Hmmm, I actually took issue with the title, even though I understood the choice of the title. Why not something like "People that poison the water"? Anyway, I enjoyed watching it, it was pretty informative, and I appreciate that you guys tackled a topic that's surprisingly sensitive in a lot of communities.
There were two things I'd like to have seen in the presentation, and had I been there, would have asked them as questions which I'll ask now.:)
First, I am one of the project administrators for Armagetron Advanced. I have been suspicious for some time that there is someone in the community who is poisoning the well, and recently I've been noticing the number of commits have dropped from a rate of 3-4 commits by 4-6 developers per day down to 1-2 commits by 1-2 developers per week. The drop has been logarithmic (ball park, I didn't actually plot it), and since it's a drop that's of course a negative logarithm. There are a few areas that are sensitive and pretty much nobody can talk about it without trouble, and a guy in the community even tried to stake out a fiefdom over part of the code (the resource system, which I pushed ahead on anyway and got other developers to engage in design discussion and design a new system, but now nobody's implemented it, myself included). Add to all this that I'm not entirely sure that I'm free of blame for the situation as it is, I am one of the more abrasive developers in the community anyway. Anyway, the areas where the sensitivity has occured have become showstoppers for the next release in the development series. So literally, I don't think we can even reach the next release (which I'm already tracking but can't even hope to estimate a due date) without resolving this issue. I've linked your video on our forums because I intend to grab the bull by the horns, even if the only end result is that I leave the project, someone has to do it, right? So the question I'm building up to is this: In your presentation, you first talk about "don't beat the death every little thing because that poisons the well". Later, you say to have a design discussion and get people involved to collaborate. Since the individual I've been hinting at is diametrically opposed to me in every way (which is one of the things that makes it hard to determine canonically if I'm part of the problem or not), it's nearly impossible to have a design discussion that doesn't degenerate into hopeless nitpicking. Is there a solid point where you can say the design discussion is over, and essentially forbid (as much as you can in a free community) further talk so someone can implement it?
The second thing has to do with a take I had on your example where a guy was posting in response to every message in a thread and it wasn't obvious there was a clear consensus and only one dissenter, it looked like there was a lot of dissent. Awhile back, when I was on the audacity-devel mailing list, I was *that* guy, the one dissenter who posted in response to every message. After a couple of days, the project admin (who now works for google, maybe you know him:) ) said something to the effect of "Since there's so much dissent...". That caught my attention, and I had to post a response saying "I think I'm the only dissenter, so why don't I just shut up for a few days or a week or whatever and quit clouding the discussion?" The feature in question was implemented that weekend, because there was no dissent after I quit bothering them.:) So the question to be answered is this: How can a person identify for himself that he is the person poisoning the well? And then obviously what can he do about it to fix it and be a positive force in the community?
Aha, it's not that he could tell the difference, it's that he wanted to whine about it!:) Thanks for clearing that up!
The other thing is that video games, even near the maximum of what the eye can see, still feel a little weird. They're actually jerky, but the action's so fast it can be hard to identify what's wrong. Hence my brief discussion about motion blurring...:)
I can see the difference between 60fps and 72fps too, as long as my monitor has a refresh rate that handles both, of course. The human eye can see up to about 90fps, anything between actual frames is blurred. So a human eye can distinguish between 90fps games and 90fps games with motion blurring (good motion blurring, mind you). So that's not really surprising that you have a friend that can tell the difference. What's more surprising is that you can't...
And it's worth adding that the theory has to predict the future.:) That is, within the set of circumstances under which the theory works to explain whatever it is it explains, it has to be able to consistently and accurately predict events that happen under the same or similar sets of circumstances. When it can't do that, it can't be applied.
The theory of evolution has successfully predicted events within its problem domain. It explains many things, and it predicts, er, predictably. It works. It's as good as it gets with what we know right now, and we know a lot about the subject.
Actually, we live in a Democracy/Republic hybrid. Many state governments are very democratic, requiring many laws to be polled by the people before they can be enacted. Our federal system is a republic, inarguably, and our states have many traits of a republic, but everytime you hear about "Vote [yes|no] on Proposition ####", that's either a law that requires polling the people first, or a state constitutional amendment for many states that have constitutions that so limit the government they can't act without amending the constitution (as in Texas). In the latter group, the states themselves are technically republics, but in practice are closer to democracy.
