Freedomain Radio

Sorry? "The God of Atheists" has been out for quite a while, I'm afraid I don't follow...

I haven't heard anyone mention Ron Paul in a very long time.  I certainly wouldn't see the point in writing specifically about Ron Paul or all the bad boys like Ahmadijinad et al.  There's nothing that can really be done on my part personally.

I should say that I subscribe your youtube channel, Aaron, and really enjoy your ideas.  And you even seem to have a lot of the same interests as most here do.  I'm not ashamed to say I liked that song you sang recently, either! 

Aaron0883:

I do believe that we can understand certain motivations of certain people in certain contexts by understanding the priorities of what they critisize

Interesting. So do I....

Aaron0883:

"In this world of mass-murding, mass-stealing, mass-enslaving, mass-corrupting, mass-imprisoning, mass-religious indocrination, and torture...they choose to attack....FDR, the people trying create an equal moral system.

Stunning.  Simply mind-blowing.  I can't even wrap my head around that."

Couldn't we make the same argument towards Stefan?  In the world of Putin, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadineejad, etc ... He focuses on Ron Paul.  How many videos or podcasts has he made criticizing Obama compared to ones criticizing Ron Paul?  How many criticizing Ayn Rand compared to ones criticising Derrida?  I actually don't think he should change who he is criticising ... I just think people should stop making this argument, or it at least needs much much more explanation than what is usually given.

"What Aaron?  You are not blocked?" ... I am as surprised as you.

there is an obvious difference between constructive critisism and abuse and bullying.

For example, if im making a mistake at work and my manager sees it and she shouts "Oi! You stupid fucking bitch, what the fuck are you doing? Don't be such a dumbass!!", and my other manager says "Oh wait, you don't do it like that you do it like this and i'll show you after I've finished what I'm doing. . . . "

then you really need some help if you cant see the one which is totally unacceptable, bullying and abusive and the one which is useful and helpful criticism.

I also think that responding to criticism by deflecting it onto someone else is an irrational avoidance technique. For example, if someone I know were to steal a candy bar and I said to them: "stealing candy bars is immoral," and they replied: "I find it absolutely mind boggling that you are focusing on me here. There are mass murderers out there and you are focusing on me stealing a candy bar," this person would obviously be avoiding the point, and employing a weak defense to do so. Whether or not there are worse offenders out there is not relevant. Maybe I am misinterpreting the argument generally made here. If so, please correct me. 

yeah but stef isnt doing anything immoral like the guy stealing. Hes suggesting we get close to the people in our lives, bring them our honest selves, try and work out issues and problems, and saying you have the option to leave negative relationships, hes trying to help the world, and hes putting forward the logic and reasoning for a society that runs with out violence, murder and coercion

so yeah i can see why some think its rather odd people would spend months on end cursing and slandering him as if he is committng the worst crime on the planet when yes there are nutjobs out there who murder, torture, imprison innocents and steal etc.

its like what stefan is doing and saying is the centre of the universe for these people, but it begs the question, if they think stefan is being immoral enough for them to spend months on end speculating his every word and action and abusing him, in what way shape or form could the word immoral possibly be applied to him most of all, out of all the immoral people on the planet?

I wanted to throw my two cents in here, hopefully to add some clarity to the mix:

If I correctly understand the people who use this argument, the key to the "priorities" argument is that rationality is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Speaking the truth is something that we will do generally as virtuous people, but we will not do when a murderer asks us where his next victim is hiding. It's a means, not an end in itself. The same would go for discussing a particular issue in a group session with the goal being attainment of truth.

Yet we still can prescribe when it is good to speak the truth or discuss things in a group. What separates when we prescribe from when we don't prescribe is how much that activity is going to contribute to our happiness (which is the end) relative to what we lose. We live finite lives, so we simply have to prioritize in order to maximize our happiness. I know everyone here certainly agrees with this.

The relevance to this argument is that it's an empirical judgment when we criticize someone's priorities. It's not (or at least shouldn't be) intended to be some sort of purely logical critique of someone's actions, which is what makes it susceptible to an infinite regression as played out above.

By that token, it's a tough argument to make, at least in an outwardly demonstrated fashion. You essentially have to prove, "your action is not part of a happiness-maximizing set of actions." There are fairly certain examples where this argument is dead on without question, like when Stefan suggests ending boring and dull relationships with one's family, as boredom means the foregoing of more happiness-generating activities.

