Do you know him personally? Or is this just sort of yelling into the ether "hes an AH"?

Thanks Dan. Unfortunately, I don't actually think you're being all that clear.

The choice between whether 1.one person loses their life or five lose their sight is morally important because it leads to consequences which are 2.good and/or bad. They are good and/or bad due to the gain and/or loss of 3.freedom (by which I mean ability of persons to understand and make 4. their own choices) involved. — Dan

All the bolded creates a murky, insufficiently direct sort of paragraph. By number, the questions I would ask to clarify (this, meaning I've understood you to be aligning with what I've said, just linguistically uncomfortable, so are re-stating):

1. Which person? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?;
2. For whom? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?;
3. For whom? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?; and
4. Whose choices?
-- ----- --------- ------ -----------

my stab at the answers, which, if true, mean you are saying what i'm saying:

1. Any one of the subjects;
2. Any one of the subjects;
3. Any one of the subjects; and
4. Any one of the subjects.

So, it seems the choice being made (i.e by the Chooser, not one of the subjects) has no moral value other than the way in whcih is adjusts the ability of the subjects to make their choice. This seems an exact, contextual, instantiation of:

It isn't because the choice itself is morally valuable that we should care which option is picked, it is because of the consequences. — Dan

This is all to say, if so, it was sufficiently clear in my first attempt, as I see it. But, I think you are not being particularly clear and I can now see how MU is getting what they're getting.

I did not say that, thank you very much.

was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD

(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to).

You've taken the worst reading I can get from it (that, instead of what I actually did - which was distance my response from any personal comment) such that you now think I was responding to you (both) directly. That is not the case, or what I wrote. It was somewhat imprecise though. It was a comment on the previous set of comments, which were not to, about or for me - not a response to them. So I'll cop to that misunderstanding entirely - I apologise with no qualifier.

Otherwise, this is a roundabout. You misunderstood, I have clarified - you've accepted, and yet here we are. I reject your position on the basis its an emotional reaction to something you've read into my posts - and will now move on :) Didn't meant to offend, and don't really care about it anymore.

But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope. Still nope. It is not. This is simply you outlining an ambiguity and then claiming the least-charitable version for your own ends. Not sure why you would, and it's not for me to explain.

It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah, but it was neither. Sorry pal.

You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes I have. Multiple times. I have, in fact, teased apart several direct misinterpretations you've made. But you're still here, intent on finding a way for me to have impugned you. A sad affair, to be sure.

But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze

Luckily, those two things are true, and I am not being dishonest.

You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.

I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That was the point my guy. You did not 'naturally' react. You misinterpreted, perhaps had your ego hurt, and assumed the worst in all three turns (the initial "Why did it take...", the "I can only laugh.." and my actual responses in this exchange).

You can only lead a horse to water. I tried to squash the 'beef'. Four times now, actually. You do not want to. So be it. I will treat you as you request. Though, I would ask that you do not consistently multi-post,. and just edit the initial post. I will notice.

You are clearly making some extremely sensitive inferences that don't make sense. No idea why you would want me to be insulting you, but there we are. You're wrong, and clearly so.
In lieu of hand-holding you through it:

Oh, is that what you meant to convey? You have a curious way of communicating, I'll give you that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I can only laugh.

I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD

so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD

Take care.

the decision of which to save has a great deal of moral content/weight/import because it has consequences for the ability of persons to understand and make their own choices. It isn't because the choice itself is morally valuable that we should care which option is picked, it is because of the consequences. — Dan

If I am not missing your point, I think this distills it well in a way that clears the air for what MU has been saying (if not, for them proper).
You're talking about two different values. The value of the choice made (by the 'external' chooser) and the inability of the subjects to make choices about that which belongs to them (life, eyes) due to the choice made by the 'external' chooser.
The former only has moral value inasmuchas it restricts (or doesn't, depending the choice) the freedom of the subjects to make their own choices about that which belongs to them(eyes, life).

