The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:46 am**

- Nobody will ever fully and completely understand you. Nobody wants to. Not family, not friends, not spouses, not significant others, not children, and not even the family pet.
- People only feign understanding each other when they agree on the conclusion, and sometimes not even then. People never agree on the path taken to reach the conclusion. People only agree in principle. People often agree on the answer by skipping the debate on how the agreed upon answer was illogically obtained.
- Being listened to is trifling and insignificant in comparison with being heard, and being heard is trifling and insignificant in comparison with being understood.
- There will always be a major distortion gap between what you know or accept as fact, what you will be able to communicate effectively to other people, and how those people will comprehend your communications. The message you are sending is never the message being received.
- No two people truly speak the same language, although many people verbalize the same language.
- Perspectives are ephemeral and temporary. You are looking down upon, looking up to, and seeing eye-to-eye with everyone, all at the same time.
- Your thought processes will always be irrational to other people. What makes perfect sense to you makes no sense to someone else. Your logic is exclusive to your mind.
- Emotions will always interfere with a sense of justice. You will never be beyond reproach. You will always have prejudices and biases. Most, if not all of those have nothing to do with race, color or creed.
- All actions are based upon incomplete knowledge. All knowledge is based upon incomplete research. There will always be information beyond your reach, grasp and awareness.
- You will never have total control over any situation. You won't be able to win every argument. Someone will always hate you for no legitimate reason.

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:34 pm**

Rough day?

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:42 am**

Irn-Bru wrote:Rough day?

What would lend that impression?
I find the absence of commentary to the positive, negative or indifferent effect in this thread to be extremely telling. The silence is deafening. Diametrically in opposition to popular opinion, the lack of commentary has to stem from one of two primary root causes. Either the intellectual cognizance required to intelligently comment is beyoned the grasp of the masses, or the information contained herein is accurate beyond reproach, hit every "Bullseye" and scares the living hell out of people.

'Twas probably an intelligent error of omission on my part to have left this passage out of the original post:

There is no God. Stop believing bad prior acts and lost time can be repented and replenished. This is all there is to life. God and Jesus do not exist in prisons, nor on deathbeds. If God and Jesus did exist, they would have the same free will gullible people believe God gave to each of them. An actual God with an actual free will would actually blow up this failed experiment and start over. Stop using the non-existent invisible man as an excuse for every failure of yourself as a human being.

Have A Nice Life. It's The Only One You Are Going To Get.

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:09 pm**

GSPODS wrote:I find the absence of commentary to the positive, negative or indifferent effect in this thread to be extremely telling. The silence is deafening. Diametrically in opposition to popular opinion, the lack of commentary has to stem from one of two primary root causes. Either the intellectual cognizance required to intelligently comment is beyoned the grasp of the masses, or the information contained herein is accurate beyond reproach, hit every "Bullseye" and scares the living hell out of people.

Yes, those are the exact reasons why folks around here simply avoid and ignore your threads. :roll:

... or perhaps because it's just another worthless, stupid, psychopathic post and nobody cares. :-({|=

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:53 pm**

GSPODS wrote:The silence is deafening. Diametrically in opposition to popular opinion, the lack of commentary has to stem from one of two primary root causes. Either the intellectual cognizance required to intelligently comment is beyoned the grasp of the masses, or the information contained herein is accurate beyond reproach, hit every "Bullseye" and scares the living hell out of people

I'm going with a third option, it's inane. Dude, you crack me up when you write this stuff. And your conclusion that people either don't get it because it's too deep or do and are awed by it is just hysterical. Keep it up my friend!

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:49 pm**

GSPODS wrote:There is no God.

Of course there is.

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:01 am**

Irn-Bru wrote:
GSPODS wrote:There is no God.

Of course there is.

Prove it by clear and convincing tangible evidence.

It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true.

If there were no God, man would create one.
Mortality is the one puzzle man knows he will never solve ...

If God exists, why is the earth 5.5 Billion years old, and the written mention of God only 3500 or fewer years old? Cuneiform has been around since at least 3500 B.C.E., or 2000 years longer than the first textual mention of the "God" of Judaism and Christianity. The earliest recorded cultures worshipped false Gods, and every culture since has carried on the tradition.

