The Bible as Literature in Schools

[Batuni]

Except that the Bible wasn't written in English... Making it Foreign Lit.

Uhu but it's been assimilated into our culture a lot more than the other texts you mentioned, and the recent history of America has been made with pretty tight links to the vernacular holy book. That's why you get stuff like shitty metal bands named after passages of Genesis (not to mention also-awful band Genesis), and a whole bunch of plays, books, etc. which cheerfully rip off the Bible for their titles. The KJV has been around for a Long, Long Time.

Hey! I like Genesis.

Particularly the Peter Gabriel and Ray Wilson albums.

Plus, the KJV is about 400 years old, with changes made specifically for protestants and puritans, which given the almost-2000 year history of the Bible, makes it, frankly, a newcomer.
Plus we've moved passed a lot of the crap it endorses. We're outgrowing the thing.

So if you're reading one English translation of a significant religious text, then surely you should consider others, yes?

Not really, no.

Why not?

[Yootwopia]

Uhu but it's been assimilated into our culture a lot more than the other texts you mentioned, and the recent history of America has been made with pretty tight links to the vernacular holy book. That's why you get stuff like shitty metal bands named after passages of Genesis (not to mention also-awful band Genesis), and a whole bunch of plays, books, etc. which cheerfully rip off the Bible for their titles. The KJV has been around for a Long, Long Time.

Hey! I like Genesis.

Oh dear oh dear.

Plus, the KJV is about 400 years old, with changes made specifically for protestants and puritans, which given the almost-2000 year history of the Bible, makes it, frankly, a newcomer.

On the other hand it was written before anything particularly important was happening in America, and before English was spread across the globe. Its literay impact is immense.

Plus we've moved passed a lot of the crap it endorses. We're outgrowing the thing.

Yeah I wouldn't rape children or break into peoples' houses and accidentally kill them, but A Clockwork Orange is still an alright book.

Not really, no.

Why not?

Because the Qu'ran and all that has had much less impact on English-language stuff in general than the Bible.

[Yootwopia]

No, not really.

You look at 700 years ago, which is when you kind of start to form your own current culture and all that, and you don't see people having cheeky orgies as form of worship, you see stained glass windows with Jesus et al gallivanting around.

Culture isn't something that goes "*POOF!* New culture"...it is and evolution (sometimes even a revolution) from another group.

Yes and we gave that Roman shit up a Long Time Ago.

[Batuni]

Hey! I like Genesis.

Oh dear oh dear.

Your dislike of a band is subjective, not objective. "I dislike X" is not the same as "X is awful", just as my "I like X" is not equivalent to "X is awesome".

Plus, the KJV is about 400 years old, with changes made specifically for protestants and puritans, which given the almost-2000 year history of the Bible, makes it, frankly, a newcomer.

On the other hand it was written before anything particularly important was happening in America, and before English was spread across the globe. Its literay impact is immense.

Well, I'd guess Native Americans would disagree, for a start. And as for spreading English across the globe, if it's simply a matter of popularity, perhaps we should be listening to a billion Chinese?

Plus we've moved passed a lot of the crap it endorses. We're outgrowing the thing.

Yeah I wouldn't rape children or break into peoples' houses and accidentally kill them, but A Clockwork Orange is still an alright book.

Is that required reading?

Why not?

Because the Qu'ran and all that has had much less impact on English-language stuff in general than the Bible.

Very Anglo-centric.

Ooh, does this mean we get to learn about all the various religious beliefs shoe-horned into Christianity in order to make it acceptable to people? Y'know, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Easter, Christmas, the various gods and goddesses embraced as saints, all that jazz?

'Cause that'd actually be interesting.

And justified, after all, if those old beliefs and stories influenced our current beliefs and stories,then clearly the same argument made for the bible can be made for them, yes?

[Hydesland]

Very Anglo-centric.

Which doesn't matter, since we're talking about introducing it as part of an English literature class (as far as I'm aware), and Sarkhaan lives in an 'Anglo-American' country, that I know for certain.

[Sarkhaan]

Very Anglo-centric.

You did read the OP, correct? You did realize that this thread is discussing the use of the Bible in the English literature classroom, yes?

What else would it be besides "Anglo-centric"?

