Responding to Asadullah Ali on His Charges and Respectful Dialogue

Asadullah, I find that there’s a lot of projection coming from you on the very things which you’ve often been accused of yourself. Case in point: your latest comment to me.

I can’t really tell at this point, but it’s clear to me you’re not a mentally stable individual.

If we were to showcase a fraction of the insulting comments that you’ve issued to others, I think it would be rather evident that I am not the unstable one here.

Restraint

Indeed, while I could be far more biting and insulting in my assessment and responses here, I’m actually going to refrain. That’s right. I’m going to hold a lot of punches in this piece. My goal with this post is not to “destroy” you or to “take you down”. It is to offer some constructive criticism and insights. Perhaps provide you with another perspective to consider.

Given that you had a cordial conversation on the Secular Jihadist podcast with Armin and Ali, I’d like to encourage you to have more. I really think that this is the way forward for you. While I’d like to encourage you to be kinder in your written interactions too, I suspect the most productive option for you is to transition to the mediums that showcase your best self.

When people insult or abuse you online, try being kind in response. It will disarm most people. In many cases, that can lead to a more constructive and civilized exchange. And if it doesn’t, the sensible among your intellectual adversaries should come to your defense—especially if you ask for help against the trolls. When I see someone being unfair, I do call it out. Many people do this. I am not unique in this regard.

Alternatively, consider this bold option: ignore the trolls. I do realize that ignoring trolls can be emotionally challenging to follow through with. Especially if one has repeatedly been attacked. I understand that perhaps your heart has already been hardened after having been assailed so incessantly. In 2010, you allowed yourself to be vulnerable and open to correction. The noble course of action, in my opinion. You were waiting for dialogue with Thunderf00t. Dialogue that never came. Only vitriol from his fans and other atheists. I get it.

I do believe that Islam encourages the approach that I’m advocating to you now; for you to be the better man in such conversations. You’re a Muslim, and so I know you know this. You also touch on it in your latest video about the facade of respectful dialogue, and wanting to transition closer to what you refer to as the prophetic model. For those reading this who are not as familiar with Islam, Qur’an 16:125 advises:

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

While I’m no longer a Muslim, I still appreciate several verses of the Qur’an. I do not deny that the book has some nice things to say and some good advice to give. This verse being one of those nice bits.

Of course, before people will take this new Asadullah seriously, you’ll have to repair your reputation.

Abuse and the Public Arena

You should realize that many vocal critics of Islam also get abuse hurled their way. Do you think the Masked Arab hasn’t endured a bombardment of abuse from angry Muslims, including from your own fans?

Those who put their ideas out there in the public arena know that at some level, abuse comes with the territory. They deal with it. It doesn’t consume them. They don’t devolve as a result; but often, you have. To this day, you have yet to shake off that condescending and arrogant style, and so your reputation now precedes you.

In your recent video on dialogue, you also relay that in the early days, people were trying to control you by implying that you were a hypocrite for lashing out at them. There’s another option, Asadullah. Simply address the ideas and ignore the ad hominem attacks. Easier said than done, I realize; but pertinent nonetheless. Consider just saying this:

I’m sorry that you feel the need to be vile and veer off the ideas and onto insults. I am a Muslim, so I will refrain from insulting you in return, but I am not going to spare your ideas.

Consider that at time index [7:15] of your most recent video, you also admit that you first investigate how people have interacted in past conversations with others before responding to their comments to you. By doing this, you preemptively kill the opportunity for anyone—including yourself—to ever rethink that style of interaction, to reinvent themselves, or to start anew. You preempt your own ability to be a better person. You are encouraging vitriol to just go round and round. Certainly, you’re not encouraging anyone to stop the cycle. You’re certainly not encouraging people to even begin conversations with you in a civilized fashion.

If other people apply this same principle that’s part of your playbook, it makes logical sense for them to come into your conversations hot—guns ablazing. It’s a vicious cycle that you’re perpetuating and modeling for everyone online—including other Muslims. I find it astonishing that you don’t see the problems with this approach. I’m not going to dehumanize you and suggest that you don’t care. I just humbly submit to you that you’ve got a blind spot here, and I’d encourage you to reflect.

