OB Stake- another logically inconsistent rule

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

An artificially erected visual refernce stake(s)/ or fence, whose sole purpose is to determine if the ball is resting in play or out of play, should not penalize a player whose ball has clearly come to rest in play, just because he/she  is left or right handed, and can't take a stance because of that.

What about other immovable things located OB?  A fence erected by an adjacent landowner, erected to keep golfers out of his property, which also delineates the OB limit?  A retaining wall erected to keep an adjacent hillside stable?  Does the purpose matter, or just that it interferes with your swing?  To be consistent, you'd have to allow relief for ALL of those artificial things, even if they're not on the golf course.  Right now the Rule is absolutely consistent, no relief for Boundary Objects or any other immoveable stuff located off the golf course.  A Boundary fence or wall or railing is treated the same as boundary stakes.  Sure, it could be defined or limited differently, I've said repeatedly that this is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but the current limitations are reasonable and logical.  If you have a problem with it, hit it further from the course boundary.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

What about other immovable things located OB?  A fence erected by an adjacent landowner, erected to keep golfers out of his property, which also delineates the OB limit?  A retaining wall erected to keep an adjacent hillside stable?  Does the purpose matter, or just that it interferes with your swing?  To be consistent, you'd have to allow relief for ALL of those artificial things, even if they're not on the golf course.  Right now the Rule is absolutely consistent, no relief for Boundary Objects or any other immoveable stuff located off the golf course.  A Boundary fence or wall or railing is treated the same as boundary stakes.  Sure, it could be defined or limited differently, I've said repeatedly that this is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but the current limitations are reasonable and logical.  If you have a problem with it, hit it further from the course boundary.

You defend the USGA Rules every time no matter what, and you deny inconsistencies where they clearly exist.

This is not "absolutely consistent, ... reasonable [or] logical." An OB stake by necessity has to be on the property of the golf course. That it is deemed OB is an artificial construct. It is a stake on the property of the golf course, that is treated differently than another stake on the golf course, the penalty area stake. A homeowner's fence is not on the golf course property unlike an OB stake. If you really were consistent, you would not be for allowing free relief from a penalty area stake either. But that would be an arbitrary decision to make things more difficult for no good reason.

[DaveP043]

55 minutes ago, LICC said:

You defend the USGA Rules every time no matter what, and you deny inconsistencies where they clearly exist.

This is not "absolutely consistent, ... reasonable [or] logical." An OB stake by necessity has to be on the property of the golf course. That it is deemed OB is an artificial construct. It is a stake on the property of the golf course, that is treated differently than another stake on the golf course, the penalty area stake. A homeowner's fence is not on the golf course property unlike an OB stake. If you really were consistent, you would not be for allowing free relief from a penalty area stake either. But that would be an arbitrary decision to make things more difficult for no good reason.

The parking lot is on golf course property, the maintenance shed, the grill room, all on golf course property, yet all may be defined as OB, and in every case stakes may be used to define the boundary. Or a fence may be used, owned by the course, and on the property.  And in every case, the Boundary Object is treated as immoveable, with no relief under the rules.  

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

[LICC]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The parking lot is on golf course property, the maintenance shed, the grill room, all on golf course property, yet all may be defined as OB, and in every case stakes may be used to define the boundary. Or a fence may be used, owned by the course, and on the property.  And in every case, the Boundary Object is treated as immoveable, with no relief under the rules.  

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, LICC said:

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

Here is where I (once again) refer you to the actual Rules of Golf, Rule 1.  The overriding principles are:

Play your ball as it lies

Play the course as you find it

All the rest of the Rules concerning relief are exceptions to those principles, and the Ruling Bodies have done their best to make as few exceptions while trying to be  reasonably fair.  More exceptions introduce more inconsistency.  It is absolutely reasonable to allow relief for things on the course, and to not allow relief for things not on the course.  The Committee is authorized to define the limits of the course, bearing in mind the impact of their delineations on how the course plays. 

All of this arose initially because some whiny PGA Tour player wanted relief from a fence which defines the OB.  He hit a bad shot, and didn't want to accept the consequences.  What seemed odd at the time, Thomas is reputed to be one of the more knowledgeable players concerning the Rules.  He probably knew this rule, and was trying to browbeat an Official into giving him a wrong ruling.  My solution for him, and for all the rest, hit better shots, you won't need to beg for relief.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

57 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

All of this arose initially because some whiny PGA Tour player wanted relief from a fence which defines the OB.  He hit a bad shot, and didn't want to accept the consequences.

