1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:05 pm Post subject:

Dear Eduardo,

I am delighted with your thread. You make it clear that you have no interest in defending your view, which you claim is Biblical. Why not teach with conviction that Onias III is messiah and defend your presupposition that Daniel 8:22 is indistinguishable from Daniel 7:7? If Judas Maccabeus made atonement for iniquity, brought everlasting righteousness to Israel and inaugurated a new age of grace, then please, share your gospel with us.

I am not preventing others from showing you your errors in a Christian manner. My preference, however, is that you reveal your own error by answering the questions and objections put to you.

What historical event do you identify as the beginning of Daniel's 70 prophetic weeks?

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject:

Eugene,

I'm afraid that, just as I announced, I won't be defending any position of mine for now. Since I've recognized the possibility of being mistaken, I just request once more to be instructed by the avid readers of this forum. So, I won't be distracted by your efforts about my supposed endorsement of the Onias view. I just want the biblical proof I've requested repeatedly. When and if it comes, will I be willing to enter further areas of research.

Still awaiting, but slightly bemused by the deafening silence I hear from the most outspoken members of this thread. How come?

gillespie9669 · Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Joy in hell? At what exactly?

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduardo,
Over many years I have been surprised at how easy it seems to be to offend someone in writing.
Rest assured that it is never my intention to offend anyone, at any time. Least of all, you.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that it was you in your first post to me who explained that, on your side of the field you were happy to discount the S.O.P.

I was a bit surprised to see that, but at least you are open and honest. It may help you if I explain my position since it is significantly different.

You probably know that within the S.D.A. Church there are two factions; both of whom were noted in the S.O.P. One, is known as the "Nominal Adventists," and the other is known as the "Hated Sect."

The N.A.s are noted for taking little if anything seriously, while the H.S. take everything seriously. The first seek to break up the standards while the second seek to restore them. The people who belong to the second group are commonly associated with the Independant bodies. This is so because the moment you are noted as someone who follows the S.O.P. the ministers are forbidden to allow you to hold Church Office.

The dreadful effects of this dire decree, are that increasingly more and more Churches elect women as Elders, and Deacons. And the reason for that, is because they are far more pliable and permit the ministers to do all manner of things which should not happen.

The Church follows the way of the world. There was a time when the only nurses in hospitals were male nurses. The women working in the wards were merely wards maids. Their job? Make the beds, sweep the floors, change the linen. But, the male nurses tended to prevent the doctors from doing silly things, and commonly took over from them when they did. Things reached a stage where suddenly, the women were trained in nursing, and the male nurses were phased out. And so, now our church has been following the lead of the world in a strikingly similar manner.

The H.S. do not see E.G. White behind the S.O.P. writings so much as God the Holy Spirit. They realise all too well, that the person who rejects the Spirit, is himself rejected by God. After all, is it not true that God says "My people are destroyed for want of knowledge." "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you." Well all you need to do is cry, "We will not have this man to rule over us." And a dreadful blight descends upon you. You will not find the H.S. doing that. Their mindset is significantly different.

So, in the case of Dan. 8:14 it is vitally necessary to understand it and believe it deeply because we must then confess our sin, and enter into the holiest of all by faith with Christ. Note further, that those who do not, are lost.

The whole picture is rarely presented, so I can understand people thinking they can have ten bob either way, but the reality is stark.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:58 am Post subject:

Dear Ross,

I don't know if I should dare interpret that you are a member of the H.S. In any case, I don't care one way or another as long as you follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit. I try to do the same.

What I do care about is people trying to force me to believe certain things related to religion and faith if those things cannot be proven with the Bible. You state that "in the case of Dan. 8:14 it is vitally necessary to understand it and believe it deeply." I believe what Dan.8:14 says is absolutely true. What I do not believe to be true is what the SDA church, including Mrs. White, says that that verse teaches. I don't suppose you would want me to believe anything anybody says, would you? I wouldn't be demanding anything out of the ordinary if I requested some kind of biblical proof, would I? Well, that's exactly what I demand.

