boycott-riaa.com - Article: Chastity Bono -- Becoming a Man

Chastity Bono -- Becoming a Man

Posted by on June 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM (printer friendly)

http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/11/chastity-bono-becoming-a-man/

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


PerilousTimes	Date: June 14, 2009 @ 10:23 PM "Chastity Bono, civil rights advocate, journalist, author and musician, is in the early stages of changing his gender -- transitioning from female to male, TMZ has learned." . . . . . . . "his" gender?? And, quoting further: "He is proud of his decision ..." (blah, blah, blah . . .) "he"/"his" ? So, a person can earn a grammatical gender change in advance before the operation? Or is this a case of a reporter trying to capitulate in a favorable manner for the sake of Chastity? (Or both?) I wonder if this is supposed to be a validating if not a venerating of the gender he or she, ahem, should have been born with in the first place! And I've also always wondered in these cases of sex-change operations, is the situation considered akin to a perspective that Jerry Lewis once inappropriately mused on a "Jerry's Kids" program: "God made a mistake; now it's up to us to do something about it." Oh, well, I hope he/she/it achieves happiness or fulfillment or whatever. I'm almost curious what "first stages", as stated in the article, entails (besides cross-dressing)? I'm only perceiving the transition as from: Chastity the female to Chastity the transvestite to Chastity the male. There must be more to it than that; some of this stuff is probably out of my league. Oh, well, I'm sure I'll be enlightened (not to mention chastised) by some blogger before too long. I must admit this phenomenon is an interesting conversation piece. And I'd bet there would be different opinions (and different jokes!) in bars across the country, depending upon what part of the U.S. you're at. :)

autodidact	Date: June 15, 2009 @ 2:28 PM "Journalist" and "musician?" OK. What has she written? How many albums did she sell? More importantly, what is her stand on copyright law?

PerilousTimes	Date: June 15, 2009 @ 3:52 PM You're right on track! And it was foolish of me to spend that many bytes on the transsexual aspect without mentioning a thing about what you said in your message. Thanks for your proper focus.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 15, 2009 @ 3:53 PM I mean, I'm glad you brought up what needs to be dwelled upon.

pepe512000	Date: June 15, 2009 @ 6:25 PM From Wikipedia Musician Bono began her career with a short-lived music career with his band, Ceremony. Ceremony released one album, Hang Out Your Poetry, in 1993. The band featured Bono on vocals, acoustic guitar, and percussion. Other members were Heidi Shink a/k/a Chance, Pete McRae, Steve Bauman, Louis Ruiz, and Bryn Mathieu. All the songs except one were written or co-written by Bono, Heidi Shink, and Mark Hudson. There are no synthesizers or digital effects anywhere on the album. “We turned our back on technology. Everything you hear was played by humans. It's reminiscent of the 60s, but more a tip of the hat than emulating it. We took the music we love and rejuvenated it, made it 90's. ” —Heidi Shink, [11] The song "Could've Been Love" was released as a single from the album. The album's other tracks are "Goodbye Sunshine", "Steal Your Heart", "Day by Day", "Ready for Love", "Ready for Love (Refrain)", "Hang Out Your Poetry", "Turn It Over", "Trust", "2 of 1", "First Day of My Life", "Breathless", "Living in a Paradise," and "Livin' It Up." Sonny and Cher also took a small part in recording the album: the last song includes vocals (uncredited) by Sonny Bono and Cher. The album was not successful and the band was dropped by their record label (David Geffen's DGC). ~~~Who knew?..but interesting...~~~~

brenthannah	Date: June 16, 2009 @ 8:36 AM I just wonder, after he is a man, how he will cope with always being wrong? ;)

pessimist	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 1:58 AM good one, brenthannah! Hats off to you.

leflaw	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 8:21 AM Looks like Lance Bass' fat older brother.

leflaw	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 8:22 AM

leflaw	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 8:24 AM

Mojosnake	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 12:09 PM :wow: :stare: now I'm a little :scared: :rofl:

luminationmusic	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 12:13 PM Well, our stand is: we believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...and not Karen and Sharon! Otherwise, mankind would no longer exist. It is bad enough to have Mike having a couple of gay guys undressing him in their minds during a show in Syracuse, and wanting to give him their number :lmao:

