280 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylrien wrote...
So Ferelden would have *everything* to gain from an alliance with Orlais? That even *unification* producing an heir that be a figurehead for mending years of past hatred could only mean Ferelden's prosperity?

Ferelden's lack of independence and sovereignity. That's what it means.
States are first and foremost concerned with their sovereignity and independence, not their propserity. Any King who willingly gives up the sovereignity of his nation is a fool.
The strong devours the weak, not enrich them. Especially in a medieval context.

If propserity is all that mattered, then Maric would not have rebelled. Or would you have all nations give up their indepedence and allow themselves to be annexed by the strong?
 
Plus, seeing how Celene assassinated her way to gain the throne, I would not trust her at all. Don't get me wrong, I love the woman. But if I was in Ferelden, I wouldn't trust a child like Cailan with Celene.

[wwwwowwww]

I'm not really sure we can make this assessment based off of about 1 minute worth of lines from the character. Even if he made a mistake at Ostagar that doesn't make him a bad King, that makes him more human.



Not really sure how anyone can justify Lohgain being a better leader, when it's quite obvious he's not. Good leaders don't falsley accuse an order that has saved the land many times over, and use the fear he's created against them to basically give citizens the green light to kill them. A good leader doesn't hire assassins from another land. A good leader doesn't have a right hand man that kills an entire noble family down to the last child(although he missed 2). A good leader doesn't allow Tevintars to invade the Ailineges to take slaves. A good leader doesn't look to create a civil war in order to get his way. On and on and on...........

[DariusKalera]

wwwwowwww wrote...

I'm not really sure we can make this assessment based off of about 1 minute worth of lines from the character. Even if he made a mistake at Ostagar that doesn't make him a bad King, that makes him more human.

Not really sure how anyone can justify Lohgain being a better leader, when it's quite obvious he's not. Good leaders don't falsley accuse an order that has saved the land many times over, and use the fear he's created against them to basically give citizens the green light to kill them. A good leader doesn't hire assassins from another land. A good leader doesn't have a right hand man that kills an entire noble family down to the last child(although he missed 2). A good leader doesn't allow Tevintars to invade the Ailineges to take slaves. A good leader doesn't look to create a civil war in order to get his way. On and on and on...........

Well, I guess that would depend on how you define "good".

If you are defining good as honorable and always doing the right thing, then no, a ruler using that definition of good would not do those things. 

However, if you are defining good as in doing what is best for thier country, then they might actually do quite a few things off of that list. 

Some of the best leaders in history condoned some pretty ghastly things.  Not because they wanted them done, but because they needed to be done to insure the stability of the land that they governed.

[Realmzmaster]

RangerSG wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

@RangerSG
Loghain did approve. Loghain, Howe and Ser Cauthrien came to Arl Eamon's estate to talk him out of his rash action. Howe is introduce as the new arl of Denerim. Howe states that the regent is very generous in rewarding his supporters after which the PC gets to call him a bootlicker. Even if it is after the fact Loghain allowed Howe to continue in that position. Also the royal place is in Denerim. There is no way Loghain could not have known about it.
But a great ruler can initate change. Anora could have initated that change. Alistair did according to some of epilogues. A nation will follow its ruler. But it takes guts and vision to stand up and change what is wrong. It is easy to improve the status of the majority at the expense of the minority. The real accomplishment is elevating both at the same time.
There are riots in alienage because of the status quo and worsening conditions. By ignoring a segement of the population you create fertile ground for rebellion.
Anora has no problem sending in the troops to crush it. A little attention and concessions could avert the problem.
Leadership can shape society, be shaped by it or both. Great leaders take society in a new hopefully better direction.
I am not saying you can please everyone, but what is worse to attempt and fail or never to attempt at all.

No, Loghain did not "approve" of Howe's actions. DG said he accepted it after the fact. That's the VoG. It's not debatable. Howe officially did the Cousland massacre 'on his own' and presented it to Loghain fait accompli.

@RangerSG,
I was not talking about the Cousland Massacre. I was talking about being named Arl of Denerim. Only Loghain could grant him that title. Also the Cousland Massacre only plays out in the Human Noble origin.

