5087 réponses à ce sujet

[M0keys]

Please stay, Doctor Dray!

[Vromrig]

Your original claim was that you didn't believe the person to be who they said they where because the substance of their argument was similar to other arguments made here, you then changed to this stance later.

The person in question also has never used his authority as the substance of his argument, he simply stated who he is and made his argument, the OP may have had the intention of using the perceived authority but the person you are questioning specifically said that his authority doesn't matter and has never wielded it as an argument, nor have I seen any posts here along the lines of 'your point is invalid because he's a professor'. You are asking for proof for something that doesn't yet matter, if he had said or does say that I'm a professor do agree with me then I would be with you. If people assume their points are invalid because he's a professor or that his points are valid because he's a professor then that is their fault as that was never what was claimed.

I don't believe person. Those are my personal reasons. Were inquired of me. Have right to state point, but did not make that original point.

My personal reasons for not believing irrelevant to skepticism.

Point is thread's claim is of authority. Want to see authority verified, or else integrity is damaged, which frustrates.

Expect and would like to reinforce honesty and integrity.

I'm glad to confirm that yes, I am a Lecturer in Literature, and yes that balding, bespectacled egg shape in the photograph of the linked institution is in fact me... But, and I cannot express this enough: it doesn't matter. I'm just a voice amongst this extremely fertile discussion. That's why I don't sign my posts 'Dr. Authority' and attach my C.V. It has no bearing upon the validity or otherwise of my utterly subjective opinion. Truly, the only reason I jumped on this forum was to clarify some comments attributed to me that were not entirely accurate, but I have stayed because, frankly, this analytical discussion of the ending of a text that I have cared deeply about for several years, is a rich and multifaceted window into the way in which any artistic product is received. 

If legitimate, reiterate interest and fascination in point.

If lecturer in literature, surely understand my position.

Modifié par Vromrig, 19 avril 2012 - 12:10 .

[MrFob]

Ok, this is the last I am going to write about this, I have nothing against scrutiny at all, in fact, I welcome it (it's why I enjoy pistolols posts despite the sometimes harsh tone ).

However, I am getting the feeling that we are seriously trolled here and would encourage everyone to come back to the original discussion.

[Vromrig]

MrFob wrote...

Ok, this is the last I am going to write about this, I have nothing against scrutiny at all, in fact, I welcome it (it's why I enjoy pistolols posts despite the sometimes harsh tone ).

However, I am getting the feeling that we are seriously trolled here and would encourage everyone to come back to the original discussion.

Have never trolled.  Offended by claim.  Recommend looking at all previous post history, have always tried to engage sincerely in topics of discussion.

Appalled and surprised that wanting to remain consistent and truthful is accusation of "trolling".

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Vromrig wrote...

You don't sound at all like Mordin to me. Mordin makes sense. Mordin has ideas.

You're the one who is derailing the single most productive and polite thread I've yet encountered on these forums.

Personally, I believe that Dr. Dray exists. His words sound like the words of someone who writes about lit theory for a living. If you think "thematically revolting" isn't something a lit professor would say, you haven't hung around many literary academics. It's exactly the kind of thing I expect a lit person to say, and it's the kind of turn of phrase I regret losing after leaving acadamia for the working world.

If he is a literary professor, great.

If he's not, and he's just someone who has exactly the same grasp of theme and story and literary jargon that an academic would have, I see no difference in the value of his statements.

"You are nothing like Mordin. Mordin would accept things at face value without scrutiny."

Is it realized that the arguments against me is that I am not simply believing what I'm told without scrutiny?

Highly disappointing.

Mordin wouldn't present a paraphrase as a quote. Mordin would quote directly.

And then he would present evidence. Talk theory. Raise and dismiss several possibilities. Here, let me get him....

****

Hmm. Thread was interesting. Direct correspondence between arguments made and prevailing human literary theories. Perhaps not directly relevant to the medium, but worth considering.

The outside force comes in. Imposter. Does not have any evidence, seeks to sow uncertainty, divert argument away from facts. Good tactic. Way to spread propaganda, undermine enemy certainty. Basic stuff.

