Comment on Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! by saarnok

Parent Post: Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! · In Reply To

saarnok · 5/24/2026, 8:17:28 PM · permalink

77 bumps

sonatime · 5/27/2026, 3:49:01 AM · permalink

74 bumps

saarnok · 5/27/2026, 11:14:08 PM · permalink

71 bumps

sonatime · 5/29/2026, 1:34:51 AM · permalink

68 bumps

saarnok · 5/29/2026, 2:21:28 AM · permalink

65 bumps

sonatime · 5/29/2026, 2:52:48 AM · permalink

62 bumps

saarnok · 5/29/2026, 4:52:22 AM · permalink

I feel you there. But, let's be honest. Where has it ever been articulated as a foundational principle?  
  
The American founding is about as close as we get and I defy you to find it explicitly mentioned in our founding documents.  
  
Articulating something that primal is really difficult. We don't really comprehend intellectually why something is unfair or unjust. We just "get it". It's baked into us. It's the water we swim in that we don't know is wet.  
  
And, the alternative is "The Big Boss" theory of morality. Someone with brute force power tells you what morality is, and you conform or die.  
  
It's exactly that simple.  
  
In one world the oppressor must justify his exercise of cruel and arbitrary power by claiming God said to kill people who pick up sticks on Saturday. In the other, he's at a loss to explain why you should care if people pick up sticks on Saturday. (Numbers 15:32–36)  
  
In one world you're bound to obey the tyrant because he's ordained by God to command you. In the other he has to justify why it's to your advantage to consent to his leadership. (Romans 13:1–7)  
  
The Big Boss has been the principle of operation for most of human history and was in full display for every mass killing of the modern era which is believed to be on the order of 250-300 million people slaughtered by their own governments.  
  
And, according to "Paul" these rulers are "tetagmenai". Instituted, appointed, installed by God to do what they do. And combining this with Romans 9:13 and we see that "God" doesn't really care what you might have done or not done, particularly when we combine that with Romans 9:21 and we get to see that "God" is going to make people just purely to destroy them. And "people" may actually include you.  
  
In this system Pol Pott is a perfectly acceptable ruler, and lest you think I'm being hyperbolic, Martin Luther critiqued the slaughter of some hundred thousand peasants during the "Peasants War" of 1524-1525 in that it wasn't harsh enough.  
  
After all: He does not bear the sword in vain: Romans 13:4.  
  
But, of course, you're perfect aware of all this and you utterly approve because you read the bible and believe it's "god breathed".  
  
I'm busting your chops here. But, it's not a matter of spite.  
  
Wake the hell up.  
  
The bible isn't compatible with consent based on free will.

59 bumps

sonatime · 5/31/2026, 7:09:43 PM · permalink

Consent is only as good as the truth it’s based on.  
If people, or systems, can easily deceive others, and history shows they do it constantly through propaganda, manipulation, social pressure, and lies, then pure consent-based morality collapses in practice. People rarely have perfect information. Once you can make someone believe a lie, their “free consent” becomes defective or meaningless.  
  
Purely secular consent systems don’t have a great track record. The French Terror, communist genocides under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (who together killed far more than 100 million people) all operated on “might makes right” or utopian ideology after rejecting biblical morality. Consent alone doesn’t stop evil when the majority — or the powerful — consent to terrible things.  
  
On the Bible passages you mentioned, I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy: either pure human consent/intuition morality, or brutal arbitrary “Big Boss” commands.  Mainstream Christianity has always rejected that binary. We believe morality is rooted in God’s good character, not arbitrary whims. Humans have a conscience because we’re made in God’s image.  
  
Romans 13:1–7  
Paul wrote Romans 13 while living under Nero, one of the most brutal emperors. He was not saying every tyrant is personally hand-picked by God and must be obeyed in everything. The word “tetagmenai” (instituted/established) means God ultimately sets the boundaries and existence of governing authorities, not that He approves of every evil action they take. Paul’s point was practical advice to Christians: don’t rebel violently against the government; live peacefully and pay taxes. It is not a blank check for tyranny or a command to never resist evil.  
  
Romans 9:13 + 9:21  
Romans 9 is not about God randomly creating individuals for hell. It’s about God’s sovereign right to choose how He builds His people and carries out His plan of salvation.  
  
