BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Steve, I quoted all the current historians writing on WW1.
They are all heads or senior professors of university history departments except Hasting who writes books.

Name one who is "tawdry."
None were misquoted. I quoted them with links so the quote could be seen in its intended context.

You people could not find one historian who had written anything in the last twenty years that disagreed.

Name one of "Keith's historians" who you think should be dismissed Steve.

Do you agree with Musket that, "those historians should know better?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:33 PM

Dave, You are correct to a point ........... however the Professor dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995 even the one's who took part and/or witnessed events for themselves.

They, according to his infinite wisdom, are unreliable and we should discount anything they have contributed.

HOWEVER, the bible, parts of which were written three and half thousand years ago, should be accepted as gospel as it were.

Neither you or I know which bits of course, that's secret, but then why should mere lessor mortals such as you and I be party to such knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Raggy, it is not me who "dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995."
It is the current generation of historians.

Then there was no consensus on those issues.
Now there is.

You people think the current historians are all deluded fools.
Why would anyone think that?
I am no historian.
I get my views on history from reading the historians whose life's work it is.
You people think you know better than those historians.
Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM

Just watched the BBC drama, 'The Ark'. Funnily enough it was all those who did not believe in god that drowned. What a bastard he must have been. Oh look. I have cocked it up. Best kill this lot off and replace them with yes men. Nowt down for us, lads. Sorry. Still, at least we won't have to put up with Keith and Pete being insufferably smug...

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM

They have a lot to be "smug" about!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Well, a couple of things. As I've said many times before, I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. I hate to tell you this, but neither do you. The difference between us is that I seek out all the evidence I can to try and make a judgement whereas you rely entirely on faith. By evidence, I mean stuff that can be corroborated and that emanates from the laws of nature. I can't find anything in any description of God that fits that bill. What I don't accept as evidence is myth, ancient stories written down and/or made up by scribes who had an agenda, tradition, ceremony, edicts coming from holy men and witness. The case against is, in my mind, further strengthened by claims made about God that he is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. Everything that you can think of that goes against the laws of nature, in fact. The explanation of everything in the universe, including all life on earth, is that God created it all. Yet the greatest theologians of all time can't answer that most childish of questions, who made God then?

The universe is vast and complex, and, in my view, the only way to explain it is by resorting to our scientific endeavour. That is not empty words. It means ruthless pursuit of knowledge by means of gathering real evidence. It means not falling back on silly notions about "greater truths" and the like, words that are just that, words. You can't explain something as complex and diverse as the universe by inventing an explanation that is not only infinitely more complex than the thing it attempts to explain but which for itself there is neither explanation nor evidence. So I'm on the fence, but both arms, both legs and my big arse are all on one side, while on the other you might just glimpse the tips of my fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:09 PM

Keith, with all the respect I can muster, and I speak for myself though I may get support, I'm sick to the back teeth of you and your historians. You have used a joke I first made months ago to resurrect the damn thing, so round and round and round we go. You know that you will not get anyone additional to agree, so give up why don't you. The thing is dead. The horse will no longer whinny. The tank is empty. I look deep into the topic's eyes but there's no-one driving. Most important, the sword of truth is not in your scabbard. Do those goths still hang around the canal bank in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:22 AM

Meanwhile over in Dumbfuckistan, this just in.

The state of Indiana has just enacted a religious freedom and protection act.

Apparently it's not exactly freedom and protection as such but the freedom for Christians to discriminate against people they don't like, even in business.

By the people, for the people
That was Lincoln's vow
But what the hell would Abraham Lincoln say
If he could see America now?

(Dick Gaughan)

Some people say that Clarkson is too ironic for his own good. Looking at the world around us, he seems to have a lot of material to be going on with.

