Future Tense This is getting kinda ridiculous. I bitch the whole season about how all the vulcans, andorians and suliban have dissapeared for no good reason, and suddenly there is a trilogy of sorts starring vulcans, andorians and suliban. I don't know. For me this was probably the most interesting episode so far. But it was all exposition. And actually I'm not sure if you can call something exposition when it doesn't really expand the arc, but just reminds you that it's there. But Temporal Cold War was one of the interesting things of season 1, together with andorians and vulcan politics/religion, for me. So I was eating up every single moment. But if you don't like Temporal Cold War, or aren't so desperate for anything continuing the arc from season 1, then I guess you just might go . But I was like "so that's what Daniels meant when he said he was human in a "define human" way." By the way, T'Pol totally was thinking how cute a human baby might look like. I know, I've seen the picture with naked T'Pol before Trip, so I know she ends up with him, but season 1 and 2 both ship T'Pol and Archer. I mean there are all sorts of signals. Like in this episode, when they had that conversation they had about human-vulcan babies and all those glances... I thought it was funny how T'Pol looked at Archer when he asked if human-vulcan babies would have pointed ears. So I enoyed it. It reminded me of the better season.
Canamar And season 2 continues it's mission to show us how all those movies we've seen would look like if they were remade as Star Trek episodes. This time it did Con Air. And this time it's also one of those cases where the result is quite fun. So we have Captain Archer starring as Nicholas Cage, the man wrongly accused for the crime he didn't commit. We have the sympathetic villain who was also wrongly accused at one point in his life, but allowed that to turn him into the thing he was being accused of. We have that funny black guy who can never shut up, you know, the guy we see in every Michael Bay movie. And then we have Trip as the guy who gets annoyed a lot, and the big Predatory-looking alien as Daniel Trejo, the big mean guy who everyone thinks doesn't have a heart... but actually has (but he is still bad). So the villain wants freedom but is going to sacrifice the life of all those prisoners. But Nicholas Cage is a good guy, and he has the picture of his baby girl with him, and he looks it all the time... and is very sad and stuff and then says "Daddy has some things he has to do" and then the majorly heroic music kicks in because Nicholas Cage has made a choice that might end up in him never seeing his baby girl again. And stuff happens... and then when all hell has broken loose, Nicholas Cage tries to save the sympathetic villain, but the villain would rather die. And so he dies. And it's very sad because he was very sympathetic. And then some law official wants to thank Nicholas Cage, but Cage says "fuck you!" because the system is a lie. So yeah, it was quite fun. Sometimes these remakes work.
The Crossing No. Just no. This episode just.... (why does this smiley remind me of Alexander?) Okay, or a while there I thought I was watching the best thing ever. I mean there they are, getting into this huge beautiful wintery metallic blue ship, and they have these wisps... the mood was just so beautiful. The beginning reminded me of Vox Sola which also had this sort of meditative almost mystical sci-fi feel to it. And when the wisp possessed Trip and the dining scene... the music, the acting... it was just so beautiful. And then Malcolm got possessed and he went to T'Pol and he was just so wonderfully creepy. And then this episode went down the shithole. Okay I was into the bodysnatcher's plot for a while, but when it just ended with Archer blowing the alien ship up... it was just so... When the ending credits rolled, all I could say was: "But those poor aliens just wanted to live." And man, they really just don't know what to do with Travis. That sequence where he searches for Trip... it just felt so.... I was like "is that your contractually promised spotlight moment?" And he just acted in a... he's like David Prowse really... sort of oblivious I guess. However Connor was really great. In the ending sequence when he did a lot of kicking and hitting... it just looked very believable. But this episode was a lie. Something that could have been beautiful was turned into something awful.