Is that right? I've been trying to follow but it gets a bit weedy at times.

clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly.

ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope.

And especially so since the poster you had been previously faulting was me — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yep, so naturally I would have replied to you, right? Whereas I didn't.

naturally counter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, and you've clarified why. Nothing makes it reasonable in context, despite your protestations. Given I already made two attempts to say "Cool man, we weren't having such a go at each other as it seemed" I can't be bothered further than saying so again.

Cool man, looks like we didn't intend to have a go at each other the way its been interpreted. Good.

Can we leave the guy alone now? It seems like he was just trying to be honest. — Baden

No, no. Keep it coming. It's entertaining seeing other people wishing I had a different opinion about my own experiences. Its bizarre and interesting that there are minds that twisted back on themselves.

OK, mate. I now understand why you always type and posy with such anger. Living in a country that you don't like is screwed, and maybe you are frustrated every time. Reading your posts, it is more an issue regarding your attitude than the existence of NZ. — javi2541997

I have no idea what you even think you're saying, but I don't post with, or carry any anger. If that's your interpretation of me, I'd just suggest you grow up and realise youre on an internet forum dedicated to argumentation.

It isn't. You complained about the public transport in NZ. I agree the public services of every country have pros and cons, and no one is perfect. — javi2541997

That is whataboutism. Sorry bud.

Again, don't be ungrateful, mate. — javi2541997

I am sorry Javi, but you have precisely zero standing, perspective, or right to make proclamations about my experiences and reactions to my own country. This is just risible on your part.

Just because it is a country that cares for people and doesn't allow you to use excessively the car, doesn't mean it is the "worst" country in the world. — javi2541997

Didn't say it was - what are you on about?

Only developed and rich nations. :lol: I will not see the crank trying to live in Andalucía, Cuba, Venezuela, or Morocco. Nah, everything is messed up in NZ but no way I would raise my kids in Seville. — javi2541997

So, either you're making absolutely no sense or you want me to buy into whataboutism again. No thanks. I'll maintain my actual stance on my actual country instead of making shit up.

No, no. You can't. Hating the country where you live is dumb. — javi2541997

No, no it isn't. It is the case. Clearly, you are not apt to understand that my position on my own country has precisely zero to do with you. It doesn't, and you'd do well to stop pretending it does.

The former, sure. But of hte thread (or at least the wider discussion beyond my contributions) - I just don't see a problem there.

I don't think the latter is dismissive at all.

Boethius' Consolation.

Anyone got notes?

LOL, i'm now genuinely confused. I was intending there to point out that "I can only laugh" was in response to about eight posts, none of which were at or about me best I can tell - it was discussion between yourself and RussellA. Hopefully that clears that issue up :)

(<--) I can only laugh :D

I exercise my prerogative to respond only to what I am motivated to respond to — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yessir, and I the same. I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you.

asking someone for information and then receiving it but without at least posting that the information was received and understood (or not understood, thus requiring elaboration) is also a kind of dismissiveness. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It wasn't aimed at me - the posts in question were responses to other people, so I revert to the above appreciation.

if one's God is not the supernatural being of most Christians' belief, can a person still be a Christian? — tim wood

Depends. Can one's saviour still be Jesus Christ? I'd think so, regardless of hte divinity instantiated from on high within the person of Jesus Christ.

Ah, but you do wish to comment on me personally after all. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Due to your direct responses to me, yes. It would be completely wrong to take that as somehow retroactively meaning I meant to engage you directly initially. You took up the conversation, and I continued. There were several people posting between my comment and my previous comment (looking back, that is). I didn't tag you, or anyone. Clear indicator I am not talking to you so I am glad you've noted that.

I haven't tried to dismiss you. But you haven't interlocutorated much anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're doing it right here. Hilarious.

Did you enjoy McWhorter's book? — Leontiskos

1. Yes;
2. Your earlier assumption is correct, it's just a good elucidation with great referencing.

I agree regarding Kendi et al. I guess this is just a great counterpoint as its two prominent, intelligent black men basically saying 'not my circus'. It's neat.