When it comes to discussion on a philosophy forum, we start getting much closer to the break-even line and should arguably feel some more uncertainty. But that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile to weigh in and say, "I don't think this is important." Again, while it might be hard to fully outwardly demonstrate a case for what you're saying (like how you can show historical data to support the hypothesis that welfare programs make people poorer), we have a great deal of empirical processing right in our instincts, enough that we're right more often than we're wrong when we make those types of claims.

Nonetheless, the more uncertainty we have, the more our saying "I don't think this is important" should be a belief underlying our own actions (i.e. abstaining from the conversation ourselves) than it should be stepping into the "arena" of rational debate of ideas. For Stef, that means regulating the conversation on the basis of his priorities however he feels. It's his property, after all, so his instincts can guide how he handles it, and he's entitled to make borderline judgments that could ultimately be mistakes. (and not only is he entitled, but also rational in doing so. If we never miss a flight in our lives, it's probably because we've spent too much time waiting in airport terminals.)

We are similiarly entitled and rational in making these judgments. But when we step into the arena to seriously stake a claim of priorities, we're going to find ourselves more often totally ill-equipped, as lots of determining factors of what makes a discussion worthwhile are beyond our grasp. We don't know how much enjoyment someone is getting out of discussing an issue, and without more information about how they live and spend their time elsewhere, we're very hard-pressed to assert that they're misprioritized. When we have that kind of information, our judgments can be far more reliable (I know this from personal experience; I have had major problems in the past, and still have some now, with managing anxiety through thinking about abstract rather than personal issues).  Still, some people like to study and discuss some philosophical issues for fun and don't actually think the minor point they're bringing up makes or breaks the world.

So why someone would put out a criticism of priorities without a strong reason for doing so is naturally the next question, but my answer is only a belief underlying my own action, but not something I think I'm capable of sharing in a worthwhile manner. And speaking of priorities, it's 1:30AM and I'm in finals week. Oops

GregG:

Aaron0883:

I do believe that we can understand certain motivations of certain people in certain contexts by understanding the priorities of what they critisize

Interesting. So do I....

 "Actually, I have an entire novel about the evils of PoMo, took me 2 years to write..."

Yes, I read it.  However, that is also why I wrote "If someone has a contention with this analogy, just plug different things into it ... Ron Paul vs Obama, etc."  I am sure we can find plenty of places to apply this idea to anyone and everyone.  I don't think you would disagree with me here ... or should I provide more examples?

"This is a straw-man, first of all FDR did not attack LiMi, we are simply pointing out that they are bitter and angry people who have no capability of giving objective opinions about FDR."

Well ... we would have to define attack.  From my perception I would qualify what you are pointing out as an attack.  However, What would you define as an attack?  It seems to me that most people look at themselves as victims of attacks in this kind of scenario.  I am sure the LiMi people would just say they are offering a defense.  I am not saying either side is right or wrong.  I am sure it depends on the scenario and the person.  Also ... I do not think it is a straw man in the least.  To define it like that would be ignoring my contexts on several different fronts. 

"Second, they are not just a small group of annoyances, they were actively giving their biased opinion to the media and were being taken as credible sources."

Them being taken as credible sources is not up to them. Also I would give my biased opinion about virtually anything to the media ... The word opinion implies bias.  Stefan also gave his bias opinion to the media regarding the incident.  i am seriously not trying to claim that FDR should not defend itself from LiMi.(for the record ... I think the article was abhorrent, as I have stated many times in the past.)

"To clarify, you don't have a problem with people using the argument from priority against irrational issues only against rational ones.  And you are accusing the FDR community of using the latter.  Is that correct?"

No.  I am not quite sure how my argument was interpreted as that, so I do not know how to correct the misunderstanding exactly.  Maybe you should reread what I put down, because you might have just read it wrong.  The argument from priority is just a form of psychologizing.  It can add insight to a persons motivation at times ... however, in every case I have seen at FDR it was used in such a way that it didn't offer much insight(If any at all), it was contradictory, and just a form of intimidation from what I interpreted. 

