Chakotay and 7 of 9, why?

[JustKate]

Back OT...

I think they could have had an awesome romance had it started much earlier. They actually had some twisted chemistry in "Scorpion," when she was still a drone, I thought. But the writers ignored the possiblity until the very, very end, and then we were expected to accept that it was a grand love affair.

Yeah, this is my big problem with it, too. It was just so obviously tacked on, and such an important character development should have been...well, developed!

 

[DevilEyes]

Sorry to go back to the off-topic discussion, but Exodus' behavior really makes my mind boggle with its illogicality.

I'm very sorry seperating the real world from fiction is very confusing and frustrating for you.

Um... what? You're the one who brought up the real world in the discussion in the first place, not JustKate. Let's see:

And is it equally unrealistic to expect Kirk to not have sex with a slave who has no choice in the matter? Who offered herself because her master told her to?

And besides, this isn't like the Navy - they may be locked up on a ship, but it's a ship with 400 men and women and recreational facilities and so on and so on. Not a bad way to be locked up.

And anyway, in your interest in allowing Trek personnel the right to behave like sexual adults, you're combining two different things, Exodus. Consensual sex is one thing - having sex with a slave girl is another.

In our time that would be called a Hooker, and Naval men had sex with them too.

A holodeck on a ship is equal to Bob Hope's USO service to entertain the troops. Even sex & companionship on the holodeck doesn't equal the real thing as Troi counceled Barclay on many, many times. It's pretend and one step up from masturbating to an adult movie. It's the exact reason why Troi was disgusted that Barclay was using her as a fantasy.

These are officers that put their lives on the lines every day, that's an exterme amount of stress to live with, yet they're also supposed to be monks too?

Starfleet Offiers vacation on Riza!!! It's an entire planet designed to fullfill every single fantasy, sexual or otherwise. They hand out statues to ensure you have as much sex as you want!!


........but that's so so so wrong, except in the Trek universe.

^ A hooker? Really? A slave is just like a hooker? A hooker is exactly the same thing as a slave? Really?

And even if they are that much alike (which they really aren't, BTW), isn't there something a little wrong about a Starfleet officer exploiting someone's body for money? Somebody who has no choice in the matter?

OK, I'm getting angry now, and I know I shouldn't since I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you, and anyway, as somebody surely is thinking right about now, it's just a TV show. But it's still wrong, so so so so wrong.

So I'm going to drop this for the time being. I'll check back in later. Hopefully everything will be clarified by then.

Yes, a Hooker is the same as a slave. That's why they're referred to as "sex slaves" under the law. Hooker's themselves will even tell you they are "property" of their Pimps and are not allowed to do anything without there permission. Don't tell me you've never heard of this? CSNBC does documentary specials on this every month.

Starfleet Officers exploiting someones body?
Once again: Riza: The Pleasure Planet?
Sound fimiliar?

Everything has already been clarified right within the show you've been watching all this time.

^ This isn't a condemnation?

Yes, a Hooker is the same as a slave. That's why they're referred to as "sex slaves" under the law. Hooker's themselves will even tell you they are "property" of their Pimps and are not allowed to do anything without there permission. Don't tell me you've never heard of this?

This indicates that you think this practice is fine and dandy? You tell me.

No, it indicates that I understand the nature of the beast from watching socially educational programing and understanding other aspects of the world around me.
I have in no way shown that I approve or disapprove of it, only to how it relates in the Trek universe and why such things within it are seen as acceptable.

I guess you might label it as walking in someone else shoes?

Because in the 24th century Trek universe it is acceptable, just like Riza, a Federation controlled planet of hedoistic pleasure is acceptable. Just like Seven's catsuit is acceptable. Just like Bashir & Leeta have sex with other people before actually breaking up is acceptable. Just like Neelix having sex with a Klingon in Tuvok's quarters was accepted. They're telling you it is right in front of your face that sexual freedom is normal in their universe, they tolerate it & sometimes engage in it. I didn't make it up, you yourself pointed out it's been that way since TOS. You choose not to accept it because your wrestling with your own morals about it, instead of serperating your own beliefs from what is just a TV show. The foundations of society aren't going to crumble because Kirk has sex with a hooker.

I see it as a TV show and if those involved write this universe to be this way, then I sit back and enjoy the story for what it is. A fictional character having sex with a fictional hooker does not have any lasting emotional effects on me in anyway.

