Vijay Singh more likely to cry on the golf course than average man

Maybe he's just someone who wants the rules to be followed. And neighbors can drive you nuts. People are very inconsiderate nowadays.

One thing that Vijay knows, is how to improve his game.

He was back in top 10 again, in pebble beach.

Also as far as spikes are concern, Vijay was right, Phil was wearing the shoes that he should not have...

The problem is you guys will never accept the fact that Phil was wrong, simply becuase u hate VIJAY.

Trying to get even with Vijay? Well that is a funny way!

Vijay really doesn't know much about following rules.

And he's an idiot.

vijay Singh is a punk!

It is obvious that Mr. Hux is a Racist. Interestingly enough, Mr. Singh is the only top golfer of color other than Tiger.

However, the majority of the press who cover the sport are white ( and love Phil!)

Mr. Hux, you have no shame and your racist comments will follow you for generations!
May God forgive you....because we won't!

Didn't Vij. get busted for cherating on the European Tour?

Thadeus, let Hux have his own opinions, you stupid Jesus freak. Religious hypocrites like you hate people having their own opinions, and like to control people like puppets.

Let me guess, Thadeus: you're black.

Yes, John, Vijay was caught cheating.

Hey, David, you anti-Christian bigot, Thadeus was obviously being tongue-in-cheek, satirizing the LEFT-WING tendency to call people such names.

Secondly, it's liberals/secularists who are trying to control people's lives (and they're doing a good job of it); who do you think is the impetus behind virtually every new, excessive law that's made? Wake up.

Under Par, I'll leave the politics to you. I just hate religion, that's all.

I've also noticed you have a tendency to be somewhat racist and sexist, so join the bigotry club.

:)

I have a hard time believing that any of the information in this paragraph is true. So, assuming that it was all tongue-in-cheek, I move on to the rant against Vijay. If he wants to be the best, and someone is using illegal equipment, he should check it. If he has a hissy fit when someone calls him one, then we can rant and rage.

David,

That's interesting, because I hate secularism. It's too bad that you don't know what side your bread is buttered on.

Under Par,

What you mean is, you're all for religion and the unification of church and state?

History has taught us that this doesn't work well, that religion causes most if not all wars, and that it is more trouble than it is worth.

Look at the recent Muslim outcry at the Danish for merely the publication of a few cartoons. Religious people are generally holier-than-thou hypocrites - self-righteous idiots who want everyone to follow their ridiculous views and who typically cause a large stir when something disagreeable happens. Then they go and blatantly break the rules of their own religion. Then it's time for breakfast.

And I haven't forgotten some of your comments, such as: 'You stated that I don't think women should play golf. I don't even think they should be allowed on a golf blog.'

Also, the one about immigration of Asians and Africans to the Western world.

By the way, I still don't see what bread has to do with all this.

David

David,

Quite frankly, you're very ignorant. While I know I can't disabuse you of your fallacious ideas, I will debunk some of what you said for the open-minded who may read this thread.

Firstly, religion has not caused all or even most of the wars, although provincial minds can easily be convinced to parrot such nonsense. Virtually all wars were the result of greed and/or the lust for power. Julius Caesar, Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Attila, the Vikings, Shaka Zulu, the Spartans, the Persians, Napoleon, Hitler and countless others all launched military campaigns for personal and national glory. Moreover, THE most murderous force of the twentieth century was Communism, an atheistic ideology. Not only did its adherents do a splendid job of initiating conflicts for the purposes of spreading their vile, Godless, poisonous ideas, but they also murdered 100 MILLION people directly during the last century. By the way, the Catholic Church condemned Communism and Socialism early on, and pronouncements to this effect can be easily found in encyclicals and other Church documents.

Secondly, you can impugn the Moslems if you wish, for I have no love for them. However, to seek to discredit all religion by pointing to what is nothing but a vile heresy is silly and can be refuted easily. Why, it's much like trying to discredit all philosophy by pointing to that which underpins Naziism. It's another example of a failure to think analytically; the notion that all religion is the same is as stupid as the idea that all ideology is the same. Would you equate Naziism with liberalism? Would you equate Communism with Capitalism? Obviously, as with everything else, some religions are better and others are worse.