A herd animal, by the looks.

Care to shoulder that burden? — creativesoul

Hmm... I get it's a quip, but i'm not quite sure what you mean - your account showed to me (though, I saw this prior) the limb doesn't contain the pain in either the non-, or the phantom case (. Not sure what else could be said here. It might come down to something further on here...

I suppose what I'm trying to get at, is that (this may be askance from Michael/Hanover - if so, please do note it because it seems a bugaboo for you guys) we can't know for certain what's going on. That's actually the basis for discarding certain positions that require it. We can't positively discriminate based on 'experience' but we can remove what's not possible. We can't even experience a situation where the pain is in the toe or the colour is in the pen because they are not experiences open to us. One would need to be a toe, or a pen, to have such an experience of pain or 'being red'. And that, even if possible, would just further complicate the matter for reasons that are cartoonish and irrelevant. No human has ever had an experience of pain without their mind. No one has ever seen a red pen without their mind. So, it seems either there's an inviolable relationship between the two (experience/mind) which is read as a single entity qua whatever qualia you're talking about (pain in a toe, eg) or the claim is that there isn't, and the mind merely imports experiences (i.e pain, colour, texture) from elsewhere. I cannot accept that as it doesn't seem open to me to claim on either the grounds above (i.e we cannot make such positive claims) or because it is in clear violation of several types of experience we actually can have (mental pain mediation is one example). There is no 1:1 when it comes to stimulus v experience. It is all approximate.

What we can do in this context is eliminate unsupportable claims (not unsupported - those could well be the case, but are not being presented correctly). The claim that pain is in the toe is not supportable. We need not be apodictic or even emotionally certain of this to know that our position is not supportable. In the cases in front of us, I see that both 'viewing a red pen' and 'pain in the toe' are mental experiences. This does not rely on any form of scientific claim due to 'objective' experiment. It is self-evident, and only needs itself. However, the issue of the scientific understanding of how pain works certainly presents room for 'us' to do as you describe and that does seem to be happening in other arguments. I don't think I require this viz. I am uncertainexactly what is going on, but I am certain it is not red being imported from without, into my mind, and same with the pain. It is not being imported from the toe to my mind - something else (similar to a radiowave) moves from the triggered area, through my body physically (which does not hurt - important) and arrives in my brain, where my mind is triggered to give me an experience which would seem to be pain the toe so that I know where to tell the doctor it hurts (or whatever.. just a vessel). I would assume, from previous replies, you're going to label this a redherring/strawman etc.. I cannot understand that, if so. It would be helpful if you can set that account right - so far, the above accords with all you've said. Nevertheless, that reliance on 'objective' measures is certainly an issue (and, If I've inadvertently, or simply prior to due consideraiton)

So I 100% take that objection, and pretty much agree that relying on something like the minutiae of scientific anatomy is not that helpful to make a positive claim if we're saying perception is non-veridical. But, perception is close enough to get a lot out of it. And, the 'lot', to my mind, is able to show that it can't be the case (rather than "it is the case that..*insert positive claim*) that pain exists independent of the mind perceiving it. If the argument you're using merely creates a, let's say, inviolable relationship between "actual pain" triggered by an instance of injury, and the purported 'hallucinatory pain' (excepting phantom limb issues, on the grounds you've used to link it to the former "actual" account of pain) then, while I disagree, I can't argue against that. It is a position which cannot be adjudicated on empirical grounds. And, that, is where I think the entire thing lies. Maybe what's going on with the claims positive to a certain mode of perception is that if the institution of 'science' is telling us something like "well, we've never seen X, so we're not saying it's the case" is being taken too far. But, in this way, Leontiskos is laying out a severe red herring. Hanoever is not exempting himself. He's (I think, wrongly) delineating between kinds of expereince of perception. Perceiving 100 experiments that give us the same result, is pretty good, even though digging down Leontiskos is right to say each individual scientist is at the whim of their perception. That is clearly true.