Judgement It's both very season 2 and very impressive at the same time. I think this is my favorite episode of season 2. Kolos. J.G Hertzler. Kolos. The drinking scene. This scene - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFyxcgfhodY. Kolos has probably become one of my most favorite klingon characters. I've always liked Klingons who were different from the idiotic norm - you know, like Suzie Plakson's K'Ehleyr or.. there were at least two klingon politicians who were wonderfully cynical and pragmatic, but whose names I can't remember right now. Anyway, the typical klingon is just too dumb for me and I never believed that it was because of their biological nature. B'Elanna was difficult person, because she had major daddy and abandonment issues, not because of her biological dictations. So the revelation that it was actually a cultural degeneration was very agreeable with me. By the way, have klingons always had this sort of "medieval mongolian empire" vibe to them? I mean sure warrior race... but in Enterprise their architecture and and all those small touches have a certain central asian vibe. In TNG, at least in my mind, it was just some spiky techno-futuristic architecture and style. Oh well... goodbye Kolos. Wish there had been more klingons like you in this franchise. Judgement=Kolos, the rest is just irrelevant. Oh before I submit, I would like to mention that Archer's defense speech was very powerful and deep and... well, just hear it for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IeZJNC4osA.
I was with you up until this: This is one of those episodes that fits into my special, I'm not sure why people hate it; it's one of my favorite quiet ones category (along with, like, "Vanishing Point"). I love the initial sense of wonder and the idea of humanity's understanding of life being maybe not all there is in the universe. My favorite scene is also one of the creepiest ones: NotTrip in the mess hall, experiencing bread for the first time. Something so mundane, yet it's a source of wonder to the "beings," just like their existence makes perfect sense to them, but the humans can't wrap their minds around the concept. But it all revolves around the line that Archer says: Humans don't like doing things against their will - so no matter how wonderful, how benevolent, or how evolved these beings are, taking things without asking is just not okay. And in the end, their goal and the crews' goal were incompatible. One side or the other was going to lose its inherent existence. So I thought the violent, albeit reluctant, solution was necessary and right as a form of self-defense. Clearly the beings were desperate enough not to take no for an answer. For me, it's embodied in the flicker of distress that crosses T'Pol's face when she's melding with one of the beings. And I guess it's the fact that the first part of the episode has, as you say, that makes the ending not feel like it's wrapped up in a nice bow, oh, sucks to be you, incorporeal guys. I thought it was a classic sci-fi example of danger wrapped in beauty - the beings weren't evil, just desperate. Killing them was the last resort. In retrospect, it goes nicely with a later episode you'll encounter (and which I will not name so you're not spoiled when you get there), where we learn that in an "us or them," Archer will choose "us." As for Judgment, the best thing about this episode, for me, is the Rashomon homage. It's wonderfully subtle. (Rashomon is an Akira Kurosawa film where a crime is recounted from a few different perspectives, all shaded depending on who's telling it. It's a brilliant film.) So we hear Duras describe Archer saying "I'm captain of the Battleship Enterprise," and "Death to the Empire!" and we know full well he'd never say either. But then we get the sense that Archer, in his testimony, might be soft-selling his response, all "We were so totally reasonable, judge, and they insulted our mommas." If you put the two testimonies together, you probably get a more accurate picture than with just one or the other. Archer's facial expressions during his trial are priceless, too. This episode goes a long way, for me, toward erasing the "Boy, Klingons are REALLY dumb" taste of Marauders.
I think that in the beginning the producers/writers were not sure who they wanted to match/mate T'Pol with.
