, but my body of knowledge in my particular field commands the respect of some JD's who advise and practice in my field. This speaks to your initial objection re value judgment. I offer advice and opinions, but I don't have the props to write opinions and argue cases in front of a court of law. This, seems to me, is JW's position. He certainly has worked hard to earn some respectability in populous apologetics. However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees.
ReplyDeleteThe day may come when Dave Armstrong can put a Dr." in front of his name. That will definitely mean you take him seriously then, no? :}
Matt:
ReplyDeleteDo you agree or disagree with the accusation that James White has lied about the nature of his doctoral studies?
Evan,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is arguing about what he says concerning the NATURE of his doctoral studies. I don't doubt that JW believes he earned a doctorate. Do you have a specific example where someone says JW lied about earning what JW says is an accredited doctorate degree?
Matt,
ReplyDelete"However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees."
How do you know his unaccredited degree program was not just as rigorous as an accredited one?
Matt,
ReplyDeleteSee Dave Armstrong's reference above to White "fudging facts."
Hi Evan,
ReplyDeleteI have not read the above link re Dave Armstrong's "Fudging Facts", but if he (Dave) says that JW claims to have an accredited Doctorate degree then Dave needs to quote JW making that claim.
Matt says:
"How do you know his unaccredited degree program was not just as rigorous as an accredited one?"
Who cares? Read my earlier post in this thread.
With respect to James White's education:
ReplyDelete1. It's rather ironic to find men like Peter Lumpkins complaining about White's non-accredited doctorate on the one hand and holding out as a guardian of Baptist tradition the other. He sounds more like a high church Episcopalian than a Baptist when he does that. Savor the irony.
And it isn't as if Dave Armstrong has an qualifications whatsoever to level complaints in that regard.
2. A Master's level education is all that is required to teach as an adjunct faculty member at an SBC seminary. Take a stroll through their faculty lists through the years.
3. Many laypersons without a Master's degree are more proficient in biblical languages and hermeneutics than many pastors with those degrees.
So, what's the problem here exactly?
The problem here, bro, is that reformed can't dance....don't you get it !?!?!
ReplyDeleteSo does anyone know what ATS, the accrediting agency, has to say about White teaching at one of the schools accredited by them? Or how about what GGBTS has to say? Does ATS hold the position that GGBTS is in any way violating any of their standards? Isn't this what ultimately matters?
ReplyDeleteAlso, graduates of CES, where White got his doctorate, have been accepted at accredited schools such as Liberty University and TEDS.
Mark said:
ReplyDelete"So does anyone know what ATS, the accrediting agency, has to say about White teaching at one of the schools accredited by them? Or how about what GGBTS has to say?"
Is this rhetorical, or are you going to answer it.
Mark said:
"Also, graduates of CES, where White got his doctorate, have been accepted at accredited schools such as Liberty University and TEDS"
See Gene's post above. Can you confirm whether JW's "doctorate" got him into Liberty University AND teds? I think you're conflating degrees.
Matt, if you don't know what my point is about CES grads transferring then why don't you ask instead of assuming things?
ReplyDeleteYou come here and make statements about the legitimacy of White's doctorate, but know nothing of what ATS or GGBTS has to say about it? White teaching at GGBTS did not violate any ATS standards. It is not the norm for those with unaccredited degrees to be listed with those degrees and be adjuncts. It is essentially up to the school. If the school notes exceptional gifts in an individual who can contribute to the goals of a degree program then the normal qualifications may be overridden.
Apparently, White has demonstrated his abilities to those at GGBTS. His relationship with the school and students have always been good.
While White's doctorate may be unaccredited it does not mean he did not do any work for them. Whatever one thinks of the quality of White's work, he did not just buy a degree.
Matt said:
ReplyDelete---
That's a good point, Peter. But it misses the point. The same can be said of a Masters, Bachelors, Associates or High School Diploma. Do you profess a certain expertise implied via your education?
---
No, you don't. Degrees are essentially worthless these days. It used to be that a degree would secure you a job and reflect your level of education, but these days so many people get degrees with so little value that they are essentially worthless when considering such things as whether or not someone is employed. At best, a degree would function merely as a tie-breaker (that is, two applicants have the same set of skills, so you hire the one with the degree).
If you don't believe me, you can simply go ask managers who make hiring decisions. Unless you've got a very specific field that requires a very specific high level degree to get into, you simply won't find the level of slavish devotion to the wonders of a higher degree that you exhibit.
I daresay that anyone looking to hire Dr. White as a teacher is going to look far more at his 100+ debates and his dozens of books and listen to the thousands of hours of archived programs to gauge whether or not he's what they want in a teaching job, rather than saying, "Gee, I wonder if you really earned that diploma."