Poor Keith. He really is having problems coming to terms with being out of step with reality. Can't tell the difference between a discovery that clicks into a scientific jigsaw and an opinion that gives a version of interpreting facts, or historian commentary as it's known. It really troubles him that some of us can interpret facts for ourselves. Judging by past form. It isn't Keith you should be asking re which parts of the Bible he believes Dave. Ask his vicar. He prefers to repeat views of others rather than have a mind of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (The Gas Pedant)
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:48 AM

pete, re your numbered points... following my numbered points ... errr

1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !...

But my 'preference' (i.e. the explanation which I find to be the most credible) is based on evidence gathered by many, many talented scientists over many decades. Your preference, on the other hand, is based on a concensus (Oooh! Dirty word!), among you and your fellow cultists, that the myths and parables in an old book are an expression of absolute truth.

2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth...

"it is inferred by his description" in the Bible, you mean? But few people, except you and your fellow cultists, believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. And, apart from some words in the Bible, there would appear to be no evidence that your God even exists. Of course, words in an old religious text don't count as evidence.

3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,

Whatever! I made this point just to emphasise your general ignorance about modern science.

4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.

Again, what you choose to believe, or not to believe, is irrelevant! Only evidence counts!

5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at ...

But, pete, someone who does/did not not know the elementary scientific fact that gas is a form of matter, should not really be attempting to enter into a scientific debate. In scientific terms you're a bit like someone who doesn't know that B follows A in the alphabet! You're a bit like someone who can't spell CAT trying to lecture us on feline taxonomy!

If you want to enter into a debate about science, pete, please go away and do some homework! Although I suspect that you'll be away for a very long time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

What is "smug" as opposed to smug? Anyone any idea what it is on about?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

Why are people being so personally mean to Keith? His views are different from mine, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be personally mocked for them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:27 AM

Nobody mocks his views

His assurance that everybody else is wrong and his mocking of any view. Or his frantic googling in order to find some obscure crap that makes views of others look suspect.

If you read his posts you will see his childish behaviour on view.

No. His actual views. Hospitals and schools are legitimate targets for Israeli militants. British Muslims of Pakistani origin are potential rapists as it is hardwired into them. Sending waves of men over the top into machine gunfire was good leadership and the men understood this and supported the tactic. Only UKIP have their finger on the immigration pulse. That he never met someone who met him so that person is a liar rather than his memory failed him.

They are just views sunshine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:32 AM

"Why are people so mean to Keith"......the people who are mean to Keith, have just been comprehensively defeated in debate on another thread by Keith, Teribus and Lighter.....among others.
They have simply fallen back to their default position.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:11 AM

I must have missed that one.

I'll see if Musket was on duty that day.

What was the subject worm? Fascist pin up models?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM

In all the time I've been on here, I've never seen anyone victoriou or vanquished. The arguments just go on and on until one of us decides to go for a bike ride.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:16 AM

Musket, those are not my views.
Steve, it was not me who "resurrected" the history debate.
I just responded.
Of course you people are sick of the historians.
They all refute the claims you people made about WW1.
You were wrong to ridicule me for just repeating what they are all saying.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Steve, it was YOU who resurrected the history debate, 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

The ONLY person who has made ANY claim regarding historians is Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995 but he still maintains he partially believes in a book that was written up to 3,500 years ago.

Illogical to say the least.

And we still don't know which bits he regards as truth and which bits as fairy stories .............. or perchance untruths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:41 AM

I faith in Musket's epistles. Not all of them. Some are true and some are not. But I will not tell anyone which ones I believe...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:10 AM

Just so long as you keep the faith and remain prompt when subscriptions are due....

Oh and have them not just faith them. I've had to put an occasional table over that bit of the carpet since the last acolyte faithed in the corner. The dog remains traumatised.

Oh, one for Keith. If they aren't your views either get the moderators to delete the posts you put them in as you must have an imposter or look on your keyboard for " and learn not only how to use them but give us a clue why you post the words in the first place if you wish to disassociate yourself from what you post.