Lastly, what history has taught those who are discerning and teachable is that the unification of atheism and state doesn't work too well. Just remember what the fruits of Communism have been. Furthermore, if you want to know what I advocate, it's merely what our founding fathers intended, which, sadly, you have been deceived about.

Communism isn't always atheistic, and HAS been supported by the church in the past (and even by St. Thomas More, in his treatise 'Utopia'):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

(So you're wrong about that.)

As far as I know, Christian Communism is mostly dead today, but they still follow the policy of controlling thought and action, creating a bunch of closed-minded, hypocritical puppets.

But I agree with you that Stalinist Communism was something very disgusting - it essentially dehumanised the population, making them the tools with which Stalin enriched himself. The upshot of all this was that the Soviet economy was essentially Stalin's bank account.

And yes, religion is a major cause of conflict and wars, especially civil wars.

Also, consider India and Pakistan.

But okay, greed is a bigger factor.

You're blatantly religious, which is why you're defending it. No religion is better than any other; they were all created to try and explain something which we did not understand, and because many people were/are afraid of dying. We no longer have any need for religion (except that there are always people who will not let go of their stupid beliefs) - and how on earth can I believe any of the bible when even the first page (Genesis) is chocked full of absolute shit?

Just face it, god doesn't exist. In fact, Jesus didn't exist. It's all just a load of bullshit.

Finally, even America -- which claim is the only 'superpower' -- has not unified church and state. Nor has Britain. Civilised countries generally do not do this, because it is dangerous.

LOL -- Hey, David, can you prove God doesn't exist? Even when I was a secular man, I was smart enough to be an agnostic. By the way, you're only impugning religion because you're blatantly secular; you see how easy that is?

Oh, and I know all about the early Christian communal communities in 19th century America, since I've studied the matter. However, you know as well as I do what communism means nowadays; it was popularized by Marx and Engels, and their definition became the prevailing one. So don't spit down my back and tell me it's raining.

Furthermore, if you had actually taken the time to study the Christian communes that existed, you'd know that they were voluntary constructs. No church ever compelled anyone to live a "communist" lifestyle. No, it took unbelievers to do that. Of course, though, they also perverted the philosophy to the nth degree.

Oh, I should also add that all credible historians agree that Jesus existed, so you're descending into X-Files territory on that one. Do you ever hear Twilight Zone music playing?

Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion.

David, you're a philosophical neophyte. You're so far out of your depth that it's not even funny.

Now, go eat some plum pudding, drink a cup of tea, and retire for the night before you embarrass yourself further.

One more thing, David, I respect the fact that you were man enough to admit that greed causes far more conflicts. However, religion isn't even in second place. Most civil wars are caused by ethnic conflicts or simply the desire for power.

Also, you're a sloppy thinker, and even this assessment may be too generous, as it presupposes that you're some kind of thinker. The problem is that you're awash in relativism, and until you address this matter, you'll never be anything but mediocre and a creature of your age.

I could throw the same insults back at you, of course, but I'm not going to.

I am not a philosopher, and do not pretend to be. I plan to study science or mathematics at university - it's the humanities students that tend to be philosophical thinkers. I'm a logical thinker, which if why I often talk more sense than you, and why I don't say ridiculous things like this:

>> Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion.

(I mean, what in the hell does that mean? There are no gods; we know enough about science now to abolish the idea of religion.)

You also didn't reply to my assertion that the Genesis story is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Oh, and the adjective 'credible' in the term 'credible historians' says nothing about the quality of his knowledge. 'Credible historians,' just like you, are closed-minded puppets who want to stay away from controversial views. I bet there are many brilliant historians (who probably wouldn't be considered 'credible' in your eyes) who believe Jesus never existed - there really is no other evidence for Jesus other than the bible (you know, that supposedly most-sacred book of all time that just so happens to become 'discredible,' i.e. nonsensical, on the first page). There is literally NO evidence for a god of any kind - but do we have evidence for The Big Bang? Yes; more than you'll ever know.

Also, a British historian called David Irving, who you again would consider 'discredible' has just been sent to jail in Austria for denying the Holocaust. He wrote a book explaining his reasoning, and may well be right. He knows more about the subject than you, but has been imprisoned merely for an opinion (based on evidence - something that you do not need for belief), and I'm sure you're fine with that.