Actually, while Australia is noted as a penal colony, the American colonies were also settled by a substantial number of prisoners. The American colonies were also treated like penal colonies in many respects. When it was Australia, it was already an old and established practice.
Ok, you're wrong because it's not "an administration dealing with Islamic problems", it's the continuation of a struggle between the Islamic world and the Christian world that has been going on since the first Islamic conquests in Europe. This is the same fight that the Reconquista was about, it's the same fight that saw Constantinople sacked. The latest chapter begins with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (most of the territory we're talking about was part of the Ottoman Empire) after WW1, where the Christian world had an opportunity to engage the Islamic world in peace and to pursue prosperity together, but instead took the chance to try to take everything they could from it. In a sense, this is also fallout from European colonialism.
Therefore, she's a good candidate not because of what she's an expert on, but because she's a woman with gonads. She's everything Hillary is, but she's not a Clinton. Except that her views are different in a lot of places, but I definitely remember when she was a n00b on the job she went around telling Bush how he had screwed up and how Rumsfield had screwed up and trying to fix everything. Then, and this is the part where I think she falls down as a good candidate, Bush whipped her into line. That's unfortunate, because up to that point, she was what I'd call a good leader, good administrator, etc. She showed and continues to show a lot of competence, and this is what makes her a really good advocate, someone I'd always want on my side. But because she caved, I can no longer tell if she'd be a puppet President or not.
That sounds like a usage of "fair" which is unknown to me, but we can probably agree they were treated equally poorly with respect to any non-white minority and white minorities that showed up later during the noteable immigration waves of the late 19th/early 20th century. But the types of poor treatment varied, as they did with the other minorities in the country.
I don't think assimilation was always the goal, but I do think it would be hard to nail down a goal that applied for everyone involved. Many soldiers during the Indian Wars, for example, didn't go out with the intent to wipe out the natives. They went for more personal reasons, like seeking a career, exploring new areas, opening new areas for settlement (which required doing something about the natives in some cases, but not all cases). Generals and politicians got behind the Indian Wars for their own reasons (Custer was after career advancement, and many politicians got elected on a "wipe out the Indians" platform that some, at least, didn't strongly believe in). But before the Indian Wars, in particular before the American Revolution, I don't think assimilation was an option. There was very much a "their culture" and "our culture" attitude which was in many ways (by modern standards) more monstrous than what came later. The smallpox blanket thing I mentioned involved peaceful trade, and such behavior was justified religiously all too often. What makes the Indian War period more important, imo, in defining the action as genocide is that it was A) a concerted effort by the government with support of enough people to justify the government taking action, and B) happened during a period of enlightenment, i.e. the previous settlers were more fanatically religious and narrow in their views of the natives, but the people around during the Indian Wars were less so in both areas and more inclined to view natives as people rather than evil pagan savages. But I think the people that did it were of a mind that we can define it as genocide if it meets the criteria because they were capable of knowing better, which iirc is another part of the definition of genocide.
It's always hard to try to judge history, particularly by modern standards, because so much of history has to be examined under the then-current standards before it's even meaningful to apply modern standards. Even so, I think applying modern standards to history is only useful in determining our future, it doesn't provide useful insight into historical events otherwise. So to apply modern standards like genocide, it has to be established that modern standards can be applied.:) We probably have no problems agreeing that with the Armenians, we can definitely apply modern standards. The Indian Wars were only within 50 years of that event, which places them on a potential cusp as far as modern standards are concerned. So it's most useful, imo, to determine where to draw the line between the early modern period and the modern period, and if we can apply genocide to the Indian Wars, we push the line back and essentially include that part of the century in the modern period. But now I'm babbling.
But we can disagree without a flame war, right?:) I'm not a historian, just a history buff.
While true, it's irrelevant.:) The definition of genocide includes an important component that requires the intent to wipe out the target people/culture/race. Before the Indian Wars, the intent was to move them. During the Indian Wars, there were two main political views in the country, one that wanted to move or assimilate them, and one that wanted to kill them. Both sides were in favor of destroying the culture, it's just that the more liberal side was willing to compromise and just move them if they couldn't be assimilated. The government took the consensus, which was to destroy them, and the moving that happened was with the intent to destroy them (this last part can be argued quite a bit, so we probably should just agree to disagree instead of arguing it).
