You Have No Constitutional Right To Your Own Science

Verthaine said:

You mad Tigger? That just sounds so petty,bitter and jealous on your part. One would think you are wishing harm and punishment on me and my family just because I took whatever opportunities that came my way,ran with it,and reaped the rewards and benefits because of it,and you didn't.

Click to expand...

I'm not mad. Trust me, you don't ever want to see me in person when I'm mad. You wouldn't like me when I get angry.

No, not because you took the opportunities.... Because the opportunities were there and available in the first place. It's not you and your family I'm frustrated with. You're just doing what you think is right and in your best interest. It's a much higher power that I have a bone to pick with, and that's not going to be settled until after this life is over.

Verthaine said:

Neither of us really KNOWS what's in store for either of us on the OTHERSIDE.

Click to expand...

True. Then again, if I'm wrong about what's on the other side, then there was no point in being here in the first place, so it's really a moot point.

Pinkie said:

We sure as hell do need national standards if some school boards would bless religion replacing science in their schools -- and you know damned well, many would.

Click to expand...

Thats their business. Not ours. It should be their money and people and time involved not ours. Again thats why we are even having this arguement. Time to start thinking radically. We are not a uninform people. What works one place doesnt work in another.

Somerville said:

Tell me then why every nation that is doing better in educating its young people operates under nationally controlled educational systems?


"Local control" of schooling in the US has all too often meant that uneducated persons are running educational systems.

Click to expand...

The reason it works elsewhere is because they have fairly homgounous societies. We dont. What works for the Germans dont work for the French ect. We are not Europe or Japan or like any other place on Earth. We have been making national standards and taking away local control for how long now? Is it working? Like I tell Pinkie, time to think differently. There fifty different states with several thousand differnt counties and parishes. Local funding, local standards, local control. Education in as individual as you and I. Its time start thinking the way we used to. Which is we can do it ourselves better.

Somerville said:

"Local control" of schooling in the US has all too often meant that uneducated persons are running educational systems.

Click to expand...

Just realize that all total "nationalization" of the education system will do is mean fewer and fewer kids in it as homeschooling booms out of control.

Tigger said:

The problem being, that's NOT the way it's presented in our schools. Science is presented in every school I've ever been associated with, by every science teacher I've ever encountered as Gospel Truth in as much as any Fire and Brimstone Baptist Preacher presents The Holy Bible as Gospel Truth every Sunday morning.

Click to expand...

There certainly are basic facts that cannot be refuted but a decent science teacher in high school should be including all of the "It depends" factors while teaching.

One example would be gravitational force: On our world, if you drop something, it will fall at a rate of 32ft/sec/per sec. That is a scientific fact BUT, depending on weight and volume and shape of the object, at a certain point as it is falling air resistance will mean the rate no longer increases. In a vacuum, a feather and a lead ball will fall at the same speed but not when there is an atmosphere.

On the moon, the gravitational force is less, so a dropped object will fall at a slower speed - it depends upon the mass of the two objects being studied.

Evolution is real, it has been observed, all known relics show evolutionary changes occur in living species - that is a fact. We know some of the reasons for evolution but not all of them - so study continues.

We know life came into existence on this planet about 3.4 billion years in the past. We don't know exactly how it happened but there are various hypotheses on the matter and study continues.

Simply because a science teacher states that X is true, a scientific fact, but you don't believe X is true simply because you don't accept the logic of the statement ain't gonna change reality.

There are teachers who make absolutely positive statements simply because they think it is an effective way to teach a subject. "This is the answer, memorise it, you will be tested on it!" For some kids it works, for others it don't. There is no one totally effective style in teaching because there is no one track thru human brains. Individuality does cause problems for teachers. Good teachers figure out ways to teach the same subject in different ways, if and when they are given the time to do it.

PirateMk1 said:

I like your style brother. More business men need to think like you. The art of being successfull is learning how to recognize opportunity and then take advantage. Amen and keep preaching.

Click to expand...

Thank you very kindly.
I may not be the most educated person on this forum.
I wasn't the greatest student out there.
I was working in the restaurant business for almost 20 years,and being the owner/executive chef of a fine dining restaurant for 5 year of them before I finally got a master's degree in culinary arts and restaurant management.