How nice for you.

Edit: Wait a minute - that's not true. You have just said something that isn't true. I've seen you complain about injustices on Voyager before. Lots of times.

What makes this time different, I wonder? You don't have to answer that, of course, but I do wonder.

Darlin', I really don't know what in the heck your going on about. You're talking like this stuff is real and what happens on the show affects society in some way. Then you get upset with me because I said it's fiction and doesn't affect me.


Seriously, what the hell?
It's Star Trek, this shit is supposed to be for entertainment.

So, basically you first defended Kirk having sex with a slave by comparing it with to the real world; and saying something blatantly untrue and extremely offensive: you equated a slave, a person forced by her masters to have sex against her will, with a "hooker", and stated that it is perfectly acceptable in our time, in the real world, to use the "services" of a sex slave, which you call "hooker".

Then you made it even worse by talking about sociallly educational programming - again, the real world - and stating that you were a person who had awareness of the world around them - again, the real world. Even though all your comments show that you are absolutely ignorant of the real world problem of sex trafficking and sexual enslavement and exploitation of people, mostly women and children.

If you do have any awareness about it, then it is even more shocking that you're defending the real world practice of enslaving people and forcing them to have sex against their will. You are basically defending slavery and rape and equating it with consensual sex for pleasure, saying that people should just accept it as a normal part of life, and insulting the victims by calling them "hookers", as if they voluntarily made the decision to prostitute themselves. I am really curious, do you also use the word "hooker" to describe black slaves who were forced to have sex with their white American slavemasters? Do you use the word "hooker" for Korean comfort women who were forced at gunpoint to be docile while they were gang raped by dozens of Japanese soldiers a day? It's no different for women and children today who are victims of sex trafficking, the modern version of sexual slavery.

It's obvious that you're the one who's confused and wrestling with your morals. If you are going to defend sexual slavery as a form of "sexual freedom", you may as well argue that rape and child abuse are forms of "sexual freedom" comparable to people having consensual sex for pleasure or a woman wearing a catsuit.

But I do believe you're actually completely ignorant about the issue - since you state such obviously incorrect things as that sexual slavery is legal, which cannot be further from the truth. Sex trafficking is a crime, and considered a very serious problem.

I have already pointed all this out to you, but you chose to ignore it:

And is it equally unrealistic to expect Kirk to not have sex with a slave who has no choice in the matter? Who offered herself because her master told her to?

And besides, this isn't like the Navy - they may be locked up on a ship, but it's a ship with 400 men and women and recreational facilities and so on and so on. Not a bad way to be locked up.

And anyway, in your interest in allowing Trek personnel the right to behave like sexual adults, you're combining two different things, Exodus. Consensual sex is one thing - having sex with a slave girl is another.

In our time that would be called a Hooker, and Naval men had sex with them too.

Um...no. In our time, that is called a victim of sex trafficking. Look it up. And having sex with them is not considered acceptable in the 21st century. In fact, it is punishable by law. It also has nothing to do with sexual freedom. Unless you are going to argue that sexual freedom means that you have the right to rape somebody, and this is basically no different from rape.

So, after you've been proven wrong, what do you do? You try to get away from the whole issue by changing the subject and trying to make it all about JustKate. All of a sudden, it's all about her "not being able to separate fiction from real life". WTF? You were the one who brought real life comparisons to the discussion in the first place, preaching about sexual freedom in the 21st century. This is just a very cheap and lame attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong.

 

[DevilEyes]

To JustKate: I had forgotten about Drusilla. I give Kirk a pass there as he was in a desperate situation, and he figured, hey, I'm going to die anyway, why deprive myself of what may be the company of a woman, albeit a slave, for the last time? Stress-related lapse in judgment. But I don't think Kirk had time to make it with Marlena, the Captain's Woman.

In-universe, I agree with you - one might defend Kirk by arguing that he was himself traumatized and not thinking straight, being imprisoned and about to die, so he did something he wouldn't normally ever do.

But I doubt that the TOS writers gave it much thought or had a lot of sensitivity to the issue. It was the 1960s, after all.

 

[exodus]

Sorry to go back to the off-topic discussion, but Exodus' behavior really makes my mind boggle with its illogicality.