Ooh, does this mean we get to learn about all the various religious beliefs shoe-horned into Christianity in order to make it acceptable to people? Y'know, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Easter, Christmas, the various gods and goddesses embraced as saints, all that jazz?

No, because that is irrelevant to literature. Save that for a comparative religion class or other religious studies.

And justified, after all, if those old beliefs and stories influenced our current beliefs and stories,then clearly the same argument made for the bible can be made for them, yes?

They influenced our beliefs outside of an English literary background. As such, they are entirely irrelevant to this thread.

[Batuni]

Very Anglo-centric.

You did read the OP, correct? You did realize that this thread is discussing the use of the Bible in the English literature classroom, yes?

What else would it be besides "Anglo-centric"?

Okay, fair point, my bad.

Ooh, does this mean we get to learn about all the various religious beliefs shoe-horned into Christianity in order to make it acceptable to people? Y'know, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Easter, Christmas, the various gods and goddesses embraced as saints, all that jazz?

No, because that is irrelevant to literature. Save that for a comparative religion class or other religious studies.

Eeeexcept that these all come from older belief systems, adopted by the bible, making them, frankly, more relevant than the bible.

And justified, after all, if those old beliefs and stories influenced our current beliefs and stories,then clearly the same argument made for the bible can be made for them, yes?

They influenced our beliefs outside of an English literary background. As such, they are entirely irrelevant to this thread.

So, these old English beliefs and stories, which influenced our current biblical-based beliefs and stories, are irrelevant to English beliefs and stories, whereas the biblical-based stories based on them are relevant to English beliefs and stories?

Bwah?

[Sarkhaan]

You did read the OP, correct? You did realize that this thread is discussing the use of the Bible in the English literature classroom, yes?

What else would it be besides "Anglo-centric"?

Okay, fair point, my bad.

No, because that is irrelevant to literature. Save that for a comparative religion class or other religious studies.

Eeeexcept that these all come from older belief systems, adopted by the bible, making them, frankly, more relevant than the bible.

except Easter, Christmas, Saints, much of the story of the virgin birth, and "all that jazz" are not mentioned in the Bible. They are a part of the religions that follow the Bible. That is very, very different. And, unsurprisingly, irrelevant to literature when investigating Biblical origins.

They influenced our beliefs outside of an English literary background. As such, they are entirely irrelevant to this thread.

So, these old English beliefs and stories, which influenced our current biblical-based beliefs and stories, are irrelevant to English beliefs and stories, whereas the stories based on them are relevant to English beliefs and stories?

Bwah?

If they are alluded to in literature, they are relevant. I'm not talking about our "biblically based beliefs", or really, any other beliefs. We are discussing the study of literature. Specifically, Biblical allusion in literature.

I care about why Melville chose the name "Ahab" and not "John". I'm interested in what this reveals within the text.

I care about why Milton expanded upon Adam and Eve, rather than Creation or Exodus.

We aren't discussing the cultural noise associated with the Bible. I made that explicit in the OP. We are specifically discussing the use of the Bible as literature within schools.

[JJ Place]

Absolutely, of course we could teach the Bible in schools; but there are far better mythological science-fiction books to teach children.

[Sarkhaan]

Absolutely, of course we could teach the Bible in schools; but there are far better mythological science-fiction books to teach children.

"better" is irrelevant". Frankly, if a playwright came along today that was unquestionably better than Shakespeare, I would still argue that we need to learn Shakespeare. Why? Because he has shaped the last several hundred years of English literature.

We don't always read because we aesthetically enjoy a piece. We read because it has value as a text.

I hate Dickens. I understand his importance, but I hate his writing. It drives me insane. Every time I hear someone say "It's very Dickensian", I cringe at the insult. And yet, I think it should be taught in schools. Why? Because aesthetics do not dictate importance.

[Batuni]

Okay, fair point, my bad.

Eeeexcept that these all come from older belief systems, adopted by the bible, making them, frankly, more relevant than the bible.

except Easter, Christmas, Saints, much of the story of the virgin birth, and "all that jazz" are not mentioned in the Bible. They are a part of the religions that follow the Bible. That is very, very different. And, unsurprisingly, irrelevant to literature when investigating Biblical origins.

Again, yes, a fair point on most of those.
Yet, if the bible is significant to the inspiration of modern literature, which is a point I will semi-concede, then why dismiss the significance of texts that inspired the bible?

