9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

@CosmicGnosis
I like that despite all the Reaper's power, that need to stop the inevitable destruction of Organics plays into the idea that, as Vendetta said, we are all slaves to the cycle. It's probably why the Catalyst will allow Shepard to destroy it. It's like a... chained god or something, and Destroy is freedom.

That tone of scorn Harbinger and Sovereign have is probably from having to do this crap over and over and over again with these self-destructive Organic idiots.

@ghost9191
@Redbelle
Sure. In the details the parallel does break down, as you would expect any parallel to. The perspective shift that the Quarians are asked to change is: "These are our hated enemies that destroyed our home, we cannot trust, and will always attack given the chance. We have to destroy them to take back our homeworld."

The perspecitve shift that Shepard has to change is the same with the addition of, "and that enemy is actively committing war crimes against humanity (or life) right now." Probably some others.

@sH0tgUn jUliA
@Ieldra2
I do believe that Synthetics would be subject to chaotic random variations. A simple example: I read once that Voyager had one of its memory bits randomly switched (I thought due to cosmic radiation, but maybe something else). NASA had to locate the specific change and send a signal to flip the switch back to get the spacecraft to function properly again.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 octobre 2013 - 01:43 .

[ghost9191]

Obadiah wrote...



@ghost9191
@Redbelle
Sure. In the details the parallel does break down, as you would expect any parallel to. The perspective shift that the Quarians are asked to change is: "These are our hated enemies that destroyed our home, we cannot trust, and will always attack given the chance. We have to destroy them to take back our homeworld."

The perspecitve shift the Shepard has to change is the same with the addition of, "and that enemy is actively committing war crimes against humanity (or life) right now." Probably some others.

true enough. though i do feel the geth cannot compare to the reapers. I mean the geth had shown they were open to peace, and they did more to convince the quarians and shepard that peace was possible. Whereas the reapers just give a 10min sales pitch, after killing and harvesting half the galaxy ( more or less ) 

I do agree with you. I am just saying that the decision to ally with the geth was probably easier. In the end, the quarians that hated them, did so because of old hatreds. The hatred for the reapers is still new, as you stated. That and there was more evidence that the geth were sincere.

The decision is similer though. The same can be said for the krogan and turians. Though wreav makes that choice easy, Which is why i don't understand why some people will destroy the krogan because of wreav, but then want to give the reapers a chance.

[Redbelle]

Obadiah wrote...

@CosmicGnosis
I like that despite all the Reaper's power, that need to stop the inevitable destruction of Organics plays into the idea that, as Vendetta said, we are all slaves to the cycle. It's probably why the Catalyst will allow Shepard to destroy it. It's like a... chained god or something, and Destroy is freedom.

That tone of scorn Harbinger and Sovereign have is probably from having to do this crap over and over and over again with these self-destructive Organic idiots.

@ghost9191
@Redbelle
Sure. In the details the parallel does break down, as you would expect any parallel to. The perspective shift that the Quarians are asked to change is: "These are our hated enemies that destroyed our home, we cannot trust, and will always attack given the chance. We have to destroy them to take back our homeworld."

The perspecitve shift the Shepard has to change is the same with the addition of, "and that enemy is actively committing war crimes against humanity (or life) right now." Probably some others.

@sH0tgUn jUliA
@Ieldra2
I do believe that Synthetics would be subject to chaotic random variations. A simple example: I read once that Voyager had one of its bits randomly switched (I thought due to cosmic radiation, but maybe something else). NASA had to locate the specific change and send a signal to flip the switch back to get the spacecraft to function properly again.

I could accept the parallel if the Reapers had been unwitting pawns. Made to carry out the acts through the will of the Cat, or even Harbinger. With the de-personification of the Reapers, this is an option.

But given the portrayal of the Reapers being of one mind, I see it as a kill them, or they kill us. On account they cannot be reasoned or negotiated with.

The last minute pitch of how we can all live together is frankly insulting. A party cuts a path through the bodies of innocents and then when it reaches a certain point, asks if it can live together with what's left over?