Seems to be what many on here who complain about the rules also don’t want to accept. 

[Stuka44]

16 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I have agreed, this is to some extent an arbitrary line, but any line is somewhat arbitrary.  You want the line drawn differently, that doesn't make it right or wrong, simply a different choice.

 

16 hours ago, LICC said:

True, right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, but one way is consistent and logical, and the other isn't. I wouldn't mind if any man made object, whether OB or not, that interferes with a swing on a ball that is in play, allows the player free relief. That would be consistent and logical. 

I agree that correctness where the rules of golf are concerned is truly in the eye of the beholder.  I would just say that anytime the argument comes down to "just hit it farther from the boundary" is a red flag to me.  That is using "20/20 Hindsight" to justify a rule. A player should play "knowing" whats going to happen before it does.  Huh..What!.  Again nobody is saying that "ALL" random outcomes should be "forgiven, and given relief".  But again to try and justify a rule that an "artificial object erected, by the course, because its a boundary(ob) fence, and not any other man made on course object,  so that  weather or not someone is penalized, comes down,  to the players  "handedness" , because at some point in history, someone decided there is an arbitrary difference in these two objects,(both erected by the course in this situation),  is just a dumb rule.   

    Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Edited April 28, 2022 by stuka44

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Looking at 1a, that definition doesn't apply, this choice is definitely not random, it is specifically thought out and chosen.  Off the golf course is just that, therefore no relief is justified during play ON the golf course.  Looking at 1b, the choice is based on the preference of people who truly understand the implications.  I'd say that's valid, in defining that an OB line is itself OB, that OB stakes (when no line is present) are OB, and that all Boundary Objects (as defined under the Rules) are NOT considered to be Immoveable Obstructions (as defined in the RoG), all of those definitions are to some extent arbitrary.  

But any other choice would also be arbitrary.  You could define the edge of the OB as the side of the paint line furthest from the course, or the "back side" of the stakes.  But then we have inconsistency between fences or walls on an adjacent property but serving as a Boundary Object (clearly off the property, so OB) as compared to an OB stake, which would be defined as in play.  That doesn't seem to make things simpler to me, its simpler to treat all Boundary Objects the same.  

How is allowing relief for objects that are not on the golf course any less arbitrary than not allowing such relief?  And is such a choice more consistent, or less, with the two basic principles of golf, as presented in Rule 1?  To me it is still arbitrary, but extends an exception to those principles in yet another area.  More exceptions to basic principles aren't the way to go, in my opinion.  

Edited April 28, 2022 by DaveP043

[LICC]

1 hour ago, stuka44 said:

 

I agree that correctness where the rules of golf are concerned is truly in the eye of the beholder.  I would just say that anytime the argument comes down to "just hit it farther from the boundary" is a red flag to me.  That is using "20/20 Hindsight" to justify a rule. A player should play "knowing" whats going to happen before it does.  Huh..What!.  Again nobody is saying that "ALL" random outcomes should be "forgiven, and given relief".  But again to try and justify a rule that an "artificial object erected, by the course, because its a boundary(ob) fence, and not any other man made on course object,  so that  weather or not someone is penalized, comes down,  to the players  "handedness" , because at some point in history, someone decided there is an arbitrary difference in these two objects,(both erected by the course in this situation),  is just a dumb rule.   

    Because take note that the  arbitrary lines drawn, and referred to in the rules, and used in justifying the rules,  are by definition. 

1a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will...an arbitrary choice.  When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan

b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something...an arbitrary standard

Just seems to me that Golf should be looking for every opportunity to reduce the "arbitrariness" of the lines it draws.

Excellent point. Also, someone can say the same thing about a penalty area stake, from which you do get relief. Just don't hit it so close to the penalty area and you won't have a problem. It is just inconsistent. The response is that OB is just different without any rationale as to why that matters.

[LICC]

22 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Looking at 1a, that definition doesn't apply, this choice is definitely not random, it is specifically thought out and chosen.  Off the golf course is just that, therefore no relief is justified during play ON the golf course.  Looking at 1b, the choice is based on the preference of people who truly understand the implications.  I'd say that's valid, in defining that an OB line is itself OB, that OB stakes (when no line is present) are OB, and that all Boundary Objects (as defined under the Rules) are NOT considered to be Immoveable Obstructions (as defined in the RoG), all of those definitions are to some extent arbitrary.  