But I was lucky to have these things at a very early age:
A love and talent for cooking.
Parents that didn't fill my head wit their ideologies.
A drive to always do the best I can.
A family with a history of good cooks.

While other kids wanted G.I.Joe action figures,I wanted an "Eazy-Bake Oven".
While other kids were reading Batman Comics,I was reading Betty Crocker Cookbooks.
While other kids had paper routes and lemonade stands,I was helping my mom make sandwiches,pies,cookies and cakes,and helping her sell them out of a beat up used old "Meals on Wheels" truck my dad bought her.

By my second year of highschool,I was already a better cook than the Culinary Arts teacher whose class I took.Probably the only class that I aced.

PirateMk1 said:

Thats their business. Not ours. It should be their money and people and time involved not ours. Again thats why we are even having this arguement. Time to start thinking radically. We are not a uninform people. What works one place doesnt work in another.

Click to expand...

That bit about only local funding for some school districts would do nothing more than exacerbate the problems low-income districts are already experiencing. It would create an even more divided society than we are already experiencing in this nation.

As many of the states presently controlled by Republicans receive more funding from the federal government than they pay in taxes, it would be interesting to observe the consequences and screams when those states begin to comprehend the reality of greatly decreased funding.

Somerville said:

There certainly are basic facts that cannot be refuted but a decent science teacher in high school should be including all of the "It depends" factors while teaching.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in my experience, and the experiences of many others I know, that is not how it was or is done. That is what causes a large amount of the problem, so far as I see it.

Somerville said:

Simply because a science teacher states that X is true, a scientific fact, but you don't believe X is true simply because you don't accept the logic of the statement ain't gonna change reality.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

Pinkie said:

No, they don't. Scientists hypothesize or speculate.

Click to expand...

No, actually, scientists sometimes believe before they create or use the tools required to acquire knowledge as I said. This is just a fact merely because they are human. I'm sure there are scientists who believe in their hypotheses before they test them and believe in the possibility of finding vaccines before they discover or create them.

Somerville said:

I agree for the most part that children should study religions other than the one they follow at home. I would insert the word "comparative" into the title of the Religious Studies class name.

The problem comes when one actually gets into the fundamentals of the class and the curriculum - we have far too many in this country who would seize the opportunity offered by a "Comparative Religious Studies" class to proselytize for their specific beliefs while denigrating all others. We already have admitted creationists teaching their biblical beliefs in biology classes, I'm afraid the same would happen in any classroom looking at world religions.

Click to expand...

I agree. Proselytizing would be a potential consequence of introducing such classes. However, I think the cons of not having such classes are much more than the cons of having some teachers abuse their power. Moreover, the latter can be combated by parents or anyone else who finds out that a teacher is abusing their power in such a manner.

Paschendale said:

Hypothesizing is not the same as believing. Believing means holding an idea dearly enough that you make decisions based on it. Thinking "I wonder if this is true... let's find out!" is not holding a belief. Even thinking "I think this is true, let's find out." is not holding a belief. Not the kind of belief we're talking about in this thread.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about hypothesizing. I said "scientists often have to believe before they create or use the tools required to acquire knowledge." I suspect the "sometimes have to" could be arguable, but many do, nonetheless. For example, the scientists who developed the Polio vaccine most likely believed that a vaccine was possible in spite of the probable criticism they received. If they did not believe, then they would have had no reason to pursue it.

It's the same with scientists working to find treatments, vaccines and cures for diseases like AIDS, MS and the like. The most likely BELIEVE that such medical advances are possible.

In a similar light, it's just as likely the many scientists, while hypothesizing, believe in their hypotheses and are motivated by the belief to test it. In fact, I would bet that most scientists are, at some point or another, motivated by their belief in a hypothesis. In addition to that, there are plenty of situations, scientific or not, in which belief is either positive or neutral. Your "belief bad" comment was an oversimplification and you should just admit that instead of protesting. A better argument would be, "when knowledge is available, it's better to choose it over mere belief." That's much more reasonable.

Also, the definition of "believe" is "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so." It isn't the bull**** definition you provided with the intent to maintain your confirmation bias.

Tigger said:

I'm not mad. Trust me, you don't ever want to see me in person when I'm mad. You wouldn't like me when I get angry.

Click to expand...

I can respect that.I'm the exact same way.