Cogenitor Okay, this has been probably the most mentally stimulating episode in Enterprise so far. Just wow. Bravo. *applaudes* I'm going to take the radical route and say that Trip was absolutely right. The only thing he did wrong was not teaching self-preservation to Charles. When one grows up with privileges, one can often forget how those privileges came about. He was trying to teach freedom, and he did, but he lacked knowledge that quite often one should hide their inner freedom from their society. He was just doing "it's big wondrous universe", while he should have done "it's a big wondrous universe, know that, hide that knowledge, go on about as nothing is different, spread that self-awareness in other cogenitors, hide that until the time is right... they need you, and once you work together for your rights you'll be strong." That's where Trip got it wrong. He only showed freedom, but not how to maintain that freedom inside. He was right... he just hadn't done much research in various civil rights movements. He brought Charles out to freedom as alone... made Charles fall in love with him... and this ended up in Charles feeling like freedom=Trip, and that they wanted to take that good feeling away from him/her. It was an amazing episode and the ending was heartbreaking... this is what Enterprise needed... but I don't agree with Archer. He is right that it was Trip's fault but he's also suffering from what I like to call aristocrat syndrome. I just made it up, but I figure it goes like this. Imagine early-to mid 19th century. You have this fairly liberal nobleman travelling around the world with his servant. They usually have a tough time, but after years of travelling finally this nobleman finds another like him. Another nobleman who also likes to travel. But that other nobleman is not as liberal... in fact he's pretty elitist and everything. But this liberal nobleman doesn't care, he's just happy that he found another kindred spirit like him. It would be like if two Enterprise fans would meet in a world where everyone has agreed that it's the worst show ever, and like exactly the same character's and storylines, but one's a libertarian socialist and the other has elitist beliefs in white race and european culture... they would much rather prefer to enjoy in their kindred spirit, because they've been lonely long enough in their liking for the show. But oh noes, they have servants. This liberal nobleman servant has lived in a world with a lot of freedoms, but the other servant... well let's say he has no right in his world, as only the noble are truly human beings, and he and his female kindred exist only to satisfy the needs and desires of their nobles. So this liberal nobleman's servant is confused in how things can be so wrong... and his actions end in a cultural conflict. Now his nobleman has lost the friend from his own class that he looked for so long. And naturally he is pissed off. He can understand that his servant acted on the beliefs that they share, but... he was having such a good time. He would have liked to part as friends. It gets even more complicated, because this nobleman, has done similar things that his servant now did, in the past and he has suffered because of it. When Archer lectured Trip in the end, he was for a moment talking about himself. And Trip was right, he did what Archer would have done... but Archer has been torn from the inside quite some time now. Archer from 6 months ago might have done it immediately... but now so much has happened that Archer isn't so clear anymore what is the right way to act. The naive innocent taxi driver ,who wanted to embrace the goodness about the universe and spread it around, is broken. He has done things so many times that ended up badly.. and now when Charles commited suicide... just now when he wanted to avoid this conflict... now when Trip said that he just did what the captain would have done... it was like he had killed Charles himself... and there's so only so much he can bear. And then Archer gazed sadly out the window and it was like the best thing ever. This episode is the most charactery episode ever. They're being much more inside their characters shoes, than they have been before in season 2. I also liked that Malcolm got laid by a sexy alien. And another thing I noticed - T'Pol. Have you ever noticed that in organizations with the male lead, that the women start to get very protective of that leader's ideals... they don't actually get protective of the ideals themselves, but actually the inner changing wishes and moods of the leader. Sometimes the wishes are one with the ideals and sometimes not. Some schools are like that, with male principles and lots of female teachers. Of course that only applies when that male principle is very loved by his teachers. Well T'Pol was very protective of captain's changing emotional side in this episode. Trip more with captain's ideals so far... but ideals and the changing emotional sides are different, and right now T'Pol was very one with the captain. What I'm trying to say is that their very close now, even if they're never going to **** each other's brains out. Cogenitor's suicide was heartbraking, as were Trip and Archer... but I lost all sympathization for the would-be-parents once they screamed out loud "we're being the ones who are treated unfairly." Why? Because in my homecountry, we have this political party, that's always in power, that basically strives to create this rich privileged class and reduce all others into a stupid mass to live it's privileged life upon. And when that would-be-mom said that, she was just like those people... better than everyone else. And they're also always in power, because they manage to get all the xenophobic votes for themselves, which is quite a lot. Plus the votes of the would be rich and privileged themselves. Sometimes you just happen to live in a fucked up country. Anyway, I didn't like them because they reminded me of people I can't stand in real life.
Interesting analysis - I don't think the would-be-parents were necessarily treated unfairly but lets not forget that they lost their chance (and perhaps their only chance considering how long they had to wait for the Cogenitor) to have a child because of Trip's actions in this episode. It's not like there is an alternative method - they need the Cogenitors to reproduce. That's not to say that I agree with repressing them by the way - I pretty much agree with you Jimmy Bob - Trip did the right thing but went completely the wrong way about it. For me The Crossing had some nice moments but it was a little disjointed and not the sum of it's parts.
