Disgusting Article On Sikhchic.Com

[VanHelsingh]

the problem is simple - these people are too concerned with making sikhi chic and are therefore trying to mold sikhi to society - when they realize that it is guru sahib that matters and not society then their views will finally be inline with gurmat

Absolutely spot-on. They want to radically change Sikhi to appease non-Sikhs.

[chatanga]

this article does show how polarised our community have become around the world. That is worrying when people openly dismiss aspects of Gurmat. It makes you wonder whaty things will be like in 10 or 20 years time.

[ub1]

Sikhchic has got anti sikh agenda. I read the article and it appeared that it was promoting shaven sikh identity.

They were cursing Nihung bana.

Can you please provide the link to the 'promoting shaven sikh identity' -seems to be an oxymoranic statement that needs to be challenged.

[HeatSikhingMissile]

I agree with the article and the authors viewpoint. Those of you who don't know, this Gurpreet character single-handedly RUINED the efforts of generations of Canadian Sikhs fighting for equal rights by sticking his nose in the business of niqab wearing women in Canada. Last time I checked Sikhism preached equality for men and women, and this yahoo representing the 'World Sikh Organization' went to defend a muslim man's right to keep women covered in a black tent as to not tempt other men. He couldn't plead his case AND the case and media spotlight instead started focusing on the Kirpan in government buildings. Nowhere in Sikhi does it state you have to wear a giant ghol pagh and blue kurta to a government hearing, and if he wants to fine, however he does NOT represent the vast majority of Sikhs in this country. Most amritdharis I know don't have to wear clothes that scream "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M DRESSED LIKE A NIHANG, I'M AMRITDHARI, LOOK!". In fact unless you saw the white gathra from under their shirt you wouldn't even notice because their Sikhi, like a TRUE Sikh, does not have to be advertised.

[Only five]

I agree with the article and the authors viewpoint. Those of you who don't know, this Gurpreet character single-handedly RUINED the efforts of generations of Canadian Sikhs fighting for equal rights by sticking his nose in the business of niqab wearing women in Canada.

If a Muslim woman wants to wear the niqab then she has every right too. Nothing as been ruined for any generations.

Last time I checked Sikhism preached equality for men and women, and this yahoo representing the 'World Sikh Organization' went to defend a muslim man's right to keep women covered in a black tent as to not tempt other men.

Equality means to let a person practice their religion and the quebec government is taking that right away from the Muslim woman. The niqab on whether to wear it or not is the choice of the Muslim woman. If she wants to cover her body completely it becomes her choice and no business of yours. If half naked woman can walk around in Canada, then what is the problem with woman that cover themselves up? The whole television and movie industry is based on subjecting women to be sex objects, but where is your outrage to protect women from this kind of oppression that men place on them? Instead you hit the power button and watch with enjoyment.

He couldn't plead his case AND the case and media spotlight instead started focusing on the Kirpan in government buildings. Nowhere in Sikhi does it state you have to wear a giant ghol pagh and blue kurta to a government hearing, and if he wants to fine, however he does NOT represent the vast majority of Sikhs in this country. Most amritdharis I know don't have to wear clothes that scream "HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M DRESSED LIKE A NIHANG, I'M AMRITDHARI, LOOK!". In fact unless you saw the white gathra from under their shirt you wouldn't even notice because their Sikhi, like a TRUE Sikh, does not have to be advertised.

It's obvious your against Amritdharis who wear the bana. Why would a Sikh change his Guru given Bana for anyone. This country is about freedom so wearing a Bana is not a crime. Your mind is very twisted. Satguru wore the Bana was he screaming look at me? Sikhs are proud and at the same time humble to wear the Bana. If an African woman wants to wear her culture or religious clothing in Canada then that should be encouraged not hindered. If an Amritdhari wants to wear a dhumala then that is his right and it should be encouraged. The punjabis that drive there mom and dads hard earned bmw around, wear expense clothes that their parents visa paid for, and take out girls on their parents visa are the one looking to advertise their parents wealth as their own. These are the people who are seeking attention.

[HeatSikhingMissile]

If a Muslim woman wants to wear the niqab then she has every right too. Nothing as been ruined for any generations.

