Are you ready to be strong?

[Skanky Vamp]

The Watcher's identified potentials throughout history. That's why Merrick apologised to Buffy for taking so long to find her. It's why Kendra was raised by her Watcher long before being activated. It's why the Bringers were shown to be killing specific targets and not indiscriminately killing everyone.

Right. I understand that. That doesnt address my comment though. It did not appear that the women in the VO were identified. As it was, to the best of my recollection, stated that those that were not killed were with Buffy. Granted, my recollection could be off, but I thought they mentioned that in one of those episodes.

 

[The Bronze]

Right. I understand that. That doesnt address my comment though. It did not appear that the women in the VO were identified. As it was, to the best of my recollection, stated that those that were not killed were with Buffy. Granted, my recollection could be off, but I thought they mentioned that in one of those episodes.

I was just saying that they are different and we know this because identifying them is possible. I think it was more of a case of the girls with Buffy were they ones Giles could track down and had records for. The ones on the VO were yet to be identified but still different and it was possible to identify them.

 

[Silverspike]

"EVIL UU: Please cut down on the sexism - this isn't tumblr."

I beg your pardon? I'm afraid this is the reality for many women in todays male dominated world. Many male writers don't understand a womens point of view when it comes to how society treats and views females. It's different observing something to actually being it 24/7.

Imo If Joss is a big a feminist as he thinks he is, he'd have come up with a different end for season 7.

 

[white avenger]

I was just saying that they are different and we know this because identifying them is possible. I think it was more of a case of the girls with Buffy were they ones Giles could track down and had records for. The ones on the VO were yet to be identified but still different and it was possible to identify them.

It would have helped greatly if there had at some point been some clue, just by way of an offhand reference, if not a detailed explanation, as to how the Potentials were identified, located and recruited, but we actually don't. It's all guess and conjecture. I would think it most likely that the Watchers had some kind of locator spell that identified the small number of girls, that "handful" that Giles referred to, who stood the greatest chance of being Called, and they just concentrated on them, more or less playing the best odds. It's only logical to assume that the Watchers wouldn't have either the personnel or the funds to train and support just several hundred girls, let alone the thousands that Buffy referred to at the beginning of Season 8.

In the movie, when Merrick first introduced himself to Buffy, he said that he should have been training her for years, and I really can't imagine him just putting off accepting his assignment as her Watcher for a few years in order to pursue his desire to be a cobbler. More likely, she was one of those Potentials who either never was located, or was located and considered not a good enough candidate for Calling to waste the time, effort, and expense. And, yes, I know, the movie isn't officially canon, but the same basic thing happened in "Tales Of The Slayer," minus Merrick's lifelong desire to make shoes, which is considered canon.

 

[EVIL UU]

So Buffy changes it, all those Potentials (who have already not been given a choice btw- that's why they're potentials in the first place) get the power that she and Faith have, the choice whether to use it (that Buffy never really had)- which in the end is what really matters.

OK - slayers can ignore their instincts, ignore their powers, never use them etc. So...where are they? Where are those slayers? Three seasons later and we have yet to see one. I mean, do they even exist? Yeah, I don't think it's that simple, not sure if possible. 

I beg your pardon? I'm afraid this is the reality for many women in todays male dominated world. Many male writers don't understand a womens point of view when it comes to how society treats and views females. It's different observing something to actually being it 24/7.

 

[thetopher]

OK - slayers can ignore their instincts, ignore their powers, never use them etc. So...where are they? Where are those slayers? Three seasons later and we have yet to see one. I mean, do they even exist? Yeah, I don't think it's that simple, not sure if possible.

You mean like, are they shown? No they're not because the comics are about Buffy and co doing stuff, not some random slayer who happens to also be a soccor Mom or a dentist or a nuclear physicist.
The comics concentrate on slayers who decided to follow Buffy and join her army or pretended to be Buffy, or who later follow Kennedy into the security business.

But they are referenced when Buffy says at the start of the season 8 that there are slayers out there who have decided NOT to become active slayers, in fact they seem to be a majority group.
Therefore all those girls had a choice that Buffy never really had, to have the power and not have to use it.


I couldn't rep you @EVIL UU but I too also reject the rather sexist notion that only women can truly write female characters well- that's just utter nonsense. There are plenty of good male writers who can write women just as there are good female writers who can write men.