This is on part with the way that our culture treats science as an omnipotent and inscrutable god, such that the word Science may as well always be capitalized. — Leontiskos

I would agree. Yet, you're not able to make the claims you're making on these grounds, so I'm unsure where that would lead... Will let Hanover actually answer instead of my speculation above.

It does not follow that no pain is located in limbs. — creativesoul

Yes, it does actually. In any case, we can actually jettison this entire part of the debate (I am well aware of what I see as erroneous arguments earlier in the thread from yourself - i am not coming at this in bad faith (you may think bad reasoning; so be it)). The disagreement is deeper than an issue of 'pain' and of reducibility, and demonstrability.

What we can do is simply ask:

Where is the pain? If it is in the limb, you can show me.
But you cannot show me pain.
You can show me potential stimulus for pain.
That's all. I need not take this much further to be quite comfortable that your position is not right (yet..)

Further, in this passage:

Hallucinations of red pens never include red pens — creativesoul

You are making a couple mistakes here(on my account - read all as such. I am not here to make absolute claims. I am, and will continue to often be wrong):

This is plainly wrong. An Hallucination, if it is of a red pen (so called), then that is what is present in the hallucination. Your position relies on your position. Which is to say, it is tautological. IFF hallucinations do not include anything they purport to represent (I take this as incorrect for reasons askance from this particular issue) then your point is extremely apt, loud, and clearly made in such a way I could not dispute it other than on grounds of linguistics (though, I wouldn't. That would be clear to me). But, it seems you rely on that there is a strict difference between the image conjured by the mind when eyes are cast, and the one conjured when no eyes are cast. I disagree. There is no solution to this disagreement, as it stands. You think they're not the same, and I do. We're in the weeds now. Onward..
The "red pen" in the hallucination is the same as a "red pen" gleaned from casting your eyes toward the object we (by convention) call a 'red pen' which, importantly, is just denoting it's function, not what it 'actually is'. It is a label indicating what it will cause in the perceiver.
Given this position, yours simply makes no sense. I can't understand why you think the 'red pen' in the Hallucination is not the same as the 'red pen' when one's eyes are cast on an object which, by convention we call a red pen. It might seem silly, but again, on my account they are the same, let's call it, mental image, triggered in different ways. A red pen can be inferred from any writing implement, and an experience of the colour red (mentally speaking). And, that is what the object is actually attuned to, as a conventional object. It is created to induce the experiences we have labeled variously as "(such and such of/for/and/before/after/because of etc)... a red pen". If you hand me what you think to be a red pen, and my experience looking at it is not red, you cannot tell me I am wrong. That is, in fact, what the object triggers in my mental space. On your account, this is an hallucination? (genuine Q, as it's a role reversal from your point about hallucinations not including hte object of their image).

But again, these all make sense on my account - not on yours, so I'm not trying to do some "You're an idiot" type thing here. I think we see things differently enough that we couldn't come to terms. Several of our competing points are independent of our disagreement about that particular point and simply go back to whether a mental image is it's object. I say no, which Hallucinations are a prime evidence for. If a mental image is not synonymous with it's object (which it couldn't possibly be, right?) then we have no appreciable difference to instantiate in some account. Nevertheless, It's probably worth my addressing:

This poor argument is at the bottom of so much confusion on TPF. — Leontiskos

I agree, but you are the confused one. Hanover is exactly right. This is how the body/brain works.

I did not tag you in it. I assessed the page of the thread, laughed, and responded in kind.

You seem to want some kind of insult to land. It wont, because I don't find hte context apt to insult me. So, not sure where you're going - just think its pretty distasteful to do what you've just done in an attempt to find some ad hominem-esque reason for dismissing an interlocutor. Fine. You do you boo.

The pain is in the limb, not the brain. — creativesoul

And yet

despite no longer having a physical extremity located where the pain seems to be coming from — creativesoul

Obviously, pain is not in the limb. That para honestly felt like trolling... Is it?