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I am not saying you can please everyone, but what is worse to attempt and fail or never to attempt at all.

To attempt and fail.

Then if no attempts are made there we maintain the status quo. But even the failure can plant the seeds of change. and lead to the successful attempt.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I am not saying you can please everyone, but what is worse to attempt and fail or never to attempt at all.

To attempt and fail.

Then if no attempts are made there we maintain the status quo. But even the failure can plant the seeds of change. and lead to the successful attempt.

The status quo is not horrible in Ferelden. I see no reason to change it so abrubtly.
Failure can plant the seeds of chaos and destruction, even if it ends up succeeding in the future. I would much rather not take the risk if I knew it would be a failure.  

[wwwwowwww]

DariusKalera wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

I'm not really sure we can make this assessment based off of about 1 minute worth of lines from the character. Even if he made a mistake at Ostagar that doesn't make him a bad King, that makes him more human.

Not really sure how anyone can justify Lohgain being a better leader, when it's quite obvious he's not. Good leaders don't falsley accuse an order that has saved the land many times over, and use the fear he's created against them to basically give citizens the green light to kill them. A good leader doesn't hire assassins from another land. A good leader doesn't have a right hand man that kills an entire noble family down to the last child(although he missed 2). A good leader doesn't allow Tevintars to invade the Ailineges to take slaves. A good leader doesn't look to create a civil war in order to get his way. On and on and on...........

Well, I guess that would depend on how you define "good".

If you are defining good as honorable and always doing the right thing, then no, a ruler using that definition of good would not do those things. 

However, if you are defining good as in doing what is best for thier country, then they might actually do quite a few things off of that list. 

Some of the best leaders in history condoned some pretty ghastly things.  Not because they wanted them done, but because they needed to be done to insure the stability of the land that they governed.

I'm not trying to define honorable, but your not doing what's best for your country when your hiring assassins and putting bounties out on a group who is sworn to defend it from the blight.

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I am not saying you can please everyone, but what is worse to attempt and fail or never to attempt at all.

To attempt and fail.

Then if no attempts are made there we maintain the status quo. But even the failure can plant the seeds of change. and lead to the successful attempt.

The status quo is not horrible in Ferelden. I see no reason to change it so abrubtly.
Failure can plant the seeds of chaos and destruction, even if it ends up succeeding in the future. I would much rather not take the risk if I knew it would be a failure.  

But there is the point one does not know if it will fail or succeed until it is attempted. If one knew it would fail nothing would ever be attempted unless success was assured. We can weigh the probability of success and failure, but some of the greatest battles and  changes came down to an attempt and a little luck.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...
But there is the point one does not know if it will fail or succeed until it is attempted. If one knew it would fail nothing would ever be attempted unless success was assured. We can weigh the probability of success and failure, but some of the greatest battles and  changes came down to an attempt and a little luck.

Only if one was pressed into a corner and has little choice.
Being ruler over an entire nation is a great responsability. Attempting to change the nation, just for the sake of it, with no concern over its failure is imprudent.

And all of this is of little relevence. In your original statement, you asked what was worse. Attempt with failure, or not attempting at all. That means we already know that failure came about.
I answered that a failed attempt is worse.

[DariusKalera]

wwwwowwww wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

I'm not really sure we can make this assessment based off of about 1 minute worth of lines from the character. Even if he made a mistake at Ostagar that doesn't make him a bad King, that makes him more human.

Not really sure how anyone can justify Lohgain being a better leader, when it's quite obvious he's not. Good leaders don't falsley accuse an order that has saved the land many times over, and use the fear he's created against them to basically give citizens the green light to kill them. A good leader doesn't hire assassins from another land. A good leader doesn't have a right hand man that kills an entire noble family down to the last child(although he missed 2). A good leader doesn't allow Tevintars to invade the Ailineges to take slaves. A good leader doesn't look to create a civil war in order to get his way. On and on and on...........

Well, I guess that would depend on how you define "good".

If you are defining good as honorable and always doing the right thing, then no, a ruler using that definition of good would not do those things. 