As illustrated above there are female writers who can't write interesting female characters at all- so maybe, just maybe, gender has little to do with being a good writer.

 

[Silverspike]

And maybe it does, because can you honestly say you know whats it's like to be female? 

OK - slayers can ignore their instincts, ignore their powers, never use them etc. So...where are they? Where are those slayers? Three seasons later and we have yet to see one. I mean, do they even exist? Yeah, I don't think it's that simple, not sure if possible. 

So women are just as capable of writing trash as many men? Big deal. That hardly disproves my argument imo.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

And maybe it does, because can you honestly say you know whats it's like to be female?

Exactly. And I can speak on the racial profiling and mistreatment of African Americans too.. but at the end of the day I am still a white man that doesnt know what its like to actually live it.

 

[The Bronze]

Surely no one knows what it's like to live anything but their own life. We don't just expect to read autobiographies though do we? Or are we suggesting that people just stick to their own kind when writing? If you're a white man with dark hair then you should only be writing about white men with dark hair, short black women should stick to writing about short black women and so on? Doesn't sound promising to me.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Surely no one knows what it's like to live anything but their own life. We don't just expect to read autobiographies though do we?

Of course not.. but when a woman finds fault with a bit of feminism written by a man then I think you have to consider it, and the ramifications of what she is saying rather than just blankly dismissing it by calling it sexism. To complain about women not having choices and being called sexist speaks volumes to the problems that we still face.

 

[thetopher]

I still think it clouds the issue actually being discussed.
Saying that 'I don't like this because a man wrote it and he doesn't know what it's like to be a female facing female challenges in the world' is really a weak argument.

Also it leads to the inferrence that 'well my opinion is inherently more important in this instance than yours because I'm a woman and you're a man. You don't and can't appreciate my unique perspective.'

And what are we saying is this instance, that female fans who LIKE the end of 'Chosen' are somehow less sensitive to what its like being a woman that female fans who dislike it?
Hugely sweeping statements like that are very rarely accurate (and yes, that might've been a sweeping statement to make...).

'I hereby proclaim that all men inherently better understand 'Not Fade Away' than women, because it's mostly about men in the end, because Illyria is an old one and therefore genderless....'🙄

And maybe it does, because can you honestly say you know whats it's like to be female?

Well, I have a mom and a sister and a niece and lots of female cousins. I'm empathetic and a good listener. I understand problems.
Are we really saying that there are some issues that men and women will NEVER get about each other. We're different genders, not different species.

The only things that men and women can't understand about each other are pretty much limited to biological issues and that's it. All people can and should be able to understand empowerment, unfairness, prejudice, abuse, sexism, lack of autonomy and such.
Saying 'you can't understand something because you're not that thing' is kinda lazy, exclusionist thinking and also in my experience mostly untrue.

 

[Silverspike]

No It's really not and to think otherwise is being a wee bit arrogant imo. Being it is very different to observing it, however sympathetic a person might think they were. 

Of course not.. but when a woman finds fault with a bit of feminism written by a man then I think you have to consider it, and the ramifications of what she is saying rather than just blankly dismissing it by calling it sexism. To complain about women not having choices and being called sexist speaks volumes to the problems that we still face.

Oh god THIS!!

 

[EVIL UU]

@Mr. Pole
@Silverspike

Identity politics? Get out.

But they are referenced when Buffy says at the start of the season 8 that there are slayers out there who have decided NOT to become active slayers, in fact they seem to be a majority group.

We don't know that - look at this:

Buffy: Eighteen hundred now, that we've counted. Almost five hundred working with us in ten separate squads.

We know that those slayers don't work with Buffy and that's it. We get to see only one them - Soledad refuses to join Buffy's organization, tries to kill Harmony, gets herself killed.

Therefore all those girls had a choice that Buffy never really had, to have the power and not have to use it.

Thing is, Buffy had that choice, since "What's My Line, Part One". Why didn't she quit? Why didn't Faith quit in season 8? Why didn't Nikki quit? She had an out, she had a kid. I don't think we can just ignore all this and be like oh, slayers can totally ignore their powers, instincts etc when we're shown time and time again that it's not that simple, that they can and probably should for their own sake quit and yet they don't.