ChillinBuzz	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 1:44 PM I'm surprised this even made the news and guessing it's been too quiet at DM lately to make the news here too. :lmao: Either way, I have no time for homophobes. They ain't bothering you so leave them be. It's their choice.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 2:11 PM "Choice" -- the rallying cry of those who want to have their way at the expense of others Abortion choice -- at the expense of an unborn baby whose right to life has to be terminated to suit the trumping preference of the mother carrying it Homosexual choice -- at the expense of the basic structure, or unit, of the family -- and, by extension, the ultimate stability of society (not to mention what is right and wrong in a divine sense) The "homophobe" cry is tantamount to "discrimination!" It is politically correct to tolerate anything ... except intolerance. :) Romans chapter 1 and elsewhere is homophobic, so we'd better ban that book. While we're at it, let's ban the whole Bible. Oh, and ban God, too... though that will have to wait a little longer, I presume. Incrementally, in the meantime, we'll need to arrest all the fundamentalist preachers who have sermons that certain powerful-beyond-their-percentage segments of society detest. If that doesn't work, well, we'll just have to go after Christians themselves (unless they can be rehabilitated)! Let's see . . . should unrehabilitated Christians be imprisoned or fed to zoo lions? Choices, choices! :)

leflaw	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 4:16 PM Just because he looks like lance bass?

CodeWarrior	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 5:50 PM I remember something a transgendered person said on one of the talk shows. They asked, "If you woke up in the morning and found you now had the body of the opposite sex, would you still be your sex or another." The point is, sex is not so much about what is between your legs, as what is between your ears. Chastity never did seem happy. I hope she feels better now. I'm still bummed about them finding David Carradine with a wig, women's clothes on, and a rope around his neck and genitals hanging from a clothes ROD in the closet of a fancy Thai hotel. Now, knowing the Old Code, you know I have to say something about that... "Thy rod and they staff, they comfort me."

CodeWarrior	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 5:54 PM I have to agree with Lef on this one. BTW, I saw Kathy Griffith talking about groups for different sexual identity groups..the usual such as Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, and one called "Intersex"... Hearing her say "Intersex"... I thought, is that like the Porn version of Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon"? So, I googled INTERSEX and found this... http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex "“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types—for example, a girl may be born with a noticeably large clitoris, or lacking a vaginal opening, or a boy may be born with a notably small penis, or with a scrotum that is divided so that it has formed more like labia. Or a person may be born with mosaic genetics, so that some of her cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY. Though we speak of intersex as an inborn condition, intersex anatomy doesn’t always show up at birth. Sometimes a person isn’t found to have intersex anatomy until she or he reaches the age of puberty, or finds himself an infertile adult, or dies of old age and is autopsied. Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing. Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category. What does this mean? Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms. In the same way, nature presents us with sex anatomy spectrums. Breasts, penises, clitorises, scrotums, labia, gonads—all of these vary in size and shape and morphology. So-called “sex” chromosomes can vary quite a bit, too. But in human cultures, sex categories get simplified into male, female, and sometimes intersex, in order to simplify social interactions, express what we know and feel, and maintain order. "

CodeWarrior	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 5:59 PM BTW, I had a girlfriend who suffered from Spina Bifida, and was paralyzed from the waist down since she was a small child. I always disliked Jerry Lewis, and talking to her, I found out that all the handicapped ("handicapable") folks she knew absolutely HATED Jerry Lewis. "Ohhhhh Laaaaa-dy" See da pix http://njnnetwork.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/jerry-lewis.jpg http://www.hatingitmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/061906_article_boston.jpg http://www.televisioninternet.com/news/pictures/jerry-lewis-health.jpg

PerilousTimes	Date: June 18, 2009 @ 6:10 PM So, I guess we're being asked to consider SIX categories besides straight male and female: lesbian, gay, transgendered, transsexual, bisexual, and intersex? Ah, for the good old days when life was simpler, choices fewer, and demands from fringe groups not so vehement. [exhaling] P.S. Perhaps someone can come up with an acronym for all this pseudo-gender mess. (I can wait.) Re: "... in order to simplify . . . and maintain order." Don't make me laugh. "Just because he looks like Lance Bass?" Nope; not just because of that. "I have to agree with Lef on this one." Which "one"? Lef's levity?

ChillinBuzz	Date: June 19, 2009 @ 8:23 AM The "homophobe" cry is tantamount to "discrimination!" It is politically correct to tolerate anything ... except intolerance. --------------- I wasn't crying "homophobe" but since you put it that way... lol, well I'm an open minded Atheist. To me, God is a very well thought out story that sadly got screwed up through a couple of thousand years of rewrites and interference (aka "revisions"). I'm sure that'll upset the Bible bashers in the house but suck it up, I ain't going to go out of my way to tell you that you're all wrong, that you should be treated differently or as second class citizens for your views, or even that because you don't follow God's commands to the letter you should be struck down and banished to Hell... You guys do that well enough without my help there lol. Carradine was kinky. If kinky is a sin then sign me up to a lifetime of confession haha. (sic, repeat ad nauseum)

ChillinBuzz	Date: June 19, 2009 @ 8:26 AM I'll add one thing though. Every fan of my music is appreciated, regardless of sex, race, colour, location or sexuality. If we were all identical, it would get bloody boring real quick!