Just thinking about Cogenitor. Imperfect people, imperfect actions, imperfect endings - perfect episode. It's probably the only Trek moral lesson episode where characters aren't reduced into right and wrong ideologies. There was a strong emotional side to the moral lesson, the characters were influenced by their emotions, rather than usual Picardian wisdom that ends all thing well. And the emotions made sense in the larger picture of character growth. It was a very natural episode at this point in their life. I'm going to applaud to it for the second time. *applaudes* The Crossing and bluedana. It seems our favorite moments overlap. Interesting. But for me it seemed like two episodes in one. The mystical creepy sci-fi and the actiony "we must save ourselves from the bodysnatchers" episode. But now I can see it from a natural conclusion perspective as well. I'll keep that in mind.
I am watching ENT for the first time, too. I watched that episode yesterday, and it was the first one that really, really pissed me off. Archer and Phlox did not have to "play God", all they needed to do was give a cure that they already had and help save countless lives. Instead, they decided to refuse help, to lie to the Valakians and condemn many of them to death... for what? It made no sense whatsoever. But TheGodBen already put it very well in words in his thread, as did flemm and ProtoAvatar in the same thread. http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3446050&postcount=210 http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3447921&postcount=216 http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3448439&postcount=220 http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3449580&postcount=222 http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3449731&postcount=224 This episode's moral "dilemma" and conclusion was a horrible example of both faulty science and faulty ethics. It was even worse than TNG's "Homeward", another episode that makes the Prime Directive look like the most idiotic and inhumane rule ever - and to make it worse, "Dear Doctor" is set in the time when the PD did not even exist! Furthermore, Archer's decision made no sense for his character, from what we had seen from him so far. I would have expected him to want to help the sick and dying people, not find an idiotic reason not to. And does Phlox know about the Hippocratic Oath? What kind of doctor is he? Giving those people the cure would not have been "playing God" - it's called BEING A DOCTOR. That's what doctors do. But the writers were not concerned with characters, all they cared about was to beat us over the head with their faulty ethics and faulty science. Pity, because, before the Moral Dilemma and Decision of the Week, the episode was very good and very charming, and Phlox was being nicely fleshed out. Two stars from me - 4 stars for the first 3 quarters of the episode, zero stars for the Moral Dilemma/Decision.
It wasn't about curing sick people. It was about choosing between two species. Think about it, the Valakians thought that the Menk were not capable of intelligence or anything. But in that episode we saw that the Menk were as capable and as intelligent as the Valakians. So if Archer would have given the cure to Valakians, do you think the Valakians would have just given their privileges away? No, they were used to the world where they are the masters and the Menk the servants. And furthermore, they weren't sick in the sense like they're about to die in two weeks from plague. They were sick in the sense like europeans are now... not enough births, vanishing numbers, a minority in their own countries after a century. You think the Valakians would just have let Menk to grow into their own? Like the WASP americans are letting it just go? Buchanan: "America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right." (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113463#) Like the Tea Party protests aren't about taxes, healthcare, or creeping "socialism", but about white people bemoaning their loss of power; so would a similar sociological phenomen occur on Valakian/Menk world, when Valakians would discover that the Menk aren't just silent servants anymore. It's good to be in power and the Valakians would have done anything to stay in power if Archer would have "cured" them. They were sick in the sense that they were just vanishing. If Archer would have interfered it would have meant violence. So in this case, playing God meant choosing between two species... interference would have ended in violence. Letting it go, letting them just vanish in the process which would take several hundred years was the peaceful choice.
Regeneration Meh. It's okay I guess. I didn't care for it, but I didn't hate it either. It wasn't Aqcuistion, though it was similiar to it. It was just meh. I understand it's supposed to bring the Borg into a full circle, but... fanwankery can also be done in an interesting way, not just in a routine way. So things happened. Stuff got blown up and... this episode is pretty much meaningless. That's how I looked like when I was watching this episode. Dispassionate disinterest. The good news is that I'm almost done with season 2. Oh wait, there was one scene that brought a smile to my face. When Archer said that he intends to take everyone of those people to their homes. It was like Broken Bow, where Archer stood before the judging universe and declared that he was just taking the klingon home. The innocent naive taxi driver is still inside him. Though he has grown much tougher over the years. Some of the things in this episode mirrored the conclusion of the Crossing. And it's official now. T'Pol and Archer are the bestest friends. Whenever Archer makes a choice that's eating him up inside, T'Pol's there to comfort and reassure him.
