In game terms even orcs life effectivly forever, barring a violent dead
And the several hundreds years lifetime of elfs and dwarfs is pretty much just speculation of scientist as they haven been around for more then 60 years, so its unlikely to affect their way of seeing time.

Not really. If you think of the fact that an Ork character who was 20 when 1e came out would not be 42 and close to dying of old age, that's not really "living forever".

And that would only matter if that was your PC from first edition that you wanted to use in fourth.

And if he's anyone important, he just gois in for a Leonization treatment and keeps on rocking for few hundred years most likely.

Shadowrun Elves <> Tolkien Elves.

That is very bad journalism to describe Shadowrun as Cyberpunk meet Tolkien.

Tolkien Elves are ubermen immune to diseases and several poison, far stronger and agile than men, and far more resistant too. They are basically half-gods in essence.

Shadowrun elves are very more or less human, long lived ones, beautifull ones but humans. Shadowrun elves also have the peculiarity of all the meta-types (except Orks after Big D death) to share a meta-human culture and identity that predate Awakening.

There are law, language and arts that are elven and not human. This is evident in the Tir's. this is even more evident in the different challenge the elves have to fall back on the regulate political and domistical problem. Of course this mainly concern the Immortal Elves as thoses complex rituals are inherited by Dragons but even more mundane elves usually resort to Chal'han (splg pls) or the Circle of Life. Tir Tairngie and Tir Na Nog do a lot to preserve the elvish tradition and ritual.

I understand the point that at this time elves look like they are basically immortal, this is even thematic in some of the novels ("Never Turst an Elf" saw Khan the Ork trying to steal immortality from elves ). But there is many more informed people that know that medical and genetics have shown that elves are actually aging but that the aging process is slow and doesnt alterate their physical appearance so much.

You forget a very very important element too : "Leonisation", high ranking corporate also have access to the same long life expectancy than the elves favor, in fact I am pretty sure this is a great motivator in climbing the ranks as fast as possible then staying on top.

Stop being an idiot. You know what was meant and the context it was used in. It was clarified several times. There was no "continued". So you've never called me on anything. Don't give yourself any credit here. In fact, on page 2 (so who knows what "continued means to you), and only my second reference to elves living "forever" I even said "more or less", and "effectively", oh, and this incredibly ambiguous post:
. So it is very obvious that "forever" is just hyperbole, and not meant to be taken literally. Of course, I've never read a defined age for Shadowrun elves. The books say "several hundred years." Everything else seems to be speculation unless you'd like to quote sources. I don't know who would be confused by that after an early clarification. Apparently just you. Like I said. We'll wait for you to catch up. And I'm being rude? In your first reply, you suggested that I was intentionally obfuscating the issue. Calling me a liar. That's pretty rude right there. Now, like Yahu, you're irrelevant and I'm not offended. But don't take some high and mighty attitude with me princess. Oh, and I never once used the term "immortal" in any of my posts, so it would be hard to have "continued" to do so. Now who's been wrong so consistently? lol. Clown.

The key point, which you have either willfully ignored, or completely missed, was only that the idea of elves been exceptionally long lived was lifted from Tolkein, or Tolkein based works and the game has, in my opinion, never really addressed the sociological impacts of that anything more than superficially. Using the term forever, when in relation to the natural human lifespan and a game timeline that has only spanned 22 years, is appropriate, and was not left unclear. Harping on semantics isn't working for you. In the words of Georges St. Pierre: "I am not impressed with your performance."

Most gangs are pretty lame in real life. They don't have nearly the thematic variety SR Seattle has. I'd say we're doing pretty good.

It's up to the GM, I think, to show some creativity, though. My writeup of Minneapolis, we ended up running into everything from a hipster gang in Uptown to a pseudo-cannibal gang headed by a leopard shapeshifter (modeling itself after the Leopard Society of old in West Africa) to a banned fraternity gone underground and morphed into something like a hooligan firm for American college football. If you think somebody's gang idea is lame, replace it.

Krug, maybe you should try to learn how to have a civil conversation like the rest of us before you post again, your coming of as a mighty fine jackass.

Also your argument about the problems of elves living "forever", ingnores the rest of the world completely, the fact is that none of the big movers and shakers of the corporate world are gonna retire becouse of the old age(whether thats becouse their elfs,Dwarfs,freespirits,dragons or has access to leonization is pretty much irrelevant)

Oh also it hilarious that you think Tolkien invented the immortalness of elves, instead of basing it on far older myths.