 

[thetopher]

No It's really not and to think otherwise is being a wee bit arrogant imo. Being it is very different to observing it, however sympathetic a person might think they were.

So there we have it, the proclamation that some people will just 'get' aspects of the show better than others simply because of their gender. I wonder what other plot-lines are gender biased in that respect?

Tell me, do you 'get' Buffy as a character more than me simply because you're the same gender and therefore you're inherently more sympathetic to her struggle for womanhood? 🙄

I guess that means that I, as a man, understand any and all male characters (Wesley, Angel, Xander, Spike) better than you ever could because there are just some things a man knows better than a woman...

Seriously, this is where your 'gender politics' argument leads. That way lies madness, not to mention really lazy thinking.

I'll keep my 'arrogant', empathatic tendancies thank you very much. It leads to more reasoned debating.

We don't know that - look at this:

Buffy: Eighteen hundred now, that we've counted. Almost five hundred working with us in ten separate squads.

We know that those slayers don't work with Buffy and that's it.

Exactly. We know that they were found by Buffy and co and yet they don't work for Buffy and co. Logically we can asume that they turned her down because they didn't want to become active slayers, they could choose to have a normal life.

This is what happened to Soledad- she was an illustative tale if you will.

Thing is, Buffy had that choice, since "What's My Line, Part One". Why didn't she quit?

Because Buffy still took orders from the council and was living on the Hellmouth.
Buffy wasn't mature enough to think about going it alone- she was, in some ways, torn between 'normal life' and 'slayer duty'. She complains about being the slayer but when Kendra shows up she feels threatened by the Giles/Kendra closeness.

It's only after 'Helpless' that the scales fall from Buffy's eyes and she really begins to resent how the Council do things, by Graduation Day she's made her choice to go her own way, but by that time she's the only slayer that isn't in a coma.

If Buffy had been really mercenary then she could've murdered Faith in her bed and then fled the Hellmouth I guess, but she's too soft for that.

Why didn't Faith quit in season 8?

Quick answer? Atonement.
On some level Faith feels like she owes it to others to do her duty because of the bad she's done, so she guards the other Hellmouth.
Even then that isn't enough for her not to consider escape, Giles revealed that she's trying to get hold of a fake passport and flee the country. It's only after the mission to assassinate Gigi that Faith regains some focus and purpose.

Why didn't Nikki quit? She had an out, she had a kid.

Well, apparently Nikki tried but she couldn't. Plus she was still 'the one girl in all the world'- not really a lot of options when there are people like Spike out there looking to kill 'the slayer'. She's doomed either way.

I don't think we can just ignore all this and be like oh, slayers can totally ignore their powers, instincts etc when we're shown time and time again that it's not that simple, that they can and probably should for their own sake quit and yet they don't.

But we're not shown that from these new slayers at all. I'm not sure it's even clear that all the new slayers are the same in terms of behaviour compared to Buffy and Faith. Are they all infested with demonic 'vampire killing' essence as well? Or does their power come from the scythe that is linked to, but separate from, the slayer line?
We don't know because we aren't told.

We do see that some slayers simply quit (the ones who Faith trained in London) while others are content to do bodyguarding work for fat stacks of cash. That to me doesn't speak of a restless urge to hunt or kill like Buffy/Faith have exhibited in the past.

All the 'activated slayers' seem to be fairly well-adjusted for the most part:
Dana was crazy/traumatised well before she got her slayer powers.
Gigi was a sociopath manipulated by a murderour warlock.
Simone is violent, gun-happy, power-mad and hates Buffy for what happened in S8.
Their reasons for 'going evil' don't seem linked to the slaying the way Faith's killing of Finch sent her down a dark path- or then again maybe they just weren't as well written.

 

[bespangeled]

I posted on this earlier. Buffy saw what the Shadow Men did and she has been through activation. She therefore knows there is a big difference. So what Willow did was nothing like what the Shadow Men did.

The shadow men chained up a girl and turned her into a weapon without her permission. Completely unlike? In what ways? And as for the Bringers, surely the first slayer, and her people had some real demon problems or why bother? 

I see your point- some of these slayers could be much more like Faith than like Buffy- in desparate need of guidance/support. As far as I can see the vast majority of activated slayers get that support, or at least the chance of it.