Another alternative... subject may genuinely believe he possesses the identity in question. Implications.... unpleasant. Possibly entertaining though... shades of Beckett. Absudists. Break the fourth wall... most enjoyable in theater, not sure what purpose it serves in this kind of rhetoric.

If sabotage and propaganda tactic, best strategy is to avoid engagement. If mentally unstable, same. Problem is, in inviting others not to engage, one must engage. Difficult to balance.

Best tactical result of this interaction is the "flounce." Entertaining... once had an undergraduate write an entire paper on the wars taking place in dissertation defenses - wonder if it could have applications for extranet conversations? Would like to run some tests.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 12:13 .

[Vromrig]

Mordin wouldn't present a paraphrase as a quote. Mordin would quote directly.

And then he would present evidence. Talk theory. Raise and dismiss several possibilities. Here, let me get him....

Making continued erroneous conclusion.

Not debating, have not been debating. Have been insisting would be fascinating if legitimate, do not believe it is.

Requesting refutation.

If you can find flaw in wanting to be wrong about initial impression...then very concerned about you.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Vromrig wrote...

Mordin wouldn't present a paraphrase as a quote. Mordin would quote directly.

And then he would present evidence. Talk theory. Raise and dismiss several possibilities. Here, let me get him....

Making continued erroneous conclusion.

Not debating, have not been debating. Have been insisting would be fascinating if legitimate, do not believe it is.

Requesting refutation.

If you can find flaw in wanting to be wrong about initial impression...then very concerned about you.

::sniffs::

Nice day for Beckett.  Absurdists have fallen out of fashion. Good to have a refresher course.

Primary inquiry: what part of the rhetoric involved here leads you to form your hypothesis? Can you pull quotes that demonstrate your theory? Nothing in the essay is inherently incongruous with the premise that the person involved is, indeed, some kind of student of 21st century human literary theory.

Argument seems to hinge upon premise that an academic coming to the same conclusion as a non-academic is sufficiently unlikely to produce not just a high level of personal skepticism, but an effort to convince the community at large to embrace an alternate hypothesis. No supporting data is provided other than what could be classified as "a hunch."

Secondary inquiry relies on response to the first. Awaiting your reply.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 12:28 .

[M0keys]

Ugh. This just keeps on going.

Can I just point out the irony of a user impersonating Mordin complaining about a user possibly impersonating a professor, and then acting all offended over and over again when he's questioned?

And now can we please get back to the story debates?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sorry, sorry. Didn't see Dray's post on the previous page. I'm back. No more troll feeding for me.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[tinman888]

Excellent points Dr. Dray. I don't know s**t about s**t (to paraphrase one of my more favored youtube commentators), but I know when I see something intelligently thought out and well-written.

I honestly don't care what your status is and neither should anyone else. Hell, your arguments are some of the best I've ever seen on an internet forum, but all I'm sayingis that one of the biggest issues with modern culture is that we take the word of people with a lot of power and/or money before someone who knows what they're talking about (I don't mean to devalue your degrees and experience of course, it's just my opinion).

So basically, your arguments are valid because of the clarity and thought put into them. I think we can all admire that.

[Ytook]

@Vromrig
The thread has no claim to authority in it, the argument is not based on the persons credentials, that is your assumption and is not backed up by any of the posts by the people you are acusing. Also if your doubting his existence was only your personal skepticism then why are you damning the whole forum for not thinking the same as you?

[Dridengx]

Made Nightwing wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

He's an entitled whiner who doesn't get it.

He also had something to say about that.

"If I go to a concert, and pay top dollar to be entertained by the beautiful music of the orchestra therein, why would I be called a whiner when at the very end the musicians throw away their instruments and start playing death metal? Am I not entitled to expect the end to the concert to be what I have paid for?"

Did he also have something to say about moving on with their lives?

If he really said that he really isn't that bright. The ending wasn't anywhere near as shocking from classic to death metal. The ending was coming a mile away since ME1. The child sure came out of nowhere BUT he's the big secret.. we realize what the citadel is, what's in the secret locked area, and he's the reaper controller.. judging by your teacher he would probably flip his crap if he ever read a plot twist and call it 'it's like i paid to see foo fighters and I got Lady Antebellum'

what kind of professor wastes his time talking about video games. sounds like a real great school

Modifié par Dridengx, 19 avril 2012 - 12:45 .