"God" is a fabrication of people who could not accept that once a person is dead, a person is dead.

Etymology of "God" - O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

"I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]

According to most organized religions, it is a Cardinal Sin to invoke the name of "God." Nevermind the term itself means "that which is invoked."
God does not exist, and therefore was invented.

Let me know when we have reached the "Not every argument can be won" portion of our program.

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:24 am**

GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

Crazyhorse1 has already covered this. Failure to disprove is proof. When I got my degree in mathematics we weren't allowed to use that rule in proving theorems. We actually had to prove them, not just point out the teacher had failed to disprove them. Unfortunately for us, we don't get to use this "logical" rule, only the two of you do.

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:47 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

Crazyhorse1 has already covered this. Failure to disprove is proof. When I got my degree in mathematics we weren't allowed to use that rule in proving theorems. We actually had to prove them, not just point out the teacher had failed to disprove them. Unfortunately for us, we don't get to use this "logical" rule, only the two of you do.

I shouldn't bother, however, there is no mathematical proof, abstract, postulate, theorem, et. al. which can be used to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the post is irrelevant and atopical.
As it is your post, we'll play by your rules.
Prove your post is both relevant and topical.
List any mathematical equations which might apply to determining the existence or non-existence of God.
Then, math major, prove or attempt to prove any equations listed.
As math is supposedly an exact science, we await your proof or disproof of the existence of God so we can all either straighten out or stop pissing away our Sundays at church.

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:55 am**

GSPODS wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

Crazyhorse1 has already covered this. Failure to disprove is proof. When I got my degree in mathematics we weren't allowed to use that rule in proving theorems. We actually had to prove them, not just point out the teacher had failed to disprove them. Unfortunately for us, we don't get to use this "logical" rule, only the two of you do.

I shouldn't bother, however, there is no mathematical proof, abstract, postulate, theorem, et. al. which can be used to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the post is irrelevant and atopical.
As it is your post, we'll play by your rules.
Prove your post is both relevant and topical.
List any mathematical equations which might apply to determining the existence or non-existence of God.
Then, math major, prove or attempt to prove any equations listed.
As math is supposedly an exact science, we await your proof or disproof of the existence of God so we can all either straighten out or stop pissing away our Sundays at church.

I pretty clearly addressed your point that I quoted. Your inane rant is meaningless except to try to divert from the illogical statement you made. Here it is again.

GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:13 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

Crazyhorse1 has already covered this. Failure to disprove is proof. When I got my degree in mathematics we weren't allowed to use that rule in proving theorems. We actually had to prove them, not just point out the teacher had failed to disprove them. Unfortunately for us, we don't get to use this "logical" rule, only the two of you do.

I shouldn't bother, however, there is no mathematical proof, abstract, postulate, theorem, et. al. which can be used to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, the post is irrelevant and atopical.
As it is your post, we'll play by your rules.
Prove your post is both relevant and topical.
List any mathematical equations which might apply to determining the existence or non-existence of God.
Then, math major, prove or attempt to prove any equations listed.
As math is supposedly an exact science, we await your proof or disproof of the existence of God so we can all either straighten out or stop pissing away our Sundays at church.

I pretty clearly addressed your point that I quoted. Your inane rant is meaningless except to try to divert from the illogical statement you made. Here it is again.

GSPODS wrote:It can't be disproven by a preponderance of the evidence, therefore it must be true

I refuse to have a circular debate.
Selective reading and comprehension will get one nowhere, particularly in a thread dedicated to the philosophical.
The point of the thread is to think, not to reply.
Convenient ignorance of the "Prove it by clear and convincing tangible evidence" statement, which preceeds the statement quoted, is nothing more than inflammatory.

It is akin to quoting "Kill, Steal, Commit Adultery" from the Ten Commandments, while intentionally omitting the "Thou Shalt Not" from each item.

The mathematical theroem argument was introduced by whom, again?

Posted: **Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:53 pm**

GSPODS wrote:Prove it by clear and convincing tangible evidence.