What’s more, I don’t know any other Muslim apologist to whom this sort of thing happens. Certainly not at this level. You’ve become notorious for such antagonism. Think about it: why does this level of drama seem to follow you around—you in particular? Do you really think you’re winning hearts and changing minds with this approach?

I’m sure that many younger Muslim kids follow your work and look up to you. They already believe that Islam is true. And what you’re doing for them is simply modeling bad behavior. If restraint and diplomacy aren’t your strong suits, then perhaps you should stick to producing content without getting into the downstream social media chatter where you so often lose your cool.

Even as you try to explain your harshness and telegraph moving away from it, Muslims who follow you close enough to comment on your video about respectful dialogue reveal their own attitudes. Of the five comments present on your Facebook video post a couple of days after you having made it, here are three which illustrate the caustic landscape that’s not exclusive to atheists.

Right now, you’ve got health concerns. I hope you make a full recovery. Even without those more pressing priorities, I’m sure that you get a lot of comments on a lot of platforms, and so I don’t even think it’s reasonable for anyone to expect you to police all of this. I do think this sort of thing can follow any one of us around—especially when we have large followings. There will always be people who hold rather harsh views, regardless of which “camp” they identify with.

For contrast, consider atheist YouTuber Theramin Trees. He produces content and moves on. Other people may have discussions in the comments section of his videos, but he otherwise stays clear of the social media chatter. Since he doesn’t even get involved in the comment battles, people don’t even expect him to police any fringe statements or trolling if that were ever to come up.

Not everyone need take that approach, of course. However, if you personally find it difficult to refrain from getting aggressive, then consider removing yourself from the chatter of social media. There’s no shame in this. We each have our unique strengths, weaknesses, and predispositions. Wisdom comes from knowing where we shine and where we don’t.

I know you won’t hear it coming from me. But perhaps one of your Muslim friends can repeat this kindly exhortation to you.

I am, however, optimistic. In your latest video (March 17, 2018) entitled, ‘Atheists and the Facade of Respectful Dialogue’, you telegraph that you’re heading in this direction. I think that’ll be a good thing for you and for the scene in general.

Associated Counterparts

In your aforementioned video, you’ve talked about speaking with atheists who are capable of respectful dialogue. The challenge as you see it, is that in almost all cases, these same nice people are associated with other atheists whose methods you disapprove of. The nicer atheists generally don’t call out their atheist or ex-Muslim counterparts who, according to you, have apparently made some uncalled for and disparaging statements (you discuss this for about a minute, beginning at time index [11:42]).

You’ve also realized that in order to build some bridges and to get some dialogue going, you’ve had to be pragmatic about holding everyone to this standard. You’ve decided to talk to the nicer ex-Muslims, despite their associated counterparts. I do concur that if you imposed such a requirement—that of only talking to people who don’t have anyone in their associated circles with behavior that you disapprove of—it would be difficult to find anyone to actually talk to.

Please realize that ex-Muslims who have spoken to you could have also applied this same level of scrutiny—and chosen not to speak to you. They could have come to this conclusion from simply examining your reputation, your history for drama, and your harsh speech directed at other atheists and ex-Muslims.

You might feel that your past behavior was justified. But can you at least see how this might still pose a problem for others in actually evaluating whether you were someone who has conducted themselves well enough to be worth talking to? Remember, we’re not even talking about your associates yet. We’re just talking about you. We needn’t even expand the circle to see that this requirement might not even be cleared by you at the very first hurdle.

In spirit, I would love for there to be a better social contract for social media discourse that more people bought in to—theists, atheists, and everyone in between. I do believe that we can still use humor, satire, and mockery in more general terms while avoiding such when speaking about individuals. Targeting individuals has the definite potential to come across as mean-spirited.

My own approach is to be nice to people who are nice to me. I can’t really weigh in on a person’s falling out with someone else. I’d have to review a lot of the background and context to make such an assessment. Doing this for everyone I have some level of association and interaction with can become a combinatorially explosive black hole that devours a lot of time. I’ve tasted that time sink first hand just going through all kinds of footage from the DawahFilms vs. Thunderf00t saga to evaluate for myself, what redeemable elements might be found in that backstory.