Tigger said:

No, not because you took the opportunities.... Because the opportunities were there and available in the first place. It's not you and your family I'm frustrated with. You're just doing what you think is right and in your best interest. It's a much higher power that I have a bone to pick with, and that's not going to be settled until after this life is over.

Click to expand...

I can't help but wonder,Tigger,is it a "Higher Power" that you have a bone to pick with,or is it "You" that you have that bone to pick with.

No one said life was ever going to be easy.
There are always obstacles to overcome,but there are always opportunities to seize also.

The big difference between you and me is that I never let ideologies get in the way of seizing those opportunities.
If you believe that some "Higher Power" doesn't want you to work for somebody just because of their gender,then that's on you.
In your belief system didn't the "Higher Power" that created you create me also?

My mom was a very religious woman herself.She made me go to church.I just never believed what she believed.My mom understood that I had to go my own way.That has always been the key to my success and happiness.I always remained true to my own path,not someone elses.

My first wife was a religious spiritual church going woman herself who always tried to live the way her religion taught her. I never tried to stop her from going to church and she ended up bleeding to death in her car while the fire department struggled to free her from that wreckage,because some jackass decided to get drunk and start up his car and go for a ride. I didn't blame some higher power (or the firemen) because of it. I blame that jackass.

My second wife Selena wasn't always an atheist.She was a good,church going christian,just like her husband (also a doctor,just not as good as Lena.Thst seemed to always been a big problwm for him).For some reason,everytime she tried to get pregnant and start a family,she'd miscarry.Then she got ovarian cancer,and removing her ovaries was the only way to save her life.When she was finally well enough to go home,her good god fearing christian husband tried to talk her into getting their marriage annulled.If that wasn't bad enough,the good godfearing people of the church she used to go to started to treat her like she was some pariah,some untouchable.
She couldn't understand what she did to make "God" punish her like that.So she became an atheist.
For a time,she even stopped dating because a number of men bolted the moment the they found out there was "nothing in there".

By the time we met,she was called "Dr Iceberg".
I already had 3 kids,and I never treat Lena like was less of a woman because she longer had ovaries.When I first brought her home to have dinner with me and my daughters (I believe they were 19, 13,and 8 years old) my daughters fawned over her.They were happy because I was happy.When we got married,my youngest ran right into Lena's arms,gave her a big hug and said "I love you mommy" (Lena never insisted that my daughters call her "mom",and it took my oldest a few years to finally call her that).The tears of happiness that Lena shed is something I'll never forget.

When Selena finally decided to stop blaming "God" and just go on with her life,she finally found happiness.And three rambunctious daughters who love her.

On another thread I once told you,"at this moment,there has been nothing you ever encountered that was strong enough to take you out".





True. Then again, if I'm wrong about what's on the other side, then there was no point in being here in the first place, so it's really a moot point.[/QUOTE]

Pinkie said:

So, my fundamentalist fellow Americans: feel free to embrace your fairy tales...but do not ask me to pay for them.

Click to expand...

If this position were universal, entitlement programs would would disappear and we'd have no issue paying off our national debt.

He does it so well I'll just leave my reply to this thread up to good ole Hitchens.



Christopher Hitchens Explains Why Religion Poisons Everything - YouTube

Verthaine said:

I can't help but wonder,Tigger,is it a "Higher Power" that you have a bone to pick with,or is it "You" that you have that bone to pick with.

Click to expand...

If I truly believed it was "Me" that I had a bone to pick with, you wouldn't have anyone to talk to right now because I'd be in a box buried next to my father.

Verthaine said:

No one said life was ever going to be easy. There are always obstacles to overcome,but there are always opportunities to seize also.

Click to expand...

No, life isn't easy and it was never intended to be easy. The trick is knowing which opportunities are good for this side of the Veil, which are good for the other side, and which few work for both. That is the way I was taught, and what I have come to believe even more after my separation from the church.

Verthaine said:

The big difference between you and me is that I never let ideologies get in the way of seizing those opportunities. If you believe that some "Higher Power" doesn't want you to work for somebody just because of their gender,then that's on you. In your belief system didn't the "Higher Power" that created you create me also?

Click to expand...

Yes, that same power created both of us. I don't want to get into a massive spiritual discussion here. This is neither the time nor the place. Let me just say that I believe in a concept of limited free will which generally leaves us with enough rope to hang ourselves.