Why? That's not how we go about acknowledging many of the things that we think or believe.

Mortality is the one puzzle man knows he will never solve ...

You don't need God to derive a decent set of morals; that's simply built into our nature as human beings. Aristotle did it, and although he was a theist God was the last thing he appealed to in ethics.

Posted: **Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:14 am**

Irn-Bru wrote:
GSPODS wrote:Prove it by clear and convincing tangible evidence.

Why? That's not how we go about acknowledging many of the things that we think or believe.

Mortality is the one puzzle man knows he will never solve ...

You don't need God to derive a decent set of morals; that's simply built into our nature as human beings. Aristotle did it, and although he was a theist God was the last thing he appealed to in ethics.

The "clear and convincing tangible evidence" statement was directed at one particular member, who refuses to take anyone or anything at face value. Not every statement, particularly those found on message boards, come with tangible proof. Most, ipso facto, only come with the written second-hand or third-party opinings of others as so-called "proof."
Tangible proof is a first-hand account. Normally or usually reliable sources are not proof of anything, whether it be the existence of God, or anything far less meaningful.

Somehow, the conversation shifted from mortality to morality. You'll get no argument from me on the existence of God having any bearing on morality. It doesn't. People know what is moral and what is immoral in their society. It is certainly not the same everywhere.
The Code Of Hammurabi (circa 2250 BCE) may very well be the oldest surviving code of ethics, in addition to the oldest and largest surviving code of law.
http://www.humanistictexts.org/hammurabi.htm

Aristotle's 4th Century B.C.E. writings on the mean of virtues and vices, distributive and corrective justice and moral progress are based upon the same principles of common law, which is today called "reasonability." In his time, it was called "prudence."

Code: Select all

Vice of Deficiency Virtuous Mean Vice of Excess 
Cowardice Courage Rashness 
Insensibility Temperance Intemperance 
Illiberality Liberality Prodigality 
Pettiness Munificence Vulgarity 
Humble-mindedness High-mindedness Vaingloriness 
Want of Ambition Right Ambition Over-ambition 
Spiritlessness Good Temper Irascibility 
Surliness Friendly Civility Obsequiousness 
Ironical Depreciation Sincerity Boastfulness 
Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery 
Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness 
Callousness Just Resentment Spitefulness

The human soul has an irrational element which is shared with the animals, and a rational element which is distinctly human. The most primitive irrational element is the vegetative faculty which is responsible for nutrition and growth. An organism which does this well may be said to have a nutritional virtue. The second tier of the soul is the appetitive faculty which is responsible for our emotions and desires (such as joy, grief, hope and fear). This faculty is both rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct ability to control these desires with the help of reason. The human ability to properly control these desires is called moral virtue, and is the focus of morality. Aristotle notes that there is a purely rational part of the soul, the calculative, which is responsible for the human ability to contemplate, reason logically, and formulate scientific principles. The mastery of these abilities is called intellectual virtue.

Aristotle continues by making several general points about the nature of moral virtues (i.e. desire-regulating virtues). First, he argues that the ability to regulate our desires is not instinctive, but learned and is the outcome of both teaching and practice. Second, he notes that if we regulate our desires either too much or too little, then we create problems. As an analogy, Aristotle comments that, either "excess or deficiency of gymnastic exercise is fatal to strength." Third, he argues that desire-regulating virtues are character traits, and are not to be understood as either emotions or mental faculties.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aristotl.htm#H3

On the existence or non-existence of God:
If God exists, why is the earth 5.5 Billion years old, and the written mention of God only 3500 or fewer years old? Cuneiform has been around since at least 3500 B.C.E., or 2000 years longer than the first textual mention of the "God" of Judaism and Christianity. The earliest recorded cultures worshipped false Gods, and every culture since has carried on the tradition.

"God" is a fabrication of people who could not accept that once a person is dead, a person is dead.