The difference in scale probably has more to do with there being many more Armenians to be killed in a short period of time than there were natives in America. Remember, the Indian Wars were fought on a much smaller scale than even the Civil War, in terms of numbers of participants. They were really a series of short conflicts between two fairly small populations compared to the Armenian genocide.
Also, the number of casualties suffered by the white American population is something that can't be ignored in such a definition. My understanding is that white Americans outnumbered natives by a huge margin, so 50k natives could have been 50% of the remaining population, whereas 20k white Americans may have only been 2% of the population. I made the percentages up to show my point, I don't know that actual numbers. And then there's the additional question of whether or not so many white Americans would have been killed otherwise if a peaceful means of coexistance had been found. That European settlers were frequently terrorized by the natives is a fact as well, and by this point there was a lot of bad blood between them anyway. I'm not saying the number would have been as high, but it wouldn't have been 0 under any circumstances. Which brings us to another important part of the definition of genocide, the part that happens to excuse the Roman treatment of Carthage, coincidentally. And this is arguable as well to quite some extent. Did the Indian Wars constitute self-defense? I.e. is it possible the only way to defend against native hostility at that point was to annihilate the culture? I say 'no', and that any losses suffered in finding a way to peacefully coexist would have both been lower and much more acceptable, but like I say, you can argue it. Basically, genocide is excusable when the target group has made it the only way for you to defend yourself. This is the key trait in the Armenian episode, the Holocaust in WW2, the Rwanda and Darfur episodes, but is quite arguable in this case and is currently being argued in a number of forums for the Serbian incident.
Yeah, still, they could've put all their cities in coinage and bought a shitload of phalanxes every couple of turns. I still think the Aztecs could have beat Cortez. Hell, even a few diplomats could have stolen the techs in a few turns after Cortez took his first city!
Displacement of a culture and ethnic cleansing are different things. The first can happen quite peacefully and amicably, and proceeded that way to some extent in many places in north america. Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, has a strong genetic component. It basically means "Kill all who have 'dirty' genes so the race will be purer". That's what happened in Europe, well, pretty much for all time. It's not what happened in America. (There was some of it early on, like the thing about giving blankets used by kids that had smallpox to the natives to help them)
In any case, whatever happened before the Civil War we can argue all we want. What happened after was a methodical, systematic campaign of genocide, and happened late enough in the period to be a good candidate for the word. If the Armenians want to define certain WWI events in Turkey as the First Genocide, I think we can make a case that the US beat the Turks to it.
Don't forget John Adams!:) (In the early days, according ot my history 1 teacher, Secretary of State was a route to the Presidency)
I'm one of the whackos that keeps pitching condi as a candidate, but I have to agree she's unelectable. She comes on strong, and she's someone I'd want for my advocate any day of the week, but that's what she's good at: being an advocate. Which isn't really what a president does (although being a good advocate is certainly a desirable trait in a president).
Making tools, particularly weapons, is about problem solving. Claws and shit don't do anything to help you solve problems. Problem solving indicates higher order intelligence.
"Understanding" criminals vs "being hard on criminals" provides a long-term sustainable solution to the problems that create criminals in the first place, by (you guessed it) "Understanding" the problems.
I know, when the pulse of this country is more interested in vengeance than they are in solving problems, it's seductively easy to think that "being hard on criminals" actually works. In the end, we are talking about billions of wasted lives in successive generations, so we're not talking about a small group of people. I'd place the number of potential criminals, pulled out of my ass, by the time my grandkids are having this same discussion as about 2 billion. The question is, are we going to be able to offer them a real solution, or a bitchslapping that makes *you* happy?
You did read the same letter I read, right? The one full of reactionary measures? The one that was so explicit in describing how her and her husband failed completely to take any foresteps of any sort, but instead waited for the kid to screw up and then tried to do something?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, I actually took issue with the title, even though I understood the choice of the title. Why not something like "People that poison the water"? Anyway, I enjoyed watching it, it was pretty informative, and I appreciate that you guys tackled a topic that's surprisingly sensitive in a lot of communities.