"there is an obvious difference between constructive criticism and abuse and bullying. For example, if im making a mistake at work and my manager sees it and she shouts "Oi! You stupid fucking bitch, what the fuck are you doing? Don't be such a dumbass!!", and my other manager says "Oh wait, you don't do it like that you do it like this and i'll show you after I've finished what I'm doing. . . ."  then you really need some help if you cant see the one which is totally unacceptable, bullying and abusive and the one which is useful and helpful criticism."

I don't disagree with you.  I am only criticizing the principal many FDRers often use.  I am not trying to defend LiMi in any way ... Like I said ... I am very highly critical of them, I have made videos and posts condemning things about them, and I do not post there.

Greg "Interesting. So do I...." 

What was the point of that?  It made me feel anxiety reading that.  Taking out one small sliver of what I said and writing that made me kind of interpret it as a sort of passive aggressive remark.  Maybe I am way off base ... but it seemed very unconductive to the conversation, and seemed much more like a kind of small jab at me. 

 

Let me see if I got this straight:

1.  LiMi has been constantly attacking FDR and it's members for a year and a half.  We've seen websites full of products with FDR member's avatar's on them and derogatory language making all sorts of libelous claims.  We've seen constant attempts to get around bans in order to "stir up trouble" on the website.  We've seen them take quotes out of context and send them to the media, in order to get stories published defaming FDR.  We've seen a constant assault on the character of FDR's members, Stef, and Christina by these people.

2.  Stef has mostly ignored the existence of LiMi for that time, except for a couple of brief mentions in a couple of podcasts (if I recall, I could be wrong here).

3.  Finally, after a year and a half of them not going away and simultaneously bringing a lot of heat upon Stef's business, he decides to point out what type of people they are, using their own words.  In the process of doing this, he uses the argument from priority to say that with all the terrible things happening in the world, these followers of the NAP are using aggressive tactics against a philosopher who advocates that people be honest in their relationships and that people don't have to accept violence in their relationships.

4.  You come here saying that the argument from priority is fallacious in this instance because they could perceive Stef's most recent action as an attack.

Aaron0883:

 

"This is a straw-man, first of all FDR did not attack LiMi, we are simply pointing out that they are bitter and angry people who have no capability of giving objective opinions about FDR."

Well ... we would have to define attack.  From my perception I would qualify what you are pointing out as an attack.  However, What would you define as an attack?  It seems to me that most people look at themselves as victims of attacks in this kind of scenario.  I am sure the LiMi people would just say they are offering a defense.  I am not saying either side is right or wrong.  I am sure it depends on the scenario and the person.  Also ... I do not think it is a straw man in the least.  To define it like that would be ignoring my contexts on several different fronts. 

 

We can't argue against theories about the fallaciousness of arguments.  We can only point out their fallaciousness in particular instances, as theories only gain verification in the face of particular instances.  If you're using this instance to argue against this point of view that you clearly dislike, as is evidenced by the video you made on it, you've picked a pretty silly instance to attempt to make this stand on.

If by any objective standard the sum of the interactions between FDR and LiMi can be labelled at best as a toss-up between who is attacking whom, then there is no such thing as objectivity.  We're all living in a completely subjective world, and the argument from priority is as correct as invisible pink unicorns flying out of my butt and raining down root-beer Jelly Belly's on crowds of little, grey, alien children.

Come on, Aaron.  What's going on here?  You can't be serious that Stef is attacking them for using their own words to point out what kind of people they are.  In this instance, the argument from priority is perfectly valid if they want to be taken serious as real moralists, because even if they are correct that FDR is a negative influence on some people, somewhere, we wouldn't be ANY influence to them if they'd just go away.  They wouldn't be aware of the 40 or so parents who've been deFooed.  They would be able to spend more time spreading their point of view on how we can reach a voluntary society.  FDR would be but a dim memory, as it would have little to no effect in their lives, what-so-ever.  They could be spreading their own form of righteous morality with the goal of bringing about Libertopia.

If it's bullying to point out that people who claim to have moral standards don't live up to those standards through a year and a half of acting based on priorities that are the exact opposite of those standards, then I'm a bully.  Is that really your claim here, Aaron?

 "1.  LiMi has been constantly attacking FDR and it's members for a year and a half.  We've seen websites full of products with FDR member's avatar's on them and derogatory language making all sorts of libelous claims.  We've seen constant attempts to get around bans in order to "stir up trouble" on the website.  We've seen them take quotes out of context and send them to the media, in order to get stories published defaming FDR.  We've seen a constant assault on the character of FDR's members, Stef, and Christina by these people."