But the question here is 'is what Buffy is doing to these Potentials inherently dis-empowering by taking the choice out of their hands?' Is she just as bad as the shadow men?
If the answer is yes then Buffy and Faith are inherently victims. Sure they can gain a measure of power from their choices afterwards, but if what ultimately matters is how they were called, whether it was their decision or not, then the rest is kind of hollow.
And if we say that all those called by Willow's spell are victims of that spell, and not say- being given the choice what to do with the streength they already possess- (potentials) then how is Buffy any different?

But Buffy and Faith are victims. We see in Welcome to the Hellmouth that Buffy has no interest in slaying, that it ruined her life and her family. She was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward. At least she had watchers, two of them, so she eventually found out she was sane. This is what happened to a normal slayer who was monitored by the Council.

As for Faith, she had a watcher - she watched her die. Then she rebelled but I think she was truly good. Look at Sheila. Look at Harmony. Look at a female teen Ethan Rayne. How about a female like Warren? What about neo-nazis and other hate groups? The process has safeguards - but skipping over the process does means almost anyone chosen will not be informed or trained for months at least. Hell, what if one gets turned - they may be super strong but they know nothing about vampires, stakes or how to fight. 

I was just saying that they are different and we know this because identifying them is possible. I think it was more of a case of the girls with Buffy were they ones Giles could track down and had records for. The ones on the VO were yet to be identified but still different and it was possible to identify them.

I believe it was the coven identifying them - a somewhat slow process. 

It would have helped greatly if there had at some point been some clue, just by way of an offhand reference, if not a detailed explanation, as to how the Potentials were identified, located and recruited, but we actually don't. It's all guess and conjecture. I would think it most likely that the Watchers had some kind of locator spell that identified the small number of girls, that "handful" that Giles referred to, who stood the greatest chance of being Called, and they just concentrated on them, more or less playing the best odds. It's only logical to assume that the Watchers wouldn't have either the personnel or the funds to train and support just several hundred girls, let alone the thousands that Buffy referred to at the beginning of Season 8.

In the movie, when Merrick first introduced himself to Buffy, he said that he should have been training her for years, and I really can't imagine him just putting off accepting his assignment as her Watcher for a few years in order to pursue his desire to be a cobbler. More likely, she was one of those Potentials who either never was located, or was located and considered not a good enough candidate for Calling to waste the time, effort, and expense. And, yes, I know, the movie isn't officially canon, but the same basic thing happened in "Tales Of The Slayer," minus Merrick's lifelong desire to make shoes, which is considered canon.

WILLOW
(comes in from the kitchen) Buffy—word from the underground. Another potential arrived in town the day before yesterday. She's at the Sun Spot Motel, near the highway.

XANDER
The day before yesterday? Why are we just finding out about it now?

WILLOW
Bringers killed her watcher before he could tell anyone he sent her. If it wasn't for a particularly powerful seer in the coven, we wouldn't even know about it now. 

Surely no one knows what it's like to live anything but their own life. We don't just expect to read autobiographies though do we? Or are we suggesting that people just stick to their own kind when writing? If you're a white man with dark hair then you should only be writing about white men with dark hair, short black women should stick to writing about short black women and so on? Doesn't sound promising to me.

That is called reducto ad absurdem - when you use straw men to reduce an argument to the absurd. Just saying.

Maybe someone who is writing about women should have a female friend or relative read the story before submitting it. Same goes for race and religion. I shop at a store that puts a matzoh display out for every Jewish holiday. I told the manager to hire a Jew. If you are writing about a life radically different than yours then you rally need to back it with some research. 

I still think it clouds the issue actually being discussed.
Saying that 'I don't like this because a man wrote it and he doesn't know what it's like to be a female facing female challenges in the world' is really a weak argument.

Also it leads to the inferrence that 'well my opinion is inherently more important in this instance than yours because I'm a woman and you're a man. You don't and can't appreciate my unique perspective.'

And what are we saying is this instance, that female fans who LIKE the end of 'Chosen' are somehow less sensitive to what its like being a woman that female fans who dislike it?
Hugely sweeping statements like that are very rarely accurate (and yes, that might've been a sweeping statement to make...).

'I hereby proclaim that all men inherently better understand 'Not Fade Away' than women, because it's mostly about men in the end, because Illyria is an old one and therefore genderless....'🙄



Well, I have a mom and a sister and a niece and lots of female cousins. I'm empathetic and a good listener. I understand problems.
Are we really saying that there are some issues that men and women will NEVER get about each other. We're different genders, not different species.