In the complex world of social relationships, guilt by association is often an impractical standard to hold people to. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your ask. Perhaps the middle ground is for you to point out the specific offending statements or behavior. You can then ask the people with whom you do have a positive relationship, to publicly disavow these specific statements and actions. In most cases, disavowing specific statements and actions is easier to do than asking people to write off another person entirely. No doubt, sometimes a complete write off is called for—such as in cases of bigotry, abuses of power, etc.

Asking someone to weigh in on the statements of others in their own circles can be time consuming. In some cases, this might be as simple as asking them to examine an inflammatory tweet that you’d like to bring their attention to. In other cases, as I have learned going through the material with you and Thunderf00t, a fair assessment can take much longer to review.

I have found an approach, however, that’s served me well in life. It predates my social media presence. I focus on how people have treated me. This is where I place the most weight. I also start off new interactions assuming the best about other people. It’s pragmatic and it also gives everyone an opportunity to start fresh, to be better people, and if helpful, to change. I do make exceptions of course, for those extraordinarily obnoxious individuals who repeatedly get flagged. People whose notorious reputations precede them—a penchant for harsh speech, insults, and bullying.

In summary, I believe that the more practical standard to hold is to treat with kindness those who’ve treated you with the same. Don’t be harsh until and unless they are. Let new interactions begin with the assumption that people are better than their past. If they disappoint, ignore them or block them. Deploy the canned message I suggested earlier, about telling them that you won’t insult them in return because you’re a Muslim, but that you’re not going to spare their poorly constructed arguments; just their persons.

On People Dismissing Your Education

In your same video on the facade of respectful dialogue, you also make reference to people who dismiss your education simply because you’re a Muslim. I think it is indeed silly of your intellectual adversaries to say such things. You have my support on this point.

I also agree with you that people running in to comment with some curt insult about your being unable to reason simply because you’re a Muslim, is also trolling you. It’s unproductive.

The Masked Arab’s Response

Regarding The Masked Arab’s video response to you, he’s already explained in that same video—and perhaps you choose to discount it—that his reason to address who you were and are is precisely because instead of jumping into the arguments, you had decided to poison the well with how you introduced The Masked Arab (TMA) in iJihad 4.

As I understand it, TMA’s backgrounder on you in his response video was a one-time thing. It was to demonstrate to you and to your audience, that two could play such a game. The game which you began with your claim that The Masked Arab had no integrity and was being deceptive. You made these disparaging claims even before presenting any arguments about why you thought this was so. See time index [24:33] in TMA’s response video to you on these specific points.

Don’t be hurt if there’s just a hell of a lot more in your case file for people to take issue with. Don’t cry foul when TMA returns fire. He’s simply reflecting your own methods back at you.

Now if TMA even bothers to address you in the future, expect him to jump right into the arguments without the preamble. He’s already illustrated his point about those who engage in aggressive and juvenile antics, yet themselves live in glass houses.

Thunderf00t and Public Disclosure

Regarding the doxxing charge against you, I think you’re hiding behind terminology. You’ve been documented on video boastfully telling Thunderf00t that you’ve shared his body of work and views critical of Islam with his real name attached, to his university’s administration and to the Muslims Students Association (MSA) on campus. This, more than your original video response to Thunderf00t, was the truly reckless thing that you had done. The tone in your video message to Thunderf00t, gloating about sharing this information with the Muslims on campus, is also quite revealing.

What’s notable here, is that in all of your videos maintaining your innocence, and where you’ve provided explanations of past drama, I’ve not once seen you admit or even own up to having shared this information with people beyond just the university administration. Where is your apology for being naive and reckless in this specific instance?

If you had wanted to bring up this drama with Thunderf00t’s university administration quietly, I might be more understanding. I get that you felt the need for a higher authority to intervene. You felt your reputation had been slandered. For what Thunderf00t shared in the online world, and the harassment you subsequently endured from his fans in the real world, you were trying to get him punished, and in the real world. At minimum, it’s obvious that your intention at the time was to get him sacked. While I still believe it was an underhanded move, I also get that you were desperate to do what you thought might clear your name.

That said, sharing this information publicly was irresponsible. Sending this same information tying Thunderf00t online with his identity at the university where he taught—including to the Muslims on campus at Cornell—that was truly reckless. Even now, if you chose to acknowledge that this particular action of yours was naive, most of us would be able to treat it as a mistake from your past. A mistake that if you owned up to, you should also be allowed to move on from.