I appreciate the alternative POV. But it always comes down too..... Live as the Reaper mind thinks life should be like..... Live under the Reapers martial rule...... Kill the Reapers, (but without Reapers in your life you'll be sorry in the long run)..... or just die now.

I've played Deus Ex where I've head to make a choice like this, but ME asked you to make this decision for a IP that BW had put energy into fleshing out and giving the gamer every excuse to connect to the characters, and through the characters, the game universe in general......

[gundam seed]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


(4) "Uplifting another species is bad". First, you cannot conclude this from one example. Second, you have no evidence that it was bad for the krogan (or for the galaxy) since you do not know what would've happened had they not been uplifted.

Little-known-fact: the elcor were uplifted by the asari. So, no, uplift itself is not a bad thing.

Calyn said (the Elcor ambassador). "The Elcor were just beginning to explore counsel space when the asair first made contact with us. With their help, we discovered the relay closer to our system and from there, the Citadel. Proudly within one lifetime. We establish a regular route to the Citadel and quickly became one of the most active species living on this great station."

the asair did not uplift them all they did was help find a mass relay closer to their system.

[Ieldra]

Redbelle wrote...
I appreciate the alternative POV. But it always comes down too..... Live as the Reaper mind thinks life should be like..... Live under the Reapers martial rule...... Kill the Reapers, (but without Reapers in your life you'll be sorry in the long run)..... or just die now.

The first option - Synthesis - isn't a problem if you agree that this would be a great step forward. The original ending version just lacked detail in that. The EC, while not getting rid of the mystical nonsense, provides some details.

I've played Deus Ex where I've head to make a choice like this, but ME asked you to make this decision for a IP that BW had put energy into fleshing out and giving the gamer every excuse to connect to the characters, and through the characters, the game universe in general......

What difference does that make? The decisions in Deus Ex felt natural to the story, as opposed to ME3's. That's the main problem. What's different based on connecting with the world and the characters or not?

[gundam seed]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

Obadiah 


And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. That was completly their fault. This cycle did nothing to the boys. And they come to Harvest us, for a hypothetical. So no, they don't get to change the game at the last moment because they see the tables are turning. One of those "they can dish it out, but can't take it moments"

The thing we know about the Morning War is this: The first thing that happened was the Geth stopped obeying their shutdown commands. Then the Quarians responded, but by then it was too late. 

Sovereign was playing games with the Rachni apparently having determined no one was worth harvesting. "Oh, let's wipe out advanced organic life with these spider things. S***! The salarians uplifted the Krogan! Oh look, the Krogan are going to do it. Damn, those Quarians! Now I've got to let my nasty cousins in."

1.A )The geth are design to operate 24/7 there no reason to turn themselves off; Unless there was something wrong with them. B)you as an organic knew that there were nothing wrong with your body would you allow a surgeon to open you up. I say,"stay away from my body Doc; their nothing wrong with it". Synthetic don't have that kind of liberty.

2. A derelict reaper indoctrinating device will still indoctrinate whether it a dead reapers or not no AI needed. If they continue with the story. People that destroyed I can only imagine so many careless prospectors getting indoctrinated by hanging around inside a derelict reaper by hearing on the alliance news network of what happened to them.
:ME2 mission derelict reaper.

Modifié par gundam seed, 13 décembre 2013 - 02:26 .

[JShepppp]

Just read the OP again. Fantastic work, really. It is interesting to read and think about this kind of stuff a long time after, when a lot of the flame wars have died down.

[Ieldra]

Thank you. I find it interesting how some aspects become clearer with some distance. I still think my scenario is pretty much spot on, and I wouldn't change anything now. I just wish there was more space in a post so that I could integrate some more stuff added later instead of having to make internal links.

On the other hand, I understand the odd visceral reaction of some people much better than before. There is a disconnect between what you get if you approach the situation emotionally detached, which I tend to do, in-world and out, on the rationale that this is all too important to jump to conclusions, and what you get if you just follow conventional story logic. Conventional story logic says that if the antagonist's values are ascendant, you have lost, and even more it says that if your protagonist adopts the antagonist's values (in this case the fast-tracked ascension that will purportedly solve the conflict), they have lost themselves. That's where all those claims of indoctrination come from.