I know perfectly well (as a matter of fact, better than most pastors) what Ellen White says about these issues, but in no case can she be taken as the final authority. I don't think she is an authority at all about anything. The final authority must be the Bible. You stated confidently, not long ago, that proving the date October 22, 1844 from the Bible and "the Jewish historical record" was a simple matter. Well, is it? If so, complying with my request should be straightforward, shouldn't it?

Of course, you are entitled to think, as apparently Mr Gillespie does, that I am a lost soul and that my very pertinent questions don't deserve an answer. What you think about me is up to you. I'm afraid I can't influence you one way or another. I know God loves me and I am saved. I rejoice in his love and in his Word. Furthermore, my request for more light is sincere. At present, I'm convinced that none of you can answer my questions, but since I'm a fallible man, I could truly be pitifully mistaken. If this is clearly shown to be the case with the relevant Bible evidence I request, I'll recant my present position. What more can I say? Besides, even if I weren't sincere in my plea, you should owe it to yourselves, and, above all, to others reading this thread, to show that my three very simple questions can be successfully answered from an "orthodox" stand.

I'm really looking forward to relevant answers, specific answers, to-the-point answers. When and if they come, I'll study them prayerfully. If what such answers state is in perfect agreement with God's Word, I'll accept them. If not, I'll have to say they fail the Berean test for truth and I'll keep waiting for someone to answer my very specific questions in a very specific way. My hunch, however, is that such answers won't be forthcoming. Think, then, why that might be. If no answer can be given to a question, perhaps the question really is unanswerable, don't you think? If so, perhaps some beliefs that are usually taken for granted are not deeply rooted in the Bible, but somewhere else. If that should prove to be the case, what are you going to do with that shocking piece of news?

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduardo,
There is no such thing as a question which cannot be answered, only a mind so set to repel the answer that it appears unanswerable.

Mr. Gillespie has fairly stated the case as understood by Adventists. Your responses did not advance us one wit. They were, in every case only a stall.

You fail in some measure to realise that the prophecies of Daniel have a plenary sense which takes them from the local situation of the Jewish people to the global community. From the Synagogue to the Church.

For Mr. Gillespie and myself, these things are obvious and natural, and we would expect any Seventh-day Adventist to recognise that fact. Particularly one who is as educated as yourself.

My greatest interest in this subject is not so much what is or is not the case so much as to probe the question:- How will people destroy the 1844 message? I suspect that you have provided me with a great deal of information on that question.

1st. the deep antagonism toward E.G. White/S.O.P. followed by 2nd. a stubbon attack on the 1844 doctrine, using 3rd. a psychological system which denies it, 4th. without advancing anything, and 5th. Stalling it.

That the prophecy has a decided plenary section is seen by the frequent use made of Daniel by the Lord Jesus Christ. In His day the Bronze kingdom of the Grecian Empire had faded away, and the Iron Kingdom of Rome stood triumphant as the mistress of the world. Jesus had much to say concerning the disastrous things which would occur under her.

To note those things one need only read, with due care, the gospel of Mark particularly the Olivet discourse and observe the parallels with Daniel.

I do not suggest that you stop examining the scripture, only that, in so doing you seek to avoid ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth which is such a subtle trap.

Because words have meaning and can be understood, it is natural for people to draw conclusions from what has been said. All too often, this is done without a particularly sound understanding of the other persons real perspective. Instead, reading into their statements things they never said and certainly didn't mean. Where ever this has happened with me all I can do is ask you to forgive me please, for I am no different from others even though I understand the principles involved.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:42 am Post subject:

Dear Ross,

There certainly are people with the mind frame that you describe. Such people refuse to even entertain the possibility of their being mistaken and are ready to repel any other positions, no matter how unanswerable they might appear to a third party. That is precisely what we should avoid at all costs. And we have a great basic method for reaching overall agreement: Basing our discussions on a contextual analysis of the Word of God.