Consider that if Jesus Christ or the Book of Mormon are critiqued and lampooned, we wouldn’t get riots in the streets, nor would we see acts of vigilante ‘justice’. Conversely, we know that provocative critique and brazen blasphemy against all things Islam risks a much stronger and sometimes violent reaction, even in the West. This is something which you have rightfully rebuked extremist Muslims for. In the age of Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo, you know this to be true. You know these risks exist. You know what dangers are possible.

Even Muslim students at Ivy League universities like Cornell have friends, family, and acquaintances who don’t attend Ivy League institutions. What’s more, an Ivy League education does not inoculate a person from joining the ranks of terrorists. Did you personally know the disposition of all of the Muslim students with whom you shared this information? Sadly, education alone cannot always defeat ideological indoctrination. And a general lack of education is also not an explanation for such violence. Lucky for you, none of them did anything foolish.

For expressing our views, none of us should ever have our physical persons put at risk. Our personal lives are also irrelevant to these discussions—as are our professional lives. None of us should ever physically be in harm’s way. I don’t wish that on anyone, including my ideological opponents. I’m certainly not alone in this. The ex-Muslim activists that I know of also hold these principles to be self-evident and foundational. It’s about the ideas. It always was. It’s not about physically harming people or divulging information about their personal or professional lives.

As we critique an interlocutor’s ideas and methods, the only secrets we should be exposing are bad arguments gone unchecked. The only bruising we should risk is that which is administered to inflated egos.

Recounting Your Past Drama

Regarding the tweet I sent to Thunderf00t in January 2018, introducing him to TMA’s video, it was not to goad people to harass you with threats. I don’t wish that upon anyone.

At that point in time, I had not gone through all of your (and his) videos recounting your past drama to know that his followers were harassing you in 2010—something I only gleaned after having watched several more of your old DawahFilms videos making this claim. Heck, I didn’t know much about Thunderf00t at the time except for that one video you had responded to and his showcasing of your infamous ~45 second response segment.

Remember, not everyone you come across online is going to spend hours digging through the back and forth of your video drama. Not everyone is going to sift through all of the minutia so that they themselves can make a fair assessment between what you’ve relayed and what Thunderf00t has asserted. I do believe that you could actually get your messaging down to a single ten-minute video. More people would watch and you’d successfully repair your reputation whenever someone referenced your history.

If I had known that Thunderf00t’s followers had harassed you in the past (remember: your followers also harass ex-Muslims today), I would never have tweeted at him. I never imagined it was originally an issue, since I’ve never seen Thunderf00t explicitly direct his followers to harass you. If that tweet caused you any distress, then I am truly sorry. It is now an older tweet that was already shared by Thunderf00t shortly after I wrote it, and with a rather benign commentary from Thunderf00t attached. However, if you would like me to delete the original tweet; if you still feel that that would be helpful in some way, then I will gladly do that for you.

Remember, if you don’t like targeted harassment, you shouldn’t be employing the very same tactics. Just speak to the arguments being made, and avoid making insulting assumptions about specific people and their motivations.

Absorbing New Information

Returning to your Facebook comment, what you rush to label as ‘passive-aggressive’ behavior on my part is you not realizing something salient about how people progressively acquire and absorb new information. You’re overlooking how honest people acknowledge both the good and the bad in their opponent’s actions.

Not everyone understands the ins and outs of your past drama when they first engage with the material, or first engage with you. Doubling down instead of owning up to past mistakes doesn’t help people sympathize with you or investigate further. Neither does insulting people encourage anyone to work through a long playlist of videos that might actually exonerate you on some charges.

Nonetheless, I finally took the plunge, and I’ve been taking notes. Many of them favorable to you. Heck, one of your longer videos from the past already owns up to having acted naively in your original video response to Thunderf00t. It takes courage to admit that. I applaud you for that introspection and admission. If you point people to that particular video right off the bat with a few lines explaining that you made mistakes in the past, then you could avert so much rehashing of this past drama. Other people will more readily come to your defense, and on several points. I saw a kindness in your eyes in some videos from 2010 that I just don’t see anymore from you.

To truly repair your reputation, you’ll have to let go of that inflated ego. You’ll have to acknowledge that publicly sharing Thunderf00t’s information was a mistake.