Norse, to be precise. In Norse Mythology, Elves were low ranking Gods who passed through walls and had other unique powers. Dwarves were a type of Elf in Norse too, which is also funny.

To the original post and some of the comments earlier in this discussion, I never got the impression that magic blended in poorly. I'm new to the Shadowrun scene, joining in only in 4E (though I've followed the setting through novels since I was five). Magic in Shadowrun is a brutal, terrifying reality that some exalt and others detest. Keep it rare, so that it has more impact, and it can work in just fine.

And the old celtic stories about fairies, especially sidhe who are pretty much elfs.

I know you're stuck in a language barrier, so I'll grant you some leeway. But you're not involved in that conversation so you should probably stay out of it. I was civil with you, so what are you going on about? And I'll have a civil one with him when he doesn't put words in my mouth, or suggest I'm wrong when he's so far lost in the conversation I'm not sure how he ever found his way in. The dude comes off telling me I'm a liar, and I'm wrong when he can't even correctly interpret things I've said in plain English and then says that I've "continued" to use words I haven't even used once?

I also don't think Tolkein invented it. But he did create the works that most modern fantasy are most closely based off of, and the concept for Shadowrun was a blending of Tolkeinesque elements and William Gibson's Neuromancer. How did you glean that I think Tolkein invented it from four or five posts? Are you suddenly prescient?

And you, like the others still fail to grasp the point if you think we're only describing advancement to the absolute top of the tier. But whatever. Kinda used to it by now. Also, I think it's funny that you think I care what I come off like. You can only imagine what you come off like to me.

A fair point. I like the sidhe courts.



I don't usually care to step into something like this, but I would like to point out that this is a forum: we're here to involve ourselves in conversations.

I also greatly dislike it when people are not civil.

To cover your point, though: there are a great many Corps who do not let Metas advance beyond a certain point. An Elf can likewise be stuck in middle management for his entire life. In the end, fair is not really a consideration in the setting and you don't need a Shadowrun team to make your boss lose face (though it helps). The company is also so vast that you can put in for a transfer, if it is a Megacorp. It's a very peaceful way to sidestep the issue without being a threat to the Elf/Dwarf/Dragon.

There are plenty of things to be done with long living creatures, but I think that is more up to the GM than a book. There's no reason you can't play with it. In fact, in many cases it's very much implied.

If its not the top of the tier, arranging to something happen is pretty much standard shadowrun material.
I got the assumption you were talking about the absolute top tier from your statemant that "saying thats what shadowrunners are for is ridiculous".

Also, thanks for implying i cant speak/understand English.

Another thing to keep in mind is the Humanis Policlub. Afraid you'll be under that Elf boss till you die? Join the Policlub, who has members higher ranking than your boss! Why, if you do well enough, they might help your career and then you can turn around and help others who had the very problem you did! Totally legal.

How's the view from that high horse you're seated upon there Kruger? Is it nice? How about coming down for a bit and speaking to people like you're not better than them. I mostly suggest this because, you know, you're not.

I've found that the easiest way to be civil with Kruger is to put him on your ignore list. Problem solved!

Apart from the bickering this has been a pretty interesting thread. You guys are covering a topic I never really considered -- age. Although I tend to run pretty homo sapiens sapiens (or however they were classified) centered campaigns. Hardly ever see Elves in high positions. Although I also cleave pretty close to the Japan hegemony of traditional Cyberpunk fare.

I think that's really cool that you get creative like that in your campaigns and i'm sure they would be a lot of fun to play. I guess my personal revulsion to that play style is that esthetically for me it just doesn't lend itself to the gravitas needed to convey meta-humanity's desperate situation living in chaotic,occult,capitalistic dystopia. It's not like I just want to see doom and gloom and that''s when i'll think everything is cool....I just feel that the whole concept from the '80's of "subculture" is horribly outdated but it's what gave birth to the whole cyberpunk genre which gave birth to shadowrun. The idea that people could remake themselves in whatever self-image they chose and like if you were punk or a biker or a rocker or a hippy or a goth or whatever the hell group you identified with, that somehow meant something fundamental about who you were. We still see it today ...and that idea has been around in some form or another probably forever....but it's just hard to take seriously. I feel the whole point of SR is that there is this whole corporate dominated segment of society full of people who spend all their time trying to do just that...remake and exert control over their self-image ...and that's what cosmetic surgery, shopping, club-hopping, elf-posing, ork-posing...are all about.....and that's just a giant dillusion...and the "real" people live out there in the barrens...and that's where most shadowrunners come from. Gang members in the barrens don't really have the time to think too much about their self image...they are mostly worried about making that nuyen and not getting shot....and also feeding their families which are going hungry. Magic would of course add a lot of flavor to this because all of a sudden religion, praying, miracles...all that stuff which used to be only a thing of faith is now right at your doorstep. So I can see a crazy gang of leopard cannibals being a reality because if a guy came into my office right now, changed into a leopard and said go eat your office mate....i would do it....because the man just turned into a leopard....that's a powerful external force which would change my life forever.