There were two things I'd like to have seen in the presentation, and had I been there, would have asked them as questions which I'll ask now. :)
First, I am one of the project administrators for Armagetron Advanced. I have been suspicious for some time that there is someone in the community who is poisoning the well, and recently I've been noticing the number of commits have dropped from a rate of 3-4 commits by 4-6 developers per day down to 1-2 commits by 1-2 developers per week. The drop has been logarithmic (ball park, I didn't actually plot it), and since it's a drop that's of course a negative logarithm. There are a few areas that are sensitive and pretty much nobody can talk about it without trouble, and a guy in the community even tried to stake out a fiefdom over part of the code (the resource system, which I pushed ahead on anyway and got other developers to engage in design discussion and design a new system, but now nobody's implemented it, myself included). Add to all this that I'm not entirely sure that I'm free of blame for the situation as it is, I am one of the more abrasive developers in the community anyway. Anyway, the areas where the sensitivity has occured have become showstoppers for the next release in the development series. So literally, I don't think we can even reach the next release (which I'm already tracking but can't even hope to estimate a due date) without resolving this issue. I've linked your video on our forums because I intend to grab the bull by the horns, even if the only end result is that I leave the project, someone has to do it, right? So the question I'm building up to is this: In your presentation, you first talk about "don't beat the death every little thing because that poisons the well". Later, you say to have a design discussion and get people involved to collaborate. Since the individual I've been hinting at is diametrically opposed to me in every way (which is one of the things that makes it hard to determine canonically if I'm part of the problem or not), it's nearly impossible to have a design discussion that doesn't degenerate into hopeless nitpicking. Is there a solid point where you can say the design discussion is over, and essentially forbid (as much as you can in a free community) further talk so someone can implement it?
The second thing has to do with a take I had on your example where a guy was posting in response to every message in a thread and it wasn't obvious there was a clear consensus and only one dissenter, it looked like there was a lot of dissent. Awhile back, when I was on the audacity-devel mailing list, I was *that* guy, the one dissenter who posted in response to every message. After a couple of days, the project admin (who now works for google, maybe you know him :) ) said something to the effect of "Since there's so much dissent...". That caught my attention, and I had to post a response saying "I think I'm the only dissenter, so why don't I just shut up for a few days or a week or whatever and quit clouding the discussion?" The feature in question was implemented that weekend, because there was no dissent after I quit bothering them. :) So the question to be answered is this: How can a person identify for himself that he is the person poisoning the well? And then obviously what can he do about it to fix it and be a positive force in the community?
No.
Last I checked, KLBJ still had wonderful coverage of local music in Austin.
Sure it's not the Firmament?
*ducks*
Aha, it's not that he could tell the difference, it's that he wanted to whine about it! :) Thanks for clearing that up!
The other thing is that video games, even near the maximum of what the eye can see, still feel a little weird. They're actually jerky, but the action's so fast it can be hard to identify what's wrong. Hence my brief discussion about motion blurring...:)
I can see the difference between 60fps and 72fps too, as long as my monitor has a refresh rate that handles both, of course. The human eye can see up to about 90fps, anything between actual frames is blurred. So a human eye can distinguish between 90fps games and 90fps games with motion blurring (good motion blurring, mind you). So that's not really surprising that you have a friend that can tell the difference. What's more surprising is that you can't...
The long-established thingee I was talking about was the practice of sending criminals to colonies...
Otherwise, you agree with me! :)
And it's worth adding that the theory has to predict the future. :) That is, within the set of circumstances under which the theory works to explain whatever it is it explains, it has to be able to consistently and accurately predict events that happen under the same or similar sets of circumstances. When it can't do that, it can't be applied.
The theory of evolution has successfully predicted events within its problem domain. It explains many things, and it predicts, er, predictably. It works. It's as good as it gets with what we know right now, and we know a lot about the subject.
Everyone deep down hopes there is something after death.
I don't, ObsessiveMathFreak. Better fix your set.
Actually, we live in a Democracy/Republic hybrid. Many state governments are very democratic, requiring many laws to be polled by the people before they can be enacted. Our federal system is a republic, inarguably, and our states have many traits of a republic, but everytime you hear about "Vote [yes|no] on Proposition ####", that's either a law that requires polling the people first, or a state constitutional amendment for many states that have constitutions that so limit the government they can't act without amending the constitution (as in Texas). In the latter group, the states themselves are technically republics, but in practice are closer to democracy.