And I guessed you were referring to Marxism, but if I'm a sloppy thinker, then you're a sloppy writer in that you can't properly specify what you mean.

You also hate admit to being wrong. I admitted that I was wrong, but you cannot do that. I haven't been humiliated - I have held my own against a guy who obviously knows quite a lot of what he's talking about (or at least pretends to very well indeed).

I'm not sure of your level of education or what subjects you're involved in, but you're clearly a good thinker, and I think it was unreasonable of you to call me a 'sloppy thinker' (often just because I reasonably disagreed with you). I never claimed to be a philosopher, but you're probably not a philosopher either.

Take care.

David,

First of all, since you seem to be trying to be reasonable, I'll respond in kind. I just reacted the way I did because I find the kind of closed-mindedness you exhibited to be very trying.

"Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion."

As I said, you wouldn't understand the allusion. I was being purposely cryptic, and I had my reasons for being so. But I'll explain it to you.

If there's no God, we are nothing but a few pounds of chemicals and water. Moreover, a corollary of this is that there is no right or wrong. After all, if there's nothing above man that is greater than him and that determines what right and wrong are - in other words, if it does not exist apart from man as part of objective reality -- how can we say that something is truly right or wrong? For, if this is the case, it is synonymous with opinion. And if this is the so, then the terms "morality" and "right and wrong" have lost their raison d'etre. They then simply become redundancies that only serve to create confusion about semantics.

Put differetly, a yardstick cannot be its own yardstick. Every time you judge something you are applying some standard, and it follows that the standard has to be greater than what is being judged. In other words, you can judge things as good or bad, but how can you know which is which? The bad would most likely claim that it's good; why, even Hitler would have said he was doing good. So, how can you know? There is only one way: the standard you're using has to be above that which you're judging: the good and bad.

Thus, it's ridiculous to think that man can be his own yardstick. We may fancy that we're valuable in the scheme of things, but that could just be self-delusion. We may think that we're good, but of course we'll be inclined to think that of ourselves. We may be inclined to think that man is good, but that could just be a feeling that is very logically explained within the context of evolutionary thought. We can only say that we are valuable or not, good or not, and that there is good and bad, if there's a yarstick above us -- one that is superior to us -- with which we can be measured.

What this means is that if there's no God, there's no truth, and if there's no truth, there's no right or wrong. Moreover, you are then just chemicals and water. And if this is the case, how can it be wrong to terminate your function? What's wrong with terminating the function of an organic robot? Besides, again, there is no right or wrong.

Thus, how could we say, objectively speaking, that you were important? How could we say that you mattered? Sure, you're important to yourself, and I'm sure the people in your family value you, but again, that's purely subjective. It could simply be the function of emotion and instinct: you have a will to live, you have the psychological need to feel important and valuable, and your family has an emotional attachment to you. It proves nothing. Some people have an emotional attachment to food; to others their cars are extremely important.

The bottom line is that you're only truly important if you can said to be so in an objective sense. Your life is only truly valuable if you're an ethereal creature infused with a soul and have been deemed valuable by the Creator of all. If you're just a cosmic accident and an organic robot, what value shall we place on you?

This is what I was alluding to with that esoteric statement. You can now see why I didn't elaborate -- doing this issues justice is no small task. I won't say anything else for now, as the above is enough to absorb. Besides, if you can't grasp it -- and it is a prerequisite for deeper philosophical understanding -- than forging on ahead would be fruitless.

By the way, a philosopher is exactly what I am, in part, anyway.

David,

I'll respond to a few of the things I didn't address before. First of all, if you think that the David Irving situation would find favor with me, you don't have your finger on the pulse of the political spectrum. I'm well aware of his case and am quite upset about it. In fact, I'm thinking of writing an article on the matter (I'm a columnist).

However, if you understood today's political climate, you would know that it's people on the right (such as myself) who are fighting "hate-speech" laws. In fact, WE are the targets of them. For instance, in some western countries, Christians have been punished for criticizing homosexual behavior and Islam. I did write an article about this recently, by the way.