In fact, given how much he has done, it's only people who have an ideological axe to grind against him that are concerned about his degree status. No one else cares.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree w/ your overarching point - degrees don't matter in the uber-aggregate:
"In fact, given how much he has done, it's only people who have an ideological axe to grind against him that are concerned about his degree status. No one else cares"
So, as far as you're concerned, it's James White, GED. I'm okay with that.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteTo quickly follow-up. I do agree, degrees do not carry the weight they used to, but do you really think hat JW does not give weight to his his "doctorate" - why else would he call himself a doctor?
Hi Evan,
ReplyDeleteDave, it seems that you need to be educated about the context for this dispute. . . . I don't think you should then comment on them if you are ignorant of what has transpired. Peter Lumpkins' accusation against White is not about what White has claimed but what a *Christianity Today reporter* claimed about White.
That's old news. The recent posts from Lumpkins make a different point. E.g.:
". . . his own apparent lack of concern for forthrightness, . . . James White is not being candid about his academic career. . . . White parades around the country allowing the public to think he is a Southern Baptist seminary professor."
Etc. This is my concern as well. White claims to be teaching there NOW, while the place itself doesn't list him in its list of adjunct faculty. It didn't as early as Dec. 2008 (over two years ago by my math). That's a disconnect. You and other White fans can try to rationalize it away all you like, but the facts of the matter are plain.
Even if you want to call White's doctoral studies at an unaccredited institution not "legitimate," White has not promoted any false information here. He has always been very open about the nature of his degree.
Of course. I acknowledged this years ago in my first critique of his degree. But it's completely beside the point. His take on degrees and the purpose of obtaining them does not somehow make a doctorate become something different from what it is. My only objection is his claiming that he has such a degree and calling himself "Dr." He wants the prestige and the honor without having done the work, and that is wrong, and ultimately dishonest. I have no objection whatever to his reasoning for doing what he did. I think it was a worthy motivation. But it is not therefore a doctorate degree because he had admirable motives in writing about the Trinity, etc. This is fundamentally relativist, liberal thinking: "hey, I had the noblest of intentions, therefore I can define terms however I want to, and whoever says I can't is a bigot and an ignoramus with nefarious motives; out to get me."
Dave, or anyone else taking exception to JW's doctorate, is not questioning his value judgment; they are questioning his degree.
Precisely. The values involved in his choice of school (taking his report at face value, as I do) were perfectly honorable; the claim to a particular degree that is not in fact a degree is dishonest and downright silly as well.
James White has, to the best of my knowledge, always been open about the nature and history of his studies. At no time, that I'm aware, did he lie and say that his doctorate is an accredited degree when it is not.
He hasn't stated that in those terms, no, I agree, but on the other hand, calling yourself "Dr." in effect does the same thing, since it is universally understood, pretty much, what is entailed in obtaining a doctorate. White simply didn't do that work; therefore he shouldn't use the title because it is a running falsehood: based on how that terminology is understood. It puts out false information. White is no more a "Dr." than I am. He has accomplished many things in apologetics (many of which I agree with when he is doing things other than lying about and misrepresenting Catholicism), and that ought to be sufficient for him without having to be dishonest about his credentials by using "Dr." in the way he does. He has a graduate degree from Fuller, which is an admirable thing. Why can't that be enough? The desire to falsely advertise one's accomplishments raises character questions. One might reasonably suspect a pride problem there.
How do you know his unaccredited degree program was not just as rigorous as an accredited one?
ReplyDeleteSimple: by reading his own account of what he had to do to get it; as I recall, basically writing his book, The Forgotten Trinity. That is not a doctoral dissertation; sorry. A dissertation, as I understand it (I may be wrong here, but I don't think so), is something where the person can be considered to know as much or more than anyone in the world on the topic they choose to treat in the dissertation.
To claim this about The Forgotten Trinity would be an absolute joke: laughed out of any accredited doctoral program in the world.
A Master's level education is all that is required to teach as an adjunct faculty member at an SBC seminary.
I'm not aware of anyone denying this who is raising questions about white. I certainly don't, since this (I would think) is common knowledge. It's not the issue at hand at all.
And it isn't as if Dave Armstrong has an qualifications whatsoever to level complaints in that regard.
One doesn't himself have to have something to know the proper definition of it. I no more have to have a doctorate to know what it is and what is required to get it than I have to have an abortion to know what that is. Bridges uses the same clueless reasoning that pro-aborts do: saying that men can't talk about abortion, etc.
Apparently, White has demonstrated his abilities to those at GGBTS. His relationship with the school and students have always been good.