Are you a Muslim scholar? A niqab is a symbol of suppression, walking around with a black mask on, how is that conducive to a democratic society?? As Sikhs, Guru gave us the gift of the dastar so that we NEVER hide from society, in fact he made it so we're distinct and VISIBLE to all. As for your argument of choice. Fine in western society a woman may CHOOSE to wear a niqab or not (how she actually feels about it could be another story, I know of plenty muslim girls wearing a hijab who would immediately take it off once at school/work when parents/spouse were out of view). But what about the women in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan who DO NOT have a choice? Whatabout the women who are flogged with sticks and rocks for exposing so much as an ankle? Do they have a choice? As Sikhs should we condone and approve of their beatings as well? As for Sikhs rights in Canada, yes it has been a generational battle to gain the kakkars into the "traditional" Canadian diaspora, we now have dastars as permitted uniforms in police, and this HAS been a blow to the progress Sikhs have made. Simply replying "no it hasn't" isn't really a valid argument.

Equality means to let a person practice their religion and the quebec government is taking that right away from the Muslim woman.

No they haven't, once again you are playing muslim scholar, has the government banned the practice of being muslim? No, not at all. Is the niqab a part of the religion, or part of an extremist, sexist culture? What if it was someone's 'religion' to beat their wife, would you approve of the W.S.O defending that person as well in the name of religion?

The niqab on whether to wear it or not is the choice of the Muslim woman.

In most cases it's not a choice, or the choice is wear it, or be beaten/kicked out of your house, some choice. Read the book 'Infidel' by Ayaan Irsi Ali if you want to actually learn and educate yourself about this practice instead of simply going by personal opinion of a topic.

If she wants to cover her body completely it becomes her choice and no business of yours.

If half naked woman can walk around in Canada, then what is the problem with woman that cover themselves up? The whole television and movie industry is based on subjecting women to be sex objects, but where is your outrage to protect women from this kind of oppression that men place on them?

I have yet to see Canadian Task Forces roaming the streets and beating women with batons who are not exposing enough flesh. This comparison is ludicrous. As for the television and movie industry, that's what it is, and INDUSTRY, not a religion or country, or set of laws. If a woman CHOOSES to enter such an industry, she can or cannot, who are you to decide the moral standards of that woman? It's up to her, at least she has the freedom of choice to do what's right/moral or wrong/immoral, she's not being forced to strip off her clothes by men. If that is the case, it's against THE LAW and the man responsible is charged.

Instead you hit the power button and watch with enjoyment.

Resorting to slander about me really doesn't help your argument, please refrain from personal attacks or somehow inferring you know the habits of other posters on this board, it's immature and uncalled for.

It's obvious your against Amritdharis who wear the bana. Why would a Sikh change his Guru given Bana for anyone.

Nope, again wrong, I'm not against wearing such bana, however in a professional setting such as a parliament or court, walking in as if you're walking into a religious institution such as a Gurdwara really doesn't make sense. Guru instructed us to wear a dastar, the kakkars, please show me where the guru stated that all Sikhs must wear a chola. If that was the case it would have been dictated.

This country is about freedom so wearing a Bana is not a crime. Your mind is very twisted. Satguru wore the Bana was he screaming look at me?

lol! The guru wore the same bana as what the people wore at the time. Do you think that people were walking around in pant/shirt as the norm? EVERYONE wore such attire back then, Guru didn't say 'lock yourself into this time-frame and don't budge', nor did he say 'don't wear pant/shirt'. I think Guru had more to do than to instruct us on fashion trends.

Sikhs are proud and at the same time humble to wear the Bana. If an African woman wants to wear her culture or religious clothing in Canada then that should be encouraged not hindered.

Absolutely, however there are African nations were the woman is completely topless, what if she wanted to wear that? Is that conducive to society? In the same way the niqab is the opposite, it's a symbol of oppression and once again, NOT conducive to democratic society AND Sikh principle of equality of man and woman.

If an Amritdhari wants to wear a dhumala then that is his right and it should be encouraged. The punjabis that drive there mom and dads hard earned bmw around, wear expense clothes that their parents visa paid for, and take out girls on their parents visa are the one looking to advertise their parents wealth as their own. These are the people who are seeking attention.

Yes they are, however you're equating dhumala and bana with niqab, that really doesn't make any sense. I agree about spoiled kids spending parents money, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that their are so-called Sikhs that are just as egotistical about their 'image' the ego is actually very similar.