So, these old English beliefs and stories, which influenced our current biblical-based beliefs and stories, are irrelevant to English beliefs and stories, whereas the stories based on them are relevant to English beliefs and stories?

Bwah?

If they are alluded to in literature, they are relevant. I'm not talking about our "biblically based beliefs", or really, any other beliefs. We are discussing the study of literature. Specifically, Biblical allusion in literature.

I care about why Melville chose the name "Ahab" and not "John". I'm interested in what this reveals within the text.

I care about why Milton expanded upon Adam and Eve, rather than Creation or Exodus.

We aren't discussing the cultural noise associated with the Bible. I made that explicit in the OP. We are specifically discussing the use of the Bible as literature within schools.

But aren't these wonderful stories which draw inspiration, meaning, influence or reference to and/or from the bible, technically speaking, cultural noise?

[Batuni]

Absolutely, of course we could teach the Bible in schools; but there are far better mythological science-fiction books to teach children.

"better" is irrelevant". Frankly, if a playwright came along today that was unquestionably better than Shakespeare, I would still argue that we need to learn Shakespeare. Why? Because he has shaped the last several hundred years of English literature.

We don't always read because we aesthetically enjoy a piece. We read because it has value as a text.

I hate Dickens. I understand his importance, but I hate his writing. It drives me insane. Every time I hear someone say "It's very Dickensian", I cringe at the insult. And yet, I think it should be taught in schools. Why? Because aesthetics do not dictate importance.

Interesting, please explain.

I'll admit, I've never actually read any of Dickens' works in the original format. I've only seen/read adaptations of his works.
What makes them of any more value than anyone else?
The fact that they're famous?

That just leads to reading Harry Potter and Twilight in English class, of viewing reproductions of Turner prize artworks instead of the Mona Lisa. (Never mind that the Mona Lisa only became famous because it was stolen, not because it was actually any good.)

[Maxedon]

All of this and the Bible STILL hasn't been proven fact. That goes for the Torah and Qur'ran aswell.

[Batuni]

All of this and the Bible STILL hasn't been proven fact. That goes for the Torah and Qur'ran aswell.

... Yeah.

Which is why the argument is about studying the bible as literature, i.e. fiction, as opposed to non-fiction...

[Caninope]

All of this and the Bible STILL hasn't been proven fact. That goes for the Torah and Qur'ran aswell.

... Yeah.

Which is why the argument is about studying the bible as literature, i.e. fiction, as opposed to non-fiction...

There is non-fiction literature.

And addressing it like this doesn't do anything for factualness.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

No. You want the Bible to be studied, study the Koran, Ramayana and other holy books too.

The Koran, Ramayana, and other holy books have not impacted English literature on the same level that the Bible has.

Perhaps, but they are still important forms of literature. You want to give students a wide look at the world.

[Unilisia]

So recently, I saw a list of books centered around the question "What should college students be reading". I expressed shock that only the story of Job had made the list, and commented that the entire book should be read.

Someone jumped on me for suggesting that the Bible should be studied in schools, claiming it was blatant indoctrination, and that, if the Bible were to be taught in public schools, teachers should be required to explore the negatives created by the religions based around that document.

My response was along the lines of "I merely stated that college students should be reading the Bible. Up until now, I never suggested it should be taught in public schools. However, I will make such a claim now. The Bible should be required reading in high school".

This sparked a brief discussion that was, sadly, rapidly abandoned by the other party...but it has still been on my mind. So I bring it you NSG (yes, I know we have had occasional discussions about teaching religion, and even tangential conversations about the Bible in English classrooms, but I can't recall a topic expressly looking into the issue).

My stance is this:

The Bible in its various translations has historically, and is currently, one of, if not the most widely read books in the English language. As such, it is also one of the most frequently alluded to texts. Biblical names, themes, and stories are frequently hinted at, modified, or blatantly used in literature. An understanding of the text alluded to results in a deeper understanding of the text being read.

Take, for example, the opening line of Moby-Dick: "Call me Ishmael". Powerful line...it instantly calls into question the authority of the narrator...is his name really Ishmael, or is that just what he wants us to call him? But there is more meaning there. Ishmael was Abraham's oldest son. Abraham expelled Ishmael after God told him that Issac would be the start of the Jewish nation. God also promised to make Ishmael a nation (he is the father of the Arab nation by Biblical tradition).