However, if you are defining good as in doing what is best for thier country, then they might actually do quite a few things off of that list. 

Some of the best leaders in history condoned some pretty ghastly things.  Not because they wanted them done, but because they needed to be done to insure the stability of the land that they governed.

I'm not trying to define honorable, but your not doing what's best for your country when your hiring assassins and putting bounties out on a group who is sworn to defend it from the blight.

But Loghain does not know that Grey Wardens are actually needed to end the Blight.  To him, they are just another group of soldiers.  As far as he is concerned, the PC and Alistair are just two survivors of Ostagar that need to be silenced so that no one will find out the truth of what happened there. 

By silencing the PC and Al, he might have actually believed that he was helping out Fereldan.  We know that he was wrong, but Loghain was operating in an information vaccuum concerning the Wardens and was going with what little information he had.

[Sylrien]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylrien wrote...
So Ferelden would have *everything* to gain from an alliance with Orlais? That even *unification* producing an heir that be a figurehead for mending years of past hatred could only mean Ferelden's prosperity?

Ferelden's lack of independence and sovereignity. That's what it means.
States are first and foremost concerned with their sovereignity and independence, not their propserity. Any King who willingly gives up the sovereignity of his nation is a fool.
The strong devours the weak, not enrich them. Especially in a medieval context.

If propserity is all that mattered, then Maric would not have rebelled. Or would you have all nations give up their indepedence and allow themselves to be annexed by the strong?
 
Plus, seeing how Celene assassinated her way to gain the throne, I would not trust her at all. Don't get me wrong, I love the woman. But if I was in Ferelden, I wouldn't trust a child like Cailan with Celene.

Did I mention Orlais taking over Ferelden? Did I mention Ferelden givnig up independence and sovreignty?

No. I mentioned a political union -  whether by marriage, or some other official means, truce, treaty, whatever - which is what I see when I read the information from RtO. A political union that would make Ferelden better, that would get a power that does not have Ferelden's interests at heart out power, and all done by a monarch people are arguing was "A horrible king."

For all we know, the meaning of Cailan being child doesn't necessarily mean he's a child, or child-like. It could also mean that he's been defined as Maric's child his whole life. It could also mean that the people around him - like generals who think they know what's best in every occasion, treating him like a child. People incidentally, who when he refuses to go with their plan, kill him out of spite.

And to be honest, no matter what reasoning Loghain has as to why he pulled out at Ostagar, I think there could be a very good arguement that spite is at the heart of the matter. Cailan had the nerve not to listen to him for once (And possibly for several small instances in Ostagar in regards to being withthe Wardens, calling for backup from Orlais, etc), and Loghain made sure he would pay for it.

Also:
Since Cailan was king, where in the hell would he find the time to actually have an affair? How would the two even have met? How can you be so sure that something's going in when logistically that would have been impossible? Don't you think the Empress' absence at the court in Orlais would have been noticed considering the Game of Thrones? It is not easy to get from Ferelden to Orlais. I believe there's only a narrow strip of land that allows access between the Frostback Mountains. You tell me how such an affair could actually happen, and I'll believe it.

Modifié par Sylrien, 25 janvier 2010 - 04:31 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylrien wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylrien wrote...
So Ferelden would have *everything* to gain from an alliance with Orlais? That even *unification* producing an heir that be a figurehead for mending years of past hatred could only mean Ferelden's prosperity?

Ferelden's lack of independence and sovereignity. That's what it means.
States are first and foremost concerned with their sovereignity and independence, not their propserity. Any King who willingly gives up the sovereignity of his nation is a fool.
The strong devours the weak, not enrich them. Especially in a medieval context.

If propserity is all that mattered, then Maric would not have rebelled. Or would you have all nations give up their indepedence and allow themselves to be annexed by the strong?
 
Plus, seeing how Celene assassinated her way to gain the throne, I would not trust her at all. Don't get me wrong, I love the woman. But if I was in Ferelden, I wouldn't trust a child like Cailan with Celene.

Did I mention Orlais taking over Ferelden? Did I mention Ferelden givnig up independence and sovreignty?

