muslims PART 2

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

Und Islam was slaughtering people already in large numbers by the year 622...doesn't seem too far away from their behavior these days.

for the most part women are not property in a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. venue where they are in most muslim societies. Their culture doesn't recognize democracy and we are wrong to expect them to 'convert' to it. IMO

I think I agree with you on that last point. It's not realistic to expect entire cultures to "convert" in this way overnight. This fetishisation of democracy we hear from our political leaders is naive and unrealistic, IMO.

If we're talking about "slaughtering people in large numbers", I don't think it's either accurate or helpful to characterise Islam as being particularly violent compared with, say, our own cultures.

And yes, women's rights are a big negative for me. Again, though, we should not lose sight of how recently women have emerged from vassal status in the West. Nor should we forget that not all muslim cultures are the same.

[hectorberlioz]

Saddam was surprisingly "liberal" in that he let women get an education etc...but I'm thinking he was never a "devout" Muslim, only a devout dictator...

BTW, there was an Iraqi soldier on Savage's show recently, who said that they had to hold back Iraqis from killing each other, after Saddam's fall. He also said that a tactic they were using to get the insurgents was discouraged by upper officials because they thought it was too brutal. And this tactic was, you post soldiers in areas, and you spy on groups of people to see if they're making bombs or plans, call in a car and shoot them down. And since they stopped using this tactic, the insurgency has skyrocketed.

[Spock]

Yep, while they enjoy the freedoms of other countries; and the welfare benefits; they have "the poor me's" and blame the West.

[The Gaffer]

I take it you are referring to immigrant communities.

I don't know if any studies have been done specifically on muslims, but a 2005 study found that in the UK, immigrants, on average, contribute more to the economy and in tax than residents do. http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandr...ion.asp?id=280

[Nurvingiel]

I heart you Gaffer. I heart you very much.

It's nice to see the whole 'the immigrants come here and enjoy benefits and complain about our culture' thing debunked.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Spock

Yep, while they enjoy the freedoms of other countries; and the welfare benefits; they have "the poor me's" and blame the West.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I take it you are referring to immigrant communities.

.......................
Yes, I certainly do!

Scandanavia, France and many other countries are just eeking along with huge immigration and non-intergration with society. The UK study may be so only because there are so many other groups which are NOT contributing.

[Nurvingiel]

Do you have a study to back that up? Because Sweden was doing just fine the last time I was there.

[Spock]

I'm not here to persuade nor to debate, merely to input what I know and what I've learned from people.

I was in Norway this summer and was told by several prominent individuals that they have a serious problem as do several other Scandanavian countries.

[Spock]

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.

a recent Swedish immigrant to the United States, who gave a first-hand account of the effects of unfettered Muslim immigration on Swedish culture.

The day before that we featured translations of Norwegian articles about the expanding “no-go zones” — enclaves of immigrant lawlessness — in Oslo.

Sweden is farther down the road towards Eurabia, but Norway is moving along fast enough in the same direction. The HonestThinking post expressed the fear that parts of Oslo would soon become like the Swedish city Malmö, which is notorious for its violent immigrant strongholds.

[The Gaffer]

Hey Nurv, we're up against it here.

[hectorberlioz]

Also the birth rates: in France, very few french children are born, but the Musilim immigrant birth rate is huge, compared...when all those kiddies grow up, it's going to be largely a Muslim population with the most brunt.

It has to do with the common enough liberal-european mindset: don't have children.


Also, just because you contribute does not mean that you agree with the ideals of that particualr country: do the majority of Muslims who immigrate here accept the constitution at least in large part? I doubt it, mostly because you don't have to do a single backflip to get in this country anymore, much less read its important documents...which perhaps may lead to show that their immigration was for a whole 'nother reason altogether.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18631

This is a more "rights are being trampled" article, but even then the real problem shines through...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p10s01-woeu.html

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Also the birth rates: in France, very few french children are born, but the Musilim immigrant birth rate is huge, compared...when all those kiddies grow up, it's going to be largely a Muslim population with the most brunt.