Interestingly, these perceptions are all completely independent from any merit you might see in the proposed scenario if you analyze them with a detached mind, they depend solely on the antagonist's status as the big bad - which the writers most notably, and unsurprisingly, didn't manage to change in spite of all the imagery that tries to invoke a status as god-analogue. Ultimately, it's all an association fallacy, but it's one that story logic has been enforcing for a very long time, and the end of a story which follows traditional templates in almost everything is about the last place where I'd expect to see it challenged. Still, challenging it is the only way to make it make sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 novembre 2013 - 11:17 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra, you may have discussed this elsewhere, but I can't remember: How does Synthesis provide synthetics with "understanding" and emotions? The Catalyst doesn't even try to explain this phenomenon.

And honestly, I think I would have preferred that Synthesis affect only organics. Synthetics would be left alone, and organics would change. Synthesis would be the choice that directly affects organics, Destroy would affect synthetics, and Control would affect neither. Of course, I'm only referring to the initial effects of the choices, not the long-term consequences.

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
Ieldra, you may have discussed this elsewhere, but I can't remember: How does Synthesis provide synthetics with "understanding" and emotions? The Catalyst doesn't even try to explain this phenomenon.

And honestly, I think I would have preferred that Synthesis affect only organics. Synthetics would be left alone, and organics would change. Synthesis would be the choice that directly affects organics, Destroy would affect synthetics, and Control would affect neither. Of course, I'm only referring to the initial effects of the choices, not the long-term consequences.

I didn't go into detail on this, because I think as you do: Synthesis should've left synthetics alone. I also dislike the thematic message that life isn't valid unless it has the kind of individuality and empathy typical of organics (it should read "typical of naturally-evolved hypersocial species, but ME was never that good on the science), and I liked the geth better when they were networked AIs rather than independent individuals. They were refreshingly different.

So how do synthetics gain this "full understanding"? With synthetics everything comes down to reprogramming. Much easier to explain, in fact, than the effect on organics. With synthetics, the pseudomystical nonsense does not lie with Synthesis and its "organic energy" (Wilhelm Reich says hello), but with Legions "personality dissemination".  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 décembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[David7204]

Tell me Ieldra, what fiction do you think is "good on the science"?

Modifié par David7204, 04 décembre 2013 - 11:00 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Tell me Ieldra, what fiction do you think is "good on the science"?

A significant part of written science fiction, actually. And mind you, I don't mind fantastic concepts as such rather than their careless application. By all means, do introduce fantastic concepts impossible in terms of real science, but think them through, damn it, and don't refuse to be bound by consequences you don't like!

Here's what I wrote about this in my mission-by-mission review thread:

Also, the conversation [with Javik] brings up another general problem area of the game: using scientific terms without any intention of being bound by their meaning. This is not just irritating, for an SF universe, this is damaging to its  integrity. I can suspend my disbelief for an ability to read experiences from someone's body. "The chemistry of memory" would be enough to rationalize it, but you'd better not say it's genetic, else I'll ask why he doesn't recall  the experiences of his ancestors, and no, epigenetics don't work that way. The tendency to use "DNA" whenever something biological comes up is beyond annoying. It's insulting to everyone who actually knows a little about all this. Hire a damned science advisor, Bioware, and if you use existing technical terms to explain things, respect the boundaries they set. Refusing to be bound thusly makes your worldbuilding an exercise in magical arbitrariness. Just like using that "chemistry of life" to rationalize reading rooms. Really? Did anyone on the writing team think about this beyond "This is cool. Let's put it in?"

Here's another example: manipulation of rest mass is one of the MEU's defining fictional technologies. Great. Let's work with it and explore what it makes possible. The problem: if this technology existed but everything else stayed the same, it wouldn't make it possible to circumvent special relativity and move locally at FTL speeds as described. You could extend the technology in order to create negative mass, that would make wormholes plausible - but that's not how things work in the MEU. The fantastic concept is shoddily and carelessly applied. The technology doesn't even make sense in the fictional universe's own terms.