Etymology of "God" - O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

"I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]

"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

I believe we have reached an impass, in that we are back to the "Not every argument can be won" portion of our program. If a person believes in God, nothing human will convince that person to believe any differently. The question of why a person believes to begin with is most often a product of belief having been instilled by parents who also had the belief instilled by parents who also had the belief instilled, ad. infinitum. That doesn't make it so. For thousands of years, the earth was both flat and the center of the universe. It also doesn't make the belief in God false. This argument is the ultimate test of "prudence" or "reasonability."
And yet, our entire existence is based upon what we are taught is reasonable by people whose reason may be, not only no better, but very possibly far worse than our own.

Know Thyself - Socrates
To thine own self be true - Shakespeare
I think, therefore I am - Descartes
Changing vantage points changes points of view. - GSPODS

Posted: **Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:20 am**

You may have misunderstood me there: Just because you can derive a set of morals without reference to God doesn't mean that God has no bearing on morals.

Also, that Shakespeare line was intended to be empty, a platitude, and ironic. Look at who says it and why he does. . .

Posted: **Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:22 am**

Irn-Bru wrote:You may have misunderstood me there: Just because you can derive a set of morals without reference to God doesn't mean that God has no bearing on morals.

Also, that Shakespeare line was intended to be empty, a platitude, and ironic. Look at who says it and why he does. . .

God only has a bearing on morals for those who believe there is a God.
And for those people, the Bible has the bearing. God is not making personal visits to instruct on how to apply the "free will" Christians belive in.

Empty, ironic, sarcastic platitudes and mindless rantings are what I live for. I think we understand each other, although I am quite certain we disagree on numerous points. In truth, it was rather pleasant just to have anyone reply. Most members appear to lack the time, the inclination, the interest, etc. Sadly, more responses are generated by ridiculous smack threads than are generated by any thread on philosophy. Shameful, in my opinion. If "I think, therefore I am" would that imply "If I refuse to think, I am not?" I'd ask Descartes but he's been dead for a while.

Posted: **Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:12 pm**

Nice thread, here.

God is interesting and all, but some of the axioms on the first post where superb.

Care to return to discusing them???

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:02 am**

GSPODS wrote:God only has a bearing on morals for those who believe there is a God

Do you have to believe in ice to slip on it?

GSPODS wrote:a: Empty, ironic, sarcastic platitudes and mindless rantings are what I live for

...

b: Sadly, more responses are generated by ridiculous smack threads than are generated by any thread on philosophy. Shameful, in my opinion

Agreed on the first, the first explains the second. I love philosophy as do Irn-Bru and many others on the site. But when you write a expecting b in response you're pissing in the wind.

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:25 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:God only has a bearing on morals for those who believe there is a God

Do you have to believe in ice to slip on it?

GSPODS wrote:a: Empty, ironic, sarcastic platitudes and mindless rantings are what I live for

...

b: Sadly, more responses are generated by ridiculous smack threads than are generated by any thread on philosophy. Shameful, in my opinion

Agreed on the first, the first explains the second. I love philosophy as do Irn-Bru and many others on the site. But when you write a expecting b in response you're pissing in the wind.

That is where things are misunderstood. I have no expectations of anyone, either in the form of a response, or in the lack of one.
OK. That isn't entirely accurate. I have no expectations of anyone in regards to how they respond. There are numerous members I expect, or at least suspect, will not respond to any discussion on philosophy. Let's just say it isn't everyone's "thing."

Your ice analogy doesn't hold water.
Ice is a known quantity.
It is tangible.
It can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled.

"God", on the other hand, cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, heard. Not in the traditional five senses descriptions.

A person could legitimately claim, "I ran into God because I didn't know or suspect he was there. I also did not know or suspect the person I ran into was God. I did not suspect God was a person, or that God would take the form of a person." Nothing tangible.

Only a person looking to file a frivolous lawsuit would claim, "I ran into a patch of ice because I didn't know or suspect it was there. I also didn't know or suspect the freezing conditions would produce ice. I did not know or suspect frozen water would take the form of ice." Ice requires certain conditions. Even small children are aware of the conditions required for the formation of ice, the forms it takes, and the dangers of slipping on it. All tangible.

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:59 am**

GSPODS wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:God only has a bearing on morals for those who believe there is a God

Do you have to believe in ice to slip on it?