I'm very sorry seperating the real world from fiction is very confusing and frustrating for you.

Um... what? You're the one who brought up the real world in the discussion in the first place, not JustKate. Let's see:

In our time that would be called a Hooker, and Naval men had sex with them too.

A holodeck on a ship is equal to Bob Hope's USO service to entertain the troops. Even sex & companionship on the holodeck doesn't equal the real thing as Troi counceled Barclay on many, many times. It's pretend and one step up from masturbating to an adult movie. It's the exact reason why Troi was disgusted that Barclay was using her as a fantasy.

These are officers that put their lives on the lines every day, that's an exterme amount of stress to live with, yet they're also supposed to be monks too?

Starfleet Offiers vacation on Riza!!! It's an entire planet designed to fullfill every single fantasy, sexual or otherwise. They hand out statues to ensure you have as much sex as you want!!


........but that's so so so wrong, except in the Trek universe.

So, basically you first defended Kirk having sex with a slave by comparing it with to the real world; and saying something blatantly untrue and extremely offensive: you equated a slave, a person forced by her masters to have sex against her will, with a "hooker", and stated that it is perfectly acceptable in our time, in the real world, to use the "services" of a sex slave, which you call "hooker".

Then you made it even worse by talking about sociallly educational programming - again, the real world - and stating that you were a person who had awareness of the world around them - again, the real world. Even though all your comments show that you are absolutely ignorant of the real world problem of sex trafficking and sexual enslavement and exploitation of people, mostly women and children.

If you do have any awareness about it, then it is even more shocking that you're defending the real world practice of enslaving people and forcing them to have sex against their will. You are basically defending slavery and rape and equating it with consensual sex for pleasure, saying that people should just accept it as a normal part of life, and insulting the victims by calling them "hookers", as if they voluntarily made the decision to prostitute themselves. I am really curious, do you also use the word "hooker" to describe black slaves who were forced to have sex with their white American slavemasters? Do you use the word "hooker" for Korean comfort women who were forced at gunpoint to be docile while they were gang raped by dozens of Japanese soldiers a day? It's no different for women and children today who are victims of sex trafficking, the modern version of sexual slavery.

It's obvious that you're the one who's confused and wrestling with your morals. If you are going to defend sexual slavery as a form of "sexual freedom", you may as well argue that rape and child abuse are forms of "sexual freedom" comparable to people having consensual sex for pleasure or a woman wearing a catsuit.

But I do believe you're actually completely ignorant about the issue - since you state such obviously incorrect things as that sexual slavery is legal, which cannot be further from the truth. Sex trafficking is a crime, and considered a very serious problem.

I have already pointed all this out to you, but you chose to ignore it:

In our time that would be called a Hooker, and Naval men had sex with them too.

Um...no. In our time, that is called a victim of sex trafficking. Look it up. And having sex with them is not considered acceptable in the 21st century. In fact, it is punishable by law. It also has nothing to do with sexual freedom. Unless you are going to argue that sexual freedom means that you have the right to rape somebody, and this is basically no different from rape.

So, after you've been proven wrong, what do you do? You try to get away from the whole issue by changing the subject and trying to make it all about JustKate. All of a sudden, it's all about her "not being able to separate fiction from real life". WTF? You were the one who brought real life comparisons to the discussion in the first place, preaching about sexual freedom in the 21st century. This is just a very cheap and lame attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong.

I used examples to show there are similarities within the real world to Trek. I also used examples to show there differences between the real world and Trek too. In the real world what Trek shows is a type of mirror into Naval life, Trek also shows the moral & ethics we have in their world are more subtle and "casual" than they are in ours. Once again: an Orion Slave Girl and what she is used for would never be allowed in our universe, however within the Trek universe it's perfectically acceptible.
I'm not affected by what goes on in the Trek universe because it IS just fiction and ISN'T our universe. So if it's written to be acceptible in that universe, then I accept it as part of the entertainment of the show. I don't know how much clearier I can make it other than that.

What you and Justkate seem to be saying is that both worlds are equal in values & morals, I'm trying to point out they are not. Especially when you both keep insisting that I'm condoning sex trafficing just because I accept it as natural in a fictional TV show. Important word here is "fiction", as in not to be confused with morals & ethics of our own real world.

