And so these conversations have happened before. And when we try to rebuild the wheel every generation, we don't necessarily do as well as the people before us, being perfectly honest with you. And so there's a that if there if you sensed any frustrations, because man, there's so much out there. And I'm not sure that you're hearing all the all the sides and getting all the information. And even the direction that you're going with it with the Bayesian analysis and so on and so forth, we need to get into that. When you listened to my response last week, did you be fair? I'll just say I didn't listen to the whole thing. I listened to most of it. So I actually I missed the resource. Did you the resources list? Did you mention that? Well, I mentioned what one of the things I said was I was sort of speaking to you and I said, so if this is how we're doing things, because did you did you hear the discussion of Isaiah 22? Yeah. Okay. One of the things I said was, okay, if this is functioning in this major way for you, have you looked at these multi volume historical resources from the other side, such as Whitaker, Good, Chemnitz, Salmon? Are any of those names even familiar to you? Most of them know. Okay. So I am familiar. I am familiar though with the objections that you gave in the show. Okay. So early, I heard those from a guy named Gavin Orland. Have you heard of him? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. He's been the guy who's like, well, him and another guy have been the two main people that I've been leaning from in terms of their objections to this typological argument. Right. And so basically what I had said was what if there and I had held, I had held this bunch of photocopies that I had bound years and years ago, uh, patristic sources, stuff out of memes and stuff like that in regards to, uh, papacy, eucharistic subjects, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And basically I said, what if there's three pages in here that completely change all the calculations, but you've never seen them and was raising the issue of, you know, these are the, the issue of the papacy is an issue of ultimate authority. Once you accept the validity of the, of the papacy, all your calculations have to go from 92% to 100%. You, you understand that? I think that's false. Okay. So, so when the, the Bishop of Rome, when, when the second Vatican council identifies as perverse opinions, anything other than what they say, and that is that the Bishop of Rome is the infallible vicar of Christ on earth and everything else is a perverse opinion. So you can only be 92 per, and then they anatomatize even thinking opposite to that. Now that now again, you'll find, trust me, Roman Catholics today, especially in the United States, um, uh, and especially with the pope that we have today, I, I, I personally don't think that Francis believes what Vatican one said. So that, that's a, that's a whole other issue that does need to be discussed. But when you read what was being written in 1870 by the people who define these things, it's very clear exactly what they meant and exactly what the anathema meant. And I know today it's sort of like, well, you know, it just means you don't get to be in our club. That's not what it meant to them. And that's why the issues is, is I don't even know how you could start plugging this kind of stuff into any kind of formula so as to have any meaningful impact upon making a decision about the claims of Rome because history, history doesn't work that way. And it would require you personally to have more knowledge than any human being could ever possess in this life. Because there's, there's tons of stuff that I've read and then there's tons of stuff I haven't read. Um, so it's so, so Bayes, there may be a misunderstanding about what, what Bayes is. It's not like you don't have to consider everything in order to get a final analysis in the same way that I mean, your objection to my methodology, what I would apply to any methodology that you use, because I think in every case, there's always going to be something that you could have read that would impact your probabilistic judgments. Even if you don't use Bayes, if you use just abductive reasoning more generally, I think that you're still going to run into that issue. So I'm not exactly sure, like, what is your objection here?