[M0keys]

Dridengx wrote...

Made Nightwing wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

He's an entitled whiner who doesn't get it.

He also had something to say about that.

"If I go to a concert, and pay top dollar to be entertained by the beautiful music of the orchestra therein, why would I be called a whiner when at the very end the musicians throw away their instruments and start playing death metal? Am I not entitled to expect the end to the concert to be what I have paid for?"

If he really said that he really isn't that bright. The ending wasn't anywhere near as shocking from classic to death metal. The ending was coming a mile away since ME1. The child sure came out of nowhere BUT he's the big secret.. we realize what the citadel is, what's in the secret locked area, and he's the reaper controller.. judging by your teacher he would probably flip his crap if he ever read a plot twist and call it 'it's like i paid to see foo fighters and I got Ladt Antebellum'

what kind of professor wastes his time talking about video games. sounds like a real great school

An astute anaylsis, good sir! I look forward to your publication!

[SweetJeeba]

All the choices at the end of the game made me feel ill, but I couldn't explain why.

I think drayfish's post has helped my conscious mind understand what may have been in my unconciouse mind.

[Spartanburger]

Vromrig wrote...

No debate to be had. Either real quote, or not real quote.

I'm sorry, I thought that the post cleared it up that it was not a quote at all.

drayfish wrote...

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy.

Modifié par Spartanburger, 19 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[palanora]

Somebody that is deeply insterested in literature in all forms and enjoys playing video games ... and probably one of the first generation to be influenced by them. They are becoming a form of art and i believe one could make a fairly good argument that some can be equated to the best films or books i have read.

[Made Nightwing]

OP has been updated with drayfish's original words rather than my own paraphrasing of the conversation we had.

[optimistickied]

Hawk227 wrote...

Shameful partial repost:

I understand why people like the "catalyst presents a scenario, we act" aspect, but I feel like for that to work (at least in relation to the Catalyst's thesis) required Destroy not resultingin the genocide of the Geth, Control being changed to allowing the cycle to continue, and Synthesis.... not feeling like space magic. In such a scenario it would've genuinely been a question of whether you accept the Catalyst's justification for the reapers. We can reject his thesis, destroy them and see what happens, we can accept their purpose and "ascend", or or we find an alternate transhuman solution.

The ''problem'' then would be that everyone would pick destroy because who trusts the catalyst? Which just leads us back to the whole thing being a mess. It felt like the Geth genocide was put in there simply to force us to agonize over it. It felt cheap. Also, I'm not sure how Control is a solution to the proposed problem. On its face it's fundamentally the
same as destroy, the cycle ends. Is the option just to keep them around in case we need a race of super powerful sentient space ships in case they were right all along? If so, isn't that a copout? A way of saying "Well, I don't believe you, but just in case, we'll turn you off and put you in storage in case I'm wrong".

It also failed because the preceeding narrative gave me no reason to distrust synthetic life simply for being synthetic. I agonised over curing the genophage, because I saw a Krogan horde as a threat to the galaxy, but I didn't bat an eye brokering peace between the Quariansand Geth. My only anxiety was whether my reputation would be strong enough to do so, because I saw the Geth and Quarians as equally worthy. While Organics vs. Synthetics is an interesting theme it didn't work as justification for the Reapers and the cycle because the Reapers embody that conflict. You can't take the embodiment of a conflict and turn it into a neutral arbiter in that conflict. They went from our mortal enemy to helping us in their own perverted way... in the span of a sentence.

The Catalyst doesn't deny that the Geth will be destroyed. It's a part of the scenario. If I remember correctly, the Control ending doesn't state the cycle can't continue, but merely implies Shepard would have to continue it. In Control, the Reapers are given a new purpose. (See below.) Synthesis isn't just space magic, but is the result of the Catalyst joining with Shepard to unleash an event that causes spontaneous evolution. As a player, I don't know how it works, only that it does. Clearly a lot of people take issue with that. However, I wasn't concerned with the process; I was concerned with the implications.