Don't you think this statement is a little too "those immigrants are taking over the country"-ish?

Also, by "the most brunt" do you mean "the most clout"?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It has to do with the common enough liberal-european mindset: don't have children.

Here's the perspective of a 23-year-old Canadian who subscribes to the liberal, not just for Europeans, mindset.

I plan on having (or adopting, if my husband and I are not physically capable) either two or three children in approximately ten years. I know that at that time, I will be physically and emotionally capable of rasing children.

Meanwhile, there is another issue that Canadians and other countries who were involved in WWII have to deal with: the eventual retirement of the entire Baby Boomer generation. We need immigrants to help support our Baby Boomers in their retirement, who are approaching sixty years old. We need new immigrants to enter the work force, as well as young people like myself.

Immigrants are not a drain on Canadian resources. Far from it, they are essential contributors to our government's resources and our culture. All religions and all nationalities are welcome (in theory anyway. In practice there is an increasing denial of student visas to Iranian students, according to the Ubyssey).

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Also, just because you contribute does not mean that you agree with the ideals of that particualr country: do the majority of Muslims who immigrate here accept the constitution at least in large part? I doubt it, mostly because you don't have to do a single backflip to get in this country anymore, much less read its important documents...which perhaps may lead to show that their immigration was for a whole 'nother reason altogether.

Why do you doubt it? What possible shred of real-life evidence do you have for this statement? (If you do have some evidence, I will, of course, read it. Unless it is too long. )

Also, citizens born in the country don't necessarily accept everything in their constitution either. They shouldn't be thrown out, or in the case of an immigrant, denied entry. Democracy includes the freedom to disagree with elements of the coutry's laws. If their actions contravene the constitution, then there are consequences.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18631

I started reading the article from this alarmist website with links to a CNN-quoting site called "Jihad Watch" but... I need to keep my brain whole for my midterm tomorrow.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This is a more "rights are being trampled" article, but even then the real problem shines through...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p10s01-woeu.html

I would call the real problem France's marginalisation of its Muslim minority. What do you feel the real problem is?

As an aside, can you PM me about the Christian Science Church? There's one in my neighbourhood and I'm curious about their basic beliefs and so on.

Originally Posted by CS Monitor

Shocked by the discovery of Islamic terrorist networks on their soil, Europeans have suddenly woken up to the existence of an often marginalized Muslim minority that takes religion more seriously than they do.

I think this statement is a tad unfair. Just because many Muslims are quite serious about their religion doesn't mean other French citizens are all less serious about their religions, as this statement implies.

Originally Posted by CS Monitor

"We feel as French as France will let us feel," said Bouthaïna Gargouri. "But it's true, I can't live my religion fully here."

Originally Posted by CS Monitor

None of them, for example, wears a head scarf, though they all say they would like to do so one day. Making such a visible show of their religion, however, would make it almost impossible for them to get a job, they agreed.

If many French people feel the same as Bouthaïna Gargouri, there is definitely a problem.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, unfortunately I don't have any time at the moment to respond here in depth (though I'd love to), but I just wanted to pick up on a few key bits.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Don't you think this statement is a little too "those immigrants are taking over the country"-ish?

I think a major reason why people come to the West is that there's more economic prosperity here. That doesn't mean they all agree with the laws. I don't have any reason to think they disagree with the laws in the US, but I know that in France, there is a very strong feeling of rebelliousness among a large percentage of the immigrants and the poor. This partly comes from France's history, but unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate on that at the moment. It comes from two places: France's history and the immigrants' histories. Many of France's immigrants come from countries that have very, very little tradition of freedom, and often intensely conservative cultures. Hence France, with its banning of headscarves while permitting public nudity, and cracking down on immigrants while denying them and many of the common people justice, is quite a shock. This does come out to being a clash of cultures, but there is a lot more to it than that. I agree with you that France is very hard on its immigrants and treats them badly. Simultaneously, I think the immigrants are a growing threat to France, as Hector says. This is in part because of the way France has treated them, and it's in part because of a strong culture clash that exists between the highly religious Muslims and the highly secular Frenchmen.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Meanwhile, there is another issue that Canadians and other countries who were involved in WWII have to deal with: the eventual retirement of the entire Baby Boomer generation. We need immigrants to help support our Baby Boomers in their retirement, who are approaching sixty years old. We need new immigrants to enter the work force, as well as young people like myself.