Since you and I had originally gone back and forth regarding your past drama (and I had relayed to you right from the start that I didn’t have all of the background on that soap opera at the time), I have made it a point to actually watch more of your and Thunderf00t’s videos encompassing that incident. You originally pointed me to non-Muslims coming to your defense, but I have also been reviewing the other videos in your ‘past drama‘ playlist (as well as the myriad videos linked off of those in the exchange between you and Thunderf00t).

I’ve done this to better evaluate for myself, what actually transpired. Perhaps with this knowledge, you and I won’t continue to go round and round in circles about these events where you make the non sequitur and inflammatory suggestion that I’m “okay” with people calling for a genocide against Muslims.

Owning Up to Mistakes and Diffusing Hostilities

I do believe that in the past, you were incredibly naive in your approach—something which you have also acknowledged in one of your own videos. Believe it or not, I am of the opinion that your past acknowledgment and heartfelt apology could have put the original video segment to bed—i.e. the segment about sending people to the God they wished they knew.

But instead, you seem to have walked away from those apologies and self-assessments of having naively approached the issues in the past. You are now doubling down as if to discard ever having owned up to those mistakes.

In December 2017 when I brought this incident up on Reddit, you missed an opportunity to diffuse it yourself. What you could have said, but didn’t, was simply this:

Hey, I made a mistake in the past in how I conveyed my message, but a threat toward Thunderf00t was never my intention. Here’s the one video that explains what I meant and why I got so passionate. I know it’s rather long, but bear with me. It explains why I did what I did, and in that video, I acknowledge that while my heart was in the right place, my methods and delivery were naive.

If you had written something like that, then dialogue between you and I wouldn’t have devolved on this issue. It would have been diffused immediately. With a quick acknowledgment of past mistakes, people do allow others to move on. But instead, you doubled down.

I didn’t get into the specifics of your iJihad 4 video at that time, because I hadn’t even finished watching it. I had only chimed in because from what little I had watched, and from what I had seen you do in your August 2017 conversation with Armin, you seemed to have a pattern of side stepping or conveniently reframing key distinctions. I’ll give you an example. In that conversation with Armin, you did not address head-on, the question of Muslims being friends with vocal critics of Islam who were also kind-hearted people. Since then, I knew well enough to study your assertions carefully for such subtle diversions before I would respond to your arguments.

Aversion to Online Exchanges

This leads me to the other reason many don’t get into the weeds with you in casual exchanges online. It’s rather easy for you to take a statement and misrepresent what was intended. If people don’t phrase things like lawyers (and even when they do), you’ll often straw man them or divert a point of discussion towards a false dichotomy. As a result, most of us find it best to respond to your arguments thoroughly after some planning (i.e. a full response video), or not at all. Responding interactively in bits and pieces isn’t a very productive use of anyone’s time.

I’ve already witnessed these conversations devolve into accusations of “intellectual peasantry” and other such lovely insults. Of course, we’re all familiar with how you think it’s your stellar reasoning skills and reading comprehension that has people disinterested in written dialogue.

Minimizing the Damage

Perhaps social media engagement isn’t a healthy medium for you. Perhaps creating material but staying out of the forums and video comments is the best way to not tarnish the image of Islam. Make no mistake—your combative persona does tarnish Islam’s image. Stick to video conversations and lectures, and you could probably keep things more dignified. Maybe that’s the best way to do the least amount of damage to your own health, to your own sanity, and to Islam’s image.

I do think that today, in 2018, you still have that bullying and belligerent style of interaction with people in written mediums. You come across much better in your interactive video conversations.

Defending 2010 Asadullah

When I did finally watch some earlier videos explaining your past drama, I actually felt a connection with the Asadullah Ali of 2010. I felt empathy and compassion for you. I felt a desire to defend that guy. I’ll be honest. I liked the moderate Muslim of 2010 far more than the self-described fundamentalist Muslim of 2018. Despite religious differences, I could have been that guy’s friend.

I do think Thunderf00t was wrong for not hearing you out in 2010. I agree that by mostly ignoring you, it better suited Thunderf00t’s narrative that meaningful dialogue with devout Muslims just wasn’t possible. It was just last weekend that I went through the very footage of yours where you explained your thought process and where you acknowledged that mistakes were made.