Oh, and there are no colorless rainbows, nor colorless visible spectrums. — creativesoul

These are aspects of visual world of a perceiver. If you're suggesting, in these terms, that colour inheres in the Rainbow... hehe. Nope. Try changing your terms around to be idependent of perception. Could make some headway..

If you feel the need to respond, directly, in this way, I can only laugh harder.

Oh come on, this is fun sometimes lol

A bit weak, but fair. I wouldn't assume I was either. I just think you're clearly wrong.

Are you sure?



It's always possible I am misunderstanding, but this entire piece

seems to speak to Quine essentially saying "This isn't a problem, because you can't shoehorn meaning in here for it to contradict (as to itself)"

The two aspects are known scientifically as the sensory aspect of pain and the affective aspect of pain. — Metaphysician Undercover

That does not actually seem to be the case. This seems a floated theory on how to get around some esoteric aspects of pain, so to study them. The paper is speculative and philosophical, not scientific. You can tell they are way off track, without even havign access to the full paper (your link does not provide this):

" How can one obtain an account of the experience of pain that does justice both to its objectivity (and thus its similarity with exteroception) and to its excess of subjectivity?"

The former is a misnomer. They are trying to conflate pain with damage or stimulus. They are clearly not the same, and so conflating same as aspects of the 'same' thing is erroneous. I see how this approach will be very helpful in treatment of pain, but it does nothing for our discussion best I can tell.

Notice, "unpleasant" is the defining aspect of pain — Metaphysician Undercover

No. No it's not. I have given plenty of examples which violate this definition. It is inapt. Pain is not inherently unpleasant. If that were the case, the examples i've given would not obtain. I think what you meant to discuss is discomfort. I tried to lead you here... Discomfort is inherently uncomfortable. Pain is not.

I wonder if you're aware of Samuel Sagan? If you are, perhaps this would be better as a DM thread.

I can only laugh.

Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives. — apokrisis

So, you mean to say, you've been arguing with (i think) three people about antinatalism across two threads, and you don't care about, or understand the concerns of antinatalists? Interesting approach my guy.

AN would be the aesthetic pose in my book. I prefer to move on to the pragmatic meat of the issue of whether to have children. And how to approach life in general. — apokrisis

I don't think you're reading these responses.

Hyperbole. — apokrisis

Not in any way, whatsoever. The number of people who cower into an ideology that saves them from head-on dealing with the complexities and pains of life is far higher than the number of people who do not. This is not hyperbole, it just may be uncomfortable to confront. I am speaking here of religious people, New Age people and the like. It is not common to intellectually "raw dog" life, as it were.

You were arguing as if the “higher consciousness” of humans were something neurobiological rather than sociocultural. This makes a difference. — apokrisis

You may need to clarify as this is across threads, and I don't quite recognize anything here?

able to suffer — apokrisis

Therapy can’t address the source of the distress — apokrisis

Im not sure you're making anything of this. Humans are capable (in fact, predisposed) to suffer. Therapy can't make us inhumane. Okay?

But if instead you understand human consciousness as a socially constructed habit of thought — apokrisis

You'd be a very, very weird person to deal with. Bordering on nonsensical, imo.

then you can see how the inner narrative is something that can quite authentically be rewritten. — apokrisis

This sounds like Frankfurtian nonsense to me I'm afraid (not your fault, I'm sure - you'll have seen at least some of my responses to Constance illuminating why this is so, for me)). The two points you're trying to contrast aren't related in my view (in this discussion, anyway. Others, sure). The fact of self-consciousness has very little to do with (other than as a required premise) inner monologues. Our self-consciousness predisposes us to suffer. We have the ability to talk ourselves around. Okay. This is, again, not related to AN concerns or positions. You're talking about living people dealing with their already-extant lives. Not. Relevant.