My guidelines for good fictional science:
(1) Make some effort to plausibly explain the fantastic technologies in terms of the universe's own lore. That explanation should be consistent and make in-world sense.
(2) Don't use existing scientific terms unless you (a) know what they mean and most notably what they don't mean, and ( intend to be bound by their meaning.
(3) Don't mythologize. If there is a perfectly reasonable explanation in terms of known concepts, use it. If you use a new mysterious concept instead to keep things interpretable, that will make it appear as if the explanation in terms of known concepts specifially doesn't apply, and imbue your universe with "canonical ad-hoc mysticism".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 décembre 2013 - 12:39 .

[JasonShepard]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's another example: manipulation of rest mass is one of the MEU's defining fictional technologies. Great. Let's work with it and explore what it makes possible. The problem: if this technology existed but everything else stayed the same, it wouldn't make it possible to circumvent special relativity and move locally at FTL speeds as described. You could extend the technology in order to create negative mass, that would make wormholes plausible - but that's not how things work in the MEU. The fantastic concept is shoddily and carelessly applied. The technology doesn't even make sense in the fictional universe's own terms.

I think with the Mass Effect, the team actually had done their homework, but they managed to get confused on the difference between mass and gravity. (Possibly because Mass Effect sounds so much cooler - and more marketable - than Gravity Effect.)

Everything that we see the mass effect do - up to and including FTL - is possible if it is gravity manipulation as opposed to rest mass manipulation. It's worth noting that mass effect fields can operate in a vacuum, where there is no mass to work with, (eg, spaceship kinetic barriers) and even the word 'field' applies itself better to gravity than mass.

Gravity manipulation is essentially space-time manipulation, since gravity is just space time curvature. And if you let me manipulate space-time curvature, I can build you an alcubierre drive and let you break the speed of light. (Technically, you can do it with just some negative mass, but that method makes it difficult to stop travelling at FTL.)

[ImaginaryMatter]

What if the Mass Effect universe occurs in an alternate universe with a slightly different set of physical laws?

[JasonShepard]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

What if the Mass Effect universe occurs in an alternate universe with a slightly different set of physical laws?

Considering that they've tortured quantum entanglement enough to make it into a form of telepathy, that's not a bad idea...

[Obadiah]

JasonShepard wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

What if the Mass Effect universe occurs in an alternate universe with a slightly different set of physical laws?

Considering that they've tortured quantum entanglement enough to make it into a form of telepathy, that's not a bad idea...

Plays into one idea I have that Synthesis is the stage where wars (though infrequent) are of such orders of magnitude more devastating as to bring about a "big bang" that destroys and then creates a new universe in an image similar to the previous one - sort of what happens when gods clash.

For every beginning there is an end.

Modifié par Obadiah, 05 décembre 2013 - 03:50 .

[Ieldra]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
What if the Mass Effect universe occurs in an alternate universe with a slightly different set of physical laws?

Then this would have to me mentioned, and be it in a sidenote somewhere. The implicit assumption of fantastic stories is that the universe works as ours unless mentioned otherwise. With things like quantum entanglement, this might be the case but the final verdict is still open in real science so I wouldn't use it as an example.

[wizardryforever]

JasonShepard wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's another example: manipulation of rest mass is one of the MEU's defining fictional technologies. Great. Let's work with it and explore what it makes possible. The problem: if this technology existed but everything else stayed the same, it wouldn't make it possible to circumvent special relativity and move locally at FTL speeds as described. You could extend the technology in order to create negative mass, that would make wormholes plausible - but that's not how things work in the MEU. The fantastic concept is shoddily and carelessly applied. The technology doesn't even make sense in the fictional universe's own terms.

I think with the Mass Effect, the team actually had done their homework, but they managed to get confused on the difference between mass and gravity. (Possibly because Mass Effect sounds so much cooler - and more marketable - than Gravity Effect.)