No. I mentioned a political union -  whether by marriage, or some other official means, truce, treaty, whatever - which is what I see when I read the information from RtO. A political union that would make Ferelden better, that would get a power that does not have Ferelden's interests at heart out power, and all done by a monarch people are arguing was "A horrible king."

If Cailan marries Celene, then that's how it's going to be. Ferelden will be absorbed by the much more powerful Orlais. There is no such thing as "political union" at those times, rather there were alliances but the two ruling monarchs never married one another.
It is heavily hinted at that Cailan had the foolish idea of marrying Celene and that's what I am arguing against.

If he wasn't planning athat, then that's another thing. And it remains to be seen. 
But even then, mending ties so soon with Orlais would also be a mistake. Economic dependance is another way of becoming subservient.
 

[Sylrien]

Well, considering the clamor for Orlesion silks in Denerim, it looks like we're already there. Then again, with the demand for finery from Orlais, I imagine there are several nations that are very dependant on imports from Orlais.



Then again, I imagine that Orzammar's going to take over the various Circles of Magic and the Chantry because of the need for Lyrium? Or that the Chantry is going to take over Orzammar because Orzamaar is so depending on the Lyrium trade for their economic welfare?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylrien wrote...

Well, considering the clamor for Orlesion silks in Denerim, it looks like we're already there. Then again, with the demand for finery from Orlais, I imagine there are several nations that are very dependant on imports from Orlais.

Then again, I imagine that Orzammar's going to take over the various Circles of Magic and the Chantry because of the need for Lyrium? Or that the Chantry is going to take over Orzammar because Orzamaar is so depending on the Lyrium trade for their economic welfare?

Clearly, as Orlais is the superpower. Everyone must have some form of economic dependency vis a vis it. Does that mean Cailan should make it even worse?

Orzammar's relationship wtih the Chantry is inter-dependent. Because of the laws of the Chantry, only it can buy lyrium. Orzammar has no choice bt to sell lyrium to the dchantry, otherwise it's lifeline is gone. Likewise, the Chantry knows that only the dwarves can get lyrium. So it's mutual interdepedence.

And I just noticed your edit about how Cailan had an affair with Celene. As far as we know, they never met. It was throught letters. Again, no ruler ever adresses the other in such a familiar way, except if there was something between them.

"To his Majesty, King Cailan of Ferelden:
[....]
Sincerely, Empress Celene I


-- "An official letter from Empress Celene I of Orlais to  King Cailan of Ferelden.''

(This letter appears to have been crumpled then carefully smoothed out and folded again)

Cailan,
The visit to Ferelden will be postponed indefinitely, due to the darkspawn problem. You understand, of course? The darkspawn have odd timing, don't they? Let us deal with them first. Once that is done we can further discuss a permanent alliance between Orlais and Ferelden.

-- "A note written in an uncharacteristally familiar tone from Empress Celene to King Cailan"

Highly suspicious.
The "permanent alliance" thing heavily implies marriage. which would have been disastrous for Ferelden.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 janvier 2010 - 04:46 .

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And I just noticed your edit about how Cailan had an affair with Celene. As far as we know, they never met. It was throught letters. Again, no ruler ever adresses the other in such a familiar way, except if there was something between them.

"To his Majesty, King Cailan of Ferelden:
[....]
Sincerely, Empress Celene I


-- "An official letter from Empress Celene I of Orlais to  King Cailan of Ferelden.''

(This letter appears to have been crumpled then carefully smoothed out and folded again)

Cailan,
The visit to Ferelden will be postponed indefinitely, due to the darkspawn problem. You understand, of course? The darkspawn have odd timing, don't they? Let us deal with them first. Once that is done we can further discuss a permanent alliance between Orlais and Ferelden.

-- "A note written in an uncharacteristally familiar tone from Empress Celene to King Cailan"

Highly suspicious.
The "permanent alliance" thing heavily implies marriage. which would have been disastrous for Ferelden.

This seems... circumstantial at best. What are Calian's plans for Anora? How do you get rid of your best general's daughter and wife? Is there anything besides this?

Although I have to say, you're doing a very good job of offering a different perspective on politics in Ferelden and Loghain in particular.