This is interesting. I fear immigration of Muslims into Europe and many countries of the West will be a major, major problem in the future, though. Did you know that Europe already is a hotbed of Islamic radicalism? Al'Qaeda often goes to Europe to recruit people to go and fight in Iraq, because radicalism is growing so strongly there.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think this statement is a tad unfair. Just because many Muslims are quite serious about their religion doesn't mean other French citizens are all less serious about their religions, as this statement implies.

Hector is completely correct. France is very, very secular nowadays. Religion is fading. I talked with a Parisien who is not religious herself and she was very open about the fact that religion is dying all over France, and she thinks that the degrading moral culture there is part of the reason so many are turning to Islam. I very, very strongly agree with her about that. The intellectuals of France are already just about all atheist, and those who are religious aren't practicing their religions, in the vast majority. The Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, are very serious about their faith. When they see such utter moral collapse all around them as exists in France, they are naturally shocked. Plus they are discriminated against unfairly by the country's laws, which adds to the rift between this minority and the majority of native Frenchmen.

This population change is also happening very strongly in England, because there also, the native British are not producing as many children, and often when they get older they travel away from their home country to other places and by houses out of country. Meanwhile, Muslim immigrants are pouring in and changing the social dynamics of the country permanently.

I do believe this massive influx of immigrants will be a major problem for Europe in the long run, because they have a different culture than Europeans do (and in some very important ways, a superior culture IMO, though that's beside the point ), and radicalism is spreading very rapidly amongst European Muslims. Also, among most Muslims I believe that there is a real feeling that they are being wronged in various ways by the West. As the tension between the Muslim and Western cultures continues to grow, this could develop into a very, very difficult situation for Western nations.

It already is difficult in France, and Europe in general is also seeing a swift growth in Islamic extremism. Those current trends are part of what I look at when I say I think this situation is going to get much worse. But another significant part of it is what Hector said: our birth rates aren't anywhere near theirs.

This is also what a Muslim in Iraq said to an Iraq war veteran of my acquaintance. He said to him, "You may win some battles, but in the end, we will outbreed you."

[Spock]

Keep on with the Truth!

[Falagar]

I found this article by Uri Avenry pretty relevant, though a bit biased (to say the least). Still, interesting:

Muhammad's sword

By Uri Avner
09/24/06

Since the days when Roman emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the emperors and the popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some emperors dismissed or expelled a pope, some popes dismissed or excommunicated an emperor. One of the emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when emperors and popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a worldwide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "clash of civilizations".

In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the Prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:


Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.


These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On 29 May 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul), fell to the Turks, putting an end to the empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

Is there any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, Verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant Verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith."

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the Prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: how did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favourites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

There no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics reconquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousands of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "global war on terror" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Uri Avnery is an Israeli author and activist. He is the head of the Israeli peace movement, "Gush Shalom". http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en

[Lief Erikson]

This guy is flinging out one-sided rubbish. He's cherry-picking his facts and also making clear and gaping errors due to his lack of understanding of Islam and history.

I'll point out the problems in this article this evening, if I have time. Right now I have an exam to prepare for that I'll be taking in a few hours, and after that a presentation to another class. So I'll respond to this article when I return.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, citizens born in the country don't necessarily accept everything in their constitution either.

You called?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Originally writen by an ignoramus

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Oh, Puh-lease....Pope Benedict did not make the effort to study the history of other religions? Does this guy think the Pope had to research for his speech like a college student for an essay?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Don't you think this statement is a little too "those immigrants are taking over the country"-ish?

It IS taking over the country when other cultures dominate the population.

Also, by "the most brunt" do you mean "the most clout"?

Yes

Here's the perspective of a 23-year-old Canadian who subscribes to the liberal, not just for Europeans, mindset.