ReplyDeleteGreat. This has nothing whatever to do with Lumpkins' critique or my own.
While White's doctorate may be unaccredited it does not mean he did not do any work for them.
No one is saying that, either. What we are saying is that, while he did work and toiled away, this does not make x=y. What he did is simply not anywhere near the amount of work or the rigorous standard entailed in legitimate doctorates. He has no basis for calling himself "Dr." I know this probably pains his ego tremendously, but life is tough. We can't make up our own definitions of things. It doesn't work that way.
Whatever one thinks of the quality of White's work, he did not just buy a degree.
Who said this? I'd like to see a quote if you think Lumpkins did. I haven't said it. On the other hand he did register at a diploma mill and jumped through the necessary hoops to get the bogus degree.
"He certainly has worked hard to earn some respectability in populous apologetics. However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees. "
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting about this is the perception that accredited institutions require more. I've had a lot of exposure, both direct and indirect, to accredited institutions.
Simply put, CES probably requires more work than accredited institutions. My brother, while attending an accredited seminary, took a course with CES (which the accredited seminary accepted for credit!). Interestingly, the work in the CES course was much more intensive than at this institution.
Incidentally, I have a degree from a secular university, and I am studying for an M.Div at a major theological seminary. My crowd is primarily white-collar. I have had hundreds of conversations about programs of study of every sort - that's the social strata in which I live. Comparisons of 'what they had to go through' are simply silly.
Also, it should be noted that the quality of education fundamentally depends on the individual who learns. Many self-learners prove themselves far more apt than degreed individuals.
Well Dave, had I been addressing your points I would have mentioned your name. I was, instead, replying to Matt and expanding my thought to some more general issues concerning accreditation, qualifications, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo please read your own reply of "who said this?" because I was not "saying that" toward what you referenced. Please try to keep me in context.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteSo please read your own reply of "who said this?" because I was not "saying that" toward what you referenced. Please try to keep me in context.
My replies remain valid. You made some points; I replied to them. Lumpkins and myself are the two main critics researching this matter at present. I myself was the subject of the post under which this discussion is occurring. So it is relevant for me to say that I (as one of the main critics) have not claimed what you have said White critics have claimed; nor, to my knowledge, has Peter Lumpkins.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTypo corrected:
ReplyDeleteMy previous comment mentioning my latest paper about the White controversy is either the victim of the Blogger Spam filter or malicious deletions that occur on this site with some regularity where I am concerned. It did contain one link to my paper. That may be the culprit.
Considering that Dave Armstrong has deleted about 99% of the comments of his that have ever been deleted, I agree with his characterization that they are "malicious deletions."
ReplyDeleteI would never delete yours, Peter, because they are so entertaining, like when you claimed a few months ago that this site got way way more hits than mine. LOL
ReplyDeleteHi Mike:
ReplyDeleteyou say, "What is interesting about this is the perception that accredited institutions require more..."
Simply put, what is required is that certain peer-reviewed standards have been met / fufilled. Whether CES requires more is not pertinent to what is required in order to obtain an accredited, and by default, a recognized degree. Its apples an oranges.
"... CES probably requires more work than accredited institutions."
That may or may not be true. From what I can tell, however, the work required for JW's degree at CES was substantially less than what is typically required from other phd candidates pursuing acrredited degrees (unless theology degrees are just plain thin).
"Many self-learners prove themselves far more apt than degreed individuals."
I think we can all agree on that. IT is an example that comes to mind.
That's it for me, folks. Thanks for the courteous exchanges.
The exact statement Pike made was: "Too bad for Dave I can post my comments in a forum that receives far more than double the hits per day he gets." That was on 9-23-10. So, curious, I went and compared Site Meter stats and my site was at 899 while this one was 852. Today, this one beats me out, with 1200-something to my 900, but it is still not "far more than double the hits" I get.
ReplyDeleteNote also that in the earlier incident Pike was whining about how I supposedly deleted his comments on my site. Of course, I had done no such thing: it was an instance of Blogger Spammer filter. As soon as I found out I was happy to restore them. But we still have no word here if the filter did this or whether my comment was deleted because it disagreed too much with the Big Cheeses here.
It was great fun, tho, to watch Peter make an absolute fool of himself twice in two days. :-)
Let's try again, minus the link:
ReplyDeleteUsing the GGBTS listing of adjunct faculty and Course Syllabi (by Professor), I have listed a comparison of listed adjunct faculty who are not teaching a class in the present semester, and when they last taught a course, in comparison to Bishop "Dr." White.