But any other choice would also be arbitrary.  You could define the edge of the OB as the side of the paint line furthest from the course, or the "back side" of the stakes.  But then we have inconsistency between fences or walls on an adjacent property but serving as a Boundary Object (clearly off the property, so OB) as compared to an OB stake, which would be defined as in play.  That doesn't seem to make things simpler to me, its simpler to treat all Boundary Objects the same.  

How is allowing relief for objects that are not on the golf course any less arbitrary than not allowing such relief?  And is such a choice more consistent, or less, with the two basic principles of golf, as presented in Rule 1?  To me it is still arbitrary, but extends an exception to those principles in yet another area.  More exceptions to basic principles aren't the way to go, in my opinion.  

There is arbitrary and there is consistency. Two different things. Not granting relief for an OB stake but granting it for a penalty area stake is inconsistent. Granting relief for neither or granting relief for both would be just arbitrary. You can't come up with a reasonable rationale for the inconsistency. It's a bad rule partially due to the inconsistency and partially for being overly harsh.

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

There is arbitrary and there is consistency. Two different things. Not granting relief for an OB stake but granting it for a penalty area stake is inconsistent. Granting relief for neither or granting relief for both would be just arbitrary. You can't come up with a reasonable rationale for the inconsistency. It's a bad rule partially due to the inconsistency and partially for being overly harsh.

They aren’t inconsistent because they are two different situations. Just like the teeing area is different from the rest of the course. 
 

[DaveP043]

7 minutes ago, LICC said:

It's a bad rule partially due to the inconsistency and partially for being overly harsh.

Write to the USGA, urge them to change it.  

[LICC]

15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

They aren’t inconsistent because they are two different situations. Just like the teeing area is different from the rest of the course. 
 

What is the relevant difference?

[LICC]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Write to the USGA, urge them to change it.  

Good idea. And if they did, you would say that the new rule makes sense and is a good rule because, the USGA thought about it, or something.

[LICC]

8 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

You're choosing to focus on stakes. Let's focus instead on out of bounds markers. On many courses in my area, out of bounds is defined by fences or walls. No relief is allowed from these. So allowing relief from one type of out of bounds marker, but not another, would be where the inconsistency would lie.

I don't know why you are so tied up in trying to find these logical inconsistencies. Don't like the rules? Don't play by them. Or don't play at all. It's your call. But some guy on a forum, who doesn't even know the rules very well, complaining about them is certainly not going to get anyone to consider changing them.

I said I would be for free relief from any man made obstruction that interferes with a swing, for any ball in play. That is consistent.

Who says I don't know the rules very well?

Edited April 28, 2022 by LICC

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

Who says I don't know the rules very well?

You have demonstrated that pretty regularly.  Just go back about a month in this thread, one clublength v. two.

[DaveP043]

27 minutes ago, LICC said:

Good idea. And if they did, you would say that the new rule makes sense and is a good rule because, the USGA thought about it, or something.

I am not going to hold my breath, that rule has been the same for at least 50 years, boundary objects will not be treated as obstructions in my lifetime.

[Stuka44]

Wow, here we go again.  They are only "different" things, because someone  arbitrarily determined that they "were, or should" be looked at differently.  You defenders of the rules, and I really do appreciate your zeal,  continually make the same circular argument.  "   A  rule  exists, stating that these two things should be looked at differently, and therefore they MUST BE looked at differently.   And any suggestion that fairness, or equity in the play of the game may be, being impeded by  a rule or two, and suggesting that the game may be fairer, and more consistent by changing a rule "Renders us unworthy to play the game, or even suggest that the game can be improved!" 

 I go back to what LICC said.

MAN MADE OBJECTS: ON OR OFF COURSE, ERECTED BY THIS  COURSE OR OUTSIDE AGENCY:

Any player whose otherwise legally struck, and played ball has come to rest in bounds, on this course whose ball has come to rest in such close proximity to ANY MAN MADE OBJECT REGARDLESS OF WHO PLACED IT,  shall be granted free relief from said object if his balls proximity to it renders his natural stance unattainable, or the balls proximity to said man made object, renders injury possible, by contacting this man made object or any part of it, or other man made object  during the subsequent swing.

 

I'm not sure how a rule like this couldn't be implemented  with a few clarifying remarks, on procecure for taking relief, which would then ensure that in the end someone isn't penalized because they are left or right handed, and because their ball came to rest 1 foot next to a brick wall. 