GSPODS wrote:a: Empty, ironic, sarcastic platitudes and mindless rantings are what I live for

...

b: Sadly, more responses are generated by ridiculous smack threads than are generated by any thread on philosophy. Shameful, in my opinion

Agreed on the first, the first explains the second. I love philosophy as do Irn-Bru and many others on the site. But when you write a expecting b in response you're pissing in the wind.

That is where things are misunderstood. I have no expectations of anyone, either in the form of a response, or in the lack of one.
OK. That isn't entirely accurate. I have no expectations of anyone in regards to how they respond. There are numerous members I expect, or at least suspect, will not respond to any discussion on philosophy. Let's just say it isn't everyone's "thing."

Your ice analogy doesn't hold water.
Ice is a known quantity.
It is tangible.
It can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled.

"God", on the other hand, cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, heard. Not in the traditional five senses descriptions.

A person could legitimately claim, "I ran into God because I didn't know or suspect he was there. I also did not know or suspect the person I ran into was God. I did not suspect God was a person, or that God would take the form of a person." Nothing tangible.

Only a person looking to file a frivolous lawsuit would claim, "I ran into a patch of ice because I didn't know or suspect it was there. I also didn't know or suspect the freezing conditions would produce ice. I did not know or suspect frozen water would take the form of ice." Ice requires certain conditions. Even small children are aware of the conditions required for the formation of ice, the forms it takes, and the dangers of slipping on it. All tangible.

It's pointless. What's philosophical about just arguing and disagreeing with every point? What's philosophical about not getting references? This is a truly pointless response.

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:28 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:It's pointless. What's philosophical about just arguing and disagreeing with every point? What's philosophical about not getting references? This is a truly pointless response.

φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom"

Ideology, 1796, "science of ideas," originally "philosophy of the mind which derives knowledge from the senses" (as opposed to metaphysics), from Fr. idéologie "study or science of ideas," coined by Fr. philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) from idéo- "of ideas," from Gk. idea (see idea) + -logy. Meaning "systematic set of ideas, doctrines" first recorded 1909. Ideologue first recorded 1815, in ref. to the Fr. Revolutionaries.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

Dismissal of an entire school of thought as being argumentative, disagreeable, non-referential, and pointless based upon who posted a response is an irresponsible study of philosophy as a whole.

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:03 am**

That is where things are misunderstood. I have no expectations of anyone, either in the form of a response, or in the lack of one.
OK. That isn't entirely accurate. I have no expectations of anyone in regards to how they respond. There are numerous members I expect, or at least suspect, will not respond to any discussion on philosophy. Let's just say it isn't everyone's "thing."

Some of us have philosophical notions, but you tend to take things to the extreme. Every registered person here has some opinion on God, religion, and morals. To reply with a difference to yours is a full time task which a lot of us don't have the time to dedicate to; my education and family trump any day of the week, personally. It's not fault of your own that you have more time and desire than most of us to go though it. When I saw your name and a controversial subject, I usually avoided it due to losing interest and the PMs we exchanged last year on your "board manner." The difference now is I have to read it anyway :puke:

Posted: **Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:59 am**

VetSkinsFan wrote:
That is where things are misunderstood. I have no expectations of anyone, either in the form of a response, or in the lack of one.
OK. That isn't entirely accurate. I have no expectations of anyone in regards to how they respond. There are numerous members I expect, or at least suspect, will not respond to any discussion on philosophy. Let's just say it isn't everyone's "thing."

Some of us have philosophical notions, but you tend to take things to the extreme. Every registered person here has some opinion on God, religion, and morals. To reply with a difference to yours is a full time task which a lot of us don't have the time to dedicate to; my education and family trump any day of the week, personally. It's not fault of your own that you have more time and desire than most of us to go though it. When I saw your name and a controversial subject, I usually avoided it due to losing interest and the PMs we exchanged last year on your "board manner." The difference now is I have to read it anyway

The job would be a lot easier if idiots like me would learn, or listen to people who did and not keep it going. I'm not making any grand statements of "never..." but I'll do my best to do my part to help you out there.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Not So Deep Thoughts (Brought To You By Lithium)

Not So Deep Thoughts (Brought To You By Lithium)