Romans 9:13 (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) It’s about God choosing the line of Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom) for His redemptive purposes — not about their eternal destinies as individuals.  
Romans 9:21 (the potter and the clay) is about God’s right to use different people for different roles in history. The chapter ends with an emphasis on God’s mercy (Romans 9:22-24, 11:32).  
  
Paul is arguing against the idea that God owes salvation to anyone based on ethnicity or works. He is stressing grace and sovereignty, not that God delights in destroying people.  
  
About Numbers 15:32–36 (the stick-gatherer):  
This wasn’t presented as a random harsh punishment for “picking up sticks.” Right before this story, God distinguishes between unintentional sin (which is forgiven through sacrifice) and high-handed, defiant sin - done openly and knowingly - the Hebrew phrase is “with a high hand” (bəyād rāmāh). This is an idiom for arrogant, open defiance—like raising one’s hand or fist in rebellion against God (Numbers 15:30-31).  
  
The man’s act was public, deliberate defiance. The Sabbath command had already been made very clear (Exodus 16 with the manna, Exodus 20, etc.). In the middle of the wilderness, after God had miraculously provided for them, this was a visible statement in front of the whole community.  
  
It wasn’t really about the sticks. It was about open rejection of God’s authority right after extreme grace. That’s why it was treated so seriously — as a warning to the whole nation.  
  
I’m not saying every Old Testament punishment is easy to understand today. But the context matters.  
  
I just don’t think the Bible vs. secular consent framing is as clean as you’re presenting it.

57 bumps

saarnok · 5/31/2026, 8:21:09 PM · permalink

54 bumps

sonatime · 5/31/2026, 8:47:36 PM · permalink

52 bumps

saarnok · 6/1/2026, 12:09:02 AM · permalink

50 bumps

sonatime · 6/1/2026, 12:55:33 AM · permalink

48 bumps

saarnok · 6/1/2026, 4:05:07 AM · permalink

45 bumps

sonatime · 6/2/2026, 1:01:55 AM · permalink

43 bumps

saarnok · 6/2/2026, 4:42:02 AM · permalink

Well, your ai assistant has done about as well by you as it could. I used one to steel man your position and it didn't do any better.  
  
You didn't respond to the question: What in the text indicates this man is Israeli, a member of the covenant? Explicitly, nothing.  
  
You're deliberately mixing terms and ignoring their meanings. In every case the injunction against unjustly treating "strangers" is presuming the "stranger" is somehow part of their contingent, not someone outside their nominal territory. And, as any stranger in a land not their own, as is common to this day, strangers were and are expected to not violate the taboos and customs of their hosts.  
  
Every apologetic for this story tries to read into it things that aren't there and ignores what is there.  
  
They already established the law, who it applied to and where. It clearly injuncted households against causing or allowing work to be performed by anyone within their nominal control. The head of a household would be expected to prevent the stranger from working or to deliver him for judgement if he defies the warning not to.  
  
This is explicit in Exodus 20:10 "...On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you." (NLT)  
  
This makes impossible the confusion expressed in Numbers if the man is one of the Israelites or even a stranger among them. "While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him."  
  
It would have been perfectly clear what should be done if he were one of their number whether foreigner or not.  
  
In fact all the injunctions against oppressing foreigners works against your interpretation. They would be part of what generated the confusion.  
  
Also working against your interpretation is that even the members who had the explicit job of governing the tribes were at a loss and it ultimately fell to Moses and Aaron who actually handed it off to God who declared that the whole people needed to stone him outside the camp.  
  
The man is never accused of anything, never adjudicated and the judgement is against the entire nation of Israel, no member of any tribe is found guilty, no one is responsible for "the man" who was found explicitly "in the wilderness", not within the identified unit of control as being the responsibility of a household.  
  
Your problem is that you're projecting your sense of justice and reason onto an ancient people who clearly don't share your sensibilities.  
  
Plain and simple they found a man who wasn't one of them and killed him for not adhering to their rules. That's all.  
  
And, by the way, you're not even considering that a primary reason they would have been reluctant to kill him is because by enforcing their special sabbath rules on this guy it infringes on their specialness as the chosen ones who adhere to these rules because they are special, chosen, not like some loner just living his life in the wilderness.  
  