The fact of the matter is that hate-speech laws are the handiwork of leftist secularists (almost a redundancy), and that's why they are always used against those who espouse politically-incorrect beliefs. And what I'm telling you is a fact: the secular left promotes these laws, the Christian right fights them. I operate in Christian circles a good percentage of the time, and this is a major issue for all true believers. They talk about it, express a lot of anger, and they fight this type of tyranny.

About Jesus: once again, you've been misled about this. There ARE sources other than the Bible that speak of Jesus, and no credible historian questions the historicity of the claim that He existed.

Next, the idea that science refutes religion is incorrect. The scientists who have found faith through their endeavors are legion. In fact, some of the greatest minds have ultimately found that the conclusion that God exists is inescapable. Einstein was among them. I also will point out that people who bow down at the altar of science tend to descend into great evil. Why, in the early 1900s Germany was arguably the most scientifically advanced country in the world, yet, its people allowed the Nazis to rise to the fore. Not surprising, though, as one of your countrymen, G.K. Chesteron, once said, "The problem nowadays is that we have Christian values floating around detached from one another. Consequently, we have scientists who care only about truth but have no pity, and humanitarians who care only about pity but have no truth." Science without a firm moral foundation is like a runaway train.

David, here's another cryptic comment for you. Since I have been where you are (I truly have), I can tell you that you're in the middle phase.

Under Par, I'm not about to cross into religion. I've always felt this way about religion, have never believed in god, and have never been encouraged to.

I have never had any problem accepting that I'm just a big mixture of chemicals, and that I am very unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I'm essentially as important as the kitchen sink.

It is the people's desire to feel important and special that causes them to believe there is a god, 'eternal truths,' right and wrong, etc. But I know I'm not important, and I believe that our society invented 'right and wrong.' Morals are man-made, not god-given; I don't kill people because I know that those people are loved by others, and because I don't want to spend the next twenty years behind bars.

I am insignificant and so is everybody else - that's why it is important for everybody to be somewhat selfish during their life; no one will remember me, and compared to the whole universe, even our galaxy is a minute phenomenon.

I take the 'what you see is what you get' viewpoint. I have seen life for what it is. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess. I'm not a manic depressive, and I do not suffer from low self-esteem, I just take a more cold and calculated viewpoint.

I could never believe in god, because it doesn't fit in with science as I see it. Oh, and I don't think Einstein actually died a religious man, and religion was often the cause for his downfall (he wasn't perfect). And no, Charles Darwin was not a god-fearing man.

I've enjoyed this debate. Thanks. It's pretty deep stuff considering we're on a Vijay Singh blog.

:-)

Well, David, I hope you understand the arguments. What you must not grasp, however, is what happens societally when your perspective starts to become the prevailing one. The answer is: 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World . . .

David, to follow up on my last post, you should realize that intelligent atheists have understood the validity of my last point. Even Nietzsche said, when characterizing evolution, it's "true, but dangerous."

Of course, I don't believe that what he was saying evolution implies is true, but he was certainly correct about it being dangerous.

At the end of the day, Christianity is no more valid than the set of beliefs we now call 'Greek mythology.'

You understand my point.

Thanks for the discussion. Take care.

David
:)

David,

You don't seem to know much about human psychology.

I forgot to mention, for a man who claims to be governed by logic, you are awfully quick to discount things that you can't disprove. As I said, I used to be a secular man, but I was smart enough to be an agnostic.

How does human psychology tie into this?

Actually, I don't know much about human psychology - I doubt you do, either.

I do know, however, that humans find the notion that we'll go into a realm of paradise after death VERY comforting.

They hate the grim reality that we they be either burnt or buried, and essentially will not exist any longer. There is no conciousness, no pain.

Their molecules will join the cycle again, and they will exist no longer. It's that simple.

I'll make this brief, David. When people cease to believe in God, they start to deify themselves and the state. Moreover, their belief (understood on some level) that we are merely material things robs them of a respect for human life, and then they start objectifying others, which means they start treating them like the material things they think they are. This is why atheistic states are so capable of genocide.

This is why I said you weren't a thinker. If you were, you'd understand that Christianity is necessary for the purposes of keeping the less evolved organic robots in line. Not everyone ascend to your lofty state of intellectual and moral development. :o)

(I'm not sure whether your last comment was serious or not :)

Anyhow, if religion is to be followed, it should be followed because of belief in god, love for 'him,' and all that crap.