The only things that men and women can't understand about each other are pretty much limited to biological issues and that's it. All people can and should be able to understand empowerment, unfairness, prejudice, abuse, sexism, lack of autonomy and such.
Saying 'you can't understand something because you're not that thing' is kinda lazy, exclusionist thinking and also in my experience mostly untrue.

Yeah - biology. That includes radical differences in the brain - how we take in, process, and communicate informations, as well as radical diffrences in socialization.

http://www.brainfacts.org/Brain-Bas...014/His-and-Hers-Sex-Differences-in-the-Brain
http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

Women have been marginalized and patronized for centuries. To say that a woman wanting choice is a sexist statement says far more about the man who is speaking. If this was about Trayvon martin and I was a black man, would you really say: Tell me, do you 'get' Trayvon more than me simply because you're the same race and therefore you're inherently more sympathetic to his struggle to survive?

 

[Silverspike]

"Women have been marginalized and patronized for centuries. To say that a woman wanting choice is a sexist statement says far more about the man who is speaking."

Exactly. Well put.

"Seriously, this is where your 'gender politics' argument leads. That way lies madness, not to mention really lazy thinking.

I'll keep my 'arrogant', empathatic tendancies thank you very much. It leads to more reasoned debating."

Yeah right, not arrogant at all....

 

[The Bronze]

That is called reducto ad absurdem - when you use straw men to reduce an argument to the absurd. Just saying.

Ok I'll take your word for it but...

Maybe someone who is writing about women should have a female friend or relative read the story before submitting it. Same goes for race and religion.

... you're agreeing with my absurd argument. Your statement says don't write about anyone that isn't like you unless you bring in a consultant. Naturally a women can speak for all women and a black person can speak for all black people and so on.

So if a white man wanted to include a black female character into his story but only had a black male friend and a white female friend what would he have to do? Consult one, the other, both or just ditch the idea completely? If he consulted both and got a different answer from each which would take precedent?

 

[thetopher]

But Buffy and Faith are victims.

Yes, but they're not 'inherent' victims is my point, they become empowered through their mistakes and choices. Therfore so can any and all potentials called by Willow's spell, they are not victims because, like Buffy and Faith, they have the choice NOT to be. In fact they have more choice, more freedom, more power to be whoever they want.

Yeah - biology.

I already said biology is one of the differing factors. Also, isn't everybody brain different, don't we all view things differently?

What about people who are mentally ill, can nobody sympathise/empathise with their condition unless their in the same psychological condition/brain? What the hell is therapy all about then if nobody can understand them?

Hey what about transgendered (if that's the right term)? Can they understand women's issues almost as much but quite as well as other women, but more than men?
See where all this 'I understand this storyline because of my gender' nonsense leaves.

Also, I'll ask again, what about those female viewers who found 'Chosen' to be an empowering message? Are they 'not as female' as women who found the ending troubling. Apparently that's what people are now saying.

Women have been marginalized and patronized for centuries. To say that a woman wanting choice is a sexist statement says far more about the man who is speaking.

So maybe black men can empathise with women better than white men? After all there was that slave trade where a lot of them were 'marginalized' for hundreds of years.
I find it strange that these utterly ridiculour assertions that are being voiced in the modern age, where people should be trying to understand each other more, and we're putting up walls saying 'you can't because you're not like us.
Utterly shocking to find this 'I know best because' in otherwise intelligent people.

Also, in the last part, I can't believe you're doing it AGAIN. 😡
I never, ever said anything like that. What I said was when I was responding to the ascertion that one person's (a woman) opinion on this subject is inherently more 'correct' than another (male) person's only because of their gender. That, by any definition, is sexist.

It's like 'well men can't possibly know/understand/empathise' with this situation as much as women, when we're talking about a show about the supernatural. Yes, there are metaphors to make it relatable but this isn't a historical documentary about the suffergette movement. Treating it as some sort of threatise for the historical struggle of women is hiding behind gender politics because you don't actually have a sound argument.

I'm outta here because this is all getting a tad ridiculous

Yeah right, not arrogant at all....

Your arguments are utterly hollow so you have to lower yourself to name calling. How utterly predictable.