Your take on this demonstrates your failure to understand why a non-believer finds the bible interesting. Obviously, you don't care what it reveals about the people who preserved the stories, how they saw themselves, what motivated them, and how they lived their lives.  
  
I don't need to believe it reveals any particular thing, certainly not that it justifies my performance of faith in any particular thing. I just want to discover what it reveals about the people who created it.

40 bumps

sonatime · 6/2/2026, 8:53:52 AM · permalink

I’m not deliberately ignoring your questions. Since we disagree on so many core issues, answering every single detail isn’t practical. I focus on the bigger picture while still addressing your main objections.  
  
At this stage in Numbers 15, the Israelites are only 18–24 months out of Egypt. They’ve already been sentenced to 40 years of wandering after the rebellion at Kadesh. There are still roughly 2 million people in a remote wilderness — a massive mobile camp, not a settled town.  
  
The text never calls the man a foreigner or outsider, nor does it discuss his status. The entire focus is on the nature of the sin — whether it was ignorant or defiant/high-handed. This story immediately follows God’s warning about defiant sin (Numbers 15:30-31).  
  
To your direct question: What indicates the man was part of the covenant community?  
  
The Torah consistently applies its laws to people inside the covenant community or to resident strangers (ger) living among them. Enforcing full covenant law on completely unrelated outsiders was not the normal pattern.  
  
The leaders’ uncertainty (“it was not clear what should be done to him”) makes perfect sense. The Sabbath law had only recently been given. Not only was this likely the first public test case of deliberate Sabbath-breaking, but they also had no established precedent for how the execution should be carried out.  
  
Exodus 31:14 had said the Sabbath-breaker “shall be cut off,” but that term was ambiguous (it could mean divine punishment or human execution). They kept the man in custody specifically because they needed Yahweh to clarify both the nature of the offense and the method of punishment. Yahweh then commanded stoning by the whole congregation outside the camp.  
  
We see this same pattern in other early wilderness test cases (the blasphemer in Leviticus 24 and Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27), where uncertainty came from applying new laws, not from the person being an outsider.  
  
The idea that God Himself would command the whole assembly to stone a complete outsider for gathering sticks is extremely far-fetched in this strong covenant context.

38 bumps

saarnok · 6/3/2026, 12:52:13 AM · permalink

31 bumps

sonatime · 6/3/2026, 6:22:47 PM · permalink

The Blasphemer Example (Leviticus 24)  
You’re using this case backwards. The reason the text mentions his mother’s name and tribe is because his mixed Egyptian/Israelite parentage created a legal gray area. That’s exactly why they put him in custody and asked God for a ruling.  
More importantly, this incident leads directly to God declaring that there is one law for the native and for the stranger (Leviticus 24:22). It actually reinforces the principle that the same rules apply to both Israelites and outsiders living among them — not the opposite.  
  
“The Jews were too stupid to understand the law”  
This is a strange exaggeration. They were only ~18–24 months out of Egypt. These are early test cases for brand-new capital laws. The text shows the community (including Moses and the elders) seeking God’s guidance instead of acting rashly. That’s wisdom, not stupidity.  
  
“Random guy with no tribe”  
The text never calls him a random outsider. He was found by Israelites, brought before the whole assembly, and the incident is placed right after God’s warning about high-handed sin within the community. You’re adding a lot of assumptions the text doesn’t support.  
  
I’m reading the literary context and the clear pattern in the wilderness narratives. You’re the one stripping away context to force the most negative possible reading.  
  
 When I step outside established theology, it's not because I'm being careless or disloyal—it's because I'm trying to read the text with openness, intelligence, and a commitment to what it actually says in context. I still verify everything for myself rather than accepting prepackaged conclusions.  
  
That's why your strong emotional reaction and personal attacks are surprising. You seem deeply invested in one very narrow reading that strips away surrounding context and logic. Only you know why that particular interpretation matters so much to you. My worldview is shaped directly by the Bible; yours appears to rest on a reactionary and, in my view, illogical handling of it.  
  