Basically i'll summarize it like this....I know a guy who comes from Kenya, he's a student at my university...he has beautiful scar tattoos all over his face which is the custom for people of his ethnic group. Then there's this other guy who comes from U.S. who's got beautiful tatoo's all over his face because he just thinks they're really beautiful. I'm sorry, I take the african dude seriously and I don't take the body art guy very seriously.

Buuuuut… are they a custom because they're beautiful? Is that not a good reason? Is decorating oneself a better or worse reason than just participating in a tradition? Is breaking the facial tattoo taboo in the US more or less 'serious' than doing something that's expected and acceptable in your home culture? Judgey McJudgerton.

Comedy gold.

Why wouldn't Elves be good corporate raiders? There's canon evidence that several of the movers and shakers in Elfdom have been around since the Fourth World (or before, since a lot of them were in the caers of the Third and someone had to put 'em together in the Second).

Just because someone is longer lived doesn't make them any less hungry for instant gratification. Why the hell else did the RKT's all but overthrow the Tir guvvmint?

Vampire: the Masquerade covered that point very well. Elders (especially the thousand plus year old Methuselah and various Antediluvians) had lived so long that they feared death all the more, and thus secured ever more power as they grew more and more concerned about those who might take it away.

I just figure the longer lived people would be better at the puppetmaster game, having spent longer to perfect it. There's a little Gendo Ikari in every IE.

I think that has less to do with having lived 6000 years than it does with having survived 6000 years, if I can make that distinction.

You may - it's quite accurate given the shennanigans we humans got into over that span.

The Bible's a lot more fun to read if you put IE's in the place of the major holy figures.

"GLASGIAN OAKFOREST WHY DID YOU LIGHT THAT BUSH ON FIRE"

I agree, i'm super judgemental...
I'm not saying it's a better or worse reason for decorating oneself....i'm saying that if the tattoo guy has more of a choice ...he doesn't suffer social repercussions if he doesn't put tattoos on his face....whereas the african guy might (i really don't know, i'm just using this as an example). So the african guy getting scars is just an example of someone trying to live their life and do what they have been taught....it's more "natural" because his scars tell me very very little about what his personality is like. The tattoo guy is an example of a guy whose focus is more on his self image and it just smacks of narcissism to me. The african guys scars are a product of his identity....where as the tattoo guy's identity is now a product of his tattoos.

Hmm. See, I generally take people making their own decisions (with repercussions) more seriously than the ones just 'fitting in'. Obviously, either of these guys (or both) could be total jerks or completely awesome, or whatever. Still, it's interesting how signals are interpreted. It's relevant, because cyberpunk is characterized by both extremes: fitting in, and standing out.

Or fitting in by standing out. Just because they're different doesn't mean they're out of style!

Or standing out by fitting in! Oh, wait. :/

No, you can do that.

Just ask the Suit that's in the Blue Collar bar on the Docks.

Or the [insert fashion identified clique] teenager hanging with other clique members out front of the high school/in the mall/etc.

See, the funny part is, this is just a construct of your own imagination.

I came to this thread, and presented an idea. Even Mooncrow, once he actually decided to listen to what I had to say and read it carefully, realized this. Now, I cannot help that there are elements on this forum like Critias and Yahoo who believe that if an idea counteracts what they hold to be true, that is is wrong. I won't disguise my disinterest and contempt for these kinds of people.