I plan on having (or adopting, if my husband and I are not physically capable) either two or three children in approximately ten years. I know that at that time, I will be physically and emotionally capable of rasing children.

Rasing? does that mean RAZing or RAISing? ...If the former, I'd say that liberal mindset is a little more violence-prone than even I had suspected...

Meanwhile, there is another issue that Canadians and other countries who were involved in WWII have to deal with: the eventual retirement of the entire Baby Boomer generation. We need immigrants to help support our Baby Boomers in their retirement, who are approaching sixty years old. We need new immigrants to enter the work force, as well as young people like myself.

Yeah, because the baby boomers also did not have much children...it's called The Age Of The Sixties

Immigrants are not a drain on Canadian resources. Far from it, they are essential contributors to our government's resources and our culture. All religions and all nationalities are welcome (in theory anyway. In practice there is an increasing denial of student visas to Iranian students, according to the Ubyssey).

I don't doubt contributions of immigrants to countries; after all, immigrants built the Brooklyn Bridge...and Mexican immigrants do a lot of labor that wouldn't be done half as fast as with American workers....

That does not mean that immigrants are not going to do anything however, the most culture with the most people is going to dominate; here it is Latino and Muslim, in Europe it is Muslims. That's huge, and the culture they bring with them.

I think we imagine "all cultures welcome" to be some fairy land country where we all laugh > < at jokes and get along, as we poke each other the way me and Gwai do when we're having one of our East vs. West arguments....relaxing on the lawn chairs under willow trees, drinking lemonade...

If you know the history of America, North couldn't even get along with the South! And slavery was not the only issue, believe me.
Early Industrial Age, different races of immigrants fighting each other for the best jobs, mobs, mafias, Unions....

Why do you doubt it? What possible shred of real-life evidence do you have for this statement?

"We hold these shreds to be self-evident"....no southern border....

Also, citizens born in the country don't necessarily accept everything in their constitution either.

True, but it is a presumed given that the parents of that person would have told his child about the general laws of the land.

They shouldn't be thrown out, or in the case of an immigrant, denied entry. Democracy includes the freedom to disagree with elements of the coutry's laws.

I had said "at least largely"...

If their actions contravene the constitution, then there are consequences.

We have a dangerous Supreme Court...

I started reading the article from this alarmist website with links to a CNN-quoting site called "Jihad Watch" but... I need to keep my brain whole for my midterm tomorrow.

Dostoevsky prophesied the Revolution of 1917, people laughed at him, but he let them; "Let them call me a reactionary!"

I would call the real problem France's marginalisation of its Muslim minority. What do you feel the real problem is?

Mass-immigration, non-integration, even non-familiarization, on both sides.

As an aside, can you PM me about the Christian Science Church? There's one in my neighbourhood and I'm curious about their basic beliefs and so on.

I don't know anything about it...

I think this statement is a tad unfair. Just because many Muslims are quite serious about their religion doesn't mean other French citizens are all less serious about their religions, as this statement implies.

Unfair isn't always untrue...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It IS taking over the country when other cultures dominate the population.

You mean like the Irish? Germans? Dutch? Italians? Or countless other immigrant waves from the last 300 years? They all received the same kind of hostility in this country when they were new immigrants. Is it wrong for people to live as they want in a democratic country? This more and more is sounding a lot like the cry of the established power saying we cant allow them to influence things because they arent like us and we want everyone to be like us or at least pretend to be! Well I have old news for you: ALL cultures change. You cannot stop it. Its part of the mathematical dynamic of human culture and biology. In 100 years when President Muhammad-Kennedy Abdul Jabbar declares we are in the most important struggle of our country's history because the New Western Bolshevik Christian Thought Terrorists are trying to infiltrate our countries culture network and spread their horrible concepts about fruit worship through the NSA Cerebral Main Frame which controls the culture thought patterns of US residents in all 58 states… *breath*… well anyone north of 130 will be thinking dejavu all over again…

So my advice is embrace as many differences as you can. And try to stay on the board rather then complaining about the next wave. Surfs up!