I can not comment on this at all.  I have seen real BS stuff from FDR members, and I have seen real BS stuff from LiMi members.  I have tried to be universally condemning of any BS stuff.  I have not seen all the BS stuff of either, and maybe one side is vastly worse.  I would bet that the LiMi people have worse intentions ... however, I have no idea.  I do not serf around LiMi, and I have a very limited scope of what goes on there.

"2.  Stef has mostly ignored the existence of LiMi for that time, except for a couple of brief mentions in a couple of podcasts (if I recall, I could be wrong here)."

Okay.  I think you think I am trying to defend LiMi and call Stef and/or FDR hypocritical for attacking LiMi.  I think it is in FDR's best interest to attack LiMi (or use a different word than attack, maybe that has a connotation).  I think that FDR's evaluation of LiMi holds a lot of truth, and is likely highly accurate.  FDR should not put up with people that they find defaming it, and should stand up to it.  sooo ... this has nothing to do with LiMi.

"3.  Finally, after a year and a half of them not going away and simultaneously bringing a lot of heat upon Stef's business, he decides to point out what type of people they are, using their own words.  In the process of doing this, he uses the argument from priority to say that with all the terrible things happening in the world, these followers of the NAP are using aggressive tactics against a philosopher who advocates that people be honest in their relationships and that people don't have to accept violence in their relationships."

Once again.  I do not wish to defend LiMi ... or call FDR or Stefan hypocritical for going after them.  I only wish to show the hypocrisy and fallaciousness of the argument from priority which I happened to bump into in this thread.

"We can't argue against theories about the fallaciousness of arguments.  We can only point out their fallaciousness in particular instances, as theories only gain verification in the face of particular instances.  If you're using this instance to argue against this point of view that you clearly dislike, as is evidenced by the video you made on it, you've picked a pretty silly instance to attempt to make this stand on."

I do not care about LiMi.  I only picked this scenario because I saw it ... not because of who was being attacked for whatever reason.  I am not trying to claim LiMi did or didn't do anything.  I don't care about LiMi.  I understand that this thread might seem like that was my contention ... but there was no such thing.  i was only reading through, and I saw an argument that I thought was fallacious.  If someone made the argument that Stalin eats babies ... I suppose I would defend Stalin.  Although I would see it more as attacking a fallacious argument.

"If by any objective standard the sum of the interactions between FDR and LiMi can be labelled at best as a toss-up between who is attacking whom, then there is no such thing as objectivity.  We're all living in a completely subjective world, and the argument from priority is as correct as invisible pink unicorns flying out of my butt and raining down root-beer Jelly Belly's on crowds of little, grey, alien children."

I think it is helpful for me to restate that i do not care about LiMi and I think FDR is likely doing the right move by going after it.  However ... the things between FDR and LiMi is more of a compilation of individual instances.  I would bet that FDR people have been mean and vicious towards a member of LiMi at some point ... and that it wasn't called for.  I would also bet that LiMi people have been mean and vicious towards a member of FDR at some point ... and that it wasn't called for.  I think acting as if this is a situation involving one singular interaction as if FDR and LiMi were people in an individual scuffle is fallacious.  We can make generalities ... and that can have merits in certain circumstances ... however, it will not be a fully accurate picture.  i am sure someone can dig up many nasty remarks made by FDR members.  I think I can likely pick up a bit just on the topic of myself. 

Anyway ... Honestly ... I don't care about LiMi.  I do not visit them, and I do not post there.  I know little of the interactions between FDR and LiMi, and maybe my argument in the above paragraph is total shit.  Even if it is ... Okay.  Even if LiMi is Satan reincarnate ... It would not change my arguments against the argument from priority.

"Come on, Aaron.  What's going on here?  You can't be serious that Stef is attacking them for using their own words to point out what kind of people they are." 

I think using the word attacking just muddled the waters.  i am sure we have very different definitions.  This is a very ambiguous term in this situation, and is used very differently by different people.  This is why I asked for the persons definition in the last post.  To assume this word is clear cut and that i am using the same term as you, and than just lambast (since I shouldn't use attack) me on it ... I find it inappropriately assumptive. 

