Weird signature?

Roger Barrett2 said:Assuming for a moment that it actually is written in the Quran—then sure, you're right.

Furthermore, is any tenet of the Christian faith subject to sanctions under American law? Let's keep in mind that the Church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption quite often. Has any legal complaint ever been filed against the Church for those stances? No. The moment the law dictates that a specific Christian doctrine violates one statute or another, then the forum has the right to sanction posts regarding Christianity or Islam. Until that happens, this kind of policing is essentially extrajudicial; it feels like harassment of believers and their deeply held views.

Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

mellowraven22 said:Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

Are we seriously talking about sanctioning other religions based on Christian principles?

mellowraven22 said:Alright, cool, so let's just apply that same logic to every other religion then. If the Bible says being gay is a crime, we should be handing out sanctions for that too, right?

Also, is any Christian doctrine actually subject to sanctions under US law? Let's not forget the church speaks out against homosexuality and corruption alike. Has any official complaint ever been filed against the church for that? Nope. The second the law states that some Christian article goes against this or that specific statute, Reddit would have the right to sanction posts about Christianity or Islam. Until then, this whole sanctioning thing you're doing is totally illegal and is basically just harassing believers and their views.

Look, some things that are perfectly legal under US law aren't allowed by the editorial policy of Reddit because it's a private site. The owner—who, in this case, acts through their representatives—can make whatever rules they want whenever they feel like it. If they suddenly decided, I don't know, to ban every single user whose username starts with the letters E or T, they are absolutely free to do that.

Why didn't you just lead with that? Instead, you've been dragging this out, pivoting the conversation away from my initial complaint about being banned and turning it into whatever this is we're doing here now.

Roger Barrett2 said:Are we seriously talking about sanctioning other religions based on Christian principles?

Why didn't you just lead with that? Instead, you've been dragging this out, pivoting the conversation away from my initial complaint about being banned and turning it into whatever this is we're doing here now.

Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

I’m genuinely curious: does an assertion like this, especially when you tack on the author's religious affiliation, qualify as inciting intolerance toward a specific faith group?

mellowraven22 said:Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

Fair enough, though I didn't quite catch what you meant by: "OK, great, let's apply that same logic to other religions. If the Bible says homosexuality is a crime, then we'll sanction that too." It sounds like your "that" refers to "other religions."

mellowraven22 said:Where is this coming from now? Like, where did I even say something like that? No, what I'm saying is that "it's in the holy book" or "that's just my religious foundation" isn't an actual argument you can use when you're appealing a ban or a strike.

Why didn't you just say that from the jump? Instead, you guys just drag me through the mud on this topic after I already complained about the ban you gave me, and now we're doing it again here.

I just figured it was obvious to someone with over 1,000 posts.

Actually, it isn't. I read the rules ages ago, and not once did anyone explain my ban by citing "Reddit editorial policy." Usually, people bring up U.S. law or, as you mentioned, "the government."

IOW—the policy here seems to be to penalize anything that offends non-believers, atheists, or agnostics regarding institutional religions. In other words, institutional religions are allowed to state their views only up to the point where they don't offend "the government," whatever that's supposed to mean.
IOW—you've essentially made yourselves the law, which is fine, but then don't complain (not the admins, but I've seen users say it) about how free speech isn't allowed on other religious forums or how the users there are terrible, because you're doing the exact same thing.

And if I have to judge you by your own logic: since Mirzek's statement counts as hate speech, then go ahead and slap him with a 500-point penalty. And give ego and yourself 1,000 points (since you both have hate speech right there in your signatures), because you aren't just spreading those same views in every single post, you're actively provoking other Muslims. Are you going to do that? If not, why not?

Jeremy Young19 said:I’m genuinely curious: does an assertion like this, especially when you tack on the author's religious affiliation, qualify as inciting intolerance toward a specific faith group?

Well, obviously it isn't, but let's just sit tight and wait for an official answer...