[wwwwowwww]

DariusKalera wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

I'm not really sure we can make this assessment based off of about 1 minute worth of lines from the character. Even if he made a mistake at Ostagar that doesn't make him a bad King, that makes him more human.

Not really sure how anyone can justify Lohgain being a better leader, when it's quite obvious he's not. Good leaders don't falsley accuse an order that has saved the land many times over, and use the fear he's created against them to basically give citizens the green light to kill them. A good leader doesn't hire assassins from another land. A good leader doesn't have a right hand man that kills an entire noble family down to the last child(although he missed 2). A good leader doesn't allow Tevintars to invade the Ailineges to take slaves. A good leader doesn't look to create a civil war in order to get his way. On and on and on...........

Well, I guess that would depend on how you define "good".

If you are defining good as honorable and always doing the right thing, then no, a ruler using that definition of good would not do those things. 

However, if you are defining good as in doing what is best for thier country, then they might actually do quite a few things off of that list. 

Some of the best leaders in history condoned some pretty ghastly things.  Not because they wanted them done, but because they needed to be done to insure the stability of the land that they governed.

I'm not trying to define honorable, but your not doing what's best for your country when your hiring assassins and putting bounties out on a group who is sworn to defend it from the blight.

But Loghain does not know that Grey Wardens are actually needed to end the Blight.  To him, they are just another group of soldiers.  As far as he is concerned, the PC and Alistair are just two survivors of Ostagar that need to be silenced so that no one will find out the truth of what happened there. 

By silencing the PC and Al, he might have actually believed that he was helping out Fereldan.  We know that he was wrong, but Loghain was operating in an information vaccuum concerning the Wardens and was going with what little information he had.

Really? Seems to me that this was pretty common knowledge around Ferelden, and considering he's a great General I'd think he'd at least know this little tidbit of info.

BTW if you gotta silence the truth, it's a pretty clear indicator that your not that good a leader. If you have to have a scape goat for your own actions, how can you possibly be a good leader? Just sayin

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...
This seems... circumstantial at best. What are Calian's plans for Anora? How do you get rid of your best general's daughter and wife? Is there anything besides this?

Although I have to say, you're doing a very good job of offering a different perspective on politics in Ferelden and Loghain in particular.

Eammon is supporting Cailan (and urging him to get rid of Anora). He could recieve backing from certain Arls and Banns, especially considering that Eammon is very influencial. Plus, since the Orlesians would "save" Ferelden from the blight, the marriage proposal would gain alot of legitimacy. Furthermore, Celene I is a political mastermind. If she wants to marry Cailan, Anora is not going to stand in her way. She will be swept out of the way, by any means necessary. We are talking about a woman who assassinated members of her own family to get into power.
I would not dimiss the letter as circumstantial. It actually hints that they have been discussing this issue for quite some time. 

And thank you 
It's the genius of the writers actually, that made having different perspectives possible.  
 

[Sylrien]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Eammon is supporting Cailan (and urging him to get rid of Anora). He could recieve backing from certain Arls and Banns, especially considering that Eammon is very influencial. Plus, since the Orlesians would "save" Ferelden from the blight, the marriage proposal would gain alot of legitimacy. Furthermore, Celene I is a political mastermind. If she wants to marry Cailan, Anora is not going to stand in her way. She will be swept out of the way, by any means necessary. We are talking about a woman who assassinated members of her own family to get into power.
I would not dimiss the letter as circumstantial. It actually hints that they have been discussing this issue for quite some time. 

And thank you 
It's the genius of the writers actually, that made having different perspectives possible.  
 

So you say. I think also think that you're being a bit paranoid. But hey, your avatar is Loghain, mine is a City Elf. We don't exactly see eye to eye.
While I understand that it is highly suspect, I think you and I disagree about the intent. You see doom and gloom. I see sunshine and rainbows. You see Cailan as a horrible king, I...not so much. Should we just shake our hands on this entire thing? I have a feeling we're about to start going around in the circle for the fourth or fifth time.

