EPT[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 967
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Orangered
289 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:50 zeru wrote: You cant be a purely good guy and play the game. Yeah true but of those who are playing the game she is the most compassionate and good. On June 07 2013 23:52 Orangered wrote: You'll be better off without reading the books. Read it once the show is finished. Interesting, I have been leaning towards this too. Maybe it's better to finish one medium then start again on the second. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:39 sc4k wrote: Tywin is a reasonably likeable character I'll agree but he is not a 'good guy' like Dany. Dany has shown herself willing to extend herself with the only objective being to right a wrong. Tywin couldn't care less about helping people in need. Ask yourself - if a loyal subject came to Dany with a distressing personal problem, would she be more or less likely to care about it than Tywin? Obviously she would. Cos she is the only remaining good guy amongst the would-be-kings. Dany may be self-righteous but that's because she is righteous. She has done nothing wrong. And the part about the stuck up bitch makes me feel you probably dislike her for being a woman more than anything else. Maybe you are threatened by powerful women. Well obviously. Where else would it exist? The bowls of a badger or the foot of a squirrel? Doesn't mean judgements about peoples' actions aren't valid. People don't like Dany because she's kind of a spoiled brat. "MY dragons!" "MY throne!" She hasn't once actually lifted a finger or otherwise led her people into battle. Not only that, someone else already pointed out the obvious; she shamelessly slaughtered tons of slave-holders and has set two different cities into complete chaos. Then she just leaves the wreckage behind. She's not righteous, she's simply self-righteous. At best, she's ambiguously good where Tywin is ambiguously evil, but she's not some paragon of virtue. Don't try to accuse people of sexism just because you don't like that your favorite character is being called out for her moral flaws. "Good and evil exists only in the hearts and minds of men." Daenarys is a self-righteous stuck up bitch who believes she has done nothing wrong. Stannis is also a self-righteous prick who is only trying to better his own position. Tywin is just a strict conservative father doing only what is necessary to protect his family. Out of these 3 I will always root for Tywin to come out on top (couldn't care less for some of the other Lannisters). Sure he's a complete dick at times but he has only been a reactive player. And he is also one of the very few characters who doesn't act on selfish impulses, his only desire is to protect the legacy of his House. IMO Tywin doesn't do what he does for his family. He does it for the power and for his family's image. He doesn't give two fucks about Cersei or Tyrion's well-being, and he only cares about Jaime insofar as he wants his heir to be intact when he dies. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
Well I might be resorting to cheap tactics like insinuating the opponent in this argument has a deep-rooted psychological hatred of women stemming from an early rejection in his forays into the dating world BUT may I remind you that I'm not exactly taking this that seriously and it's late in the day so screw it. Make of that what you will. Khaleesi ho! On June 07 2013 23:58 Talin wrote: Like I said earlier, I hate it when people use the series as a confirmation of their own social cynicism and moral relativism. It is obviously your prerogative to do so, but I still think it's a very superficial conclusion to make, and that it isn't the intended point of the events that transpire in the series. My thoughts exactly. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:14 SamsungStar wrote: Again, you are using your moral system to judge people that don't live in the same world you do. It's not just incest in a vacuum. It's adultery with the wife of your liege lord. That is punishable by excruciating death in Westeros. And for good reason, considering this is a society based on the right to rule by inheritance. There is a difference between law and custom and the underlying morality. You can't conclude that adultery with the wife of your liege is more morally reprehensible than adultery with a random peasant woman just because they live in a feudal society. It's more of a case of adultery being considered immoral in general, but being more punishable and having more extreme consequences if committed with the spouse of your liege or someone higher in the hierarchy. On June 07 2013 23:14 SamsungStar wrote: IMO, this is GRRM's way of commenting on how stupid it is to do "emotionally good" things rather than intelligent, well thought out decisions that lead to good results. Like I said earlier, I hate it when people use the series as a confirmation of their own social cynicism and moral relativism. It is obviously your prerogative