No, it wasn't about "choosing between two species". It was about choosing whether to help a species or withhold help, or, more specifically, or curing millions of people, or letting them die. What they did is almost the same as genocide. Valakians getting cured did not in any way imply wiping out the Menk. The idea is completely wrong and based on quasi-science. How would curing the Valakians hurt the Menk?! Phlox said himself that the Menk were developing higher intelligence and were likely to eventually become the dominant species? So? They were already developing while living next to Valakians - despite, or maybe even because of them. How does it follow that the Menk will stop developing if the Valakians are around?! It hadn't stopped them up to that point. Evolutionary change happens as a result of adapting to the environment. That environment included the Valakians. How would Archer and Phlox know if changing the environment by not saving the Valakians would help Menk - perhaps that change (if the Valakians eventually die out) will stall or stopthe development of the Menk, rather than the other way round? And really, who says that one species on the planet has to be completely dominant over the other? Seems like another flawed premise to me. Finally, why should they even think what would eventually happen with the healthy Valakians and intelligent Menk? It's not Archer and Phlox's business to think about that, unless they actually WANT to play God. It's Archer's and especially Phlox's business to HELP them - because Phlox is a FREAKING DOCTOR, his job is to CURE PEOPLE! And frankly, even if the premise were true I find it shocking and disgusting that people can actually defend the idea that, basically one should destroy one race in order to help another become dominant. As for the idea that they were "interfering with the natural development" - oh please. By that logic, may as well say that practicing medicine, making scientific discoveries, raising the quality of life, is "interfering with the natural development". So why do humans "interfere with the natural development" every day? Why don't we let all the sick people die, why are there any doctors or scientists, why don't we still live in caves? The whole premise is flawed. Nature is not a malevolent deity who needs sacrifices, and evolution does not mean that people should sit on their arse and wait to see what happens to them. Medicine, science, quality of life, all this is a part of the development - evolution, if you want - of the human race. The Valakians became able to travel in space, that was a part of their development, and they met people who could have helped them get cured of the disease. So there. So, going with your example, what are you saying, that if WASP Americans somehow got sick but the rest of the USA did not, it would be a good idea for doctors to let them die instead of treating them for the disease?
Reading is very important. You didn't really read. More like skimmed through. There's always this sociological pattern that whenever there are masters and servants, once the servants grow aware of their worth, then the masters start to uphold their system much more aggressively than before, which culminates in violence. Valakians=masters. Menk=servants. Masters have this belief that the servants aren't capable of being anything more than servants. As long as the servants uphold the same belief, the society is in balance, the system works perfectly. Now the masters numbers are growing thin. As I said this sickness is not sickness in the classical sense, it's a sickness like how in europe the native european numbers are growing thin. It's a metaphor for decreasing population growth. Now, Archer's help is like God dropping several million french, german, english babies to their respective native homelands, so the native europeans would have more numbers, so they wouldn't vanish under the growing immigrant numbers. Okay, that didn't make sense, so let me try again. Master species. Vanishing to due genetical defect. Servant race coming to their own. Due to vanishing master numbers, the servants would have to take a lot of jobs over that the masters don't have the numbers for anymore. In the process of these several hundred years, more and more servants would be in governmental positions. They integrate themselves more and more into the behind the scenes parts of the system. It would be a slow process, in which it might also be possible that the servants maintain the better parts of the masters culture, once the masters are gone. But let's say that Archer helps the masters. Masters are back, they are not vanishing anymore, they are growing. But so are the servants. Now what happens when the masters discover that the servants don't fit into their system anymore. What happens when the servants discover that they are equals with the masters? Usually violent propaganda to either keep the people in their place, or to raise public anger against certain groups. Lots of radical movements, some of them state-sanctioned. They're going to start to figure out who's the top dog and who's the underdog. It's not science, it's sociology. So, going with your example, what are you saying, that if WASP Americans somehow got sick but the rest of the USA did not, it would be a good idea for doctors to let them die instead of treating them for the disease? The sickness is a metaphor for decreasing population growth. WASP is already decreasing beneath the growing hispanic population. Things change.
Um, no. I read all you wrote. Reading it several times doesn't help it make more sense than it did the first time. Um, no, it is not. It is a freaking DISEASE. People were DYING of it. People being ill and dying is certainly not the same as a lack of population growth. You got that right. So, you're basically saying that, to avoid violence that might happen in the future between two races, we should obliterate one of them if we get the chance to do it "non-violently"... say, withholding a cure that could help millions or billions of people. Specifically, it is Social Darvinism.