This is the shift in mindset behind the positive psychology movement. — apokrisis

And you take this seriously, I take it, as opposed to nifty social trend designed to make money off people's mental health?

helping people realise they have internalised certain scripts and, if they want, they can rewrite them to better suit their own lives. — apokrisis

This is the majority of all therapies throughout time. This is not 'new'.

It is not the “gift of life” that is our unconsented burden. — apokrisis

Yes it is. Unfortunately, nothing you've said comes close to altering this position.

That which we could not help internalising as it was how we were treated, the circumstances of our early rearing. But that which we can grow out if we have a clearer idea about how the human mind is shaped. — apokrisis

The strange part about this exchange (again, not you... some free-floating attribute) is that I basically agree with this. Once alive, we can do all sorts of things to alleviate suffering. Some people genuinely enjoy a life with less suffering and more pleasure (as it were - that's a bit black/white). No issues with what you're getting across here - which is an argument against existential dread, or suicidality, or even defeatist attitudes of the living. It does not engage with AN concerns.

It seems you think Wittgenstein has a point, yes?

Edit: It would have been much better for me to mention paraconsistency here. The sentence is not paradoxical, but a lot of the ways in which this is the case, Russell has covered.

We infer what it literally means. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Which is incorrect, in the structure of the sentence. As has been pointed out.

That is an important point. RussellA should not resort to trying to change the context from "This sentence has five words" to "This sentence is false". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Teh self-reference remains in your reading, though. So, whether or not the sentence is referring literally 'to itself' (this should answer your query about a sentence wanting to say something above) or to "what it refers to" is not actually "up to you". You can't simply read it in a way which is false, but meaningful by adding meaning to it, without sufficient reason.

On it's face, it is plainly meaningless. I'm not sure you're actually ascertaining what this amounts to because it seems all you're wanting to do is have the sentence refer to itself. If it does, then fine, but RussellA has already covered that and your response does nothing for it.

I suggest you endeavour not to be wrong about everything

So you are here in bad faith. I had thought so.

So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah! — Tarskian

But, to retort your nonsense: Nope. We would just both find you equally as risible. Sometimes, that's entertaining to enjoin someone to. The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour.

Level with me mate - are you 19, having trouble getting laid?

Fuck Sartre. — BC

I'm sure he'd oblige, but I, for one, prefer your context.

what is it that I do not understand about my own source code — Tarskian

I solved it with a script. — Tarskian

By the way, where is your source code? — Tarskian

@Lionino I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page.

Concepts do not exist - that is, they have no material reality. — Vera Mont

Interesting. This, to me, is to say that there are things that 'exist' and 'do not exist' yet they are all extant... Can you see if you can make the language there work?

Until you're willing to read the legal reports, keep beating hte horse my dude.

prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order — Tarskian

I assume you got this from the legal reports about rates of prosecution? (btw, prosecution is the word you're looking for here).

If not, you'll need to provide those statistics (preferably vetted by an external HR-type source) for me to take this seriously.

You ahve also ignored hte direct challenges to your obvious hypocrisy and cherry-picking.

Are you going to address any of the objections you've received, or just continue to ignore them? I have asked specifically if you're going to beat a dead horse. Are you?

Given you find yourself alive, is it then better to have a positive or a negative mindset about that fact? — apokrisis

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). In the meantime, I think I can address the question your asking, noting it is a non sequitur from defending/objecting to AN.

is your situation going to be made better or worse if you believe your fate is in your own hands, or if you instead believe the hope has already gone? — apokrisis

I don't think the question is that easy. Having one's fate in one's own hands seems to overwhelm (literally) the majority of people to psychosis.

I don't think any mindset 'ought'. That seems an extreme move to make.

I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disposition, skill and determination disparity — Vera Mont

Wealth may get us someway to equalizing these things, but they are not a good indicator at all. These problems will persist whether wealth even exists. Some will do, some will not do. That's the basis for the entire conversation, if one wants to think about it a bit further than 'wealth' which is a bit of a cop out when it comes to human behaviour.

LOL.

Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well.