As we are discussing Dan.8:14, all I have been asking is that we let Dan.8:14 and its context teach us whatever the Spirit of God intended when that chapter was written. So, please, don't just assume that my mind frame will "repel the answer" to that which "appears unanswerable". No contextual answers to my specific questions have been given yet. Not by you, not by Eugene, and not by Mr Gillespie, who now even refuses to give them (see http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=790).

You see, when a student in a classroom asks for clarification about something the teacher has just explained, the student himself can be dumb, or he can be quite brilliant. If he is dumb (although, from time to time, even dumb students can ask brilliant questions), the teacher will probably explain the difficulty and, more likely than not, the student will be satisfied. On the other hand, if the student's question is pertinent (and even a dumb student, as just said, can ask a pertinent question), the teacher will either answer it with the necessary level of knowledge, if he has that knowledge, or will honestly explain that he doesn't have enough knowledge to answer the question (perhaps he will look up the answer in a book for the next class period), or he will pretend that the student is stupid or that the answer has already been given. The latter, of course, would be the case of an incompetent and dishonest teacher. The previous two cases would apply to a teacher who may not be brilliant, but one who is certainly honest. My question now for the readers (and writers) in this forum is, Which type of teachers (or students) are you?

So, a kind reminder yet once again. Please, someone, answer my very pertinent questions. Any honest and knowledgeable teachers out there?

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduardo,
I take the points your raise. They can be germaine in many instances but, what you consisently do is play a spoiling game, seeking to wrong foot the other person.

It is merely a play in intellectualism which has already led you woefully astray until the truth, as it is understood by Adventists, has been lost to you. I do not regard that as smart, only unwise.

On the other thread where Mr. Gillespie has sought to explain the Adventist understanding of the 1844 message, you have gone in pursuit and once more played your silly spoiling games which destroys the value his work otherwise has for others.

As you are both teachers of sorts I assume you are consumed with jealousy and want to have the pre-eminence. If you want to deny this, you would have to answer the question, Why are you doing this? I know of another web-site where you would be immediately dubbed a Jesuit. Not because you are one, so much as because you constantly seek to inject serious doubt into otherwise serious essays.

It is not as if your constant cavilling advances anything. Indeed, your entire operation constantly sets everything into reverse, and is very evil indeed.

It would be very pleasant for Mr. Gillespie to be able to express himself without the constant stupidity you engage in, and I would find it very pleasant if I could clearly note the numerous points he wishes to make without your constant cavilling which E.G. White noted as coming from a man who is satan's right hand man.

I don't suppose that you are a Jesuit because those known to me are all very sensible men. I am only sorry that I cannot say the same for you.
I have worked in many industries and with men from all over the Globe, and there is one feature you might like to keep in mind. When we saw a man who was a school teacher or a College teacher we usually saw a boy who had never left school.

From the fore-going you may be able to notice how you are coming across.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:39 am Post subject:

Ross,

I really think you should keep your fury in check. In any case, although I don’t think that was exactly your intention when you mentioned my childish days and ways, I want to thank you because it brought to my mind Jesus’s reference about the convenience of being like children to inherit his Kingdom. In any case, as I said before, you are entitled to your own opinion about me. Your opinion may be shared by any number of readers, but there might be others who think differently. So, in reality I’m in approximately the same situation as you are, since there will undoubtedly be people who know you, from all walks of life, that think you are a steadfast, wise individual whose opinion and appreciation of others does not waver continually, whereas others might think you are a gullible, self-deluded, insult-prone person. Because of that, discussing the personal merits, or lack thereof, of mere individuals serves no useful purpose other than hurting the other. That’s the kind of ploy played by the unbelieving Jews of Jesus’s day against him for being “only” “the son of Joseph, whom we know”. What really matters is not how mature or immature we may look to this or that person, but how willing we are to listen to God’s word, despite our imperfections.