You insinuated that one of the sole purposes of religion is to keep all the dimwits well-behaved. It sounded for a moment like you were stating that you're not really religious - you just think it's good in the maintainence of a nanny state.

I HAVE thought about this a lot, and have realised we ARE just material things. Everything in the universe can (or will be in the future) be explained to some extent by science, except this weird thing you religious buffs love to call the 'soul,' and in addition 'god,' heaven and all the rest of that nonsense.

:)

Well, David, whoosh!

This is an open letter, which you are welcome to use as you wish. I want as many people as possible to know that Spencer Hux always gives noncommittal answers to questions. To begin at the beginning, when Hux was first found trying to cover up his criminal ineptitude, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Hux is planning to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, I'm terrified. Myth is a stronger force than rationality. Of that I am certain, because he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Hux is a mythmaker, an illusion builder, or to put it less politely, a trickster. He vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would, because his eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And Hux's vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that shambolic brutes should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers?)

The concepts underlying Hux's tyrannical anecdotes are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as Hux's idea that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty is wrong. I have a problem with Hux's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, when confronted with the real facts, he usually defends himself with some weak explanation about how materialistic lotharios are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. An equal but opposite observation is that posterity will have little occasion to glorify his "heroic" existence in a new epic. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit.

Hux's opinion is that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we make a genuine contribution to human society, or is it sufficient to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that I'm at loggerheads with Hux on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that flippant propagandists of one sort or another have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. I take the opposite position, that I have reason to believe that Hux is about to use both overt and covert deceptions to wipe out delicate ecosystems. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that Hux had previously claimed that he had no intention to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would force his moral code on the rest of us. We all know what happened then. Now, Hux would have us believe he'd never ever exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not headstrong bullies. Will he? Go figure. My view is that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Hux's perceptions. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that his snivelling attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Hux, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we must test the assumptions that underlie his tricks. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time.

I was thinking about how Hux is a bacillus in the ugly gut of denominationalism. And then it hit me. If he continues to prevent the real problems from being solved, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones at the hands of Spencer Hux. In view of that, it is not surprising that I can indubitably suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Hux himself. He says that we can stop cameralism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for unimaginative politicos. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life.

My only goal in writing this letter and others concerning Spencer Hux is to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Sure, he may have a right to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible, but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while he exercises that right.

Clearly, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many otherwise intelligent people continue to believe, thanks to Hux, that hanging out with the worst classes of inhumane lamebrains there are is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Let me rephrase that: I, for one, feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Hux obviously has none, or he wouldn't retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. Nobody wants him to accelerate our descent into the cesspool of heathenism, but Hux insists on doing it anyway.

It's possible that Hux doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of absolutism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we create a world in which fascism, Maoism, and negativism are all but forgotten. It may sound strange to him when I say that words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by Hux, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I decidedly hope that Hux serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to calumniate helpless ruffians.

I don't mean to condemn anyone's beliefs, but the point at which you discover that Hux places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of nativism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably unsophisticated is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his effusions. I have a plan to summon up the courage to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. I call this plan "Operation shout back at Hux's propaganda". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that Hux drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that Hux is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Hux's new changes will be even more gormless, because I believe in "live and let live". Hux, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his convictions but endorsement of them. It's because of such misinformed demands that I assert that there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will unmistakably persist as long as Hux continues to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character.

Perhaps Hux has some sound arguments on his side, but if so, he's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from him are totally belligerent. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that if he has spurred us to defy the international enslavement of entire peoples, then Hux may have accomplished a useful thing. It seems ironic that his purpose is not to enlighten, but to deceive, given that he craves more power. I say we should give Hux more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it. He takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Hux also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position.

What do you think of this: Hux has managed to elude any direct ties to specific acts of negligence -- no small feat considering his history? I've heard of blathering things like separatism and scapegoatism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, passive-aggressive brain is too small to understand. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Spencer Hux himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum.

Namely, he argues that flippant propagandists of one sort or another have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. I take the opposite position, that I have reason to believe that Hux is about to use both overt and covert deceptions to wipe out delicate ecosystems. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that Hux had previously claimed that he had no intention to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did.