[Only five]

Are you a Muslim scholar? A niqab is a symbol of suppression, walking around with a black mask on, how is that conducive to a democratic society??

Are you a Muslim scholar to say the niqab is a suppressive symbol? Your comments are very childish and lack the respect for another religion and lack the respect for the religion which you claim to be a part of (Sikhi). The niqab to YOU might be a symbol of suppression, but not to men and woman who are Muslims, from other religions, and even atheist. It's time for you to step outside your mind and view a religion as to what it is and not to what your mind can accept.

As Sikhs, Guru gave us the gift of the dastar so that we NEVER hide from society, in fact he made it so we're distinct and VISIBLE to all.

lol! The guru wore the same bana as what the people wore at the time. Do you think that people were walking around in pant/shirt as the norm? EVERYONE wore such attire back then, Guru didn't say 'lock yourself into this time-frame and don't budge', nor did he say 'don't wear pant/shirt'. I think Guru had more to do than to instruct us on fashion trends.

Later on in your response to me (which i placed above so you can see your ignorance), you say that Bana was worn by others, not just Satguru, so it was the way people dressed. If you want to use this kind of ignorant logic, then Satguru also tied a Dastar because in those times the people wore dastars as well. Again your viewing both religions, Sikhi and Islam from your mind (what your envirnoment made you) and not to what they are. You accept the dastar so you find your own logical ways to justify it, but you don't accept Bana so you find ways to disapprove it.

As for your argument of choice. Fine in western society a woman may CHOOSE to wear a niqab or not (how she actually feels about it could be another story, I know of plenty muslim girls wearing a hijab who would immediately take it off once at school/work when parents/spouse were out of view).

The Amritdhari lawyers did not go to stick up for men that force women to wear the niqab, but for the niqab itself, which is apart of the Muslim religion. If you want to talk about woman being forced to wear something they don't want too. Then walk into a restaurant that has women showing their cleavage and wearing high skirts. Both forms of force are not acceptable, but everyone jumps on religion, but ignores the secular forced actions.

But what about the women in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan who DO NOT have a choice? Whatabout the women who are flogged with sticks and rocks for exposing so much as an ankle? Do they have a choice? As Sikhs should we condone and approve of their beatings as well?

Again no lawyer went to support forced wearing of the niqab, but the niqab itself. There is a difference and you should learn the difference here.

No they haven't, once again you are playing muslim scholar, has the government banned the practice of being muslim? No, not at all. Is the niqab a part of the religion, or part of an extremist, sexist culture? What if it was someone's 'religion' to beat their wife, would you approve of the W.S.O defending that person as well in the name of religion?

The France government banned the Dastar in government buildings, like schools. They could use the same logic as you and say the Dastar is an extremist way to express culture and is not apart of the Sikh religion. You could say no the Dastar isn't, but you made you the authority on saying what is extremist and what isn't? The Amritdhari lawyers went to Quebec to show that they cannot impose on the Muslim religion by saying the niqab is not acceptable. IF anything you are being the Muslim scholar by saying the niqab is not apart of the Muslim religion and is apart of an extremist, sexist culture. To your narrow mind the niqab might be sexist, but to others it's not and it's a practice that Muslim woman want to take part in. If the Quebec government has no problem with women walking around half naked, then they should have no problem with a woman dressed fully, where only her eyes are showing. The quebec government is hung up on promoting their French culture on others and wish to suppress other cultures and religions.

In most cases it's not a choice, or the choice is wear it, or be beaten/kicked out of your house, some choice. Read the book 'Infidel' by Ayaan Irsi Ali if you want to actually learn and educate yourself about this practice instead of simply going by personal opinion of a topic.

There will be Muslims who are against the niqab and those who are for it. Again this is not why the Amritdhari lawyers went to Quebec. There is Sikhs against the Bana and those who accept it. The niqab is apart of the Muslim religion and there needs to be freedom to wear it.