The fact that one is a snack bar between two holes, and one is a brick wall marking a boundary edge of the course( regardless of who erected it) should make no difference, IF THE PLAYERS BALL HAS COME TO REST IN BOUNDS.  And any rule which in any way justifies, supports, or results in  a players handedness determining if he is penalized,  is a bad rule.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by stuka44

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

And any rule which justifies a players handedness determining if he is penalized is a bad rule.

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

But I keep going back to the idea of minimizing exceptions to one of the primary principles in golf:  Play your ball as it lies.  There are exceptions made to that principle, allowing for relief from man-made objects on the course.  I would prefer not to see the exception extended to allow relief from objects which are not on the course.  Adding exceptions to the primary principles is not desirable, in my mind.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

What is the relevant difference?

Hazards also knows as penalty areas are part of the course 

OB is not part of the course. 

[LICC]

1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Hazards also knows as penalty areas are part of the course 

OB is not part of the course. 

Why is that relevant to treatment of a man made object obstructing the swing for a ball in play on the course?

Edited April 28, 2022 by LICC

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

Why is that relevant to treatment of a man made object obstructing the swing for a ball in play on the course?

Because the ruling bodies decided that on the course rules will be different for rules applying to not on the course. 
 

Another example of not understanding the rules and how and why they are applied and why they aren’t inconsistent. But rather you and others not wanting to suffer the consequences for a mistake on the course.

 

[LICC]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

But I keep going back to the idea of minimizing exceptions to one of the primary principles in golf:  Play your ball as it lies.  There are exceptions made to that principle, allowing for relief from man-made objects on the course.  I would prefer not to see the exception extended to allow relief from objects which are not on the course.  Adding exceptions to the primary principles is not desirable, in my mind.  

The goal should be to fairly apply exceptions consistently, for what would make a better experience for golfers. Now you have a dichotomy of when the exception applies and when it doesn't, and for no good reason. Make it simple and consistent- apply it to all man made obstructions.

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Because the ruling bodies decided that on the course rules will be different for rules applying to not on the course. 
 

Another example of not understanding the rules and how and why they are applied and why they aren’t inconsistent. But rather you and others not wanting to suffer the consequences for a mistake on the course.

 

Or another example of a circular argument with no rational underpinning.

[Stuka44]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There's no penalty based on handedness, it simply becomes a more difficult shot.

I get it not technically, but no relief implementation results in what is "realistically" a one stroke penalty. a ball one foot from a brick wall(ob marker) off the left side of the fairway, as you look from the tee, unostructed by anything else means a left handed golfer can take his stance, and hit his 4 iron to the green 240 yards away.  The right handed player,who can not take a stance, is forced to in essence "take" a penalty stroke by "half-assedly" hitting it with the back of a club, or taking an unplayable.

[Stuka44]

Ok...  Using my one foot from the brick wall(ob) example, hell lets make it 6 inches.   OTHER THAN THE RULING BODIES DECIDED, AND ITS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE RULING BODIES DECIDED,  are the fairness, equity, and just reasonings for implementing this rule as it is?  Also other than play the ball as it lies, because we already know that creating exceptions to this rule is no problem, because there are a lot of them already to ensure that one player is not benefitted or penalized, by being next to a  port o pottie, in play.

[LICC]

18 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Anyone who doesn't know it's one clublength, not two, from a cartpath, clearly is not very well versed in the rules. This is one of the most common and most used rules in golf, and you've presumably been doing it wrong for how long?

If that is what you base your conclusions on, I can see why you get a lot of things wrong here.

[LICC]

10 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

A player's ball comes to rest in a hole on the right edge of a cartpath. There is a large bush starting three feet to the right of the cartpath just forward of the ball. A right handed player's drop will place him directly behind the bush, forcing him to punch out to the fairway. A left handed player, whose nearest relief is much closer to the path, drops and has a clear swing and path to the green. So should the right hander be allowed to drop on the opposite side of the path so he too has a clear swing and path to the green? Of course not!

Rules play out differently for right  and left handed players. Get over it and stop whining. If it really bothers you, carry a lefty club or two and learn to hit them.

That is an incredibly unlikely hypothetical. That you resort to something like that shows you don't have a good justification.

[LICC]

3 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Seriously? In 25 years of golf coaching I saw situations like this at least 100 times, where a player taking a drop would have been totally clear, or totally blocked, depending on handedness.

Again, you are really very poorly informed. If my knowledge and experience were as bad as yours, I would stick to using this forum to get people to explain things to me, not to argue logical consistency with experts who have been overseeing the game for hundreds of years.