I also didn't ignore you, I simply didn't see your post but it seems you're quick to jump to false conclusions too based on my interaction with someone else, instead on judging me on how I interact with you.

 

[StardustSteph]

Actually, I think if I were writing a romance for Seven, I would have killed off Tuvok's wife and tried pairing Seven with Tuvok. Sure, the age difference would be even more than it was with Seven and Chakotay, but they would have been more compatible in terms of intellectual abilities and sociability.

This would of been tolerable and understandable. I think Seven with any other character would of made more sense than Chakotay with the exception of maybe Neelix.

 

[JustKate]

This would of been tolerable and understandable. I think Seven with any other character would of made more sense than Chakotay with the exception of maybe Neelix.

I know this is not usually a popular idea, but I think Seven and Harry might have been kind of sweet together. They were both so...innocent, really. Tentative and in so many ways unsure of themselves.

I thought about Tuvok, too, but Trek doesn't allow many of its main characters to be married, so I am reluctant to suggest that they should have rid themselves of one of the few marriages that they've permitted.

 

[teya]

Frankly, I think they went the unexpected, and I, for one, appreciated that.


Seven isn't the robotic, unemotional creature folks make her out to be. Much of Seven's aloofness is a mask, so that she doesn't show what she's feeling. And she does feel--failsafe device notwithstanding. She obviously felt grief when One died. She obviously felt anguish when severed from the Collective. She obviously was hurt when Tom referred to the Borg they killed in the teaser for Dark Frontier as "mindless automatons."


So Seven feels. However she's not demonstrative. Neither is Chakotay.


Chakotay's spiritual tradition is a creative one. God is a metaphor in mystical traditions. Science fits quite neatly into that. Seven's purely scientific outlook would not be anathema to Chakotay's spiritualism.


And they are both orphans, both lost their families to overwhelming enemies. There's a kinship there as well.

 

[JustKate]

Once again: an Orion Slave Girl and what she is used for would never be allowed in our universe, however within the Trek universe it's perfectically acceptible.

You do realize, Exodus, that the slave girl that RR, DevilEyes and I have mentioned isn't one of the Orion slave girls, right? The Orion slave girls are kind of in a class by themselves, aren't they? Not quite what we traditionally think of as a "slave" (at least according to ENT).

Drusilla (thanks to RR for remembering her name) in "Bread and Circuses" is just a regular slave who does what she is ordered to do, and what she's ordered to do is please Kirk. And no, I very much doubt that it was acceptable in the Trek universe, either - RR talks about this in one of his posts. Certainly the Enterprise crew makes it perfectly and overtly clear in this episode that they do not approve of slavery. You might want to refresh your memory about the episode.

 

[StardustSteph]

I know this is not usually a popular idea, but I think Seven and Harry might have been kind of sweet together.

No, no, I agree. I would of liked Seven and Harry together. I think even though they were quite different they had some similarities that would of made them an endearing couple.

 

[exodus]

Once again: an Orion Slave Girl and what she is used for would never be allowed in our universe, however within the Trek universe it's perfectically acceptible.

You do realize, Exodus, that the slave girl that RR, DevilEyes and I have mentioned isn't one of the Orion slave girls, right? The Orion slave girls are kind of in a class by themselves, aren't they? Not quite what we traditionally think of as a "slave" (at least according to ENT).

Drusilla (thanks to RR for remembering her name) in "Bread and Circuses" is just a regular slave who does what she is ordered to do, and what she's ordered to do is please Kirk. And no, I very much doubt that it was acceptable in the Trek universe, either - RR pointed this out in one of his posts. Certainly the Enterprise crew makes it perfectly and overtly clear in this episode that they do not approve of slavery. You might want to refresh your memory about the episode.

So an Orion Slave girl who is nothing but a sex slave is ok but the Slave girl used as a sex slave in "Bread & Circuses" is wrong?

 

[JustKate]

No, of course not. It's wrong to use anybody as a slave or a sex slave.

What makes the situtation with the Orion girls odd is that we never are actually told how they are "used." If they are used as sex slaves, then yes, that would be wrong - just as wrong as the slaves in "Bread and Circuses." But in-universe, nothing much is really said about them - they are just beautiful exotic women. In fact, there's some kind of half-assed explanation in ENT - I haven't seen this episode, but I've heard about it and RR mentioned it to me in a PM - that makes it sorta clear they aren't slaves in the usual sense. But I don't know much about it - you might want to ask RR.