 

[Silverspike]

And forgive me If your remarks come across as highly patronizing every single time, so forgive me If I reply in kind.

"Also, I'll ask again, what about those female viewers who found 'Chosen' to be an empowering message? Are they 'not as female' as women who found the ending troubling. Apparently that's what people are now saying."

No they're not, but never mind. I'm sure you know best. 🙂

 

[bespangeled]

Ok I'll take your word for it but...


... you're agreeing with my absurd argument. Your statement says don't write about anyone that isn't like you unless you bring in a consultant. Naturally a women can speak for all women and a black person can speak for all black people and so on.

So if a white man wanted to include a black female character into his story but only had a black male friend and a white female friend what would he have to do? Consult one, the other, both or just ditch the idea completely? If he consulted both and got a different answer from each which would take precedent?

Same tactic - feel free to write whatever you wish and let the audience decide. Which is kinda what is happening now. 

Yes, but they're not 'inherent' victims is my point, they become empowered through their mistakes and choices. Therfore so can any and all potentials called by Willow's spell, they are not victims because, like Buffy and Faith, they have the choice NOT to be. In fact they have more choice, more freedom, more power to be whoever they want.

Then we agree - Buffy and Faith were both forced to become slayers - they had no say in the matter. The first slayer was a victim. Each slayer chosen is a victim of that same demon essence the first slayer was imbued with. While learning how to cope, making mistakes and solving them - they empower themselves by learning to trust their own decision making.And no - they have the choice not to slay, but the changes made to their bodies and minds a permanent. Had there been away to turn off slayerhood then Faith would have been stripped and so would Nikki after Robin was born..

I already said biology is one of the differing factors. Also, isn't everybody brain different, don't we all view things differently?

What about people who are mentally ill, can nobody sympathise/empathise with their condition unless their in the same psychological condition/brain? What the hell is therapy all about then if nobody can understand them?

Hey what about transgendered (if that's the right term)? Can they understand women's issues almost as much but quite as well as other women, but more than men?
See where all this 'I understand this storyline because of my gender' nonsense leaves.

Also, I'll ask again, what about those female viewers who found 'Chosen' to be an empowering message? Are they 'not as female' as women who found the ending troubling. Apparently that's what people are now saying.

Read the articles - that subject is pretty well covered.
Candidly, yeah. If you've ever been to the bin you do have a unique insight.
Why yes - since transgendered are clearly germane, then I must be completely wrong for supporting the idea women have different insights than men. Not sure why you guys keep insisting different means better. Do you feel threatened in some way?
No one is saying that - except you, right here. But you hold it out as if someone else had actually said it. Straw men - making it as ridiculous as possible.

So maybe black men can empathise with women better than white men? After all there was that slave trade where a lot of them were 'marginalized' for hundreds of years.
I find it strange that these utterly ridiculour assertions that are being voiced in the modern age, where people should be trying to understand each other more, and we're putting up walls saying 'you can't because you're not like us.
Utterly shocking to find this 'I know best because' in otherwise intelligent people.

More straw men. It could happen, though.
Now you are exaggerating so much it's really kinda funny. We are busy putting up walls by debating in a public forum - okay
Shocking....just won't do. 😉

Also, in the last part, I can't believe you're doing it AGAIN. 😡
I never, ever said anything like that. What I said was when I was responding to the ascertion that one person's (a woman) opinion on this subject is inherently more 'correct' than another (male) person's only because of their gender. That, by any definition, is sexist.

You really don't see that your entire letter is just what you complained of here? Please find the exact quotes where I said all of what you asserted just in this letter.

It's like 'well men can't possibly know/understand/empathise' with this situation as much as women, when we're talking about a show about the supernatural. Yes, there are metaphors to make it relatable but this isn't a historical documentary about the suffergette movement. Treating it as some sort of threatise for the historical struggle of women is hiding behind gender politics because you don't actually have a sound argument.

Who mentioned a treatise? Oh, you did. Are you implying that this is what anyone who disagrees with you must be doing?
Different is not better. My opinion is valid even if you disagree. I see things differently because of what I bring to the show - one thing I bring is a lifetime of being a woman. It seems some people are incredibly threatened by any person even bringing this up.

I'm outta here because this is all getting a tad ridiculous.

TTFN