Verthaine said:

....When Selena finally decided to stop blaming "God" and just go on with her life,she finally found happiness.And three rambunctious daughters who love her.

Click to expand...

I've never really stopped blaming "God", and probably never will. I do now have a very different viewpoint of the Divine than I did 12 years ago. I just wish I'd had this viewpoint many years ago. Things might have been considerably less painful over time.

Verthaine said:

On another thread I once told you,"at this moment,there has been nothing you ever encountered that was strong enough to take you out".

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. There have been at least two moment where without the intervention of another person I would have been gone. Dumb luck and poor timing being the only things that have kept me here on those two occasions.

Somerville said:

That bit about only local funding for some school districts would do nothing more than exacerbate the problems low-income districts are already experiencing. It would create an even more divided society than we are already experiencing in this nation.

As many of the states presently controlled by Republicans receive more funding from the federal government than they pay in taxes, it would be interesting to observe the consequences and screams when those states begin to comprehend the reality of greatly decreased funding.

Click to expand...

The money they are getting comes with strings attached, many strings. This means the the school cannot color outside the lines so to speak. Like I keep telling everybody time to think radically. Its not money thats wrong with a lot of these inner city schools, its the buerocratic way of thinking in them. There are plenty of schools in this country that are not blessed with money yet routinely excel. Most private schools subsist on half what a public school is allocated.

If I was running a public school district, first thing I would do is take a look at administraive costs and begin severe cuts wherevere possible to make sure as much went to the classroom as possible. I would then take a long hard look at the instructors and fire the lowest 25% right off the bat. I would hope and pray they strike at that point and kill the union contract and fire them all, replacing them with hungry intructors that dont have much experiance teaching. If they dont strike then they be on notice they perform or else. All testing would be performed by outside contracted personel twice a year. Once at the begining of school the second at the end of school. The most successful instructors will be kept the least dropped. Tenure would be eliminated. It would be run like a business, their performance will be measured and graded just like their students. Their business is to instruct students. They do that successfully and be rewarded, or fail and be fired. In exchange for the increased responsibility those that perform very well will be paid better, and all will be givin much greater leaway as to how they conduct their classes. One cannot expect greater responsibility without greater freedom. Thats how I would do it. Demand and expect results. And reward based on those results. The bottom line being students leaving the school, knowing what they came to learn.

Tigger said:

If I truly believed it was "Me" that I had a bone to pick with, you wouldn't have anyone to talk to right now because I'd be in a box buried next to my father.

Click to expand...

.
Well then,what are the "issues" that you have to "pick a bone with a higher power".

Tigger said:

No, life isn't easy and it was never intended to be easy. The trick is knowing which opportunities are good for this side of the Veil, which are good for the other side, and which few work for both. That is the way I was taught, and what I have come to believe even more after my separation from the church.

Click to expand...

And yet you still have a 'bone to pick" with the higher powers while I don't.I know nothing about what goes on the "Otherside" and there seems to be no "universal" agreement on that,or even if there is an "Otherside".Whenever an opportunity comes my way,all I have to go on is my instincts as to how it can benefit me,my family,and my employees and minimize any harm it may comes to others.I never worry about how it effects the Afterlife.That will happen if and when it happens.

Tigger said:

Yes, that same power created both of us. I don't want to get into a massive spiritual discussion here. This is neither the time nor the place. Let me just say that I believe in a concept of limited free will which generally leaves us with enough rope to hang ourselves.

Click to expand...

Of course you are free to believe that.Me,I tie that rope to a grappling hook and climb higher,rather than use it to hang myself.

Tigger said:

I've never really stopped blaming "God", and probably never will. I do now have a very different viewpoint of the Divine than I did 12 years ago. I just wish I'd had this viewpoint many years ago. Things might have been considerably less painful over time.

Click to expand...

That of course is your decision and choice.



I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. There have been at least two moment where without the intervention of another person I would have been gone. Dumb luck and poor timing being the only things that have kept me here on those two occasions.[/QUOTE]

Jredbaron96 said:

Goshin, I don't want to sound rude or anything, but I must point out:

You have no idea how the scientfic community operates.

Click to expand...