to do so, but I still think it's a very superficial conclusion to make, and that it isn't the intended point of the events that transpire in the series. There is the underlying point where all of the characters are imperfect in one way or the other, and they all get punished for their imperfections (or rather, their imperfections get exploited by their opponents). It's easy to think of Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons as the "winners" after the last episode, but it was also easy to think of Theon Greyjoy as the winner after the episode in which he took Winterfell, or Tyrion after he defended King's Landing. There's no approach that guarantees "good results" in Westeros. I doubt there will ever be characters smart enough to "play the game", no matter what they may think of themselves. As for Dany, calling her an entitled brat is ridiculous considering that a season ago she was stranded in the middle of a desert with three eggs, an exiled knight and a ragtag bunch of Dothraki, yet now SHE IS the conquering hero. Her approach has made her followers loyal to her cause, many of them loyal to her personally. Viserys - the one that is deserving of being called an entitled brat for believing his Targaryen blood and right to the throne would carry him there - was eliminated much sooner, in more favorable conditions. Regarding Astapor, she indulged her personal idealism and compassion by freeing the slaves. Just because she doesn't stay and do everything for the people of Astapor doesn't discredit the act of abolishing slavery and giving people who live there a chance live freely, join her, or seek their fortune elsewhere as free people. Regardless of consequences, it is a chance they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and for them it is certainly better than if she had merely passed through. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:58 sc4k wrote: There's no shame in slaughtering slave-holders so obviously it was shameless, and quite right too! Well I might be resorting to cheap tactics like insinuating the opponent in this argument has a deep-rooted psychological hatred of women stemming from an early rejection in his forays into the dating world BUT may I remind you that I'm not exactly taking this that seriously and it's late in the day so screw it. Make of that what you will. Khaleesi ho! My thoughts exactly. There is shame because if you want to fight slavery you don't just slaughter the population. You hold those responsible that are actually holding the institution in place. Random-Jo-Down-The-Street is only participating in the slave trade because that's the only way of life he knows. Just killing him because he owns some slaves is horrible and incredibly lazy if you want to be a righteous person. As for Dany, calling her an entitled brat is ridiculous considering that a season ago she was stranded in the middle of a desert with three eggs, an exiled knight and a ragtag bunch of Dothraki, yet now SHE IS the conquering hero. Her approach has made her followers loyal to her cause, many of them loyal to her personally. Viserys - the one that is deserving of being called an entitled brat for believing his Targaryen blood and right to the throne would carry him there - was eliminated much sooner, in more favorable conditions. Regarding Astapor, she indulged her personal idealism and compassion by freeing the slaves. Just because she doesn't stay and do everything for the people of Astapor doesn't discredit the act of abolishing slavery and giving people who live there a chance live freely, join her, or seek their fortune elsewhere as free people. Regardless of consequences, it is a chance they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and for them it is certainly better than if she had merely passed through. Dany wants the throne of Westeros for the exact same reason that Viserys did. "IT'S MINE!" Of course Dany has gone through some hard times and suffered a great deal, but what has she actually DONE? She had the loyalty of Jorah and a ragtag group of Dothraki because 1) She was a lot nicer and more attractive than the Dothraki and 2) She has some fucking dragons. Her loyalty continues to grow on this foundation. Her positive actions are built on the backs of her men (she doesn't lift a damn finger in any instance) and also on the corpses of countless individuals who didn't deserve to die. Your last paragraph is ridiculous and sounds like the obnoxious justifications people used for the Iraq War. Freeing people from slavery into complete chaos isn't just "better". The world isn't some ideological slate where you can just measure a society by saying "slavery = bad. No slavery = better than slavery." The incredible amount of chaos that she likely caused could have very well offset the good that she did by setting the slaves free, especially when it could be likely that, now that there is a power vacuum there, slavery could just be reinstated by people who come in and seize control, and the slaves that went free could suffer even more harshly. Like I said, it was