What information do we gain from understanding the Biblical allusion? Now, we know that not only is the narrator potentially untrustworthy, but he has taken on the name of the rejected son, graced by God, but rejected by man. This plays into the rest of the novel.

This is only one example. We find Biblical names and stories throughout literature: Ahab in Moby-Dick, Paradise Lost retelling the story of Adam and Eve, East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath referencing Biblical themes in their titles, "God's Favorite" retelling the story of Job, The Chronicles of Narnia being a Biblical allegory, Simon in Lord of the Flies relating to Jesus, the title Absalom, Absalom! and "Salome", and countless references to "The Prodigal Son", "Adam and Eve", "Creation", "Revelation", and "Sermon on the Mount"...the list could go on. And those are only some of the literary references, not delving into art and film.

It is clear that The Bible forms one of the basic texts of the English canon.

What I propose is that it is taught as literature: looked at in the same way we would study Greco-Roman, Norse, and Eastern mythology. Not read to judge, not read for religious indoctrination, and not read to attack the religions that follow the text. Read from a critical literary standpoint as we would any other text facing us as a class. Strip away the cultural noise and look at what the text actually says. Understand the issues facing us, as English readers, in the fact that we are reading a translation (and sometimes a translation of a translation). We do not have to investigate the evils done by Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, same as we don't have to study the evils perpetrated by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings, Chinese, Koreans, or anyone else's myths we read. It simply is not relevant.

There is no reason to study the religions that follow the text in an English classroom: It simply is not relevant. It is also not necessary to bring in other religious texts like the Koran, Talmud, or Satanic Bible, as these texts simply have not had the impact that the Bible has had upon English literature.


TL:DR, start here.

The Bible should be taught in the English classroom because it is an important text. It can provide new ways to explore literature. It should be handled in the same respectful way all texts are, and students should be free to interpret the text in their own way. This should go without saying, as that is how ALL literature should be taught. Simply put, the Bible is kinda important to the English canon, and we are not serving our students by pretending it is something that is somehow "off limits" within the classroom.

No, the Bible is not important, it is a useless book meant to misguide the world with machinations of the past.

[The Southern Dictators]

The Koran, Ramayana, and other holy books have not impacted English literature on the same level that the Bible has.

Perhaps, but they are still important forms of literature. You want to give students a wide look at the world.

In World Lit though not English Lit.

[Sarkhaan]

except Easter, Christmas, Saints, much of the story of the virgin birth, and "all that jazz" are not mentioned in the Bible. They are a part of the religions that follow the Bible. That is very, very different. And, unsurprisingly, irrelevant to literature when investigating Biblical origins.

Again, yes, a fair point on most of those.
Yet, if the bible is significant to the inspiration of modern literature, which is a point I will semi-concede, then why dismiss the significance of texts that inspired the bible?

Because, by and large, we lack those texts. Because, as pointed out, the Bible is one of the most complete ancient texts of the Middle East that we have. The text of the Bible was written anywhere from the 12th century BC to 100 AD (iirc, the oldest text is Genesis, written around 1270, but with origins dating back potentially hundreds of years before the text was written, and the newest being Revelation, completed around 100 AD). Sure one could maybe trace similar origins between the story of the flood in the Bible and Gilgamesh, but that doesn't mean Gilgamesh influenced the story of the flood. I'm not entirely sure what texts you would like teachers to cover, but I would be greatly thankful if you could link to them. So far as I know, the Bible arose from an oral tradition.

If they are alluded to in literature, they are relevant. I'm not talking about our "biblically based beliefs", or really, any other beliefs. We are discussing the study of literature. Specifically, Biblical allusion in literature.

I care about why Melville chose the name "Ahab" and not "John". I'm interested in what this reveals within the text.

I care about why Milton expanded upon Adam and Eve, rather than Creation or Exodus.

We aren't discussing the cultural noise associated with the Bible. I made that explicit in the OP. We are specifically discussing the use of the Bible as literature within schools.

But aren't these wonderful stories which draw inspiration, meaning, influence or reference to and/or from the bible, technically speaking, cultural noise?

