On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>
>> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>
>> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>
>> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>
>No, I don't.
>
>There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>offer one.

I did. You couldn't comprehend. You can't figure it out on your own either,
or at least so far you haven't been able to. You thought you did for a second
with your "better" idea, but that seems to have drifted away from you now...

On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>
> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>
> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>
> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>
> >No, I don't.
>
> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
> >offer one.
>
> * * I did.

No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information. It
really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.

> You couldn't comprehend.

Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.

> You can't figure it out on your own either,
> or at least so far you haven't been able to.

It's not a question of "figuring anything out". It is not as though
the correct meaning of the phrase "lives of positive value" is somehow
part of the fabric of the universe and can be discovered by a process
of pure reason. It is *your* term. It is therefore *your* job to
formulate a definition of the term which actually conveys some
information. This you have failed to do.

> You thought you did for a second
> with your "better" idea, but that seems to have drifted away from you now....

Well, at one point I was talking about the idea of the outcome being
better, but you reject that notion, so that's obviously not what you
had in mind.

As I say, it's your job to specify what you have in mind when you use
the phrase. It's not within my power to read minds.

The fact that you are completely unable to give a definition that
conveys any information strongly suggests that you have no clear
concept in mind at all.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>
>> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>
>> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>
>> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>>
>> >No, I don't.
>>
>> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>> >offer one.
>>
>> * * I did.
>
>No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.

That's a lie. I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.

>It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>
>> You couldn't comprehend.
>
>Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.

That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
every time you tell it.

>> You can't figure it out on your own either,
>> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>
>It's not a question of "figuring anything out".

Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
.. . .
>Well, at one point I was talking about the idea of the outcome being
>better, but you reject that notion,

You have to say what you want us to feel it's better FOR for one thing, and
also better compared to what.

>so that's obviously not what you
>had in mind.
>
>As I say, it's your job to specify what you have in mind when you use
>the phrase.

I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?

On Mar 13, 8:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>
> >> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>
> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>
> >> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>
> >> >No, I don't.
>
> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
> >> >offer one.
>
> >> * * I did.
>
> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>
> * * That's a lie.

It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
don't sincerely believe it to be true. You shouldn't accuse people of
lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>

Try again. What information does it convey?

> >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>
> >> You couldn't comprehend.
>
> >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.
>
> * * That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
> every time you tell it.
>

See above.

> >> You can't figure it out on your own either,
> >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>
> >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".
>
> * * Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
> . . .
>

You should pay attention to the part that you snipped.

> >Well, at one point I was talking about the idea of the outcome being
> >better, but you reject that notion,
>
> * * You have to say what you want us to feel it's better FOR for one thing, and
> also better compared to what.
>
> >so that's obviously not what you
> >had in mind.
>
> >As I say, it's your job to specify what you have in mind when you use
> >the phrase.
>
> * * I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?

What you have said by way of trying to explain what you have in mind
conveys no information whatsoever.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 13, 8:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>
>> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>
>> >> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>>
>> >> >No, I don't.
>>
>> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>> >> >offer one.
>>
>> >> * * I did.
>>
>> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>>
>> * * That's a lie.
>
>It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
>you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
>don't sincerely believe it to be true.

Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.

>You shouldn't accuse people of
>lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim
either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very
rational grounds for accusing you of lying.

>> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
>> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>>
>
>Try again. What information does it convey?

For one thing the fact that life can have positive value or negative value
to the individual. For another that the amount of suffering an individual
experiences has an influence on what that value is. If you can get that far let
me know and maybe we can consider some of the other information it conveys, and
if you can figure out any more info it conveys on your own that would be extra
fun...like watching a child learn to walk...or at least crawl? Let's say crawl,
so you don't have to worry about falling down too far when you screw up.

>> >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>>
>> >> You couldn't comprehend.
>>
>> >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.
>>
>> * * That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
>> every time you tell it.
>>
>
>See

How do you want people to think it could ever become true?
.. . .
>> >> You can't figure it out on your own either,
>> >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>>
>> >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".
>>
>> * * Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
. . .
>> * * I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?
>
>What you have said by way of trying to explain what you have in mind
>conveys no information whatsoever.