Nice reviews. Wait until season 4. You get a little of both. I thought the end of season 2 was actually very good and agree with your assessment of where the characters are, which episodes were most interesting and that fanwankery can be dull as dirt. I completely disagree. Trip's heart was in the right place and God love him for it. Archer -- who as aptly described went from naive taxi driver to more experienced captain (with naivite still in him) -- made a decision based on logic: potential allies with people who are more advanced technologically. Archer also understood that our moral compunctions differ from theirs; indeed our species doesn't need a third person to conceive. Archer is moving beyond his "human" morality -- a challenge T'Pol gave Trip in Broken Bow to go beyond their provencial attitudes. To me, Archer is starting to get "the big picture." If Archer had made any other decision, I would've been disappointed.
Well, actually no. Social Darwinism is an ideology and sociology is a scientific system that studies how societies work - which includes ideologies, but it's not really the same thing. Look, science stuff in Trek is often an metaphor. Braga works in mysterious ways... one could always dismiss his work by saying "but Braga, that's not how DNA works" or one could try to interpret what he meant. The episode says that the reason why they're dying is in their genes. Braga often says funny things like this. But the way this episode shows this - they're dying out over the course of many centuries, 300-500 years; makes it clear that it's a metaphor for decreasing population. Let me put it this way. Europe's economy is failing. Couple of europeans go to space and meet aliens. They say: "help us aliens, our economy is failing." The aliens come down, study the situation and learn that increasing the european economy would come at the cost of growing african economy (it's an alternative universe). Now these aliens have a dilemma - should or shouldn't they start to screw around with earth's economy. Now before anyone posts a link to tvtropes "You Fail Economics Forever" page, I'll link it to myself first - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailEconomicsForever . There. This episode was like that. There are also certain rules in Star Trek universe. What goes around in pre-warp, stays in pre-warp. The Valakians were pre-warp. I'm not bringing this out as a justification for my liking of the episode... it's just that I've often noticed it's an in-universe rule, which probably influenced the way this episode turned out. One could take fictional in-universe rules at face value (like christians with HDM - "oh my god, the children have pet demons, satan wrote it") or see it as fiction deconstructing&reconstructing real things to give new nuanced understandings (in HDM the pet daemons are actually the childrens souls) about stuff and things.
Thank you. My getting to season 4 depends on how good season 3 is. I watched Voyager before Enterprise. I never reached the end with Voyager because, while season 4 there was very awesome, season 5, and from what I saw, season 6 just repeated what went on in previous seasons. It's funny. I also completely disagree, but you bring out exactly the same points I did. Trip's heart was in right place - check. A more grown Archer made a reasonable choice (to him anyway in my analysis) - check. Would have been dissapointed if the episode... - check.
Um, I know what sociology is. What I said is, Social Darvinism is what you have been advocating. You can talk about "metaphors" all you like, but it is beside the point, because, for Archer and Phlox, this was not a metaphor, for them it was reality. They had to make a decision based on the situation at hand, which, in-universe, was very real to them. The Valakians were not "a metaphor" to them, they were real people who needed their help. And failing economy, again, is NOT the same thing as a DISEASE THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM and which you have a cure for. Refusing to provide a cure which you already have, is practically murdering a person through inaction - or in this case, committing a genocide.
JimmyBob, I totally got your Dear Doctor as metaphor analysis. I think it's a hard discussion to have because our real world examples invariably depend on "human/human" interaction, not "more advanced species/human" interaction, as in the episode. So the fall-back position will always be That's not ethical! But Phlox is not a human, and has no reason to care about some ancient Greek's theory about how human physicians should do things. I do wish that Phlox's dialogue had not explained it in terms of "evolution," because it really isn't about that. (One line that drives me nuts is when Archer reasonably says, You're asking me to do this on a theory of what might happen, and Phlox snaps at him, Evolution is fact not theory! And I'm like, That's not what he was asking, dude, chill out). Your analysis almost makes me think Archer made the right decision. Almost. But I appreciate the depth of your review.