Since you ask me a candid question, I’ll answer candidly. Why do I do this? Well, if you mean why I opened this thread, the reason is very simple. I don’t like keeping for myself things that I think may be useful for others. It would be selfish on my part to hide truth that might benefit other people. The Bible doesn’t teach me to do such a thing. Of course, when we share knowledge, we take the risk that some people who cannot possibly refute our stand, and who are irritated by the position being presented, will ask us why we do such a terrible thing. Most Catholics do that. Some Protestants do that. All sectarians know that to be the case. The curious thing is that when all sectarians are confronted with the real Bible evidence that shows the weakness of their own position, they always ask the messenger why he/she is doing that! Now, if your question was in the sense of why I went “in pursuit” of Mr Gillespie to the new thread he opened, here’s my answer. Certainly not because “I’m consumed with jealousy and want to have the pre-eminence”. I don’t think I have any reasons to be jealous of Mr Gillespie, and I’m not saying this in any derogatory sense. I think he is a child of God, just as I am. I don’t believe I’m superior to him, or to you, in any way. I may know more than you in certain aspects, but probably less in others, but that doesn’t make us superior to anyone, does it? The real reason I went “in pursuit” of Mr Gillespie was the reason why I opened this very thread and because I thought he was avoiding answering to the real issues by simply repeating elsewhere what he couldn’t possibly defend in this thread. Since my “pursuit” hurt him so deeply, I explained to him (and others) yesterday that I won’t return to that thread, no matter what they write in it in the future. There was another reason for my “pursuit”. The questions I’ve asked in this thread have intentionally been of a highly technical nature (you even recognized once that you had never seen anything like them) and they are the very crux of the interpretative problem of the book of Daniel. However, the problem is much more complex than one can imagine from the mere reflection on these three questions. There are many more overwhelming objections to the fancy historicist interpretation we’ve been gullibly exposed to for so long. I did not want to expose the readers of this thread to more shocking news about the minute details of Daniel that escape detection when one reads the Bible cursorily, but I thought I could do it with profit for others if I did it in different thread, one that had been created, I believe, with the express purpose of spreading what I perceive as error. So I asked ten groups of “easier” questions (none of which, I am persuaded, can be answered successfully). Not that the questions I’ve asked are the end of the matter. Considerably more can be said, and asking many more penetrating but pertinent questions is certainly easy. So, here’s why.

You mention my “constant cavilling”. Now, cavilling means “raising trivial objections”. I suppose you knew that. If you did, I cannot possibly understand what kind of excuse you can give to call my objections trivial. If they were trivial, and anyone can perceive they are not, it would be easy for you or anyone to answer them, for my soul’s sake, wouldn’t it? Or is your mind so beclouded that you can’t even answer trivial questions?

As for Mrs White’s “accuracy” in “predicting” that the 1844 “message” would be opposed by Satanic agents in the future, need I say anything? That “message” of hers was first opposed from within our ranks by Dudley Canright in the 19th century. Later on, it was opposed by others. The most notorious cases were Fletcher and Ballenger. Mrs White’s involvement in the Ballenger issue is, to say the least, shameful. Her treatment of the man was indignant, and is well documented. She dared to say that, no matter how many Bible passages Ballenger could put together to prove his point, he would still be wrong because the “sanctuary doctrine” had been established with God’s testimony, i.e., her own writings. It’s only natural that she should strive to keep her precious “sanctuary doctrine”, since she had been decidedly instrumental in its concoction, and she knew that there would always be honest souls, both inside and outside the SDA church, who would oppose such falsehood. As for the inane charge that one’s opponent is an instrument of Satan, we all know the credit that it deserves and where it usually originates. The first ones to use it were the Pharisees, and the context of their usage of this utterly ridiculous accusation was their own inability to say anything coherent.

And no, I’m not a Jesuit, and I’ve never studied with them, nor do I know any of them. I believe that, as you say, many of them will be very sensible men, more sensible, perhaps, than some Seventh-day Adventists, especially those who, instead of studying their Bibles, bury their heads in the sand. We all come across one way or another, and everybody notices very well indeed.

Lastly, what about the answers to those trivial questions?

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Eduardo,
I am never furious. But I can be very stern. There is a difference.
My point is that the man who has evidence will present his evidence while the man who has none will attack the man.

That can be done very subtley, and I think you are guilty of it. But, what I would like to see is plain posts rather than oblique questioning and the main reason I have for that is that it saves time.

