 It seems to be ironic that the biggest criticism or the most common criticism levied at the 20th Convention as a whole is its consistency, but that's misperceived as being dogma by many critics. Consistently, they have talkers on exercise who come from a high-intensity training perspective, talkers on nutrition from a Paleolithic or an evolutionary perspective, people who are talking on pickup on similar topics and philosophically and politically from a rational perspective, from an objective-ist style perspective. And it's interesting that the fact that this is consistent is levied as a criticism because knowing Anthony personally, he's a critical and active-minded guy, and when he finds something that he knows to be true based upon the evidence he's seen, he'll consistently go with that idea and apply it congruently throughout his life and therefore throughout the convention. But in the same respect, I know from talking to him that he in the past has held completely counter-ideas to this, completely contradictory ideas. And when presented with evidence that's undeniable that those ideas are false and that another set of ideas are true, he's changed his ideas and that's shone through in the way the 21 convention has been presented. At the moment, you know, Anthony is sure of the ideas he is presenting in the convention. He's confident of them and therefore they're consistent. I'm sure that if evidence came to pass that some of the ideas weren't entirely true, he would spin on a dime and change them because it's not the ideas that he's being consistent with. It's his perspective on reality and his adherence to it and his pursuit of the truth that he's being consistent to.