So what, are we just going to declare it perfectly legal to draft contracts on a newborn calf next??
it says in the holy book
🙂

Let’s get one thing straight once and for all: laws are mandatory, whereas religions are optional.
Religion or faith is a deeply personal matter for the individual, while the law applies to everyone, period.
Hate speech is a violation of the law, and frankly, nobody cares what someone read in their holy book—or any other book, for that matter—whether they printed out their own copy or decided to proclaim it sacred...
Hiding behind imaginary authorities like that isn't going to fly here on Reddit, at least not as long as we live in a secular nation.

hollowtrucker77 said:So what, are we just going to declare it perfectly legal to draft contracts on a newborn calf next??
it says in the holy book
🙂

Let’s get one thing straight once and for all: laws are mandatory, whereas religions are optional.
Religion or faith is a deeply personal matter for the individual, while the law applies to everyone, period.
Hate speech is a violation of the law, and frankly, nobody cares what someone read in their holy book—or any other book, for that matter—whether they printed out their own copy or decided to proclaim it sacred...
Hiding behind imaginary authorities like that isn't going to fly here on Reddit, at least not as long as we live in a secular nation.

Is he in Islam?

Aside from that, I’m not actually asking for this kind of thing to be codified into law. My point is that a person should have the right to say that something is okay or not okay based on their own convictions, faith, or religion (regardless of the topic). Those are two fundamentally different things—demanding that something becomes official law versus simply expressing one's religious perspective on a matter.

hollowtrucker77 said:So what, are we just going to declare it perfectly legal to draft contracts on a newborn calf next??
it says in the holy book
🙂

Let’s get one thing straight once and for all: laws are mandatory, whereas religions are optional.
Religion or faith is a deeply personal matter for the individual, while the law applies to everyone, period.
Hate speech is a violation of the law, and frankly, nobody cares what someone read in their holy book—or any other book, for that matter—whether they printed out their own copy or decided to proclaim it sacred...
Hiding behind imaginary authorities like that isn't going to fly here on Reddit, at least not as long as we live in a secular nation.

Now we're just circling the drain again: has US law ever actually processed or declared any tenet of the Christian faith to be illegal??? I don't think so. So, it really all comes down to the moderation policy of Reddit rather than the Law itself.

Jeremy Young19, since Mirzakv is the one who went out of his way to emphasize his religious identity before adding what ego has in his signature, maybe the real question we should be asking is whether he’s actually spreading religious intolerance or just a general civilizational bias rather than anything else.
In this specific instance, ego is just the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, yet you seem more bothered by the fact that someone is speaking up than by the actual reality of the situation itself.
🙂
Besides, I’m not exactly a fan of pigeonholing people either, so if you ask me, labeling him as a "declared Muslim" feels a bit off and isn't quite the right way to frame it.

Roger Barrett2 said:Is he in Islam?

Aside from that, I’m not actually asking for this kind of thing to be codified into law. My point is that a person should have the right to say that something is okay or not okay based on their own convictions, faith, or religion (regardless of the topic). Those are two fundamentally different things—demanding that something becomes official law versus simply expressing one's religious perspective on a matter.

Now we're just circling the drain again: has US law ever actually processed or declared any tenet of the Christian faith to be illegal??? I don't think so. So, it really all comes down to the moderation policy of Reddit rather than the Law itself.

neither mellowraven22 nor I banned Christianity from the forum, we just banned you.
as for whether a certain belief is actually part of Christianity or if it's just your personal interpretation—well, who's crazy is who, you can figure that out with Christianity yourself; just make sure you stay in line with actual legal regulations and basic standards of civilized behavior.
in any case, you can't go around posting such garbage on the forum without consequences; whether Saint Peter, Allah, or Satan revealed something to you is entirely your own problem.

hollowtrucker77 said:neither mellowraven22 nor I banned Christianity from the forum, we just banned you.
as for whether a certain belief is actually part of Christianity or if it's just your personal interpretation—well, who's crazy is who, you can figure that out with Christianity yourself; just make sure you stay in line with actual legal regulations and basic standards of civilized behavior.
in any case, you can't go around posting such garbage on the forum without consequences; whether Saint Peter, Allah, or Satan revealed something to you is entirely your own problem.

hollowtrucker77 said:neither mellowraven22 nor I banned Christianity from the forum, we just banned you.
as for whether a certain belief is actually part of Christianity or if it's just your personal interpretation—well, who's crazy is who, you can figure that out with Christianity yourself; just make sure you stay in line with actual legal regulations and basic standards of civilized behavior.
in any case, you can't go around posting such garbage on the forum without consequences; whether Saint Peter, Allah, or Satan revealed something to you is entirely your own problem.