lazy, rash, and idealistic to just free the slaves and walk away. | ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:55 Stratos_speAr wrote: People don't like Dany because she's kind of a spoiled brat. "MY dragons!" "MY throne!" She hasn't once actually lifted a finger or otherwise led her people into battle. Not only that, someone else already pointed out the obvious; she shamelessly slaughtered tons of slave-holders and has set two different cities into complete chaos. Then she just leaves the wreckage behind. She's not righteous, she's simply self-righteous. At best, she's ambiguously good where Tywin is ambiguously evil, but she's not some paragon of virtue. Don't try to accuse people of sexism just because you don't like that your favorite character is being called out for her moral flaws. Tywin doesn't do what he does for his family. He does it for the power and for his family's image. He doesn't give two fucks about Cersei or Tyrion's well-being, and he only cares about Jaime insofar as he wants his heir to be intact when he dies. Jaime is no heir to the Lannister house. He's a member of the kingsguard. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: There is shame because if you want to fight slavery you don't just slaughter the population. You hold those responsible that are actually holding the institution in place. Random-Jo-Down-The-Street is only participating in the slave trade because that's the only way of life he knows. Just killing him because he owns some slaves is horrible and incredibly lazy if you want to be a righteous person. It's no surprise this argument has become circular because that's what happens on TL. Different people in different timezones just appear, take up the reigns of the argument and discount what's been argued 6 pages earlier. Basically we already had this discussion. I conceded that Dany was heavy-handed in her resolution but ultimately she was doing it from a good place. She was 'chaotic good'. There's really nothing that shameful about killing slave owners. I would describe it as 'disproportionate punishment' but not shamefully disproportionate. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:04 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: Jaime is no heir to the Lannister house. He's a member of the kingsguard. People have been released from the Kingsguard before. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:53 sc4k wrote: Yeah true but of those who are playing the game she is the most compassionate and good. She's not compassionate. Compassion is all-encompassing. It is not based on morality. Daeny choosing to help one group and slaughter the other is not compassionate. It's just biased. This has been discussed in the thread before, as has the futility of judging based on your own moral compass rather than that of the world they live in. Yet you continue to do it, which shows you don't understand how the fantasy genre works. And I don't understand why you keep trying to say Daeny is the most good. Of those who are playing the game, who is NOT the most good? Cersei? She's protecting the lives of her SONS. If she loses the war, her entire family is slaughtered. Can you blame her for fighting the war? Stannis? He's protecting the lawful integrity of the kingdom. To him, he is the most righteous of all the claimants, and when Renly stole his bannermen and tried to claim the throne for himself he betrayed his family thereby forfeiting his life. If Stannis loses, Westeros becomes a land of chaos where illegitimate bastards are allowed to rule. Robb? Avenging his murdered father, his kidnapped sisters, his maimed brother. All he did was win battles. I didn't see anything too morally reprehensible out of him in terms of mass murder/genocide/atrocities. And if he lost, his family would obviously be destroyed and his own life forfeit. He had very little choice in the matter. Daeny? What are her consequences for not getting the Iron Throne? A stray assassin now and then? Has she ever even tried talking to the king? Opened a dialogue to explain she doesn't want the throne so stop trying to kill me? Every single other claimant has at least had some sort of negotiation with their rival houses. Yet Daeny just lives in some far away land, pillaging slaver cities, while some crusty old Mormont whispers sweet nothings in her ear. Out of all those involved in the GoT, she is probably the least invested. Yet, she's arguably committed some of the worst atrocities. Perhaps the only one worse than Daeny in the game is Greyjoy, because he has absolutely no reason to be involved other than naked ambition. | ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
| ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On June 07 2013 23:58 Talin wrote: There is a difference between law and custom and the underlying morality. You can't conclude that adultery with the wife of your liege is more morally reprehensible than adultery with a random peasant woman just because they live in a feudal society. It's more of a case of adultery being considered immoral in general, but being more punishable and having more extreme consequences if committed with the spouse of your liege or someone higher in the hierarchy. Like I said earlier, I hate it when people use the series as a confirmation of their own social cynicism and moral relativism. It is obviously your prerogative to do so, but I still think it's a very superficial conclusion to make, and that it isn't the intended point of the events that transpire in the series. There is the underlying point where all of the characters are imperfect in one way or the other, and they all get punished for their imperfections (or rather, their imperfections get exploited by their opponents). It's easy to think of Lannisters, Freys, and Boltons as the "winners" after the last episode, but it was also easy to think of Theon Greyjoy as the winner after the episode in which he took Winterfell, or Tyrion after he defended King's Landing. There's no approach that guarantees "good results" in Westeros. I doubt there will ever be characters smart enough to "play the game", no matter what they may think of themselves. As for Dany, calling her an entitled brat is ridiculous considering that a season ago she was stranded in the middle of a desert with three eggs, an exiled knight and a ragtag bunch of Dothraki, yet now SHE IS the conquering hero. Her approach has made her followers loyal to her cause, many of them loyal to her personally. Viserys - the one that is deserving of being called an entitled brat for believing his Targaryen blood and right to the throne would carry him there - was eliminated much sooner, in more favorable conditions. Regarding Astapor, she indulged her personal idealism and compassion by freeing the slaves. Just because she doesn't stay and do everything for the people of Astapor doesn't discredit the act of abolishing slavery and giving people who live there a chance live freely, join her, or seek their fortune elsewhere as free people. Regardless of consequences, it is a chance they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and for them it is certainly better than if she had merely passed through. No. Producing illegitimate heirs and trying to pass them off as legitimate is a grievous crime in Westeros. That is why cuckolding the rightful lord of a holding is considered more morally wrong than sleeping with the miller's wife. Please understand how feudal society works. Daeny is an entitled brat. She has a following because she has dragons. She has dragons because Carl gave them to her. The dragons hatched because she was born Targaryen. Just like Viserys was born Targaryen. She has done very little to legitimize her right to rule in any other way. This is part of the reason Mormont always argues with her, except he's totally besotted so he fawns about how she's the queen Westeros deserves. Truthfully, she'd make an awful ruler. Edit: I also completely agree with Stratos' arguments. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: Dany wants the throne of Westeros for the exact same reason that Viserys did. "IT'S MINE!" Of course Dany has gone through some hard times and suffered a great deal, but what has she actually DONE? She had the loyalty of Jorah and a ragtag group of Dothraki because 1) She was a lot nicer and more attractive than the Dothraki and 2) She has some fucking dragons. Her loyalty continues to grow on this foundation. Her positive actions are built on the backs of her men (she doesn't lift a damn finger in any instance) and also on the corpses of countless individuals who didn't deserve to die. If you think donning an armor and leading people into battle is the only way to "DO SOMETHING", then that's even more shortsighted than Dany's own actions. The Dragons were just eggs - ANYONE could have taken them - by coercion, force, treachery, you name it. Even at the time being the Dragons are more of an exotic item than they are useful in terms of actually "getting things done". She's hardly the most attractive woman in the world either, and it's downright silly to attribute the loyalty she commands to her looks. If anything, that would only make her a more attractive target for rape or being sold to the very slavers she ended up killing. She inspires loyalty in people around her, including a man paid to spy on her and foreigners that have known her for a short time, have little respect for her culture in general, let alone her heritage. That in itself is DOING SOMETHING, and it's doing something right. Making use of the skills of people loyal to her is something she has earned the right to do. Those men follow her out of their own free will, and respect and obey her wishes even when they disagree with them. On June 08 2013 00:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: Your last paragraph is ridiculous and sounds like the obnoxious justifications people used for the Iraq War. Freeing people from slavery into complete chaos isn't just "better". The world isn't some ideological slate where you can just measure a society by saying "slavery = bad. No slavery = better than slavery." The incredible amount