I didn't think including the Geth in the Destroy ending was cheap. The Catalyst claimed all synthetic life would be destroyed. Since Geth are synthetic life, it makes sense. If he had made exceptions, it wouldn't have been all inclusive, no?

By controlling the Reapers, Shepard offers organic life true self-determination. He offers them hope, something the Catalyst claims organic life has more of than they know. The caveat being, there is no guarantee organic life won't still wipe itself out in the future anyway.

Also remember, the Catalyst admits his solution is no longer going to work. The Reapers must be stopped. However, this still means  Shepard must address the synthetic life issue, which was why the Reapers had been operating all along. When organic life is capable of destroying itself by inventing a synthetic intelligence, the Reapers were unleashed. Unlike the synthetics the Catalyst refers to, the Reapers never posed a threat to all organic existence; they only provided extinction cycles to ensure it continued, negatively by eliminating advanced civilizations. Fortunately, the Catalyst puts the kibosh on this.

I think the Geth-Quarian Conflict reinforced why the solution was no longer working. Clearly, organic life had proven synthetic life may not always supplant it. Shepard's quest proved coexistence was possible. The Catalyst's claim that the created will always rebel against their creators, does not mean such a rebellion will always lead to destruction. However, in order to eliminate the Reapers, synthetic life must go as well.

Why don't the Reapers just go away and leave without Shepard, if the Catalyst admits his solution must change? Because, based on what we see, the Catalyst requires organic life (Shepard) to assert itself, and be given a choice.

[OldPapaRich]

That is the best analysis of the ending that I have read or heard yet. Bravo.

[Twisted and Mean]

You should really make the original post a sticky. Then print out a few hundred thousand copies and make everyone even remotely connected to the video game industry learn it by heart.

[Hawk227]

optimistickied wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Shameful partial repost:

I understand why people like the "catalyst presents a scenario, we act" aspect, but I feel like for that to work (at least in relation to the Catalyst's thesis) required Destroy not resultingin the genocide of the Geth, Control being changed to allowing the cycle to continue, and Synthesis.... not feeling like space magic. In such a scenario it would've genuinely been a question of whether you accept the Catalyst's justification for the reapers. We can reject his thesis, destroy them and see what happens, we can accept their purpose and "ascend", or or we find an alternate transhuman solution.

The ''problem'' then would be that everyone would pick destroy because who trusts the catalyst? Which just leads us back to the whole thing being a mess. It felt like the Geth genocide was put in there simply to force us to agonize over it. It felt cheap. Also, I'm not sure how Control is a solution to the proposed problem. On its face it's fundamentally the
same as destroy, the cycle ends. Is the option just to keep them around in case we need a race of super powerful sentient space ships in case they were right all along? If so, isn't that a copout? A way of saying "Well, I don't believe you, but just in case, we'll turn you off and put you in storage in case I'm wrong".

It also failed because the preceeding narrative gave me no reason to distrust synthetic life simply for being synthetic. I agonised over curing the genophage, because I saw a Krogan horde as a threat to the galaxy, but I didn't bat an eye brokering peace between the Quariansand Geth. My only anxiety was whether my reputation would be strong enough to do so, because I saw the Geth and Quarians as equally worthy. While Organics vs. Synthetics is an interesting theme it didn't work as justification for the Reapers and the cycle because the Reapers embody that conflict. You can't take the embodiment of a conflict and turn it into a neutral arbiter in that conflict. They went from our mortal enemy to helping us in their own perverted way... in the span of a sentence.

The Catalyst doesn't deny that the Geth will be destroyed. It's a part of the scenario. If I remember correctly, the Control ending doesn't state the cycle can't continue, but merely implies Shepard would have to continue it. In Control, the Reapers are given a new purpose. (See below.) Synthesis isn't just space magic, but is the result of the Catalyst joining with Shepard to unleash an event that causes spontaneous evolution. As a player, I don't know how it works, only that it does. Clearly a lot of people take issue with that. However, I wasn't concerned with the process; I was concerned with the implications.

I didn't think including the Geth in the Destroy ending was cheap. The Catalyst claimed all synthetic life would be destroyed. Since Geth are synthetic life, it makes sense. If he had made exceptions, it wouldn't have been all inclusive, no?