That will ALWAYS be a lie EVERY time you tell it. If you're still telling it
in five years, it will STILL be a lie in 5 years. And if you quit telling it for
twenty years and then tell it again it will STILL be a lie when you tell it
again in twenty years. That's how that works and there is nothing you can do to
change it. Not even additional lying can change it.

On Mar 19, 8:28*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 13, 8:09 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
> >> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>
> >> >> >> >> That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>
> >> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>
> >> >> >> Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
> >> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>
> >> >> >No, I don't.
>
> >> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
> >> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
> >> >> >offer one.
>
> >> >> I did.
>
> >> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>
> >> That's a lie.
>
> >It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
> >you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
> >don't sincerely believe it to be true.
>
> * * Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.
>

I'm not talking about what you *believe*, I'm talking about what you
have *rational grounds for believing*. You obviously don't have
*rational grounds* for believing that I don't sincerely believe it to
be true. I do sincerely believe it to be true, and in fact, it is
true: the definition you offered obviously conveys no information, and
it's very sad that you can't see that.

> >You shouldn't accuse people of
> >lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>
> * * I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim
> either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very
> rational grounds for accusing you of lying.
>

No, just because you *believe* something doesn't mean you have
*rational grounds* for believing it. On this occasion you obviously
don't.

> >> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
> >> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>
> >Try again. What information does it convey?
>
> * * For one thing the fact that life can have positive value or negative value
> to the individual. For another that the amount of suffering an individual
> experiences has an influence on what that value is. If you can get that far let
> me know and maybe we can consider some of the other information it conveys, and
> if you can figure out any more info it conveys on your own that would be extra
> fun...like watching a child learn to walk...or at least crawl? Let's say crawl,
> so you don't have to worry about falling down too far when you screw up.
>

Your definition does convey the information that the amount of
suffering in an individual's life has a bearing on whether that life
has positive or negative value, but it doesn't convey any information
whatsoever about the criteria used to determine how much suffering
would be required to make a life of negative value, because it
specifies that in a completely circular way.

> >> >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>
> >> >> You couldn't comprehend.
>
> >> >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.
>
> >> That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
> >> every time you tell it.
>
> >See
>
> * * How do you want people to think it could ever become true?
> . . .
>

It obviously is true, and it's very sad that you can't see that.

> >> >> You can't figure it out on your own either,
> >> >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>
> >> >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".
>
> >> Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
> *. . .
> >> I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?
>
> >What you have said by way of trying to explain what you have in mind
> >conveys no information whatsoever.
>
> * * That will ALWAYS be a lie EVERY time you tell it. If you're still telling it
> in five years, it will STILL be a lie in 5 years. And if you quit telling it for
> twenty years and then tell it again it will STILL be a lie when you tell it
> again in twenty years. That's how that works and there is nothing you can do to
> change it. Not even additional lying can change it.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it so.

On 3/19/2012 12:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 8:09 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>>
>>>>>>>> No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>>>>>>> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>>>
>>>>>> No, I don't.
>>>
>>>>>> There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>>>>>> definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>>>>>> offer one.
>>>
>>>>> I did.
>>>
>>>> No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>> It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
>> you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
>> don't sincerely believe it to be true.
>
> Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.
>
>> You shouldn't accuse people of
>> lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>
> I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim
> either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very
> rational grounds for accusing you of lying.

"Rational" and "****wit David Harrison" don't belong in the same
sentence, except as negations of one another.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 19, 8:28*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 13, 8:09 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>> >> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>
>> >> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>> >> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>>
>> >> >> >No, I don't.
>>
>> >> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>> >> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>> >> >> >offer one.
>>
>> >> >> I did.
>>
>> >> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>>
>> >> That's a lie.
>>
>> >It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
>> >you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
>> >don't sincerely believe it to be true.
>>
>> * * Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.
>>
>
>I'm not talking about what you *believe*, I'm talking about what you
>have *rational grounds for believing*. You obviously don't have
>*rational grounds* for believing that I don't sincerely believe it to
>be true.