Cailan seems to have been in a position to have done something about the bandaid over the bleeding sore that is the political relationship between Ferelden and Orlais. You're right in that this letter is far from circumstantial, we disagree on those circumstances. The core of the disagreement here is what we think of Cailan, and in my opinion the evidence shows that Cailan would not make such a rash action if it would lead to trouble for Ferelden. I think that no matter what you think of him, he does care about Ferelden so I believe a permanent alliance, no matter what form it takes, is a thing he is doing for his country as a king should. And I think he wouldn't be doing it if it meant being slave to Orlais again.

However, the issue is Loghain and others in the game thinking him to be a poor king. I think the evidence is there by his arranging with whatever it is with Celene that it simply isn't so. He's taking an active interest in what is best for his country.

Modifié par Sylrien, 25 janvier 2010 - 05:39 .

[ShadowAldrius]

Any general who thinks that killing his nation's monarch (or abandoning him to be killed on the field of battle) will make his country more stable or more ready to defend itself is either foolish or crazy.



I tend to think in Loghain's case it's the latter: crazy paranoid.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylrien wrote...
 Should we just shake our hands on this entire thing? I have a feeling we're about to start going around in the circle for the fourth or fifth time.

Yes I think we should.
Let's just say that I subscribe to the realist school of thought, while you seem to be an idealist. So the debate has been raging on for thousands of years haha. Both views are valid really. And we can't really know Cailan for sure and what he would have done. Only Cailan (and his creator) knows Cailan.

But I truly enjoyed this discussion. You are both well learned and eloquent and it was a pleasure.  

[Xandurpein]

Realmzmaster wrote...
@RangerSG,
I was not talking about the Cousland Massacre. I was talking about being named Arl of Denerim. Only Loghain could grant him that title. Also the Cousland Massacre only plays out in the Human Noble origin.

The Cousland massacre happens regardless of which orgin you choose, the only difference is that in human noble orgin the human noble escapes the massacre. Just as if you don't play the dwarf noble orgin, Bhelen's brother vanishes without a trace and so on.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Now, speeaking of Cailan - wihtout the devs actually telling us, we can only speculate. We have no idea how smart and manipulative he really was. We see him only shortly and hear from him from a few others, most of whom might very well be lying or not know the truth.
So some people see Cailans behavior at Ostagar as stupidity and gloryseeking. Far enough, it cna be interpreted like that. But ti's no the only interpretation.
Him being constantly confident in victory - is that shortsightednes and bravado, or good acting and morale boosting?

I agree in principle that we should perhaps be wary of reading too much into his brief appearance. I would however contend that if he was acting out a role (and come to think of it Anora said he ought to be an actor) he wasn't doing a really brilliant job of boosting my morale. His flippant remarks about Loghain boring him with strategy didn't raise my confidence in him as leader at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Vicious wrote...

Leliana sez something completely different...

That she does and it's a good instance of the game not getting it's story straight [since we can't go to Orlais to check for ourselves.] Anora's handmaiden is an escaped slave as an example. Given that the 'common humans' have few rights and none against Chevaliers, I would side with the escaped slave's side of things: Sucks to be a common human, sucks way more to be a common elf.

That whole chevalier story is from that woman in the Denerim market, no? I would put too much faith in that, as  such stories tend to me very colored. After all, if you asked an elf from the Denerim alianage about the arls, with Vaughn's behavior, they'd probably tell you that banns can do whatever they wish and nobody can touch them.
Ferelden must be a terrible place.....

[Lotion Soronarr]

RangerSG wrote...
"She" didn't allow it to continue. The entire socieity "allowed" it to together.

She is the queen. the Top Dog. She makes the laws.
Who freed the elves from slavery? A king. Callahad, was it?
Well then, seem like kings are capable of making big social changes. If elves can go from slaves to second-class citizens, then they can go from second class citizens to full citizens.
All it takes is some balls and will.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
No ruler ever addresses the other by the name, in such a familiar way. In the first letter, Celene addressed Cailan by his title. In the third, after the implications of the 2nd letter, she addresses him by name. Rulers never do that, even when they were of the same dynasty. That hints heavily that they are more than just political allies.

:lol::lol:
Do you just pull this things right out of your a**???