Beg to differ sir. You don't know who I know, or what information I have.

To pretend that scientists are not under pressure from various sources, through their natural desires for things like funding, salary, tenure, recognition, and social acceptance, to produce results that often fit within certain parameters that are often not strictly objective, is to deny human realities. Scientists are not some pure secular priesthood who are above concerns about money, status, fame, and social acceptance.

Fletch said:

There is no reason to limit this to science or religion. The principle at work in your question is one based upon human liberty. It is not: "Do I have the right to impose my religion or my phony science upon you?" but "Do I have the right to impose my will upon my fellow man in any context?" Answer question #2 and you answer question #1.

Click to expand...

You ask a very interesting ethical question. I predict it will therefore be ignored.

Somerville said:

How are we as a society to define "discipline" and "abuse"? What one group sees as natural discipline, another bunch of folks will call child abuse. How do we accommodate the two factions?

Click to expand...

The commonly accepted standard in my state is that spanking a child on the buttocks, legs or hand is okay, as long as it does not result in any injuries requiring medical treatment or leaves any marks after 24 hours, nor is otherwise "unusual or excessive".

"rabid atheists" generally don't care about their children being "exposed to Christmas". They do care about their children being coerced into participation in religious ceremonies in public schools.

Click to expand...

There have been lawsuits, so apparently some do.

What if a majority of a politician's constituency supports his denouncement of scientific knowledge? Does the majority get to change the definition of science simply because they really and truly believe nonsense to be real?

Click to expand...

There are things that are essentially self-evident, like gravity, which cannot be denied because they're obviously there. There are things that can be called into question, like anthropogenic-global-warming-as-a-actual-TEOTWAWKI-disaster. There are thing that can be PRESENTED in ways which can create problems for some parents' beliefs, like presenting evolution in a manner that implies it as a disproof of a Creator God.

When I was in high school biology, the teacher started off evolution theory by saying "There are two major schools of thought about the origins of life, one being Creationism and the other being Evolution. As part of the school curriculum, I must teach you evolution, and you must learn about it. This in no way implies that the school district endorses one idea over the other, just that evolution is the accepted scientific theory and so you have to learn it." He then steadfastly refused, despite being asked persistently by a couple of students, to say which he believed.

Personally I thought that was a pretty good way to handle it.

Paschendale said:

But surely some things must simply be truths. Is it a belief that gravity attracts mass to other mass? Is it a belief that UV radiation causes skin cancer? Is it a belief that this planet is more than half composed of salt water? Is it a belief that F=MA? Is it a belief that stars are billions of miles away, and not pinpricks in a blanket over the Earth?

The trouble with this kind of notion is that some beliefs straight up contradict truth. Young Earth Creationists believe things that are demonstrably wrong. Christian Scientists who think that medicine is unnecessary are wrong. How much harm are people who hold wrong beliefs allowed to do?

Now mind you, we can punish each person who harms according to a wrong belief, but then there will always be more, and then more harm. It will never end until the wrong beliefs go away. Beliefs that women who didn't conform to expected standards had made a pact with the devil and ought to be killed... they went away. Beliefs that twins were evil and should be killed... they went away. Beliefs that deformed children should be cast away to die... they went away, too.

Beliefs are dangerous. Things you know, that you can prove, those can be debated and discussed. They can be analyzed. You can figure out if they're good or bad. Beliefs are just "I believe xyz, and there's nothing you can say to change that." Unchangeable positions that aren't subject to examination are dangerous.

That's why belief is bad. Knowledge is good. Belief is bad.

Click to expand...

You can't impose on people to destroy their beliefs, or forbid them to teach their children their beliefs, unless you're ready to give up personal liberty and democracy and enact totalitarianism and the Thought Police.

Bad beliefs, as you noted, tend to die out over time. Be patient and time will tell what beliefs are good, and which are bad.

Paschendale said:

But surely some things must simply be truths. Is it a belief that gravity attracts mass to other mass? Is it a belief that UV radiation causes skin cancer? Is it a belief that this planet is more than half composed of salt water? Is it a belief that F=MA? Is it a belief that stars are billions of miles away, and not pinpricks in a blanket over the Earth?

The trouble with this kind of notion is that some beliefs straight up contradict truth. Young Earth Creationists believe things that are demonstrably wrong. Christian Scientists who think that medicine is unnecessary are wrong. How much harm are people who hold wrong beliefs allowed to do?