When people were telling you that you had misunderstood Thunderf00t, you were open to getting clarification from him. That was admirable. I thought that this was really classy (the way that you approached the issue immediately after your video response to Thunderf00t had become infamous). I mean that in all sincerity. It was charismatic. It was reasonable. You said all the right things to try and salvage the situation.

When that explicit clarification from Thunderf00t never came, I could empathize with how disappointing that must have been. When you described getting shut out of that group discussion that was supposed to include you, I could empathize with your frustration.

Finding out on your way home from work that the conversation had already taken place without you—I could empathize with how disappointing that was. Yes, I’m taking your side of the story on this particular incident, as I’ve not come across anything to doubt it. Given what you described, it was wrong of Thunderf00t not to include you in that conversation—a conversation that you were told prior that you’d get to participate in. I can’t imagine how hurt and betrayed you felt having just lost yet another opportunity to finally clear your name and to clarify your views.

I even thought to myself: Asadullah has some good points regarding his past drama that are not being communicated effectively. As a gesture of goodwill, once I absorb what I can of this back and forth, I am going to reach out to him to suggest what might be a more effective approach to repairing his reputation.

That offer to help you be more effective in speaking to your past drama, despite your continued insults directed at me—that offer still stands. Assuming you stand by your previous explanations and admission of the mistakes that you had made.

I have no doubt that you and I will discuss issues of theology in the future, whether directly or indirectly, and continue to disagree. Reasoned discourse on the ideas is healthy. To help make such discourse more constructive without dwelling on past mistakes and insults, I’ve invested my time to go through a lot of your past material. As soon as I saw evidence of you being shut out of the conversation in 2010, I wanted to know more and to better understand the details. To better understand you.

Remember, we don’t operate in a vacuum. If you want people to let go of your past drama, perhaps going into conversations expecting the worst from people isn’t a good strategy either. Why should past behavior be fair game in one scenario but not the other? If people study your history of online comments, why is it not reasonable for them to conclude that you’re an abrasive individual who doesn’t deserve a cordial response?

Acting on Principle

Today, my observations suggest that you are often projecting from inside, those very demons which haunt you. Case in point: your recent charge that I am displaying erratic behavior that you think is ‘sociopathic’ or possibly ‘far worse’. Consider that you yourself consistently demonstrate erratic behavior: cordial conversations in live video hangouts contrasted with insulting condescension in social media comments for which you’ve become notorious.

What you don’t realize is that unlike many, I’m willing to call out the good things that my intellectual adversaries do, while also calling out the bad things. It’s unfortunate that you see this as sociopathic or passive-aggressive. Perhaps you’re so used to aggressive-aggressive, that this has become the only template that you understand for written discourse. In truth, more people will come to your defense online in the face of insults when they see you uphold decency in the face of abuse.

When you recently helped an ex-Muslim friend of mine avoid getting doxed by refusing to accept and disseminate professional information about him, I wanted to find a way to return the favor. Not by going easy on you in the arena of ideas—neither of us should concede that ground. And not by excusing your belligerent behavior online—you still need to correct that. But rather, by applauding your kind gesture, which I was privy to. I wanted to encourage everyone to take that same attitude about protecting people while vigorously debating the ideas.

If you lamented that people in the past only saw you in black and white, then please don’t make that same mistake with others today. Let’s continue to dig in hard with what we see as bad arguments, but lay off the condescension and insults as we do so. I’ll make an effort to do that with you. Will you resolve to do the same? Feel free to get in the last word with a flurry of condescending insults if you wish. If you need to, I’ll let you get it out of your system before we consider a reset.

I am going to do my best to respond to you in kindness in the face of any continued insults, misrepresentation, slander, and condescension from you. Should you no longer have any inclinations in this regard, bonus. We’re off to a great restart.

Perhaps what I have suggested is the kindness that you should have received but didn’t, after having been misunderstood and ignored back in 2010. Maybe that would have prevented you from sharing the professional information about a critic of Islam with the students at his university, including the Muslim Students Association on his campus. Perhaps you would have been far less reckless as a result of having been spoken to with kindness. I say this to you as a person who also acknowledges that he is not perfect.

Maybe acts of kindness from people who you don’t expect it from, can chip away at that hardened exterior of yours. I’m going to make an effort to do my part. Peace.