That isn't true. You didn't ban Christianity; you banned me. I have no idea why there's such a desperate need to hide behind that logic, especially since mellowraven22 openly states that Christian doctrine contains vile elements, and I see you're saying the same thing. You didn't ban "my interpretation" of Christianity; you banned Christianity itself.

So, I'll ask you again: was any part of Christian doctrine in violation of U.S. law? It wasn't. So, what exactly are we debating here? Are we talking about how everything boils down to the editorial policy of Reddit, which (as Tyndy pointed out) has the right to manage its own moderation?

The conclusion I'm drawing is this: on this site, religious opinions aren't being suppressed because they violate the law (because they don't), but rather because they happen to irritate a certain humanist, naturalist, or atheistic worldview. If that's the case, then have some backbone and put it in the official site rules instead of hiding behind the legal code. If I had known that was the standard, I wouldn't have joined this community in the first place.

hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Young19, since Mirzakv is the one who went out of his way to emphasize his religious identity before adding what ego has in his signature, maybe the real question we should be asking is whether he’s actually spreading religious intolerance or just a general civilizational bias rather than anything else.
In this specific instance, ego is just the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, yet you seem more bothered by the fact that someone is speaking up than by the actual reality of the situation itself.
🙂
Besides, I’m not exactly a fan of pigeonholing people either, so if you ask me, labeling him as a "declared Muslim" feels a bit off and isn't quite the right way to frame it.

It isn't that I'm bothered; I haven't commented on the statement nor do I share such an opinion. My stance is simply that actions like this ought to be sanctioned, though I can't say for certain if that post was flagged yesterday—I haven't felt like checking.

hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Young19, since Mirzakv is the one who went out of his way to emphasize his religious identity before adding what ego has in his signature, maybe the real question we should be asking is whether he’s actually spreading religious intolerance or just a general civilizational bias rather than anything else.
In this specific instance, ego is just the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, yet you seem more bothered by the fact that someone is speaking up than by the actual reality of the situation itself.
🙂
Besides, I’m not exactly a fan of pigeonholing people either, so if you ask me, labeling him as a "declared Muslim" feels a bit off and isn't quite the right way to frame it.

That specific part is my main contention in this whole affair. We are talking about a religious moderator who is supposed to foster a constructive environment within the sub-forum, yet it seems to me that his conduct is improper, as he is merely inciting intolerance and ramping up tensions. That is my perspective, and the final decision rests with you all, whatever it may be.

By the way, mellowraven22 and ego actually know each other in real life. It’s enough to raise some serious questions about potential bias, especially since they even use identical signature layouts... honestly, just tear him apart.

Honestly, it’s just not fair
I mean, they're both mature enough at this point that they shouldn't let stuff like that bleed into this side of their relationship
Actually, scratch that—I don't think, I know

Honestly, that’s just not fair
I mean, they’re both grown enough to ensure this whole mess doesn't bleed into this side of the relationship
Actually, scratch that—I don't think, I know

That’s precisely why I phrased it as "what might be possible" rather than stating it as a certainty. While certain indicators are present, I have no way of knowing their true weight or how much they've actually matured; besides, seeing similar patterns in previous signatures doesn't exactly inspire confidence. My intention was simply to highlight this because, for the sake of basic professional courtesy, it feels right to let someone else weigh in on the matter. It’s about maintaining a sense of fairness.

And that's really all there is to it.

mellowraven22 said:I figured things would get a little awkward, but hey, that’s just part of the job description. You gotta balance what you actually believe with the responsibilities of running a site like Reddit. Since I’ve had this handle since long before I stepped up as an admin, anyone could go digging through my old posts and try to throw my past comments back in my face from back when I was just some random user.

(By the way, you're typing "certain" wrong.)