Click to expand...

So you believe it is wrong to harm others because of one's beliefs?

Goshin said:

You can't impose on people to destroy their beliefs, or forbid them to teach their children their beliefs, unless you're ready to give up personal liberty and democracy and enact totalitarianism and the Thought Police.

Click to expand...

No, but you subject everyone to rules based on objective facts and don't allow rules based on unfounded beliefs.

Bad beliefs, as you noted, tend to die out over time. Be patient and time will tell what beliefs are good, and which are bad.

Click to expand...

That's little consolation to those who suffer now.

Goshin wrote

"rabid atheists" generally don't care about their children being "exposed to Christmas". They do care about their children being coerced into participation in religious ceremonies in public schools.

Click to expand...

There have been lawsuits, so apparently some do.

Click to expand...

You might wish to do a bit more investigation before asserting that bit about atheists and Christmas

The only lawsuit I could find with a quick Google had a bit different focus

Former teachers, Jehovah's Witnesses file discrimination lawsuit against school district

Two former teachers are suing the Lee County School District saying their school's principal discriminated against them and declined to re-hire them after learning they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

In December 2010, Bell held a faculty meeting where she demanded the entire faculty participate in a mandatory Christmas activity, emphasizing "I don't care what religion you are," according to the suit.

After the meeting, the Rosaleses wrote Bell an email explaining their religion doesn't permit celebrating Christmas. The email went unanswered, according to the lawsuit, and the Rosaleses didn't attend the Christmas event.

Click to expand...

Then there is the following tale of xian persecution :roll:

Girl sues school district over Christmas party invitations

A fifth-grade girl has sued the Pocono Mountain School District, claiming its policies on religious speech violated her First Amendment rights after her teacher and principal stopped her from giving classmates invitations to a church Christmas party.

Sharp declined to identify the church that K.A. and her family attend, although he did say it is an independent Christian church in Monroe County. The lawsuit describes K.A. as a "Bible-believing Christian" who is compelled to share her faith with her classmates by inviting them to church events.

Click to expand...

Goshin said:

Beg to differ sir. You don't know who I know, or what information I have.

To pretend that scientists are not under pressure from various sources, through their natural desires for things like funding, salary, tenure, recognition, and social acceptance, to produce results that often fit within certain parameters that are often not strictly objective, is to deny human realities. Scientists are not some pure secular priesthood who are above concerns about money, status, fame, and social acceptance.

Click to expand...

No one is denying that scientists, like us, have their own personal views and are subjected to outside pressure. That's not the part of your post I have a problem with.

Goshin said:

"publish or perish" is their motto, and attempting to publish theories that contract the popular scientific dogma of the moment is rarely smiled upon.

Click to expand...

This is.

Let me put this as simple as I can: The scientific community is amongst the most competitive fields in the world. I know it's hard to imagine a bunch of people in lab coats actually getting aggressive, which is probably why its so easy for people to conceive them as easily manipulated. But let's get to the point; scientists don't get famous because they agree with one another. If my buddy whose studies evolutionary biology came out to a committee and announced "Darwin was right!", he wouldn't get jack ****. Likewise, a NASA engineer stating that a large amount of force is required to escape Earths gravitational shouldn't expect a Nobel Prize anytime soon.

Ya know how scientists get famous? Be either discovering something new, or by proving other scientists wrong.
If some physicist came forward and provided evidence that proved gravity wrong, then you can bet that he/she/it could expect a planet named after them.

Science has always been about discovering new things, finding new reasons and explanations. I find it a bit difficult that the 97% of scientists who agree on global warming are all part of one giant conspiracy, or all the support of evolution is driven by some secret agenda. You state that scientists have their own needs and wants and use that to discredit them, but ignore that scientists inhabit every corner of the globe, and are composed of people with different ethnicites, races, social statuses, economic classes, and political groups. I find it hard to believe that all members of the scientific community all share this same xeno-idea-phobic collectivist mindset. Considering that a Methodist priest developed the Big Bang Theory, or an agnostic named Charles Darwin theorized evolution, or an avid Christian like Newton manifested gravity into what we can understand, I simply find it odd that you maintain that they all are 'in on it'.