I have yet to see Canadian Task Forces roaming the streets and beating women with batons who are not exposing enough flesh. This comparison is ludicrous. As for the television and movie industry, that's what it is, and INDUSTRY, not a religion or country, or set of laws. If a woman CHOOSES to enter such an industry, she can or cannot, who are you to decide the moral standards of that woman? It's up to her, at least she has the freedom of choice to do what's right/moral or wrong/immoral, she's not being forced to strip off her clothes by men. If that is the case, it's against THE LAW and the man responsible is charged.

Women have been forced and are being forced in movies, on television shows, in restuarants, in bars, in other establishments to dress in very revealing clothing to attract more viewers and/or more customers (men). There is a huge human trafficking problem in the western world because of establishments like strip clubs. If you want to live in a bubble where your secular canada is full of woman that freely dress half naked then i won't burst your bubble.

Nope, again wrong, I'm not against wearing such bana, however in a professional setting such as a parliament or court, walking in as if you're walking into a religious institution such as a Gurdwara really doesn't make sense. Guru instructed us to wear a dastar, the kakkars, please show me where the guru stated that all Sikhs must wear a chola. If that was the case it would have been dictated.

The Amritdhair lawyers didn't wear a Bana to the Assembly, but they did, then there is nothing wrong with it and nothing unprofessional about it. Who made dress pants, shirt, tie, and a coat professional? This is what the western world precieves as professional. The western world at one point thought that men wearing high heels, was professional. Stop your nonsense and disrespect toward Guru Sahib uniform (Bana with 5 Kakkar). Satguru never wore a Bana because thats what rest of the eastern world was wearing. Satguru wore a Bana because it is the Khalsa form (uniform). Read the rehat that Satguru left for us.

Absolutely, however there are African nations were the woman is completely topless, what if she wanted to wear that? Is that conducive to society? In the same way the niqab is the opposite, it's a symbol of oppression and once again, NOT conducive to democratic society AND Sikh principle of equality of man and woman.

You didn't even compar the two correctly. The topless african woman you say is doing it by choice and when it comes to the niqab you automatically assume that it is being forced. The topless woman is being rejected by society because she is without clothing...no shirt no services....its very simple. Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji taught to dress in a modest way. A woman that wears the niqab is not dressed in a way that is not modest or conducive to a democratic society. Sikh principles teach about fairness between men and women not sameness. If it's sameness then you should be crying to be born with woman parts where you can give birth to a child.

Yes they are, however you're equating dhumala and bana with niqab, that really doesn't make any sense. I agree about spoiled kids spending parents money, but that doesn't dismiss the fact that their are so-called Sikhs that are just as egotistical about their 'image' the ego is actually very similar.

I have never equated the dhumala to the niqab. I'm saying there both different religious practices from different religions and they both don't hinder society in anyway, so both must be allowed. In your last post you said most Amritdharis like to show off, since my family is being slandered. Let's see how you take a slander at your family. When a member of your immediate family told you out of ego and stupidity that Bana is not important they must be yelling look at me I know better than the Guru and the Khalsa. If one or two people who wear the Kakkar are being egotistical, then that does not speak for the rest of the Amritdharis. And the Khalsa is proud to wear the Bana, whether or not little punks like you like it or not.

[HeatSikhingMissile]

I don't need to be a muslim scholar to know that it is forbidden for Sikhs to wear such attire, since our Gurus deemed it suppressive.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurbani_and_women#Purdah_.28veil.29

Purdah (veil)

Purdah150 was strictly enforced among women. The Muslims supported it because it is sanctioned by their religion but the Hindus adopted it to hide their daughters, mothers, and wives from the piercing eyes of the foreign invaders. The purdah proved ineffective in arresting the lustful glances of men but it certainly made women cowards and they came to be known as Abala (Powerless). Guru Amar Das regarded it an instrument of the suppression of modesty and condemned it. He did not allow the queen of Haripur to come to Sangat (religious assembly) unless she removed her veil. He said, “Away, Away, ladies who crouch in veil”. 151 All those women who followed the Guru’s advice became free and were described as follows; “False modesty that suppressed is ended Now with veil cast off I have started on the way of devotion”. (SGGS P. 931)152

The Sikh Rehat Maryada says, “It is not proper for a Sikh woman to wear a veil or keep her face hidden by veil or cover” (Article XIX F)

Your comments are very childish and lack the respect for another religion and lack the respect for the religion which you claim to be a part of (Sikhi). The niqab to YOU might be a symbol of suppression, but not to men and woman who are Muslims, from other religions, and even atheist. It's time for you to step outside your mind and view a religion as to what it is and not to what your mind can accept.