The reason I used Drusilla as an example instead of the Orion slave girls is, first, that Elf/DevilEyes did, but also because there is no ambiguity about her situation. Unlike the Orion slave girls, we are very specifically shown what it means to be a slave in Drusilla's society. We see that society use all different kinds of slaves in various ways. We don't have to guess, we don't have to speculate. We are flat-out told - and shown. This, therefore, makes her a clearer example. It's as simple as that.

 

[kes7]

I know this is not usually a popular idea, but I think Seven and Harry might have been kind of sweet together.

No, no, I agree. I would of liked Seven and Harry together. I think even though they were quite different they had some similarities that would of made them an endearing couple.

Seven didn't have any respect for Harry. She treated him like a particularly dim child most of the time. More than that, Harry had no respect for himself, while Seven had very high regard for herself. Someone as confident as Seven paired with someone as unsure as Harry is a recipe for an imbalanced relationship.

 

[teya]

I know this is not usually a popular idea, but I think Seven and Harry might have been kind of sweet together.

No, no, I agree. I would of liked Seven and Harry together. I think even though they were quite different they had some similarities that would of made them an endearing couple.

Seven didn't have any respect for Harry. She treated him like a particularly dim child most of the time. More than that, Harry had no respect for himself, while Seven had very high regard for herself. Someone as confident as Seven paired with someone as unsure as Harry is a recipe for an imbalanced relationship.

Actually, the fact that we saw Seven practicing social situations (smiling in the cargo bay, social interactions on the holodeck) showed that she wasn't as self-confident in all things.


Seven knew her strengths and was confident in them. She was also painfully aware of her weaknesses--and tried to hide them.


Just like most people.

 

[JustKate]

I know this is not usually a popular idea, but I think Seven and Harry might have been kind of sweet together.

No, no, I agree. I would of liked Seven and Harry together. I think even though they were quite different they had some similarities that would of made them an endearing couple.

Seven didn't have any respect for Harry. She treated him like a particularly dim child most of the time. More than that, Harry had no respect for himself, while Seven had very high regard for herself. Someone as confident as Seven paired with someone as unsure as Harry is a recipe for an imbalanced relationship.

Yes, but we're speculating here, right? In an ideal world, on an ideal VOY, Harry would have grown up. At the end of seven years, he wouldn't have been the same kid that he was at the beginning. And if that had happened, he might have grown into a relationship.

Of course, TPTB didn't allow him to grow up, which is a shame for more reasons than this one, but if they had...well, no telling what we would have ended up with.

Besides, I agree with Teya that Seven wasn't really that confident. She was intellectually confident, yes, but emotionally, she was very unsure of herself, very vulnerable. That robotic mask of hers really was a mask, as Teya put it. Honestly, sometimes I just wanted to give her a hug - which she wouldn't have known how to react to. That's how emotionally unsure she was.

 

[exodus]

No, of course not. It's wrong to use anybody as a slave or a sex slave.

What makes the situtation with the Orion girls odd is that we never are actually told how they are "used." If they are used as sex slaves, then yes, that would be wrong - just as wrong as the slaves in "Bread and Circuses." But in-universe, nothing much is really said about them - they are just beautiful exotic women. In fact, there's some kind of half-assed explanation in ENT - I haven't seen this episode, but I've heard about it and RR mentioned it to me in a PM - that makes it sorta clear they aren't slaves in the usual sense. But I don't know much about it - you might want to ask RR.

The reason I used Drusilla as an example instead of the Orion slave girls is, first, that Elf/DevilEyes did, but also because there is no ambiguity about her situation. Unlike the Orion slave girls, we are very specifically shown what it means to be a slave in Drusilla's society. We see that society use all different kinds of slaves in various ways. We don't have to guess, we don't have to speculate. We are flat-out told - and shown. This, therefore, makes her a clearer example. It's as simple as that.

Ok but our debate originated from the sexual promiscuity of a Starfleet crew. How does this relate to Kirk & Riker, etc. as you say "tom-catting" around?

Was Kirk repremanded for having sex with a slave?

 

[JustKate]

Ok but our debate originated from the sexual promiscuity of a Starfleet crew. How does this relate?

Goodness. It's been so complicated.