PerilousTimes	Date: June 19, 2009 @ 12:42 PM Acknowledged. Thanks for writing back.

ChillinBuzz	Date: June 19, 2009 @ 6:41 PM Here's something for the naysayers to chew on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

PerilousTimes	Date: June 20, 2009 @ 12:11 AM The majority of animals' deviant behaviors serve utilitarian purposes: • females pair off to raise little ones during prolonged shortage of males; • male pairing to facilitate bonding of a communal group; • maie pairing to indirectly eliminate weak males who threaten robust procreation; • pairing of females or males to interactively help diffuse combativeness or other instability; • other instances of homosexuality demonstrate natural selection to better ensure the survival of the species.

CodeWarrior	Date: June 20, 2009 @ 11:45 AM It's none of my freaking business what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, what kind of fancy panties a guy wears under his 3 piece suit. It's often those who rale against such things that get caught with their virtual pants down. e.g. - Holier than thou PromiseKeepers member, Sen John Ensign and his extramarital affair... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/06/why_now_john_ensign.html?hpid=news-col-blog Repub Larry Craig and his "wide stance footsy" in the airport bathroom with undercover cop.. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3213760.shtml Ted Haggard, minister and leader of NEW LIFE Megachurch and his homosexual and drug behavior http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3213760.shtml Pentecostal preacher and televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and his "I have sinned..." mea culpa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart Jim Bakker and the sex scandal which ended his super ministry at one point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker And these homophobes and holier than thou repubs ... http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals And this, on Republican Hyprocrisy on Moral Values.. http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Examples_of_Republican_hypocrisy_on_moral_values

PerilousTimes	Date: June 20, 2009 @ 12:25 PM Even a plethora of offenders does not make any divinely instituted rules bad; it only serves to show human NATURE is bad... and is in desperate need of a Savior from sin. God calls all errant behavior from anyone to be repented, regardless of what their station in life is.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 20, 2009 @ 2:53 PM sin = transgression of God's law EVERYone has to contend with wanting to do what is against God's will, believers notwithstanding. It's human nature. (Even the devout apostle Paul; read Romans 7:25.) We can ask for forgiveness because of the Gospel of Christ, read God's Word, and pray for help to live a life that's pleasing to the Lord and helping people in need. OR, we can choose to go our own way, living in a manner that seems easier and more inclined with our natural desires rather than capitulating to what God wants. His way is harder, but there is an eternity of blessings ahead for those who are faithful to Him.

captdunsel	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 4:49 AM all of you people are over looking the real issue here. this is the first time in the history of the world that someone can celebrate mother's day and father's day as both in the same year. and just for the record the procedure she just had is called (drumroll please).. an addadicktomy it's been fun but I gotta go back to collecting aluminum cans

evansorchid	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 4:48 PM Does it strike anyone else as odd that someone would come on to a music internet website and proselytize about the sin of human nature.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 6:49 PM "Does it strike anyone else as odd that someone would come on to a music internet website and proselytize about the sin of human nature?" I was just taking my cue from The Master, who was in company with people from all walks of life, though He was second-guessed for doing so. :) Actually, I've been around this website for several years, but not nearly as long as CodeWarrior who has communicated at various times on BRIAA about details regarding deism, Taoism, Huna, Sinogenesism, Judaisim, Talmudic law, agnosticism, and other kinds of belief systems, including Christianity... sometimes even quoting portions of Scripture and explaining his points and his take on life. (Read his June 17, 2009 @ 9:04 PM posting, his June 18, 2009 @ 12:48 AM posting, and his June 19, 2009 @ 11:40 AM posting at the current BRIAA article titled, "RIAA lawyers toss a skunk in the jury box".) CodeWarrior resides in Austin, Texas -- about 120 miles from where I live -- and one of their underground mottoes is: "Let's keep Austin weird." I can't help but say that's also one of the reasons I like BRIAA, too! I recall noticing some years back, a member and indie musician George Ziemann -- who, like Codewarrior also hosts his own website -- criticized 'Code because George thought 'Code talked too much about religious stuff. (Can I get a witness?) Both the 'Code and the Ziemann have been articulate, staunch supporters of the goals of BRIAA. Both are worthy debaters, too, I might add. In regard to "someone coming on to a music website . . ." For my part, I had come to this website because I was interested in its opinions. I like music of many kinds, and it struck me that here was a website that felt as I did about how major labels were being unfair and the RIAA oppressive. And it just so happened that a topic at one of the webpages at about the same time concerned spiritual issues, a fascinating departure, I thought, to what is mostly a music talk venue. Soon after that, one of Dmusic's independent musicians ("Shmoo" of Electric Gypsy), shared some good stuff (as an admin on BRIAA) from his heart that prompted me to keep coming back. Most of the time I've been content to sit back and read. Lately, I became posting-active again, but in the past I've commented on music issues as well as spiritual matters on various occasions. There should be at least a few members around who recall that. BTW, there are several other free-speaking participants here who have occasionally brought up what they believe (or don't believe) and why. The owner of this BRIAA website, Lawrence Feldman, a Pennsylvania attorney who also owns DMusic, seems to relish open debate, and not limited to music topics either... if archiving this website to years past is any indication. Apparently, quite a few years ago, there were myriads of non-music subjects being bantered about, but there still remains ample opportunity to let go and turn loose around this place.