"In this instance, the argument from priority is perfectly valid if they want to be taken serious as real moralists, because even if they are correct that FDR is a negative influence on some people, somewhere, we wouldn't be ANY influence to them if they'd just go away.  "

Not true, not true.  (However, we are not getting to the point I was actually trying to make.)  Stef will argue against Socialism because if it has a real effect over people than it is important to dispel it.  He will argue against certain tenants of Objectivism to sway some of them to his way of viewing things and/or because he finds it destructive and/or another reason.  I will criticize Stef because many of my subscribers and intellectual circles I hang around find hiM very viable and highly accurate (including myself).  There are tons of reasons for a person to criticize Stef and FDR.  I am sure I can list more if you would like me to.  Also ... your argument is very self-deprecating, and shows no confidence in any long term real growth and influence of FDR.

"They wouldn't be aware of the 40 or so parents who've been deFooed.  They would be able to spend more time spreading their point of view on how we can reach a voluntary society.  FDR would be but a dim memory, as it would have little to no effect in their lives, what-so-ever.  They could be spreading their own form of righteous morality with the goal of bringing about Libertopia."

Lets look at myself ... because this argument could just as easily be made towards me.  I have read all 7 of Stef's Books.  I have listened to a whole lot of podcasts and talked with a whole lot of people about Stef.  I am trying to get a good understanding of the world, and live a happy life.  My ultimate goal is happiness and understanding ... not libertopia.  I would love it ... but right now I am learning and growing.  I might be in a real position to change my focus in the future ... but not now.  Right now I wish to debate, read, and understand a lot about the world.  Since I think about Stefan very often ... I desire to talk about his ideas on my youtube channel.  I have made at least 8 videos when I talk about Stef in a very positive light, and probably another 8 where I criticise an idea of his.  I constantly quote Stefan in debates, and suggest his books to everyone.  (I am sure I have gotten at least 20 book reads from my friends, and have likely promoted him more than the average FDR member).  I find your classification of people in this instance a little one dimensional.  There can be many motivations to criticize Stef ... or anyone else.

"If it's bullying to point out that people who claim to have moral standards don't live up to those standards through a year and a half of acting based on priorities that are the exact opposite of those standards, then I'm a bully.  Is that really your claim here, Aaron?"

This is assuming so much.  It is assuming that they do not find Stef a real threat for some reason to the values that the believe in.  It is assuming that their motivations are what you say they are.  i am sure different members of LiMi have different motives.  I talk to two people via AIM that were at once members of LiMi ... and their motivations are totally different.  They are both super friendly people who I have never heard them make any unsubstantiated claims against Stef, they still love his videos, read his books, and discuss his ideas.  I honestly do not know why either of them left FDR, or went to LiMi.  They might have been total asses ... I have not really inquired (we don't talk a whole lot).

Your whole reply seems a bit harsh towards me.  I know I have been highly critical of FDR and Stefan, but I do believe I have been fair and friendly in this discussion.  I also do not believe I have made any unfair claims in the past ... and if I have, point them out and I will apologize.  I promise I will try my best to respect you, however ... I ask for the same in return.

deleted

Stef mentioned in the recent podcast that people knew that Limi had been around for a long time.  I can say that I knew nothing about it.

My reason for staying away from it is that it seems creepy -- but also verbally abusive to people.  I've left the mises forum for this latter reason as well.  One mention of FDR got me stalked and harassed and in one case (and I never thought an otherwise intelligent forum would come to this; but it did thanks to LiMi linking to mises.org) threatened with physical violence (a user named 'short seller').  One guy even went on to say that homosexuals should thrown out of society, just because I mentioned the unlibertarianness of banning same-sex marriages.  I mean that is the sort of knee-jerk responses some people have:  they scroll through and see "family" or "ethics" and think "MOLLYNEEEEEEEEEEUX!!!"   While that is eyerolling in the extreme to know such petty little kids post on the internet, I refuse to have any part of a forum discussion with that ridiculous atmosphere that the moderators refuse to intervene in.  And what's worse:  "anarcho-capitalists" think banning idiots from forums is "likely totally anti-freedom, man, and hypocritical."  Even the rational responses to FDR cannot even be addressed because those guys excuse the idiotic behavior of the knee-jerk people.  You would think people would ignore a guy who threatened "if I want your opinion, I will bitchslap it out of you", but they just carried on like this guy wasn't just totally spazzing out in frustration and anxiety (no doubt his own father talks to him that way; he saw my user avatar and also decided that I was ugly, too).  Now you can see why they are a bunch of nutcases.  Imagine if that guy really was some psychotic killer out there and he really was going to try and hurt me somehow.  I don't really know if that is true or not.  I'd rather not find out:  crazy people are out there.