Take a wild guess which religion also justifies female circumcision (mutilation) as part of their code of conduct? By your logic you are willing to support that as well. I guess we should forgoe what Muslim scholars debate as part of the religion or not since you obviously have the answers (as informed or misinformed as they are).

Again your viewing both religions, Sikhi and Islam from your mind (what your envirnoment made you) and not to what they are. You accept the dastar so you find your own logical ways to justify it, but you don't accept Bana so you find ways to disapprove it.

You're contradicting yourself, you're putting dastar and bana in the same category, they're not, and never were. Dastar was not worn "by all", it was worn by nobility at the time, and thus one of the reasons why Sikhs were dictated that it must be worn. Guru gave us the gift as he wanted to HEIGHTEN Sikhi and our spirit, not to hide them and cover us up like slaves.

The Amritdhari lawyers did not go to stick up for men that force women to wear the niqab, but for the niqab itself, which is apart of the Muslim religion.

Once again you fail to recognize that the niqab MAYBE a part of the religion or not depending on an extremist viewpoint, one that also justifies female mutilation, exactly who are you, OR the WSO to be telling anyone what is and is not part of the muslim religion, and defending said controversial points? ESPECIALLY a part of their religion that OUR religion strictly forbids in rehat?! This is mindbogglingly shortsighted and ignorant.

If you want to talk about woman being forced to wear something they don't want too. Then walk into a restaurant that has women showing their cleavage and wearing high skirts.

Since when is waitressing a religion? Sorry but I don't walk into a restaurant seeing hundreds of women "forced" to show anything, you're very twisted in your logic, comparing that to niqab.

The France government banned the Dastar in government buildings, like schools. They could use the same logic as you and say the Dastar is an extremist way to express culture

Once again you're attempting to compare the dastar to a niqab. This is NOT a valid argument, are Sikh women forcing Sikh men to wear one? Does it cover our entire face and are we demanding that our driver's licence and passport photos be taken without uncovering our face? Please try to use valid argument. The ban on dastars in France was a DIRECT link to France's main motive of banning the niqab. They couldn't a'la'carte decide religious bans because it would have looked like Islam was targetted, thus comprimising France's security, so everything had to go.

The Amritdhari lawyers went to Quebec to show that they cannot impose on the Muslim religion by saying the niqab is not acceptable.

Covering someone's face like this

For passport and driver's licence ID photos, IS extremist. Sorry you don't feel that way, or the WSO, I'll stick with what's in rehat as to my viewpoints on the niqab.

IF anything you are being the Muslim scholar by saying the niqab is not apart of the Muslim religion and is apart of an extremist, sexist culture. To your narrow mind the niqab might be sexist, but to others it's not and it's a practice that Muslim woman want to take part in. If the Quebec government has no problem with women walking around half naked, then they should have no problem with a woman dressed fully, where only her eyes are showing. The quebec government is hung up on promoting their French culture on others and wish to suppress other cultures and religions.

In any democratic society, such as the one YOU enjoy and take advantage of, there is this little thing called EQUALITY for ALL that is at it's core. The niqab is inherently contradicting to this basic tenant, AS WELL as a basic tenant of Sikhism, how you can call yourself Sikh and yet blindly defend its practice makes me wonder whether you're actually not a muslim yourself posing as someone you're not on a Sikh board.

The niqab is apart of the Muslim religion and there needs to be freedom to wear it.

Once again you're playing Muslim scholar telling me what is and is not a part of Islamic RELIGION and not Islamic culture. By the way, have you read the book I recommended to you yet?

Women have been forced and are being forced in movies, on television shows, in restuarants, in bars, in other establishments to dress in very revealing clothing to attract more viewers and/or more customers (men).

Please stop using the word "forced", whose forcing them? I don't know what kind of restaurants are in your neighborhood but I hardly see walking into a restaurant as going into some 'red light' district here. And no, they're not 'forced', and if anything there are sexual harassment laws in place as well as the woman having the freedom to quit any job (and file a lawsuit) if her workplace demands her to do anything she feels comprises her integrity, to compare a waitress with a woman wearing a niqab or someone stripping their clothes is completely ridiculous.