That’s just how it is in the original. 🙂

Quote : for the third time: of course you can always pull it off, as long as you've got the right smile (like this: 😁It’s like, people just start shouting, "Noooo, stop! You’re just being dirty-minded!" or whatever—but seriously, what's even the point of all that? Why does it actually matter if Mirza puts "declared Muslim" in his signature? What's the big deal?

You really ought to check with ego about this. Might be a little awkward or whatever, but honestly, I don't see it as some massive sin. The guy who wrote that quote in his signature was just being himself—he declared his faith, plain and simple. There's nothing fake about that.

Finally, you’ve actually gone and added that little jab to your signature alongside all those Quran verses. It’s basically just a direct shot at Shady—that last sentence pretty much screams, "Hey everyone, look at what Shady doesn't count as violence." Even if they're staying quiet about it, it's totally obvious.

Honestly, messing around in signatures is totally fine if you ask me. They aren't even part of the actual discussion on Reddit, so who cares? It’s legit.

Honestly, Mirzak hasn't even shown up in this thread once! And that quote in Roger Barrett2's signature? He definitely isn't claiming that his view on women being of lesser value is some byproduct of his faith. I actually ended up hunting down this entire discussion because my allergies were driving me absolutely crazy and I needed a distraction! But looking at what he actually said, he doesn't offer a single religious justification for that conclusion; instead, he argues that the reason is simply that women are physically weaker than men, making it strictly a matter of physical strength.

Now, I’m going to try to play it cool here since everyone seems to be moving past this, but I just have to point out that our friend mirzakv is quite clearly—and I mean, let’s be honest here—a man through and through! His username practically screams it, and he even went ahead and made it official right there in his profile. It honestly leaves me scratching my head why Roger Barrett2 is being so provocative by bringing up mirzakv's religion when it's already glaringly obvious that his whole perspective on women is rooted in nothing more than some rather silly, old-fashioned chauvinism!

The real trouble here—and at least that’s how it felt to me when I was scrolling through that other thread—is that my own somewhat clumsy way of putting things feels much closer to the truth than the extra bit about religious affiliation that Roger Barrett2 added to his signature.

mellowraven22 said:I figured things would get a little awkward, but hey, that’s just part of the job description. You gotta balance what you actually believe with the responsibilities of running a site like Reddit. Since I’ve had this handle since long before I stepped up as an admin, anyone could go digging through my old posts and try to throw my past comments back in my face from back when I was just some random user.

(By the way, you're typing "certain" wrong.)

That’s just how it is in the original. 🙂

Quote : for the third time: of course you can always pull it off, as long as you've got the right smile (like this: 😁It’s like, people just start shouting, "Noooo, stop! You’re just being dirty-minded!" or whatever—but seriously, what's even the point of all that? Why does it actually matter if Mirza puts "declared Muslim" in his signature? What's the big deal?

You really ought to check with ego about this. Might be a little awkward or whatever, but honestly, I don't see it as some massive sin. The guy who wrote that quote in his signature was just being himself—he declared his faith, plain and simple. There's nothing fake about that.

Finally, you’ve actually gone and added that little jab to your signature alongside all those Quran verses. It’s basically just a direct shot at Shady—that last sentence pretty much screams, "Hey everyone, look at what Shady doesn't count as violence." Even if they're staying quiet about it, it's totally obvious.

Honestly, messing around in signatures is totally fine if you ask me. They aren't even part of the actual discussion on Reddit, so who cares? It’s legit.

Look, I could honestly spend all day trying to explain why both the e-gov signature and yours just aren't appropriate here, but I’ve come to realize there’s really no point in me beating my head against a wall! The truth is—and I say this with a bit of a heavy heart—it feels like you, and quite possibly even Ego too, are doing this on purpose, making these specific choices with total intention.
Look, if we’re admitting that the banter went a little too far this time, I honestly think the only silver lining left after everything that’s been said here is a tiny, desperate hope that I can personally ask you both to please, please just change your signatures. So, there it is—I am officially putting out the plea!
It’s certainly not exactly the most polished or professional application I've ever seen, but hey, what can you do? Life happens!
Look, you’re the admin and he’s just a moderator, so I really think we should talk about those colorful nicknames—honestly, they aren't leaving the best impression on the forum!