By controlling the Reapers, Shepard offers organic life true self-determination. He offers them hope, something the Catalyst claims organic life has more of than they know. The caveat being, there is no guarantee organic life won't still wipe itself out in the future anyway.

Also remember, the Catalyst admits his solution is no longer going to work. The Reapers must be stopped. However, this still means  Shepard must address the synthetic life issue, which was why the Reapers had been operating all along. When organic life is capable of destroying itself by inventing a synthetic intelligence, the Reapers were unleashed. Unlike the synthetics the Catalyst refers to, the Reapers never posed a threat to all organic existence; they only provided extinction cycles to ensure it continued, negatively by eliminating advanced civilizations. Fortunately, the Catalyst puts the kibosh on this.

I think the Geth-Quarian Conflict reinforced why the solution was no longer working. Clearly, organic life had proven synthetic life may not always supplant it. Shepard's quest proved coexistence was possible. The Catalyst's claim that the created will always rebel against their creators, does not mean such a rebellion will always lead to destruction. However, in order to eliminate the Reapers, synthetic life must go as well.

Why don't the Reapers just go away and leave without Shepard, if the Catalyst admits his solution must change? Because, based on what we see, the Catalyst requires organic life (Shepard) to assert itself, and be given a choice.

Thanks for the response!

I'm not sure you understood my point? I just felt like the choices seemed inapplicable to the thesis. The Catalyst gives us the scenario: "I believe Synthetic life will eventually wipe out Organic Life, you can pick destroy and wipe out all synthetic life, including your salvation*, you can control the reapers and do... whatever you want, or you can find a new solution and merge Organic DNA with Synthetic DNA (synthetics don't have DNA, Grrr!)."

From the gameplay perspective of either accepting or rejecting his thesis (Listen to his thesis, react), one option (control) seems unrelated (how does it a solution to the Org vs. Synth conflict?) or at least redundant with destroy, another seems rather fantastical (synthesis, and not in a good way) and one feels arbitrarily harsh (destroy).

I understand that he said the geth would be destroyed, but the
design choice to have him say that seemed to exist simply to muddy the
waters. The crucible could have just as easily only destroyed Reapers (far more plausible than the mind boggling synthesis). It was a cheap choice by the Dev team to make the player agonize over the choice.

To me, from both a narrative perspective the choices need to be a) destroy only the reapers, step aside and allow the reapers to continue, and c) a better elucidated version of synthesis. We can agree with him (, call BS on him (a), or find a new solution ©.

I also felt like turning the reapers into an ancient tool to prevent Organic annihilation by the hands of synthetics didn't work within the narrative because for 100 hours of gameplay they were the synthetics bent on organic annihilation. To the player, the only reason to fear synthetics is the reapers themselves, so it not only made the Catalyst highly suspect, it also neutered the menace of the Reapers established in the convo with Sovereign on virmire (perhaps my favorite moment in the trilogy).

* - I understand he said his solution won't work anymore, but he gives no reason why and he's pretty harsh on the destroy option by saying that "eventually your kids will make synthetics that will wipe out organics. I took that to mean he still felt the Reapers were necessary.

[MrFob]

I understand he said his solution won't work anymore, but he gives no reason why and he's pretty harsh on the destroy option by saying that "eventually your kids will make synthetics that will wipe out organics. I took that to mean he still felt the Reapers were necessary.

That is something that confused me as well,
Ok.,so the star child's original solution failed. The problem remains: Organics will eventually create synthetics that wipe out all organics. Let"s assume for the sake of argument that this is true and needs to be prevented somehow and that the crucible provides new solutions:
Synthesis: All space magic aside, I can see how this can be considered a new solution. By merging the two aspects of life, there is no more conflict of race. However, if you pay attention, the whole issue that artificial life is synthetic is not really the issue here. The issue is "the created will always rebel against the creators". So what prevents the new merged race to come up with another form of artificial life? If they retain free will, that possibility remain. If they don't, then the synthesis ending is even more horrible then we thought.
2. Control: This one is really ambiguous. What does Shepard (or Shep's essence or something since s/he dies in the process) do to the reapers? What are they going to do? Obvious;y they are not going to destroy organic civilizations anymore. Are they going to canish into dark space? That would have the same result as the destruction ending, simply removing them (see below). Are they going to wait and kill of any rebelling synthetic slave race that might emerge? That is certainly a new solution and while still involving genocide, it is arguably more sensible then the one implemented up to this point. The problem is we don't know and a real solution is not even hinted at.
3. Destroy: The star child says itself, that doesn't really solve anything. The reapers are just removed, any kind of control mechanism is removed with them so if we believe the star child's premises, we have to assume at this point that some day in the future all organics will be wiped out by sybthetics. This means the star child failed and all the millennia of mass genocide were for nothing.