They are, in a way. They are also the cultural noise which is part of the curriculum. I don't need to pull in the story of Easter to discuss the influence of The Binding of Issac upon Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. Moreover, it would be irrelevant to the discussion. I might as well discuss astrophysics. It doesn't shed new light upon the text which is being studied.

The point of studying the Bible as literature is to shine new light upon other texts being studied. If we aren't studying something directly, and it doesn't have direct relevance upon the text we are studying, what, exactly, is the point of bringing it up?

[Sarkhaan]

"better" is irrelevant". Frankly, if a playwright came along today that was unquestionably better than Shakespeare, I would still argue that we need to learn Shakespeare. Why? Because he has shaped the last several hundred years of English literature.

We don't always read because we aesthetically enjoy a piece. We read because it has value as a text.

I hate Dickens. I understand his importance, but I hate his writing. It drives me insane. Every time I hear someone say "It's very Dickensian", I cringe at the insult. And yet, I think it should be taught in schools. Why? Because aesthetics do not dictate importance.

Interesting, please explain.

I'll admit, I've never actually read any of Dickens' works in the original format. I've only seen/read adaptations of his works.
What makes them of any more value than anyone else?
The fact that they're famous?

That just leads to reading Harry Potter and Twilight in English class, of viewing reproductions of Turner prize artworks instead of the Mona Lisa. (Never mind that the Mona Lisa only became famous because it was stolen, not because it was actually any good.)

I should have said "personal aesthetics".

I don't like Dickens (by the way, a possessive ends with apostrophe-s, even when the name ends in an s. Dickens's). Yet I see value in studying them. Why? Because they are qualified as literature. Sure, I personally find it painful to read his sentences, but a) he has influenced other writers of literature and b) because they display qualities of great literature. The style isn't for me, but there's more to the text than just style. There's depth of character, depth of story, the ability to show one another world they otherwise would never know. Yes, literary merit is inherently subjective, but rest assured, Twilight lacks it. Harry Potter, I've never even really glanced at...it might be appropriate for younger grades than what I deal with.

It draws in the question "What is literature?" and "What is good literature?", something which is a bit too off topic for this thread, so I won't go into here, but would be more than willing to comment upon in a different venue.

[Sarkhaan]

All of this and the Bible STILL hasn't been proven fact. That goes for the Torah and Qur'ran aswell.

Which isn't an issue for the purposes of this thread.

[Sarkhaan]

All of this and the Bible STILL hasn't been proven fact. That goes for the Torah and Qur'ran aswell.

... Yeah.

Which is why the argument is about studying the bible as literature, i.e. fiction, as opposed to non-fiction...

Not all literature is fictional. Most is, but not all. The categorization as "literature" is more to remove the religious aspect from the conversation.

[Sarkhaan]

The Koran, Ramayana, and other holy books have not impacted English literature on the same level that the Bible has.

Perhaps, but they are still important forms of literature. You want to give students a wide look at the world.

In a world lit class, perhaps. I've yet to see a school teach a world lit class. And if they do, it likely does not have the time to delve into all source texts, then influenced texts.

Most high school English classes are "American literature" and "British literature". The Koran does not fit that.

[Sarkhaan]

So recently, I saw a list of books centered around the question "What should college students be reading". I expressed shock that only the story of Job had made the list, and commented that the entire book should be read.

Someone jumped on me for suggesting that the Bible should be studied in schools, claiming it was blatant indoctrination, and that, if the Bible were to be taught in public schools, teachers should be required to explore the negatives created by the religions based around that document.

My response was along the lines of "I merely stated that college students should be reading the Bible. Up until now, I never suggested it should be taught in public schools. However, I will make such a claim now. The Bible should be required reading in high school".

This sparked a brief discussion that was, sadly, rapidly abandoned by the other party...but it has still been on my mind. So I bring it you NSG (yes, I know we have had occasional discussions about teaching religion, and even tangential conversations about the Bible in English classrooms, but I can't recall a topic expressly looking into the issue).

My stance is this:

The Bible in its various translations has historically, and is currently, one of, if not the most widely read books in the English language. As such, it is also one of the most frequently alluded to texts. Biblical names, themes, and stories are frequently hinted at, modified, or blatantly used in literature. An understanding of the text alluded to results in a deeper understanding of the text being read.