of chaos that she likely caused could have very well offset the good that she did by setting the slaves free, especially when it could be likely that, now that there is a power vacuum there, slavery could just be reinstated by people who come in and seize control, and the slaves that went free could suffer even more harshly. Like I said, it was lazy, rash, and idealistic to just free the slaves and walk away. The analogy with the Iraq War is ridiculous. At no point were the Iraqi slaves, and there is an extreme difference between a society of slavers and a 21st century society with limited political freedom. If the slavery is reinstated, Astapor goes back to being its old self. With slaves being a commodity, they would not be treated any differently than they were before - they would be treated as well as necessary to perform their primary tasks and make up for the value of keeping them, or eventually selling them on. Which is still being treated shit, whether in old Astapor or new. Between now and new slavers coming over, however, the people freed would have a chance to make a difference for themselves. Some will, some won't, but overall it's still a net positive. | ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
Edit: I'm obviously leaving out anyone who isn't an adult. | ||
zatic
Zurich15361 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:30 Ghost-z wrote: The only real "good guys" in the show if you were to name them are John Snow and Jorah Mormont. Edit: I'm obviously leaving out anyone who isn't an adult. Yeah, like Joffrey  | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:24 SamsungStar wrote: No. Producing illegitimate heirs and trying to pass them off as legitimate is a grievous crime in Westeros. That is why cuckolding the rightful lord of a holding is considered more morally wrong than sleeping with the miller's wife. Please understand how feudal society works. You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:35 Talin wrote: You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. A society's laws are based on the overall agreed upon moral code of the people. Even if it's not at the first, then eventually everyone is made to see it as so. Of course, I cannot comment on one person's individual morality and how they would feel about doing something. Jamie obviously does not think it's bad to sleep with his sister. To him it's just bad if others find out. But I think a large majority of Westeros would agree that what Jamie did is much worse than if he had slept with a miller's wife. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:35 Talin wrote: You have literally no evidence for that whatsoever. I understand exactly how feudal society works in terms of law and custom - but you're applying those principles as arguments in context of morality, which is inherently wrong. To say it in simple terms - a person wouldn't feel more guilty for sleeping with a Queen as opposed to sleeping with a miller's wife. He would just feel more scared (of the punishment if found out). This is the difference you're failing to acknowledge. The punishment is greater because the crime is greater. Acknowledge. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 08 2013 00:29 Talin wrote: If you think donning an armor and leading people into battle is the only way to "DO SOMETHING", then that's even more shortsighted than Dany's own actions. The Dragons were just eggs - ANYONE could have taken them - by coercion, force, treachery, you name it. The Dragons Even at the time being the Dragons are more of an exotic item than they are useful in terms of actually "getting things done". She's hardly the most attractive woman in the world either, and it's downright silly to attribute the loyalty she commands to her looks. If anything, that would only make her a more attractive target for rape or being sold to the very slavers she ended up killing. She inspires loyalty in people around her, including a man paid to spy on her and foreigners that have known her for a short time, have little respect for her culture in general, let alone her heritage. That in itself is DOING SOMETHING, and it's doing something right. Making use of the skills of people loyal to her is something she has earned the right to do. Those men follow her out of their own free will, and respect and obey her wishes even when they disagree with them. She doesn't necessarily have to put on armor and lead a charge, but she still hasn't done anything. All of the actual logistics are left to the competent servants she has. The only things she's actually done out of her own accord and effort were 1) getting some respect from Khal Drogo so she can treat the women better and 2) tricking the leader of Astapor so he gets roasted (but let's not forget that she immediately orders the slaughter of countless people right after this). Like I said, her loyalty is inspired by looks (Jorah, Daario), dragons (everyone, especially the Dothraki),a bizarre sense of duty (Barristan), or a higher level of kindness (the Unsullied, Dothraki). This kindness isn't even