Everything that we see the mass effect do - up to and including FTL - is possible if it is gravity manipulation as opposed to rest mass manipulation. It's worth noting that mass effect fields can operate in a vacuum, where there is no mass to work with, (eg, spaceship kinetic barriers) and even the word 'field' applies itself better to gravity than mass.

Gravity manipulation is essentially space-time manipulation, since gravity is just space time curvature. And if you let me manipulate space-time curvature, I can build you an alcubierre drive and let you break the speed of light. (Technically, you can do it with just some negative mass, but that method makes it difficult to stop travelling at FTL.)

But doesn't gravity depend on an object's mass relative to another object's?  If that is true, then artificially affecting the mass would alter gravitational effects as well, since gravity is partially derived from mass.

[Ieldra]

wizardryforever wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's another example: manipulation of rest mass is one of the MEU's defining fictional technologies. Great. Let's work with it and explore what it makes possible. The problem: if this technology existed but everything else stayed the same, it wouldn't make it possible to circumvent special relativity and move locally at FTL speeds as described. You could extend the technology in order to create negative mass, that would make wormholes plausible - but that's not how things work in the MEU. The fantastic concept is shoddily and carelessly applied. The technology doesn't even make sense in the fictional universe's own terms.

I think with the Mass Effect, the team actually had done their homework, but they managed to get confused on the difference between mass and gravity. (Possibly because Mass Effect sounds so much cooler - and more marketable - than Gravity Effect.)

Everything that we see the mass effect do - up to and including FTL - is possible if it is gravity manipulation as opposed to rest mass manipulation. It's worth noting that mass effect fields can operate in a vacuum, where there is no mass to work with, (eg, spaceship kinetic barriers) and even the word 'field' applies itself better to gravity than mass.

Gravity manipulation is essentially space-time manipulation, since gravity is just space time curvature. And if you let me manipulate space-time curvature, I can build you an alcubierre drive and let you break the speed of light. (Technically, you can do it with just some negative mass, but that method makes it difficult to stop travelling at FTL.)

But doesn't gravity depend on an object's mass relative to another object's?  If that is true, then artificially affecting the mass would alter gravitational effects as well, since gravity is partially derived from mass.

Not relative to another object. Absolutely. Mass concentrations deform space-time, and objects are accelerated down the resulting gravity well at a rate independent from their masses (in a vacuum, a feather would fall as fast as a rock). The problem ME lore has here is twofold: (1) It takes the mass of a planet to give objects their weight. Consequently, to create a gravitational force that makes things fly you'd need another planet-sized mass. That, in turn, would perturb planetary orbits. (2) you could concentrate a somewhat smaller mass (though still on a planetary scale) into a very much smaller object for a similar effect, but then the objects affected by its gravity would be ripped apart by tidal forces long before any other effect was big enough.

So, the mass effect can''t really account for most of the phenomena its used for. It would be far easier if eezo didn't affect other objects' masses, but were itself exotic matter with a negative mass. Then FTL travel would be possible by both Alcubierre drive (non-relay-like FTL), and wormhole (relay-like FTL). Biotics would still fail on grounds of mass/energy requirements, but I don't mind some artistic license if the groundwork is sound.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 décembre 2013 - 08:40 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra, I think this is one of your most persuasive arguments in your original post. I wish that more people would read it and consider it. They don't have to change their minds about Synthesis as it currently is, but I would like them to consider what Synthesis could have been, had it been presented better. Too many people are quick to condemn the entire concept of Synthesis, probably because Mass Effect basically taught them to.

However, there can be no doubt that in any ascension worth the term, something will be lost. That's the truth expressed by the quote at the top of this post. Also, while the ending of Mass Effect 3 ultimately subverts the cosmic horror story, changing the Reapers from horrors from the beyond to super-powerful and super-intelligent, but mundane antagonists, the prospect of embracing the unknown by letting the Reapers become part of civilization, as happens after Synthesis, is a frightening prospect, even if you know what they are. Their presentation as Lovecraftian horrors made sure of that. Ultimately, whether you see the promise of ascension or fear losing a part of yourself from it will determine your attitude to the Synthesis: 