Your pushy debate style might make real conversation difficult for others. In real life, that kind of approach often leads people to back down just to avoid conflict—even when they don't actually agree. It creates the illusion of success, but it shuts down honest communication and learning. A more open, less aggressive approach would serve the truth better.

28 bumps

saarnok · 6/4/2026, 1:11:31 AM · permalink

Again. Dishonest and frankly, deliberately misleading.  
  
I used the example YOU gave to point out that the tribe of the offender or victim, their status within the nation is typically presented. The random guy found, not even by a member of any tribe, but by the Israelites in explicitly NOT their territory, "the wilderness" is not one of them and the only reason you even want him to be one of them is to force the absurd idea of consent into the Israelite civilization.  
  
Not only does the story not at any level have any element of consent in it, but the person in this example wasn't even one of them.  
  
According to your reasoning, the Israelites were too stupid to understand what they'd agreed to, which voids the concept of consent, and that's according to your own reasoning.  
  
Not only did they not freely consent to being under this brutal regime, they didn't consent to enforcing it against people who weren't in the club in the first place.  
  
Your attempt to make this an example of the verse which came before it is entirely artificial in the first place, as if the preceding text were about an earthquake and therefor what follows it must therefor be an example of consequences from an earthquake even though the following verse is about magpies squawking in the trees.  
  
You have yet to give me even just one reason to consider that what the text say is wrong. You've yet to supply anything to suggest that your presentation of this as consensual is even slightly reasonable.  
  
In fact, everything you do demonstrates that you're well aware, now that it's been brought to your attention, that you're just plain wrong. The bible doesn't conform to your sensibilities. It was written by people who couldn't even comprehend your sensibilities.  
  
You don't verify anything for yourself. You borrow the tired apologetics that have been used for decades or even centuries and can't provide any explanation for your reasoning.  
  
And now you want to derail to the way I'm too "pushy", claim that I'm making "personal attacks". This is pathetic.  
  
Ever been in a midrash? I have. Surrounded by half a dozen Jews who were very upset to learn that Moses wasn't circumcised. You have no idea what "pushy" is like. And while the bulk of them finally accepted that within the biblical text, Moses is uncircumcised. But, one called the bible "racist" and left in disgust.  
  
I'm not browbeating here. I want you to back up the idea that the bible supports the concept of consent of the governed.  
  
And, it's extremely easy for me to make the case that it doesn't.  
  
It helps that I've read it backwards and forwards, that I'm more familiar with it than the people who wrote the apologetics you've borrowed, but honestly, I'd have a hell of a time taking your position.  
  
I like to boast that I can make it say anything I want. But, I'd have a really hard time making it say that.  
  
The sabbath is imposed on the people of Israel while they are literally surviving at the pleasure of an obviously vengeful and utterly tyrannical god, literally wandering, lost in the desert. They didn't have any real choice. My way or the non-existent highway. And, by your reckoning, as much as two years later not so much as a single one of them understood what it was they'd agreed to. Not so much as a single one. According to you. Who's using this as an example of consent.  
  
Your correct path of preserving the bible as moral authority is to abandon the concept of consent as heresy, and embrace the concept of authority as moral.  
  
The bible supports that. It supports it in spades, in heaps and piles.  
  
It supports explicitly that people can be condemned just because god made them to be condemned. That they don't consent to anything and that even just noticing that god is capricious is a flaw in you.  
  
And I don't have to do anything special. I don't have to presume anything. I just have to present what the text actually says.  
  
What this speaks to is a moral quandary for you. You clearly don't want to abandon your modern sensibilities, and you clearly want to pretend that the bible supports them.  
  
And, you can do that; just as long as you don't study the bible and accept that what it says is what it actually says.  
  
I think we're pretty well done with this discussion. I think it's obvious to both of us that I'm correct and you're floundering in unfamiliar teritory, but I'd like to ask a question:  
  
Is it a surprise to you that we say "grace" before every meal in my house? Does it perhaps bother you that I give thanks for every single day I experience in this gift of life? Does it bother you that I know your bible far better than you ever will? Better than anyone you've ever met? And that I haven't studied it in perhaps ten years?  
  
I'm just curious what you make of that.