You having seen this situation at least 100 times is just as likely as you having been overseeing the game for "hundreds of years." You should stick to just parroting the rulebook and not try to delve into complex analysis, which is what you need to understand the flaws and inconsistencies of certain rules.

[Stuka44]

16 hours ago, Riverboat said:

A player's ball comes to rest in a hole on the right edge of a cartpath. There is a large bush starting three feet to the right of the cartpath just forward of the ball. A right handed player's drop will place him directly behind the bush, forcing him to punch out to the fairway. A left handed player, whose nearest relief is much closer to the path, drops and has a clear swing and path to the green. So should the right hander be allowed to drop on the opposite side of the path so he too has a clear swing and path to the green? Of course not!

Rules play out differently for right  and left handed players. Get over it and stop whining. If it really bothers you, carry a lefty club or two and learn to hit them.

THIS IS IT FOR ME, ON THIS:

Well provided example.  It again misses the main point.  I have never said that relief should always come in an area free of Natural obstructions, to the next shot.  Oh and why does it depend on how the boundary fence is constructed.  Why can one get relief from the supports of a boundary fence.  If the fence is such an integral part of playing  the course, then why does it matter, what manner of fence was constructed.  Every part of it no matter how intrusive should render no relief.

And I take  offense the elitist attitude, that because I am willing to ask for an explanation of something, beyond "because someone, said so" as whining, and being told "get over it"!  And who are you to summarily dismiss my reasons or anyone elses for discussing this matter or anything else, with a comment like "if it really bothers you". That comment conveys a level of arrogance, that implies that I couldn't possibly have any reason, and that there could never be a reason, that would warrant consideration,  for  this rule to be changed, or ammended.

Maybe I suffered irreperable damage to my elbow trying to strike a ball which was next to a boundary wall to help my college team win a tournament.  Maybe I would like to see the rule changed to keep this from happening to anyone else. (OK IT didn't, but what if it had.) 

And why is it taken as a "personal attack", by most people who want to defend the rules of golf. Like we are accusing you of being personally responsible, for the inequities we believe exist.  Why does the mere suggestion that a rule of the game may be inconsistent, inqeuitable, unfair, or whatever other description one would use, the defense of it almost immediately, digresses to an accusation of the questioner, being unworthy to play the game, and a suggestion that the person should quit, because "The Sacred Game: Golf" is being damaged at its core, by the mere suggestion that the rules are not perfect. 

I am glad, even though someone had come up with a rule about it, that Rosa Parks didn't listen when someone likely told her to "stop whining, and get over it" its just the way it is, if you don't like it move out of Alabama.  The ENTIRE PLANET is a better place becasue she asked, "WHY", and said it doesn't have to be this way. 

Golf and its rules, comparatively, don't  register on any scale of importance, for human existence.  It's a game, nothing more, nothing less. Playing the game by the letter of the rules, doesn't make you a better or superior person.  It just means you follow the rules, nothing more... nothing less. Agreeing with rules for anything, doesn't necessarily make them good, or just rules, it only means that you agree with them.

So all I would ask is  reign in comments which imply, that someone is unworthy to have an opinion about the game of golf, or its rules.

THE END!

 

 

 

[Stuka44]

18 hours ago, Riverboat said:

I am sorry you feel personally attacked. No matter what we are talking about.

 

18 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Bickering about the rules of a game is, in my opinion, whining and a waste of time.

I'm really not, and I speak(type ) in extremes to try and illustrate my point, that these rules of golf " are not really a sacred text" .    And I might have missed it in these 4 pages, but I still didn't see a reason listed here, other than, some likely unknown, long dead person decided they needed to be handled differently.  I tried to find listed in the rules of golf, or on google, any reference to the rationale, or reasoning behind these situations being treated differently, and I couldn't find any listed.

I'm serious, if anyone can point me to a document, which explains why they are treated differently, other than "The Committee" said OB markers are different, and why the distinction that one marks the boundary of the course and why this is an important distinction, and why other than we say they are different, one is granted relief for obstructing the play of a ball legally in bounds and one isn't I would love to read it. 

And I really do appreciate your defense of the rules of the game.  I don't understand it, but I do appreciate it..  And I'm not really offended over anything on this site.  And contrary to what you may think, even though I probably won't abide by it, I like to understand things.  I ask WHY, not to whine, but to educate myself,  even about things as inconsequential  to me as the rules of golf.  And  as with most things in life, I don't like to if I can help it, answer people's questions of me with because (and I'm not saying you did this). 

Edited April 30, 2022 by stuka44