necessarily morally virtuous, as others have pointed out. And the dragons? She has them by virtue of a gift and by being a Targaryen. It's not like she worked incredibly hard to obtain them from some mystical cavern or some evil tyrant. She was given them as a wedding gift and then they hatched when she walked into some fire. People started practically worshiping her for them afterwards. And downplaying her looks is absurd. The book explicitly sets her up as one of the most beautiful women out there from the first pages and she is easily one of the most beautiful actresses on the show. On June 08 2013 00:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: Your last paragraph is ridiculous and sounds like the obnoxious justifications people used for the Iraq War. Freeing people from slavery into complete chaos isn't just "better". The world isn't some ideological slate where you can just measure a society by saying "slavery = bad. No slavery = better than slavery." The incredible amount of chaos that she likely caused could have very well offset the good that she did by setting the slaves free, especially when it could be likely that, now that there is a power vacuum there, slavery could just be reinstated by people who come in and seize control, and the slaves that went free could suffer even more harshly. Like I said, it was lazy, rash, and idealistic to just free the slaves and walk away. The analogy with the Iraq War is ridiculous. At no point were the Iraqi slaves, and there is an extreme difference between a society of slavers and a 21st century society with limited political freedom. If the slavery is reinstated, Astapor goes back to being its old self. With slaves being a commodity, they would not be treated any differently than they were before - they would be treated as well as necessary to perform their primary tasks and make up for the value of keeping them, or eventually selling them on. Which is still being treated shit, whether in old Astapor or new. Between now and new slavers coming over, however, the people freed would have a chance to make a difference for themselves. Some will, some won't, but overall it's still a net positive. [/QUOTE] Just because Iraqi citizens didn't have the title of slave, you don't just get to say, "Oh, it's totally different because they were treated SO much better!" Yes, they had marginally more rights, but it was a very similar situation; people who were extremely oppressed and were then "liberated", and that liberation caused even more chaos. Why do you think that so many people were pushing for us to have active responsibility in rebuilding Iraq/Afghanistan? Because it's horribly selfish, short-sighted, and immoral to just walk in, sew complete chaos into a society because of your self-righteous moral principles, and then walk away and "wipe your hands clean" of the situation. It's not like Dany is evil by any stretch; her compassion towards women in the first season, her care for her people in the second, and her passion for ending slavery in the 3rd are all admirable. However, she's hardly a paragon of virtue. She is still selfish in many respects, doesn't personally work nearly as hard as the other people vying for power to accomplish things, and acts in very short-sighted and harmful ways. The ends do not justify the means, but the means do not justify the ends. Either one is short-sighted and lazy, and for something to truly be morally virtuous, both the ends and means must be accounted for. Also, saying that the slaves will just be treated the same if slavery is re-instated is patently absurd. To re-instate order, punishment and discipline needs to be given out, especially when those people have tasted freedom. What, do you just think that new slavers are going to come in and say, "Alright, get back in your chains guys" and the freed slaves will just comply? That's astonishingly naive. A society's laws are based on the overall agreed upon moral code of the people. Even if it's not at the first, then eventually everyone is made to see it as so. Of course, I cannot comment on one person's individual morality and how they would feel about doing something. Jamie obviously does not think it's bad to sleep with his sister. To him it's just bad if others find out. But I think a large majority of Westeros would agree that what Jamie did is much worse than if he had slept with a miller's wife. No, no, no. Absolutely not. It's ridiculous to say that laws and society's moral sentiments are necessarily linked. There are countless examples to the contrary. They CAN be linked, but this link is hardly necessary. Sleeping with the King's wife is a perfect example. You have no evidence to claim that people would find this to be more of a moral outrage than sleeping with a miller's wife. In fact, people just might not care, especially if the king (or queen) was hated at the time. That law is a product of an elite minority wanting to preserve their hereditary claims to a throne, nothing more. The average person probably didn't give a fuck about it and routinely joked about it. | ||
| ||