Actually, while Australia is noted as a penal colony, the American colonies were also settled by a substantial number of prisoners. The American colonies were also treated like penal colonies in many respects. When it was Australia, it was already an old and established practice.
Just so you know... :)
Ok, you're wrong because it's not "an administration dealing with Islamic problems", it's the continuation of a struggle between the Islamic world and the Christian world that has been going on since the first Islamic conquests in Europe. This is the same fight that the Reconquista was about, it's the same fight that saw Constantinople sacked. The latest chapter begins with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (most of the territory we're talking about was part of the Ottoman Empire) after WW1, where the Christian world had an opportunity to engage the Islamic world in peace and to pursue prosperity together, but instead took the chance to try to take everything they could from it. In a sense, this is also fallout from European colonialism.
Therefore, she's a good candidate not because of what she's an expert on, but because she's a woman with gonads. She's everything Hillary is, but she's not a Clinton. Except that her views are different in a lot of places, but I definitely remember when she was a n00b on the job she went around telling Bush how he had screwed up and how Rumsfield had screwed up and trying to fix everything. Then, and this is the part where I think she falls down as a good candidate, Bush whipped her into line. That's unfortunate, because up to that point, she was what I'd call a good leader, good administrator, etc. She showed and continues to show a lot of competence, and this is what makes her a really good advocate, someone I'd always want on my side. But because she caved, I can no longer tell if she'd be a puppet President or not.
That sounds like a usage of "fair" which is unknown to me, but we can probably agree they were treated equally poorly with respect to any non-white minority and white minorities that showed up later during the noteable immigration waves of the late 19th/early 20th century. But the types of poor treatment varied, as they did with the other minorities in the country.
I don't think assimilation was always the goal, but I do think it would be hard to nail down a goal that applied for everyone involved. Many soldiers during the Indian Wars, for example, didn't go out with the intent to wipe out the natives. They went for more personal reasons, like seeking a career, exploring new areas, opening new areas for settlement (which required doing something about the natives in some cases, but not all cases). Generals and politicians got behind the Indian Wars for their own reasons (Custer was after career advancement, and many politicians got elected on a "wipe out the Indians" platform that some, at least, didn't strongly believe in). But before the Indian Wars, in particular before the American Revolution, I don't think assimilation was an option. There was very much a "their culture" and "our culture" attitude which was in many ways (by modern standards) more monstrous than what came later. The smallpox blanket thing I mentioned involved peaceful trade, and such behavior was justified religiously all too often. What makes the Indian War period more important, imo, in defining the action as genocide is that it was A) a concerted effort by the government with support of enough people to justify the government taking action, and B) happened during a period of enlightenment, i.e. the previous settlers were more fanatically religious and narrow in their views of the natives, but the people around during the Indian Wars were less so in both areas and more inclined to view natives as people rather than evil pagan savages. But I think the people that did it were of a mind that we can define it as genocide if it meets the criteria because they were capable of knowing better, which iirc is another part of the definition of genocide.
It's always hard to try to judge history, particularly by modern standards, because so much of history has to be examined under the then-current standards before it's even meaningful to apply modern standards. Even so, I think applying modern standards to history is only useful in determining our future, it doesn't provide useful insight into historical events otherwise. So to apply modern standards like genocide, it has to be established that modern standards can be applied. :) We probably have no problems agreeing that with the Armenians, we can definitely apply modern standards. The Indian Wars were only within 50 years of that event, which places them on a potential cusp as far as modern standards are concerned. So it's most useful, imo, to determine where to draw the line between the early modern period and the modern period, and if we can apply genocide to the Indian Wars, we push the line back and essentially include that part of the century in the modern period. But now I'm babbling.
But we can disagree without a flame war, right? :) I'm not a historian, just a history buff.
While true, it's irrelevant. :) The definition of genocide includes an important component that requires the intent to wipe out the target people/culture/race. Before the Indian Wars, the intent was to move them. During the Indian Wars, there were two main political views in the country, one that wanted to move or assimilate them, and one that wanted to kill them. Both sides were in favor of destroying the culture, it's just that the more liberal side was willing to compromise and just move them if they couldn't be assimilated. The government took the consensus, which was to destroy them, and the moving that happened was with the intent to destroy them (this last part can be argued quite a bit, so we probably should just agree to disagree instead of arguing it).