James White (not listed: last course taught: January 13-15, 2010):
[list of 30 adjunct faculty with dates of the last course taught by them]
Grand totals: 30 faculty were listed who are not teaching at GGBTS this semester; 16 of the 30 last taught a course prior to the date that White did (while one additional person has no listed courses at all); yet they are among the roster of adjunct faculty, along with the other 14, while White is not. Why? Is it not reasonable, then, to safely assume that White is no longer a member of the adjunct faculty of GGBTS? One would think so. Why, then, does White keep asserting that he is?
His bio sheet for his publisher, Bethany House, states that he is "an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary." His bio sheet for his diploma mill alma mater, Columbia Evangelical Seminary asserts that "White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus." The blurb for ReformedCast: episode #26: "The Importance of Apologetics (Pt. 1), 3-21-11, states that "White . . . teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary."
But according to the GGBTS syllabi, White taught about apologetics (secularism, atheism, and Islam) in Summer 2009, and Islam in Spring 2008. In order to date courses taught on these other mentioned subjects, we have to consult White's own bio page at his website, "aomin". There we learn that he hasn't taught anything with "Greek" in the title of the course since 2001 (hardly current). He hasn't taught systematic theology there since 2004. His last (and only course in Christology was way back in the previous century and millennium: 1997. And for Hebrew, we have to go back to 2000.
I guess 7-14 years ago is considered "present tense" and "current" by the good folks at Columbia Evangelical Seminary and the ReformedCast. White, so we are told, is "teaching" these things now. We all regard time in different fashions, I reckon. Einstein's relativity and what-not . . . "Current" is in the eye of the beholder? In James White's thought-world, and that of his rabid followers, apparently this is the case. I guess I "currently" am not the father of a daughter, since my only daughter was born in 2001. But since 2000 and even 1997 are present now, I am simultaneously her father and not at the same time.
Unfortunately for White, GGBTS doesn't play these word games. They don't have him listed as adjunct faculty. He'll have to accept that cold, hard, cruel fact sooner or later.
Dave, if you take my words and apply them to something I was not responding to and say your application is still valid, you have an "interesting" way with words. All I can do is laugh.
ReplyDelete"Simply put, what is required is that certain peer-reviewed standards have been met / fufilled."
ReplyDeletePeer review unfortunately suffers from the Matthew effect; its benefits are limited.
All I can do is laugh.
ReplyDeleteWell, jollity and merriment are good things, so enjoy yourself. I'm shaking and scratching my head at your inexplicable logic over here. But I've come to expect this from anti-Catholics, so it is really no surprise. Still a wonder to behold, though.
I note that once again Dave cannot leave the "anti-Catholics" alone, despite his numerous claims to the contrary. It's really no shock that he and Lumpkins get along so well.
ReplyDeleteAnd I note again that you are an imbecile without a clue what you are talking about. Ignorance is bliss, though, ain't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see you left third grade, Dave. Now go back to your own playground, troll.
ReplyDeleteI must say it is a new (and deliciously ridiculous) low for you to define me as a troll when I was the subject of the post under which this combox exists, and in fact was asked a question in the post, that I carefully answered, even to the author's satisfaction. But in your fertile brain (against all reason and precedent), that is being a "troll."
ReplyDeleteThen if I dare to respond to your ceaseless insults, it is yet more proof that I am a "troll."
The "bitter and arrogant ass" schtick doesn't reflect well on you. It won't make you any happier or give you peace or joy or advance your position in the kingdom or with our Lord, to detest and despise me. Life is too short for that.
No, Dave. You're a troll because you're trying to divert attention on to me. It's pretty obvious what you're doing.
ReplyDeleteNow go back under your bridge and get some more little kids for your priest's fun time.
Gads Peter! Come on now! We really need to take a breath and ask if it's God-glorifying to liken Catholic apologists to pimps for their wayward priests. This conversation is a stink in His nostrils as it is, but way over the line there, bro, in my view.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned with their souls.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you made the assumption that it was mollestation I was referring to, not me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue with you, Peter, but I'm also not an idiot. I think it's disingenuous to expect people here to think that "your priest's fun time" in reference to "little kids" wasn't a euphemism for a very specific known atrocity within the Roman Catholic church.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, I'm glad you are concerned for the souls of little children, however ineloquently stated. Perhaps now we can all agree to bring this miserable mess to some kind of conclusion.
Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteIt was an intentionally ambiguous reference to Dave Armstrong being a troll, similar to fairy tales told to kids.
Was I aware someone could make that assumption? Of course. But if the Catholic Church didn't have that problem to contend with, it would have been a perfectly innocent comment, wouldn't it?
If that's the first place you went to when you read it...well, that says more about the Catholic Church's reputation than I did.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI understand. I confess to deficiencies in my troll lore.