(A) If you embrace Lovecraftian cosmicism as the theme defining the Reapers, reject the subversion of the cosmic horror story in ME3's ending and believe that what will be lost by the ascension effected by the Synthesis is not worth the gain, that we will not become more-than-human, but inhuman, less-than-human if we embrace this, then you will reject Synthesis.
( If you reject Lovecraftian cosmicism as the theme defining the Reapers, accept the subversion of the cosmic horror story in by ME3's ending and believe that what is gained by the ascension effected by the Synthesis is ultimately worth the cost, that we will become more-than-human, then you will be attracted by Synthesis.
[/list]Both viewpoints have always been present in Mass Effect, but the question of why so few players seem willing to adopt viewpoint ( deserves some consideration. I think the main reason is that the visual presentation of the Reapers and their minions has always been extremely one-sided. Ever since ME2 pushed the horror up to eleven, those aspects of the Reapers I would call "interesting" rather than horrific have been pushed into the background. Legion's explanations of the Reapers' nature, the conclusion that organic minds might have survived in them, the conclusion that by destroying the Reapers, we are also destroying the history of intelligent life in the galaxy and an immeasurable amount of amassed knowledge and experience encompassing millions of years – all that pales into insignificance under the emotional impact of the bodies of Scions and Banshees and the images of the Reaperization process at the Collector base.

For many players, the reversal at the end of ME3 comes suddenly, and finds them unwilling or unable to adapt to the new situation - unlike players like me, who have always sought for explanations and motivations, didn't just want to "fight the Reapers" but to understand their nature, those who "explored the dark places" (Cerberus Manifesto) without prejudice to bring the knowledge therein back into the light. For me, the revelation of viewpoint (A) as the canonical truth would have been a cause for despair, and the suggestion of viewpoint ( as viable came as a huge relief. 

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 19 décembre 2013 - 07:26 .

[Nerevar-as]

^ Tens of millions of years of genocides, turning their victims into what killed them (and tell a Husk its mind is preserved), who have no issues about carrying on with the next generation. Please don´t talk about a valid B side, there´s not a valid B side to ****ing G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E of intelligent creatures and countless animal and plant life. Reapers are what they are built to be, no space magic is going to change that.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 20 décembre 2013 - 10:09 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

If preachy messages on black-and-white good/evils meant anything to us, this would be a Destroy support thread.


Try again.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 décembre 2013 - 11:35 .

[Obadiah]

I'm kind of curious as to what the organic/Reaper interactions are like in Synthesis. We see the Reapers in the background in civilizations. Do people talk to them, ask them for advice, or do they just act as huge roving databases? How often does the billion year mass extinction that took place come up?

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
I'm kind of curious as to what the organic/Reaper interactions are like in Synthesis. We see the Reapers in the background in civilizations. Do people talk to them, ask them for advice, or do they just act as huge roving databases? How often does the billion year mass extinction that took place come up?

In my vision of the post-Synthesis future it takes a special kind of mind to communicate with the Reapers, with them being far beyond human-like individuals in cognitive ability. I've called the people who can learn to communicate with them "avatars".

I also imagine that Reapers are as different from each other as human-like individuals. Some may try to find a way to get the minds they consist of reincarnated, giving them back the future they were robbed of. Some may not like people all that much and may even be hostile, but as individual entities they pose no threat since there are always others to oppose them, and in the end their interests and those of human-like individuals don't overlap all that much, so there will be few grounds for actual conflict. Some may offer advice, others may just leave.

I guess they  will often be confronted with questions or accusations. They'll also have a new name. I've called them "transcendants", a general term for entities consisting of the conjoined minds of (ex-)organic individuals, as opposed to "ascendants", which describes individuals who have surpassed fundamental limitations of their ex-organic natures but remained individuals. I imagine that there will be subcultures who will follow the evolutionary path of conjoining minds, while others also aim at that "kind of existence we can't imagine yet" but as individual minds.    

[Nerevar-as]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

If preachy messages on black-and-white good/evils meant anything to us, this would be a Destroy support thread.


Try again.

I won´t.

That´s among the most scary things I´ve read lately, BTW.