Take, for example, the opening line of Moby-Dick: "Call me Ishmael". Powerful line...it instantly calls into question the authority of the narrator...is his name really Ishmael, or is that just what he wants us to call him? But there is more meaning there. Ishmael was Abraham's oldest son. Abraham expelled Ishmael after God told him that Issac would be the start of the Jewish nation. God also promised to make Ishmael a nation (he is the father of the Arab nation by Biblical tradition).

What information do we gain from understanding the Biblical allusion? Now, we know that not only is the narrator potentially untrustworthy, but he has taken on the name of the rejected son, graced by God, but rejected by man. This plays into the rest of the novel.

This is only one example. We find Biblical names and stories throughout literature: Ahab in Moby-Dick, Paradise Lost retelling the story of Adam and Eve, East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath referencing Biblical themes in their titles, "God's Favorite" retelling the story of Job, The Chronicles of Narnia being a Biblical allegory, Simon in Lord of the Flies relating to Jesus, the title Absalom, Absalom! and "Salome", and countless references to "The Prodigal Son", "Adam and Eve", "Creation", "Revelation", and "Sermon on the Mount"...the list could go on. And those are only some of the literary references, not delving into art and film.

It is clear that The Bible forms one of the basic texts of the English canon.

What I propose is that it is taught as literature: looked at in the same way we would study Greco-Roman, Norse, and Eastern mythology. Not read to judge, not read for religious indoctrination, and not read to attack the religions that follow the text. Read from a critical literary standpoint as we would any other text facing us as a class. Strip away the cultural noise and look at what the text actually says. Understand the issues facing us, as English readers, in the fact that we are reading a translation (and sometimes a translation of a translation). We do not have to investigate the evils done by Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, same as we don't have to study the evils perpetrated by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings, Chinese, Koreans, or anyone else's myths we read. It simply is not relevant.

There is no reason to study the religions that follow the text in an English classroom: It simply is not relevant. It is also not necessary to bring in other religious texts like the Koran, Talmud, or Satanic Bible, as these texts simply have not had the impact that the Bible has had upon English literature.


TL:DR, start here.

The Bible should be taught in the English classroom because it is an important text. It can provide new ways to explore literature. It should be handled in the same respectful way all texts are, and students should be free to interpret the text in their own way. This should go without saying, as that is how ALL literature should be taught. Simply put, the Bible is kinda important to the English canon, and we are not serving our students by pretending it is something that is somehow "off limits" within the classroom.

No, the Bible is not important, it is a useless book meant to misguide the world with machinations of the past.

You don't read much, do you? The OP or literature.

[Batuni]

Interesting, please explain.

I'll admit, I've never actually read any of Dickens' works in the original format. I've only seen/read adaptations of his works.
What makes them of any more value than anyone else?
The fact that they're famous?

That just leads to reading Harry Potter and Twilight in English class, of viewing reproductions of Turner prize artworks instead of the Mona Lisa. (Never mind that the Mona Lisa only became famous because it was stolen, not because it was actually any good.)

I should have said "personal aesthetics".

I don't like Dickens (by the way, a possessive ends with apostrophe-s, even when the name ends in an s. Dickens's).

Debatable, but this is not the place for such a discussion.

Yet I see value in studying them. Why? Because they are qualified as literature.

But qualified by whom? What made them worthy of such qualification, and what authorised those who qualified them as such?

Probably the matter for a different topic.

Sure, I personally find it painful to read his sentences, but a) he has influenced other writers of literature and b) because they display qualities of great literature. The style isn't for me, but there's more to the text than just style. There's depth of character, depth of story, the ability to show one another world they otherwise would never know. Yes, literary merit is inherently subjective, but rest assured, Twilight lacks it. Harry Potter, I've never even really glanced at...it might be appropriate for younger grades than what I deal with.

To be honest, I haven't read either of those series. I just used them as examples of things that are probably more widely read than Shakespeare and Dickens these days.

Who's to say what future generations will consider 'literary merit,' after all?

It draws in the question "What is literature?" and "What is good literature?", something which is a bit too off topic for this thread, so I won't go into here, but would be more than willing to comment upon in a different venue.

Point conceded, but we'll have to pick that thread up one of these days.