Bad enough the real one without a bloody tribute act....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I did NOT resurrect the flippin' history debate, Keith. I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate that shuffled off its mortal coil weeks ago. You pounced on it gleefully to see if you could squeeze a drop more ire out of us. It's what you do, Keith. Now, as you lost that debate somewhere in a mire of inexactitudes of your own fashioning, might I gently advise you to just laugh at my extremely hilarious joke, then BLOODY LET IT DROP??

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM

"indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ?"

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:28 AM

Musket, I do not understand your last post.
Raggy,
Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995

Not true.
Back then some historians backed my current views and some backed yours.
It is the current historians who now dismiss the views of Taylor and Clark.
Not me.
I am not an historian.

On matters of history, I believe the historians.
You people think you know more than all those professors whose life's work it is.
Fine, but the rest of us find you ridiculous

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate

The only history you and I have debated is that of WW1.
You claimed I had a poor grasp of it.
My views on WW1 derive from reading the history of that war.
I was able to quote many historians in support of my views, which I formed from reading their work anyway.
You people could find nothing written less than twenty years ago to support your views.

That is why I refuted that slur.
YOU resurrected the issue Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:47 AM

Back to the main point tell us about the Bible Professor, which bits are truth and which bits are lies. It is truly humbling to hear the words of a master such as yourself ..................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:46 AM

Lies are intended to deceive.
I do not believe the bible is the literal truth, or history, but not lies.

Do not expect me to lay bare my beliefs here to be mocked and ridiculed.
I am an Anglican, a church with tens of millions of members world wide.
My views are broadly in line with the teachings of my church, which is broadly in line with those of the Catholic Church, Methodists and others.

If you need help to find what those teachings are I am willing to help.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:50 AM

and of course you don't lie, do you professor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:19 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM

I am confused now. You co not believe the bible is the literal truth, you do not believe it is history and you do not believe it is not lies. What is it then? Besides 'broadly in line with' can mean anything. What a cop out. But like the god theory really.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:33 AM

Not much of a Christian either

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

OK, Keith, an evangelist told us that Jesus fed five thousand with five loaves and two fishes. That is either true or false. If it's false, and an evangelist told us it, and it's in the Bible, isn't it a lie? A lie in the Bible? Or do you believe that little nugget? If you do believe it, doesn't that sit rather uneasily with your claim that we shouldn't believe historians (who, at least, were real human beings) that were writing before your mercilessly-recent cutoff date? An evangelist, moreover, who was very pro-Jesus, writing two thousand years ago, whose identity we can't even be sure of, and who was writing long after Jesus's death? But if you don't believe it, then aren't you saying that the Bible can tell lies? What's it to be on this one, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?
Are all folkies liars?

As I said, my views and beliefs are broadly in line with Anglican teaching.
This is not about me so you do not need to know exactly what I believe.

The historian thing is quite different Steve.
In the last twenty years, as more knowledge has become available, a consensus has emerged among historians about aspects of WW1.
Before that some felt differently, but now they agree.

I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.
You all ridiculed me for that.
You think you know more about history than the historians, so people should come to you instead.
That is so ridiculous it is funny.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:47 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor, that is neither wholly true, or wholly untrue.

It is however full of meaning for anyone open minded enough to put their own interpretation on it.....you are like a pack of curs with a bone, why don't you put a bit of thought into what you wright?

I am an atheist don't believe in an after life, but I can appreciate the metaphor and the peace it can bring to some of my brothers and sisters.
The Christian religion of the present day is a force for good, based on the teachings of a philosopher far ahead of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor

Tell that to Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

I don't need to tell pete anything, he ploughs his own furrow and seems to understand more than any of us.
I am not arrogant enough to ridicule him for his views when we know almost nothing about the origin of the universe and as I have said before humanity will be long gone before we do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

So who is the comment Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor aimed at then seeing as Keith believes part of it, though he will not say which part, and Pete believes all of it. I have already said that it is made up. I think most other people on here would agree.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:30 AM

I always thought that loaves and fishes business was about inspiring a big bring and share party. I think it was the vicar when I was a kid that explained it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:22 PM

Err.. You don't know anything about the origins of the universe, but quite a few people are bloody close to it, a few picoseconds in fact.