When you ask a question, or a dozen questions, your basic concept is hidden. That would matter less if we had a lot more time but it is not so.
When you ask those questions only you know what reply you are prepared to accept and that is a lot harder when the audience has little idea of what is required. Far better then to present your case - if you have one - than permit everyone to run round in circles.

That is why I said earlier that, it is far preferable to avoid a circular argument.

If it is good enough for Mr. Gillespie to express himself openly, then it should be good enough for you. From this you might take it that I am interested, otherwise it wouldn't matter.

I can detect that you feel hard done by because no one has come to the party, but you have a part to play too.

So don't feel afraid to come out in the open and express yourself more fully rather than knowing what you will accept for an answer while know one else does.
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:31 am Post subject:

Ross,

Your considerations are both imprecise and slanted. I am the person who started this thread. To begin with, I gave a very open and reasonable amount of information as to why I thought the 1844 dogma was wrong. Then I answered all the questions I was asked giving much more detailed information. I provided you with considerations you yourself said you had never seen. Later on, diverse insults, in which I’m sorry to say you have participated in a very conspicuous way, were thrown upon me. Considering all the abuse I was receiving, I decided to stop answering questions, as I had done before with no limits, and ask some very pertinent questions of my own. Those questions of mine implicitly show the reason why I came to reject, all out of personal Bible study, the 1844 dogma, the “sanctuary doctrine” and the “investigative judgment”. As I've said repeatedly, I admit that my present position could be mistaken. But the only way I can admit that I am actually mistaken is by being shown from the Bible, not Mrs White’s purloined writings, and certainly not cherished unproven convictions of the readers of this forum, that the questions I asked are either illegitimate or can be answered successfully from the “orthodox” viewpoint that you uphold. This is far from circular reasoning. It is exactly the same procedure that SDAs follow when confronting Sunday-keepers. We ask for proof from the Bible, as we will not submit to any other authorities or considerations, and that’s the way it should be.

So, as you can see, I’m following exactly the path I should follow as a Christian. I was presented an interpretation of the Bible, the 1844 dogma, many years ago. In my ignorance, I accepted it at the time. Fifteen years later, through my reading of the Bible, I came to the conclusion that the dogma is unbiblical, and I’ve been presenting all along serious evidence in this thread why that is the case. However, the basic reception my considerations have deserved so far is a heap of insults. Can’t you see that is not the way to deal with these issues? Not only is it profoundly unbiblical; it’s also dishonest. The only way to deal with unanswered questions is answering them. You are not left in doubt as to what I’ll accept. I’ll accept contextually relevant answers from the biblical passages I quoted. The questions were asked in a very precise way, and they should be answered in a very detailed fashion. Naturally, I won’t accept answers to questions that were not asked. I won’t accept opinions about how wrong preterism is, because I didn’t ask anything about preterism. I won’t accept quotations from the so-called Spirit of Prophecy. I will only accept contextually relevant specific answers to the specific questions I asked.

I am more and more persuaded my questions can’t possibly be answered. Which shows 1844 is an error, quod erat demonstrandum. The reason nobody has come to the party, as you put it, is not that I haven’t played my part, but the impossibility to answer my questions successfully. Of course, you can try and close your eyes tight to the devastating evidence, which has been presented only slightly, and flatter yourselves in the belief that “classical objections,” as Mr Gillespie calls them now, can be successfully answered. They cannot, unless they are emasculated into a tamed man of straw of our own devising which can then be made a fool of. But the real objections, those presented by knowledgeable scholars from both outside and inside the church, have never been dealt with, and the new ones I’ve presented will never be dealt with for the very simple reason that they are the truth and that everything that the SDA pioneers built around the 1844 blunder is nothing more than a foolish face-saving cover-up as to why the Ruler of the Universe did not bother to share his schedule with certain New England apprentices of Bible students in the first half of the 19th century.