25 bumps

sonatime · 6/4/2026, 9:28:33 PM · permalink

Nothing bothers me in our conversations, I actually get to read, learn and think more about the Biblical text because of this.  What I don’t understand is the amount of intelligence and energy you pour into your examples, the overreactions, and the bad-faith framing of my positions. Only you and God know what’s behind your motives/reasons.   
  
I’ll try to simplify as best as I understand.  
  
You’re taking that one sentence about the wood-gatherer and pulling it completely out of context — ignoring the verse right before it, the earlier cases, and the whole process God used to establish the covenant with Israel.  
  
Your reading only works if you strip away all of that surrounding context and impose your own conclusion.   
  
The blasphemer case (Leviticus 24) was different — it was new to the Israelites because of his mixed heritage and had no clear precedent. That’s why the facts were carefully documented. But again, the offender’s name was irrelevant to the point of the story and is not mentioned.   
  
The daughters of Zelophehad, in Numbers 27, are explicitly named along with their entire genealogy. They are named because their case directly concerns the permanent legal transfer of tribal land inheritance. Because the wood-gatherer's case does not involve property rights or tribal lineage, recording his genealogy serves no legal purpose.  
  
 In Biblical narrative, omitting a name frequently elevates the individual to an archetype, making the lesson universal rather than personal.  
  
The wood-gatherer story immediately follows the introduction of the laws regarding intentional ("high-handed") sins versus unintentional sins (Numbers 15:22–31). The man serves as the concrete, legal test case for what constitutes a defiant, high-handed violation of God's covenant.  
  
Leaving him anonymous signals to the reader that his identity does not matter; any Israelite—regardless of status, tribe, or family prominence—who defiantly breaks the Sabbath faces the same consequence.  
  
Naming his tribe or family would shift the reader's focus to tribal politics, hereditary guilt, or familial shame, distracting from the core theological message of community holiness.  
  
The biblical narrative explicitly frames the relationship between God and Israel as a contract based on voluntary, informed consent. Rather than forcing a sudden dictatorship, the text depicts a multi-stage process where the laws were fully explained, debated by action, and formally ratified by the people multiple times.   
  
1\. The Pre-Consent Briefing (Exodus 19)  
Before a single specific law or commandment is spoken from Mount Sinai, God explicitly asks for the people's permission to rule over them.  
  
The Proposal: In Exodus 19:3–6  
God tells Moses to pitch the covenant terms to the people: "If you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.  
  
The First Vote:  
Moses presents this to the elders. Exodus 19:8 notes the democratic response: "The people all responded together, 'We will do everything the Lord has said.'"  
  
2\. The Detailed Reading and Ratification (Exodus 24)  
After God delivers the Ten Commandments and the foundational civil laws (the Book of the Covenant), Moses holds a formal ratification ceremony. This ensures the consent is informed by the actual fine print of the law.  
  
The Explanation: Moses recites all the words and laws to the people (Exodus 24:3).  
  
The Written Document: Moses writes everything down, builds an altar, and reads the "Book of the Covenant" aloud to the entire assembly so there is no misunderstanding (Exodus 24:4–7).  
  
The Final Agreement: The people respond a second time: "We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey" (Exodus 24:7). Only after this second informed consent is the covenant sealed with sacrificial blood.   
  
 3. The Renewal for the New Generation (Deuteronomy 29-30)  
Forty years later, the original generation has died in the wilderness. Because consent cannot simply be inherited, Moses forces the new generation to choose for themselves before entering the Promised Land.  
  
The Ultimatum: Moses lays out the exact consequences of obedience (blessings) and disobedience (curses) in Deuteronomy 27–28.  
  
The Power of Choice: In Deuteronomy 30:19, Moses uses explicit language of free will: "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life..." This framework assumes the people have the agency to say no.  
  
 4. Joshua’s Final Ultimatum (Joshua 24)  
Once the conquest of Canaan is underway, Joshua brings all the tribes to Shechem for a massive national referendum. He explicitly offers them alternative options if they do not want God's covenant.  
  
The Alternative Options: Joshua tells them they can choose to worship the ancient Mesopotamian gods of their ancestors, or the local gods of the Amorites (Joshua 24:14-15).  
  
The Famous Line: He declares, "But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).  
  