There is a huge human trafficking problem in the western world because of establishments like strip clubs.

I agree, there is, and it's against the law, and the perpetrators are punished by the law, do you think human trafficking will cease if we cover up ALL women on the planet with a niqab? How is the niqab even relevant to you pointing out this crime?

Stop your nonsense and disrespect toward Guru Sahib uniform (Bana with 5 Kakkar). Satguru never wore a Bana because thats what rest of the eastern world was wearing. Satguru wore a Bana because it is the Khalsa form (uniform).

Our uniform is the kakkars, nowhere is it enforced or dictated that Sikhs must wear bana, you're skewed, your mentality is better served with radical Islam than with Sikhi.

As for Satguru's reasons for wearing bana or not, please don't just spout off your opinion as fact, please cite where Satguru instructed Sikhs EXACTLY what to wear outside of the 5 kakkars.

You didn't even compar the two correctly. The topless african woman you say is doing it by choice and when it comes to the niqab you automatically assume that it is being forced.

So now you're going to tell me that topless african women in Africa are forced to be topless? Didn't know you were a Muslim scholar AND an African historian.

The topless woman is being rejected by society because she is without clothing...no shirt no services....its very simple.

The niqab is being rejected because her face is covered, no face recognition no government ID issued, it's very simple. Please don't select what you think is acceptable in society and leave out the parts you don't, equality isn't a buffet where YOU decide who is equal who is not.

I have never equated the dhumala to the niqab. I'm saying there both different religious practices from different religions and they both don't hinder society in anyway, so both must be allowed.

If you don't think niqab hinders society in ANY WAY, given the condition of many Islamic countries, that enforce it, and given Sikhism's stance on it, then at your core your argument is completely flawed logic, again, read and educate yourself before you make such silly statements.

As for your 'slandering' comments, I have no idea what you're talking about, taking personal shots is childish and immature, once again (like in my previous posts), I request you stop behaving in such a manner.

[Only five]

I don't need to be a muslim scholar to know that it is forbidden for Sikhs to wear such attire, since our Gurus deemed it suppressive.

http://www.sikhiwiki...rdah_.28veil.29

Purdah (veil)

Purdah150 was strictly enforced among women. The Muslims supported it because it is sanctioned by their religion but the Hindus adopted it to hide their daughters, mothers, and wives from the piercing eyes of the foreign invaders. The purdah proved ineffective in arresting the lustful glances of men but it certainly made women cowards and they came to be known as Abala (Powerless). Guru Amar Das regarded it an instrument of the suppression of modesty and condemned it. He did not allow the queen of Haripur to come to Sangat (religious assembly) unless she removed her veil. He said, "Away, Away, ladies who crouch in veil". 151 All those women who followed the Guru's advice became free and were described as follows; "False modesty that suppressed is ended Now with veil cast off I have started on the way of devotion". (SGGS P. 931)152

The Sikh Rehat Maryada says, "It is not proper for a Sikh woman to wear a veil or keep her face hidden by veil or cover" (Article XIX F)

The key words above are that SIKHS CANT WEAR THE VEIL. You are not getting the above shabad and you are being selective. Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj rejected the sacred thread of the Hindus, but then Satguru in his ninth form prevented that same sacred thread from being wiped out by giving his head. Guru Sahib never agreed with idol worship or wearing a sacred thread that is only meant for the high class and only men, but Satguru Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib ji gave his head for it. Ask yourself, why not let the thread die out when it's a wrong practice. Also the Brahmins were doing other cruel acts, like throwing the widow on the fire when the husband was being cremated. Satguru didn't agree with the killing of the Brahmins and did not agree with the government of the times method of not letting the Brahmin practice their religion.

[Kharkooartsy]

i totally agree with you only five veerji. nice responses.

it scares me to see people like heatsikhing missile what have they learned throughout their life. it makes me sad to see the straight disrespect of guru jis bana by these so called sikhs...i know many money sikhs..eventhough they are moneh they have respect and pyar for sikhi that they would never say anything like that.. but i dont know what category this guy fits in

i am not going to bother arguing with him eventhough his comments are bezati of guru sahib.. because i see that eventhough his thinking ideas are full of ignorance and are totally flawed he will never admit it because he is so full of ego.