Roger Barrett2 said:That isn't true. You didn't ban Christianity; you banned me. I have no idea why there's such a desperate need to hide behind that logic, especially since mellowraven22 openly states that Christian doctrine contains vile elements, and I see you're saying the same thing. You didn't ban "my interpretation" of Christianity; you banned Christianity itself.

So, I'll ask you again: was any part of Christian doctrine in violation of U.S. law? It wasn't. So, what exactly are we debating here? Are we talking about how everything boils down to the editorial policy of Reddit, which (as Tyndy pointed out) has the right to manage its own moderation?

The conclusion I'm drawing is this: on this site, religious opinions aren't being suppressed because they violate the law (because they don't), but rather because they happen to irritate a certain humanist, naturalist, or atheistic worldview. If that's the case, then have some backbone and put it in the official site rules instead of hiding behind the legal code. If I had known that was the standard, I wouldn't have joined this community in the first place.

Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

Jeremy Young19 said:By the way, mellowraven22 and ego actually know each other in real life. It’s enough to raise some serious questions about potential bias, especially since they even use identical signature layouts... honestly, just tear him apart.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

mellowraven22 said:Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

I think this is my final word on this thread. Honestly, I'm exhausted by the back-and-forth—there isn't much left to say...

Look, I'm a Christian, so I don't have a habit of being "shameless, dishonest, or rude" by misrepresenting what people say; if anything, I might occasionally misunderstand someone. But let's look at the statement
"the garbage written in religious texts remains garbage and should be subject to sanctions as such." What exactly is that referring to?

Since I've asked both you and hollowtrucker77 several times whether any part of Christian doctrine, faith, or practice actually violates American law—and I haven't received an answer (though I know it doesn't)—it leads me to a pretty obvious conclusion. It seems expressing religious views is being shut down simply because it goes against the editorial policy of this forum, likely because it clashes with a humanist, naturalistic, or atheistic worldview.

So, when you talk about "garbage in religious books," you aren't talking about people doing stupid or awful things in the name of their faith (something we both agreed was wrong), but rather the actual doctrines and beliefs found within those scriptures.

Cheers, and sorry for drifting slightly off-topic!

mellowraven22 said:Look, you’re being totally shameless and dishonest right now. You’re twisting my words, straight up, and implying things I never even said. Just... please, don't do that anymore. It's not cool.

So what? If you honestly think my personal connections have anything to do with this, you're dead wrong. 😉

Matthew Grant9 I can't even begin to explain what I was thinking when I saw that... honestly, just wild. It’s like people don't realize how much this actually matters. You look at the way things are moving right now and you just have to wonder if anyone's actually paying attention. Probably not. Most people are just scrolling through, looking for the next distraction while everything else shifts under their feet. Anyway, my point being—it's all about the long game, even if it feels chaotic right now. Just my two cents.
Look, if we’re being honest and this whole thing was just some jokes that spiraled way too far out of hand... I mean, after everything that's been said on here, maybe the only thing actually worth doing is for both of you to just change your signatures. Seriously. On a personal level, I'm asking you guys. Please. Just do it.

I mean, I’ll probably be there, just waiting around for whatever ridiculous thing he says next to grace us all. This one is actually kind of my favorite.

Look, since signatures are basically nothing more than a few short lines, taking things out of context is pretty much inevitable at this point. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say it’s practically a tradition on most forums, whether you're looking at local boards or big international ones. It just happens.

Oh boy. I have to say, this is a little disappointing.

I mean, how can you be so incredibly stubborn and contrarian about this specific point while still acting like such a people person?
Could we maybe dial it back just a tiny bit, please? Honestly, it would make things so much smoother for the rest of us if you’d at least give our perspectives a fair shake when you're working through your thoughts.
With an attitude like yours, we’ll never be able to truly engage with you based on signatures like these. And since our underlying intentions are meant to be universally positive, it would be lovely if you could—once again, just in your own head—leave the door open for a little bit of actual dialogue.

And after all the effort we put in, wouldn't it be nice if you could just soften up, even if only for a second?