evansorchid	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 8:18 PM You're free to say whatever you want dude....I don't usually involve myself in these political and/or theological discussions that pop up from time to time on this site...sometimes they're quite entertaining....but something about your idiosyncratic perspective of God's Law -God's Word - God's Will -What God Wants - combined with platitudes about capitulating to our natural desires, just rubbed me the wrong way. Just because something doesn't conform into your personal orthodoxy doesn't mean that our free will should be controlled by anyone else but ourselves. You can rant all you want, but the moment you start suggesting ways of suppressing thought and delivering judgment, you lose all credibility. I sincerely hope you are able to reach someone through this unusual pulpit you've chosen.....and please, don't type a three paragraph response to this.....nobody cares. The best rebuttals are short and to the point.

luminationmusic	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 9:07 PM PerilousTimes :clap: :clap: :clap:

pepe512000	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 9:51 PM evansorchid ~~~Just because something doesn't conform into your personal orthodoxy doesn't mean that our free will should be controlled by anyone else but ourselves. ~~~~ You're right, your free will is your free will..do with it as you will....I don't think anyone here said that free will is controlled by anything other than yourself.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 10:28 PM For this post, I'll try to concentrate on rebutting the most important statements evansorchid made, five in number. BTW, I intend no disrespect or sanctimonious approach. I say that candidly, with full knowledge of my own shortcomings and my own proclivity to violate what is right. The way I have peace with God is to humble myself for forgiveness because of Christ and ask for the Holy Spirit to keep helping me strive to do better. Re: "your idiosyncratic perspective of God's law --God's Word -- God's will": By this, I take it you mean to say I have a distinctive, individualized personal opinion about what the Bible says that God wants. The things I expressed in my postings of 12:25 PM and 2:53 PM today can all be backed up by verses from Scripture. Accordingly, they are not the domain of my personal opinion. I'd be glad to list them by reference or by the content, if you want verification. So, I say that to let you know that most of your objections ultimately won't center on just what I wrote, but against what God had arranged to be written in His Word. Re: "combined with platitudes about capitulating to our natural desires": By platitudes is usually meant trite and unoriginal, or, by alternative definition it could entail personal opinion. But, again, what I wrote comes right from the Bible. The reason I'd like to quote the verses (or at least offer the references) is to show that's indeed the case, that I'm not just putting my own style of interpretation on things. So, in a sense, I proudly admit, the CONTENT of what I've posted IS unoriginal since God is the author of the material. When I wrote the phrase "capitulating to our natural desires", yes, that's the carnal inclination, to do what our flesh prompts even when certain impulses are counterproductive to what He wants. This is from His Word, but it's not popular for much of anyone to say this sort of thing, so you are in common company to dislike it. I do note, however, that Dr. Billy Graham has not typically been criticized for preaching on this subject even on crusades that are sometimes on regular network channels, so maybe he is able to strike a better tone than most. Re: "Just because something doesn't conform into your personal orthodoxy. . ." It's not my personal orthodoxy, as if it were unique to me, but rather it IS inherent in God's Word. Re: ". . . doesn't mean that our free will should be controlled by anyone else but ourselves." Finally, something you and I can truly agree on! Man's free moral agency is something the Lord treasures. We have a choice to ask for forgiveness or not; we have a choice to serve Him or not. Nothing should detract from that central concept, and certainly nobody should say anything against free will, either. We are supposed to be free to make choices. (We are just not free from the ultimate spiritual downside of choices that He opposes.) Re: "suppressing thought and delivering judgment": Suppressing thought may be needed, if we are to follow what God has said: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer" in His eyes. Or, in another verse he speaks to lusting in one's heart; i.e., coddling inappropriate desires, is embryonic sin and can lead to acting out of those lusts. In either temptation, surrendering to improper impulses would result in disobedience to God's will; hence He warns us so we don't dwell on wrong thoughts to start with. I'm not "delivering judgment" in any sense other than merely delivering the facts about GOD'S judgment concerning morality and sinfulness and why we all need a Savior.