We actually started disagreeing on the subject of Kirk, if I am remembering correctly. Please don't make me go back and get all the references because I'll be here all day, but we were talking about "romance," and I said, rather offhandedly, that I didn't consider Kirk a particularly romantic figure, mostly because I don't find guys who have random casual sex attractive or romantic. At some point, you then introduced the idea that in the Trek universe, they wouldn't necessarily have the same morals that I have. Which is a definite possibility, of course. And then somebody - RR, I think - mentioned that Kirk's sexual shennanigans have been exaggerated over the years.

But there is at least one example of a sexual shennanigan in which, IMO, Kirk comes out looking less than pristine in an unambiguous way, and that is Drusilla in "Bread and Circuses." One's perception of his other flings depends on how one feels about casual sex. But in the case of Drusilla, one's perception depends on how you feel about slavery (but I'm assuming we're all against slavery) or on whether one realizes the situation she's been put in.

And that situation was untenable. Kirk was wrong. It wasn't a fun little amoral fling. Drusilla literally says that she's been sent there by her master to please him, and that's what she does. If I am remembering correctly, we actually see Kirk wake up afterwards, when she's already left. It really is a weird and icky scene, when you look at it with an adult's eyes.

 

[exodus]

Ok but our debate originated from the sexual promiscuity of a Starfleet crew. How does this relate?

Goodness. It's been so complicated.

We actually started disagreeing on the subject of Kirk, if I am remembering correctly. Please don't make me go back and get all the references because I'll be here all day, but we were talking about "romance," and I said, rather offhandedly, that I didn't consider Kirk a particularly romantic figure, mostly because I don't find guys who have random casual sex attractive or romantic. At some point, you then introduced the idea that in the Trek universe, they wouldn't necessarily have the same morals that I have. Which is a definite possibility, of course. And then somebody - RR, I think - mentioned that Kirk's sexual shennanigans have been exaggerated over the years.

But there is at least one example of a sexual shennanigan in which, IMO, Kirk comes out looking less than pristine in an unambiguous way, and that is Drusilla in "Bread and Circuses." One's perception of his other flings depends on how one feels about casual sex. But in the case of Drusilla, one's perception depends on how you feel about slavery (but I'm assuming we're all against slavery) or on whether one realizes the situation she's been put in.

And that situation was untenable. Kirk was wrong. It wasn't a fun little amoral fling. Drusilla literally says that she's been sent there by her master to please him, and that's what she does. If I am remembering correctly, we actually see Kirk wake up afterwards, when she's already left. It really is a weird and icky scene, when you look at it with an adult's eyes.

Ok.
Which brings me back to the question: Is it amoral for just you or is it also amoral in the Trek universe?

Because if Orion Sex Slaves are permitted, then is what happened in "B&C" also amoral in the Trek universe too or like the OSS, is it accepted?
While we might find it wrong, Federation law would just say: that's their culture, don't interfere.

See what I'm saying now?

 

[Red Ranger]

Can't we all just . . . get along?

 

[exodus]

Can't we all just . . . get along?

SHUT THE HELL UP, RED!

 

[kes7]

No, no, I agree. I would of liked Seven and Harry together. I think even though they were quite different they had some similarities that would of made them an endearing couple.

Seven didn't have any respect for Harry. She treated him like a particularly dim child most of the time. More than that, Harry had no respect for himself, while Seven had very high regard for herself. Someone as confident as Seven paired with someone as unsure as Harry is a recipe for an imbalanced relationship.

Yes, but we're speculating here, right? In an ideal world, on an ideal VOY, Harry would have grown up. At the end of seven years, he wouldn't have been the same kid that he was at the beginning. And if that had happened, he might have grown into a relationship.

Of course, TPTB didn't allow him to grow up, which is a shame for more reasons than this one, but if they had...well, no telling what we would have ended up with.

Besides, I agree with Teya that Seven wasn't really that confident. She was intellectually confident, yes, but emotionally, she was very unsure of herself, very vulnerable. That robotic mask of hers really was a mask, as Teya put it. Honestly, sometimes I just wanted to give her a hug - which she wouldn't have known how to react to. That's how emotionally unsure she was.

I agree, she was emotionally unsure. But the fact that she continually pretended not to be would be intimidating to someone like Harry, wouldn't it? Ater all, he's no mind reader.