The difference in scale probably has more to do with there being many more Armenians to be killed in a short period of time than there were natives in America. Remember, the Indian Wars were fought on a much smaller scale than even the Civil War, in terms of numbers of participants. They were really a series of short conflicts between two fairly small populations compared to the Armenian genocide.
Also, the number of casualties suffered by the white American population is something that can't be ignored in such a definition. My understanding is that white Americans outnumbered natives by a huge margin, so 50k natives could have been 50% of the remaining population, whereas 20k white Americans may have only been 2% of the population. I made the percentages up to show my point, I don't know that actual numbers. And then there's the additional question of whether or not so many white Americans would have been killed otherwise if a peaceful means of coexistance had been found. That European settlers were frequently terrorized by the natives is a fact as well, and by this point there was a lot of bad blood between them anyway. I'm not saying the number would have been as high, but it wouldn't have been 0 under any circumstances. Which brings us to another important part of the definition of genocide, the part that happens to excuse the Roman treatment of Carthage, coincidentally. And this is arguable as well to quite some extent. Did the Indian Wars constitute self-defense? I.e. is it possible the only way to defend against native hostility at that point was to annihilate the culture? I say 'no', and that any losses suffered in finding a way to peacefully coexist would have both been lower and much more acceptable, but like I say, you can argue it. Basically, genocide is excusable when the target group has made it the only way for you to defend yourself. This is the key trait in the Armenian episode, the Holocaust in WW2, the Rwanda and Darfur episodes, but is quite arguable in this case and is currently being argued in a number of forums for the Serbian incident.
Okay, then answer the more interesting question: "when will the Americas be de-populated?"
The future.
If you knew there were green chiles in America, you too would have done whatever it took to get here.
Yeah, still, they could've put all their cities in coinage and bought a shitload of phalanxes every couple of turns. I still think the Aztecs could have beat Cortez. Hell, even a few diplomats could have stolen the techs in a few turns after Cortez took his first city!
Displacement of a culture and ethnic cleansing are different things. The first can happen quite peacefully and amicably, and proceeded that way to some extent in many places in north america. Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, has a strong genetic component. It basically means "Kill all who have 'dirty' genes so the race will be purer". That's what happened in Europe, well, pretty much for all time. It's not what happened in America. (There was some of it early on, like the thing about giving blankets used by kids that had smallpox to the natives to help them)
In any case, whatever happened before the Civil War we can argue all we want. What happened after was a methodical, systematic campaign of genocide, and happened late enough in the period to be a good candidate for the word. If the Armenians want to define certain WWI events in Turkey as the First Genocide, I think we can make a case that the US beat the Turks to it.
Don't forget John Adams! :) (In the early days, according ot my history 1 teacher, Secretary of State was a route to the Presidency)
I'm one of the whackos that keeps pitching condi as a candidate, but I have to agree she's unelectable. She comes on strong, and she's someone I'd want for my advocate any day of the week, but that's what she's good at: being an advocate. Which isn't really what a president does (although being a good advocate is certainly a desirable trait in a president).
Indeed, the letter reads like hand-wringing, sweep-it-under-the-carpet where it'll cover-your-ass logic.
Making tools, particularly weapons, is about problem solving. Claws and shit don't do anything to help you solve problems. Problem solving indicates higher order intelligence.
Isn't that obvious?
"Understanding" criminals vs "being hard on criminals" provides a long-term sustainable solution to the problems that create criminals in the first place, by (you guessed it) "Understanding" the problems.
I know, when the pulse of this country is more interested in vengeance than they are in solving problems, it's seductively easy to think that "being hard on criminals" actually works. In the end, we are talking about billions of wasted lives in successive generations, so we're not talking about a small group of people. I'd place the number of potential criminals, pulled out of my ass, by the time my grandkids are having this same discussion as about 2 billion. The question is, are we going to be able to offer them a real solution, or a bitchslapping that makes *you* happy?
You did read the same letter I read, right? The one full of reactionary measures? The one that was so explicit in describing how her and her husband failed completely to take any foresteps of any sort, but instead waited for the kid to screw up and then tried to do something?
Has it occurred to anyone else yet that Occam's Razor says she's lying, or at the very least distorting the truth?
I don't doubt for a minute that she's being honest. Neither do I doubt that she's completely missed the point.