The Warning Against Quick Agreement: When the people quickly shout that they will serve God, Joshua pushes back to ensure they are serious: "You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God..." (Joshua 24:19). He forces them to confirm their informed consent three distinct times during this meeting before writing it into the Book of the Law.  
  
Summary of the Process  
Preamble: This is what God did for you (e.g., "I brought you out of Egypt").  
Terms: These are the rules you must follow.  
Consequences: This is what happens if you succeed or fail.  
Public Acceptance: The community must verbally and publicly accept the terms.  
  
  
Considering everything that comes before the wood-gatherer incident — the immediate context about defiant sin, the fact he was brought before Moses, Aaron, and the whole assembly, and that God Himself was asked to rule on the punishment — your reading makes no sense.  
  
You’re ignoring the entire covenant process, the repeated public consent given by the people, and the clear pattern in how God dealt with Israel… just so you can claim the Israelites randomly grabbed some outsider to judge him under a legal process he never consented to. That’s not a logical or textually honest reading. It’s simply pursuing your own predetermined conclusion.

23 bumps

saarnok · 6/14/2026, 5:26:40 PM · permalink

You're mixing together an awful lot of extraneous facts and suppositions to support your position, and it's not making you look good.  
  
So, right before this "example" of the stick picker upper is the bit about "high handed sin"?   
  
Really?  
  
Let's explore this just a bit.  
  
I would suppose if I thought you were being honest that the preceding verses are intended in your mind to inform the verses which follow.  
  
Verse 18: "When you arrive in the land where I am taking you..."  
  
Huh. Looks like what follows is pertinent to the time AFTER they're wandering in the wilderness. Not that you care.  
  
Then verses 19-30, including your abjectly falsely portrayed injunction against "high handed sin" are explained as what is to happen AFTER entering the promised land.  
  
Here's the crazy part. That would actually explain why they didn't know what to do with the guy, literally just some random guy they discovered "violating the sabbath" by being so sinful as to pick up sticks.  
  
Do you get it? This is before the time specified as to when the "law" would take effect. That actually gives you an "out" of a sort.  
  
The reason they didn't know what to do with some random guy that they just happened to run across who obviously wasn't one of them, not affiliated with any tribe, let alone household, the reason that not only the most simple minded idiot, but even the most connected elite of them didn't have a clue, is because it was never addressed.  
  
Unlike you, I'll admit that for all my studying I'd never even considered this. But, it doesn't do the slightest damage to my thesis.  
  
And it's worth restating exactly what that thesis is: You can have governance based on "The Big Boss" or you can have governance based on consent. Using the Bible as a foundation is conducive only to "The Big Boss" version of governance.  
  
And, it's also worth noting that this exact example is instructive in demonstrating precisely what that means.  
  
  
"The People" had no idea what to make of this. They passed the buck up the line. And Moses told them, that he'd talked to God and God said to kill him. According to Moses.  
  
No one witnesses Moses talking to God. No one witnesses God responding.  
  
It's not even really a case of "God says so", it's actually a case of "Moses claims God says so".  
  
This whiplash back and forth of Moses made sure they understood, but they really didn't understand is abjectly absurd.  
  
No. According to the text, Moses himself didn't understand. He wasn't qualified to measure the understanding of something he didn't himself understand.  
  
You're simultaneously trying to shoehorn this example into something everyone understood while also presenting it as something that no one understood.  
  
And, I get the impulse to do so. I really do. I was there once upon a time. I too used to believe without being able to articulate what I believed, that the Bible needed to be a burden I was tasked with carrying and explaining.  
  
And it wasn't until I realized that believing the Bible was actually the opposite of believing in God that I began to see the light.  
  
My God shines through in every plant, every animal, every sunset, every everything. The bible is just words on papers.  
  
That doesn't invalidate the claim of a war on Christians. It's absolutely real. And it's evil.  
  
I'm going to tell you again:  
  
I can break you. I know precisely how to do it. And I'm choosing not to.  
  
And I get also that seems to be simple braggadocios blather.  
  
But I've broken people, entire families. I not only can do it, I could list names you could look up.  
  
I've done it before and despite how this must surely come off, I'm not proud of it.  
  
Oh, sure, it felt awesome at first. But I didn't supply the alternative. The result wasn't anything anyone should be proud of.

12 bumps

Signature