So even if we assume a really benevolent, honest and rational star child, it's actions when Shepard encounters it still don't make any sense and we still arrive at three really bad choices, that IMO cannot possibly result in a positive outcome,even from the star child's own perspective.

Modifié par MrFob, 19 avril 2012 - 02:29 .

[Soaringeagle78]

Please... I don't care how it happens, BUT THIS MAN MUST SPEAK DIRECTLY TO BIOWARE! Bioware, if you are listening like you say you are, you will listen to what the Doctor has to say.

[Daedalus1773]

Vromrig wrote...

Have never trolled.  Offended by claim.  Recommend looking at all previous post history, have always tried to engage sincerely in topics of discussion.

Appalled and surprised that wanting to remain consistent and truthful is accusation of "trolling".

On this thread I wouldn't say you're "trolling" so much as being "painfully obtuse" regarding both the substance of Dr. Dray's points, and then refusing to admit that you're 100% wrong to question his RL profession when presented with the profile at his place of employment. Instead of debating the topic, you're still going in circles with people pretending that you think he's not who he claims.

You've been presented with evidence that proves you were wrong to doubt his identity, yet you continue to debate his trustworthiness as though your premise was correct. Which continues to derail the discussion about the ending - and that IS troll-ish.

"Remaining consistent" ceases to be a virtue when you're proven wrong.  Man up, admit you were wrong & just debate his argument on its merits.

If you can.

Modifié par Daedalus1773, 19 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[MachinaDrake86]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

You don't sound at all like Mordin to me. Mordin makes sense. Mordin has ideas.

You're the one who is derailing the single most productive and polite thread I've yet encountered on these forums.

Personally, I believe that Dr. Dray exists. His words sound like the words of someone who writes about lit theory for a living. If you think "thematically revolting" isn't something a lit professor would say, you haven't hung around many literary academics. It's exactly the kind of thing I expect a lit person to say, and it's the kind of turn of phrase I regret losing after leaving acadamia for the working world.

If he is a literary professor, great.

If he's not, and he's just someone who has exactly the same grasp of theme and story and literary jargon that an academic would have, I see no difference in the value of his statements.

"You are nothing like Mordin. Mordin would accept things at face value without scrutiny."

Is it realized that the arguments against me is that I am not simply believing what I'm told without scrutiny?

Highly disappointing.

Mordin wouldn't present a paraphrase as a quote. Mordin would quote directly.

And then he would present evidence. Talk theory. Raise and dismiss several possibilities. Here, let me get him....

****

Hmm. Thread was interesting. Direct correspondence between arguments made and prevailing human literary theories. Perhaps not directly relevant to the medium, but worth considering.

The outside force comes in. Imposter. Does not have any evidence, seeks to sow uncertainty, divert argument away from facts. Good tactic. Way to spread propaganda, undermine enemy certainty. Basic stuff.

Another alternative... subject may genuinely believe he possesses the identity in question. Implications.... unpleasant. Possibly entertaining though... shades of Beckett. Absudists. Break the fourth wall... most enjoyable in theater, not sure what purpose it serves in this kind of rhetoric.

If sabotage and propaganda tactic, best strategy is to avoid engagement. If mentally unstable, same. Problem is, in inviting others not to engage, one must engage. Difficult to balance.

Best tactical result of this interaction is the "flounce." Entertaining... once had an undergraduate write an entire paper on the wars taking place in dissertation defenses - wonder if it could have applications for extranet conversations? Would like to run some tests.

Nice Job. I was reading that with Mordin's (original) voice.