Of course, you are entitled to think that what I’m saying, since it contradicts your beliefs, is an infamy. What you can never say, however, is that I haven’t given you, or anyone else for that matter, a fair chance to prove me wrong. Don’t say that my attitude prevents anyone from proving me wrong. It doesn’t. If I proposed an objectionable theory like, say, the sanctity of Sunday, I’m sure you’d be able to present a compelling number of arguments that would successfully refute my claims, and there would be very little, if anything, I would be able to say, except, of course, that you were right. But such is not the case we are considering, is it? Well, what are you going to do about it then? I’ll tell you. You have two possibilities, and two possibilities only: You could turn to the Bible and study it to know for yourself what it actually says, without using anybody else’s goggles (not mine either, naturally). Or you could insist, based on absolutely nothing, that somehow I must be mistaken or else .... I have my own opinion as to what your choice will be. I only wish you'd prove me wrong.

gillespie9669

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

As I came to reflect more deeply on the strange concept of Eduardo's "Unanwerable questions" it dawned on me that this concept has been a constant in the school of disserdants." He aligns himself with such people as Fletcher et al who all came to grief on much the same reef, so to speak.
They all sought to find some fault with 1844, but why? What was their motive?
In relecting on the amazing head of steam built up by Eduardo, against the late Mrs. White, the S.O.P., and the 1844 doctrine, clearly shows that it is a locomotive.
The Brinsmead agitation was just the same, but it had a very baleful effect on one young man in the church I joined just as that agitation was abating.
I used to watch as he went from group to group seeking to be accepted but he was just shunted away from them all. Some of the Brethren who noticed my interest, cruised alongside and said, "Stay away he's poison."
Eventually I was able to have him dine with me one night, and have him explain what the Brinsmeads were on about. After he had explained that, Iasked him what his stake in it was, and why? He told me that he had always wanted to be a minister but his people were too poor to pay for his College fees, but with the Brinsmead movement he and others, could ask the ministers unanwerable questions. The idea was to drive them mad, shunt then out, and take over from them. He did not need any qualifications to preach in the S.D.A. Church after that coup.
He had seemed like a lonely, starving, lost puppy - which he was - but behind that facade lay a very dire satanic move on the church. I was able that night to cause him to see the incredible danger of his position and he took heed and backed away. Soon after, he was restored among his people.
Is not Eduardo just the same as all the others?
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:46 am Post subject:

Just two brief thoughts. The first one is for Mr. Gillespie. Since you have publicly refused to answer any of my objections to the theories you defend, sir, my reaction to your invitation to read your “thoughts” on these issues is one of outrage. How dare you, sir, invite me to respond here to that to that which you won’t answer either there or here? Just in case you wonder, yes, I do read your posts. You claim to answer to “classical” objections, but you don’t even do that. The objections you answer to have been tailored to suit your own dialectical capabilities, so they don’t really have a lot of kick left in them. No wonder you answer them so “well.” But answering to real objections is a whole new ball game, isn’t it? Responding to a real opponent, one who won’t let you explain away the real difficulties, is quite another matter, and it is here you have failed entirely, sir. But, in any case, I am more than willing to re-establish an open dialogue with you. If you are ready for such a task, simply start by answering any of my questions, as I formulated them, not anybody else’s, and certainly not your softened version of real or imaginary objections you yourself formulate.

The second thought is for Ross. Sir, what purpose does it serve to categorize me with this or that group of “dissidents”? I guess that you could also be categorized with some group or groups. However, such classifications serve no practical purpose whatever, do they? More often than not, a man’s views have a lot in common with many groups. So, there’s no doubt both you and I may have a lot in common with Evangelical Christians. Believe it or not, we also have certain things in common with the Catholics. And, surprise, even I have a few things in common with Mrs Ellen G. White (not many, though). So, seriously, if I remind you of someone or some particular group, that should be quite irrelevant, shouldn’t it? Instead of devoting time to analyse my stand, shouldn’t you take time to study the biblical issues I raised and present a coherent answer to them? That should be more than enough. By the way, the notion that my questions are unanswerable is less “strange,” as you put it, than your failure to answer them if they are not, don’t you think? Or are you "just the same as all the others?"