The argument from priority is very easy to misuse and misunderstand.

For instance, if I have a problem with the FDR server, and I spend a day talking to the hosting provider to work it out, people could say that "Stef obviously values talking to support people more than discussing freedom, what a hypocrite!"

If I go to the gym, I am not usually actively promoting liberty, and then people could say, "Stef obviously values exercise more than opposing evil, how could that possibly be?"

Or: "ZOMG Stef played a video gain for 20 minutes, what an inversal of values, he does not care about freedom! aaaaaaa!"

We spend most of our days not actively engaged in opposing corruption, evil and violence. Does that mean that sleeping, eating, going to a movie, or a club, are all far less important than opposing the evils of the world?

It is not a matter of looking at things moment by moment, but rather at looking at a general trend over time. If I occasionally play a video game instead of talking to my wife, it is not because I only value video games, and do not at all value my wife - however, if I spend most of my time playing video games and ignoring my wife, then clearly there is a problem.

If I say that religion and statism are very bad things, and then spend most of my time for over 18 months endlessly and viciously attacking a little anarchist/atheist site, and do relatively little to actually oppose religion and statism, then clearly my actions are out of whack with my values.

The folks at Liberating Minds have attacked my character, denigrated my wife, used unbelievably abusive language, infiltrated this forum, insulted my listeners, enabled abusive parents -- and fed "information" to largely hostile mainstream reporters. I did not particularly care about this for 18 months, until it truly began to interfere with my time and reputation, largely through their use and contact with the mainstream media. I dealt with this problem in the same way that I would deal with a server problem which was interfering with podcast deliveries. It was the highest priority item that I had to deal with at the time, and now that I have dealt with it, I am happily moving on to other issues.

Quoting a man's own public statements is not an attack. Building a fence around your property is not an attack.

You might want to have a look over this webpage, since I think it is important to have the facts, which you say that you do not have:

http://freedomainradio.com/liberating_minds.html

John Ess:

You would think people would ignore a guy who threatened "if I want your opinion, I will bitchslap it out of you", but they just carried on like this guy wasn't just totally spazzing out in frustration and anxiety

Yes I noticed that thread, and Im not surprised you left, it was appallingly moderated..

Its got to the point that even when you can have a productive conversation about FDR on a different board, there always seems to be a troll lurking somewhere, after which an avalanche of them occurs and you are just lost in a hail of abuse and scorn. I rarely respond to them unless the criticism is constructive and inquisitive, which it rarely ever is.. I've left most boards because of this, as it does seem to be the same old folks (couldn’t say if it was always limi mind). I’m saddened by all this fury really, because as Stef has pointed out it only does harm to the freedom movement as a whole and indeed it does FDR harm also, although we'll survive it I have no doubt. Having begun to think the whole freedom movement was against FDR I was pleasently surprised by the great promotion to the 'matrix' video and Freedomain itself, made by the host on FTL last thursday and friday. However I darnt go on their boards again as Im quite worn out by these assaults..

Aaron,

I kind of see where your coming from, particularly if you haven’t lurked on the boards of limi. But I believe this thread and one other (to my knowledge) are the only ones that contain criticism of 'Limi' other than Stefs bulletin and last weeks Sunday show (people should correct me if I'm wrong on this). Limi dedicate half their output to criticising FDR on a continual basis in the most viscous way, this includes spreading their vitriol throughout most libertarian/anarchist websites. You probably picked the worst topic on the board to fire off your criticism on, as its been a magnet for every troll in the book.

I too appreciate your generally well balanced respectful thoughts about fdr on YouTube, even if I dont always agree with you. But I for one can’t believe the lengths these guys go to in trying to destroy what we have here at fdr. I’m disappointed when people take them seriously and allow the Ad Hom mud to stick as it were. However, I do appreciate your point was about something else and was not a thinly veiled attack..