PerilousTimes	Date: June 21, 2009 @ 10:35 PM P.S. In the interest of clarity, it would have been preferable to have written: "Suppressing thought may be needed, if we are to avoid what God has said: . . ." Instead, I had used the possibly misleading word "follow."

evansorchid	Date: June 22, 2009 @ 9:37 PM :sigh: Just ignore me, please....I'm just a gurgling infection of independent thought. I really don't have a clue what I'm talking about. :zombie: I really don't care if the things you've stated can be backed up by scripture....it's your interpretation of the scripture that I have an issue with. It would be easier I suppose if God's Word were universally understood....but it's not.....it's subjective and riddled with Schisms for thousands of years. I don't know.....maybe it's your moral absolutism that I'm finding distasteful. :shrug:

PerilousTimes	Date: June 23, 2009 @ 4:13 PM Re: "It's your interpretation of the Scripture that I have an issue with." From now on, perhaps it would be preferable for me not to summarize a point from Scripture without quoting an actual supportive verse (selecting one that's free from any hint of ambiguity), and that way you can see if I've been true to the meaning. That should be fair. You claim that I misinterpret or misapply Scripture, but I challenge you to show me in what way. Look back over my messages, and try to provide an example. Name one thing I wrote that you think the Bible does not plainly teach. Because, in lieu of such, it should then be noted that your objection lies basically with God's Word itself, which is a quite another matter. Re: "moral absolutism" A moral absolute is not a popular message in our modern culture which has become permeated with situational ethics and relative morality. But even though much of American society doesn't want to hear about absolutes, that doesn't change God or what He expects of humankind whose life He originated. Times change, but the Almighty does not. . . and neither does His Word. His Word does indeed contain moral absolutes; and as Creator, it IS His prerogative to have set up protocols of what is salutary in His sight, such as: right vs. wrong; His divine but limiting perspective of what is needed to be justified to Him; His love for us and His demand that we show love to others; etc. Without immutable absolutes, God would be less than dependably consistent, thus leaving us with diminished confidence about what we need to do to get right with Him and be saved. Long ago I gave up trying to second-guess God and trying to ponder why He didn't want to cater to cultural nuances. Ultimately, I came to realize that He is sovereign, and people are responsible to Him under His terms in all eras of history. Consider me a messenger, a source, of information. I'm not the originator of moral absolutism. I'm reporting God's decrees, not promoting my own style of doctrines or distorted viewpoints. But, if you are disputing that self-assessment, then it's incumbent on you to substantiate your claim. You spoke of having "independent thought". Having "independent thought" needn't be a hindrance to salvation, unless one declines to accept at face value God's Word about what must be done to become forgiven and get right with Him. Requirements: Faith in the Savior, and then being a practicing believer (one who lives for the Lord instead of for themselves). The following are passages that express those truths: John 3:3 - Jesus replied, "I tell you that you must be spiritually reborn before you can experience God's kingdom." 1John 5:1 Amplified Bible - "If we believe [cling to, trust, and rely on the fact] that Jesus is The Christ [the anointed Savior], then we are God's children." Ephesians 1:7 - "In Him we have redemption through the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." Hebrews 5:9 - "Jesus is the Source of eternal salvation to all those who believe and obey Him." In the Old Testament, there was a period of time when most Hebrews "did what was right in their own eyes". (Judges 17:6) But for optimum peace of mind and soul, a person must cherish God's Word to guide them. "The Lord grants perfect peace to those whose minds are fixed on Him." (Isaiah 26:3) Re: "God's Word is not universally understood. It's subjective and riddled with schisms for thousands of years." God's Word is pure, and most of it is straightforward enough, but subjective liberties have been taken by misinterpreting it or misapplying it . . . not surprisingly resulting in doctrinal disagreements of various kinds throughout the ages. P.S. Even if someone comprehends and acknowledges the Bible's important points, it does not necessarily follow that he/she will internalize those truths. I recall reading about Mark Twain (not a Christian) once remarking how it wasn't the parts of the Bible he didn't understand that were unsettling to him; it was the parts that he DID understand. I have a feeling that's a common phenomenon.