I do because even as mentally restricted as I know that you necessarily ARE,
I also do not believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim. You MAY be,
but if you were that stupid I don't believe you would have ever been able to
learn how to read and write well enough to participate here and tell people you
have a PhD.

>I do sincerely believe it to be true, and in fact, it is
>true: the definition you offered obviously conveys no information, and
>it's very sad that you can't see that.

I know what you said it not true, and don't believe you're stupid enough to
believe it is.

>> >You shouldn't accuse people of
>> >lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>>
>> * * I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim
>> either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very
>> rational grounds for accusing you of lying.
>>
>
>No, just because you *believe* something doesn't mean you have
>*rational grounds* for believing it. On this occasion you obviously
>don't.

If you were stupid enough to believe your claim I believe you would have to
be truly retarded. Are you actually retarded? You are severly mentally
restricted, I KNOW that. Anyone who can't appreciate the lives of ANY livestock
is necessarily as restricted in that area as it's possible to be. You are in
that position. You ARE a person who is as restricted in regards to evaluating
whether lifes would be of negative or possitive value for another being as it's
possible to get, meaning you're incapable of doing it at all. That's a HUGE
restriction that even little children are usually not hindered by, which is why
no one in my grade school class had any problem with it. Think about that
doctor:

The distinction that you don't believe means anything, is something that little
children in grade school study in class and discuss among themselves. LOL!!! I
just had an image of you sitting with a little group of sixth graders who are
talking about that distinction, and LOL....you sitting there babbling that you
don't think the distinction means anything...LOL...

>> >> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
>> >> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>>
>> >Try again. What information does it convey?
>>
>> * * For one thing the fact that life can have positive value or negative value
>> to the individual. For another that the amount of suffering an individual
>> experiences has an influence on what that value is. If you can get that far let
>> me know and maybe we can consider some of the other information it conveys, and
>> if you can figure out any more info it conveys on your own that would be extra
>> fun...like watching a child learn to walk...or at least crawl? Let's say crawl,
>> so you don't have to worry about falling down too far when you screw up.
>>
>
>Your definition does convey the information that the amount of
>suffering in an individual's life has a bearing on whether that life
>has positive or negative value, but it doesn't convey any information
>whatsoever about the criteria used to determine how much suffering
>would be required to make a life of negative value,

You do that part if you can. That's what we did as children like I tell you
each time you cry about things like that.

>because it
>specifies that in a completely circular way.

Your cognitive dissonance prevents you from being able to think about this
topic, which is at least a part of your severe mental restrictions. It's your
addiction to the misnomer. You can NOT consider lives of positive value for
livestock because then you would have to completely change your position, or go
on continuing a position you've learned to feel is inferior. It is, and you
would be advancing to rise out of that lowest and necessarily MOST RESTRICTED of
ideas that you cling to, but it would change your entire way of thinking. I've
pointed all this out to you more than once, and encouraged you to move on
countless times. Just get an inch or two off the bottome dude. You don't have to
go all the way to appreciating and eating some nice deliscious rare steak from a
steer who appeared to have a good life and it's better that he did exist, but at
least try to accept the fact that some cattle do have decent lives. Then you
could get all the way to some do and some do not, which would bring you up to
about the 5th grade level imo. You would have to move UP to reach the 5th grade
level.
.. . .
>> * * That will ALWAYS be a lie EVERY time you tell it. If you're still telling it
>> in five years, it will STILL be a lie in 5 years. And if you quit telling it for
>> twenty years and then tell it again it will STILL be a lie when you tell it
>> again in twenty years. That's how that works and there is nothing you can do to
>> change it. Not even additional lying can change it.
>
>Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it so.

LOL!!! I mean: yes doctor. That's WHY it will always be a lie every time you
tell it. You get a DUH! for that one.