Mind you, credit where it is due. The bible is a metaphor. Correct.

Let's ask a few Christians if it is, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

Not just christians, Musket. Don't forget that at least part of it is the basis for the jewish and muslim religions as well. Possibly some I don't know about and would not really care to either...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:33 PM

Well.. it's easy enough to work out how "water to wine"
could have been set up with a trick barrel, a few clay pots and sheep bladders, etc
- easily available technology 2000 years ago..

Whether or not Jesus was an aspiring amateur night club stage magician.. errrmmm.. open to debate ???

What was he doing during the missing years..
- practicing and refining his tricks and audience patter...???

Maybe if he'd got more regular gigs, and broke into the top city & seaside resort venues
the course of history might have been entirely different...??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?

How many folk singers do we kneel in front of and pray to? Mind you, a few years ago I'd have done that to Karan Casey...

The historian thing is quite different Steve.

Of course, Keith. Nothing like applying a double standard, is there.

Most of the Bible is metaphor

That's news to me. The trouble with that is that we tend to know when it's metaphor and not the actual story. In the case of the Bible, an awful lot of people seem to not have been told that it's a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM

Who should tell them Steve?
No-one tells me what to believe, and I am sure all Christians would say the same.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM
...
I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.


From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM
...
No-one tells me what to believe

No, absolutely nothing like applying double standards. Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart. As to who should tell them. Historians maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:10 PM

Sorry - Me at 03:09PM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:53 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed.....ok, relax [but not too much!], I know you are trying to have it both ways, so as to attack keith as well as me !. so steve what are these laws of nature ? and how do they fit your evolution beliefs. I suggested some natural laws that do fit the bible, because they are observable science. you claim your belief is true, but present no evidence for it. [ I should point out that some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model] so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.    and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.    uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept. failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

"uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God" ···

No: God is postulated as "eternal & uncreated". A postulation is not a description. Surely you can grasp that distinction?

≈M≈

Hohoho -- we can play these philosopho-semantic [or semanto-philosophic] games for hours&hours&hours&hours...

10 pm. Bedtime. G'night. Sweet dreams! Happy postulations!

PS That Belgian who laid off the ball for Fellaini to score was offside when he received it. Israel were robbed!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart.

Correct Dave, because there is none.
WW1 is well documented recent history.
There is archaeology from biblical times but almost no documentation for historians to work with.

Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas and St. Paul were real historical figures.
Beyond that, who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The bible writers could have been considered historians and now cannot to be believed. See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found. The people that wrote the bible have, likewise, been outdated. It is little wonder that you cannot grasp scientific concepts when your attempts at the simplest logic are so dismal. And what on earth does failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments. even mean? You do your faith no credit by talking gobbledegook.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:19 PM

The two statements were nothing to do with historical figures. You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe. Once again you are twisting like a bucket of snakes on speed. Maybe you should stand for parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:39 PM

to counter your counter again, shimrod...
1, you are yourself appealing to consensus. let me remind you again. your own science has nothing to say about origins, by your own admission [ this at least negates the claim that all of science is interdependent with the Darwin storyline]. this means that you are just following the Darwinist cult and their hallowed writings. of course if you can demonstrate that these changeable ideas are science ?......which brings us to
2, we only have their writings claiming evolutionism is true, but even some of them know it is full of holes, and admit it. and judging from your empty arguments, your evolution does not exist !.
3,    and demonstrated your ignorance of the theory you blindly accept. but I don't claim to be a scientist, but the simple arguments have not been answered by anything except consensus.
4, only the evidence counts, you say.....ok, lets have yours.
what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.
5, someone sais somewhere " the man who can read but doesn't, has no advantage over the man who cannot read". you are the one claiming to be the scientist, but only offer appeals to consensus and authority, with some uninformed theology. yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science.
take some of your own medicine please .