From the beginning, I never said my ideas were "right" or unassailable. I simply offered what I felt made sense, and why I felt they did. I was replied to by a varied level of ignorant arrogance. There was never a "I don't agree because of A reason or B reason." More a fierce resistance of "Nuh uhs!" There's little I'll respect more on the Intarwebs than someone who will construct a solid argument and show me I'm wrong, or show me something perhaps I hadn't thought of before. There is little I'll respect less than some blowhard assclown who likes to sit back and declare himself right, and somebody else wrong, just because. In fact, more often than not, anyone who bandies about an Internet forum telling other people they are "wrong" is simply covering for the fact that they have little to say and possibly even less to offer. Critias is one such person. He chose to focus on semantics to attempt to assassinate my argument, except his response wasn't even to my argument, simply to some argument fabricated in his imagination. Then he chose to fabricate an argument I'd never made, attempting character assassination based on the fact that if he says I said something, that most people won't bother to fact check him on it. Yahoo didn't agree with me, which is fine. I never told him he was wrong, or stupid. In fact, I was pretty good about how I responded to him. He is just one of those people who maintains a constant perception of victimization and when I disagreed with his points, he took that to mean I was calling him stupid.

Here's a hint about the Intardwebs and discussion in general: You disagreeing with me doesn't automatically make you wrong. Just as me disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make me wrong. A careful reading of the thread will show that I only turned condescending towards Yahoo when he decided to throw out the "you're wrong" card when he hadn't really offered any kind of argument more sophisticated than "because I said so". I'm sorry, but you get the respect you earn in life. It's not just something handed to you because you're the beautiful flower your parents imagine you to be. Act with dignity, and get treated with dignity. Critias, on the other hand, came out swinging from the start. And while I ignored his first post because it was obvious baiting, he eventually pulled out the "you're wrong" cared (without explicitly using that term until later, but sufficiently implied). What was worse, Critias was still arguing some kind of nonsensical non-point in his imaginary argument.

So go ahead. Paint me as the bad guy if you want. I really find myself hard pressed to be offended. What you perceive as this high horse of mine is really just observation from the point that you're all just names on a computer screen with no credentials. Since you're in no position to display that you're better than me in any way, I can only assume that at best, you're my equal, and thus cannot demean me. Calling those two irrelevant to me isn't an insult. It's just the truth.

That said, it's obvious that by not immediately being defensive in reaction to dissent, he could discuss what was actually at hand, Mooncrow and I reached a reasonable level of understanding, even if it wasn't total agreement. It's too bad the other two had to resort to more adversarial roles. If I come off as the bad guy, it's just because I'm a better adversary than they are, heh. And one would hope so since for years, that was what I have been paid to be.

In fact, you were offered reason-supported disagreement. Further, disagreement *means* that we each think the other is wrong. There absolutely was 'I don't agree, and because X, etc.' Your arguments were not more reason-supported than other people's; you are on equal footing (in that regard). The fact that you characterize your stance as innocent and reasonable, and the same stance of others as adversarial and unreasonable, is simply untenable.

Kruger, if your time is so short you can't bother to speel out someones name do what I do. Copy and paste it. I did it with yours and now I did it with Yerameyahu's. It's easy and doesn't take much time, it's also nicer than calling them something else. Here's the definition of Yahoo:

1.(in Swift's Gulliver's Travels) one of a race of brutes, having the form and all the vices of humans, who are subject to the Houyhnhnms.
2.(lowercase) an uncultivated or boorish person; lout; philistine; yokel.
3.(lowercase) a coarse or brutish person.

Now I may not be the brightest, most cultured person in the world, but to me that sounds like an insulting thing to call someone. Do you see how he or she could have been upset by that?

Btw the reason elves don't dominate all aspects of life not only in SR but other games as well is because, basically they suck. They have the most time to get things accomplished and are wonderful magical creatures who well, suck. They had all thses cool civiliztions that were the pinacle of everything and they always lose them why? Everybody now... they suck!

lol. Come on. Revisionist history may be amusing, but it isn't very dignified.

Your first two responses, in their entirety:



Your third reply?


Damn. You showed me. Two instances of using solely unsupported and unqualified opinion as evidence. And then telling me I am wrong.

You see this discussion is part of a much bigger picture. You're focused on one tiny corner of it, and that's not going to suffice. I'm going to look at your reply, and filter it through all the different angles and nuances of the bigger picture. And if you're not addressing something important, I'll tell you. Your response to that was to get defensive. And your defense mechanism was to lash out and tell me I was wrong when you hadn't told me why I was wrong. That's really not going to get you taken very seriously. Remember, you're only as smart and as reasonable as you make yourself out to be. And if you show weakness, I'm going to recognize it and take it into consideration when evaluating the rest of your arguments. For example, some of your comments in other threads had painted you in a negative light as the kind of person I outlined above. Like it or not, you're now stuck with that until you prove otherwise. Right now, you seem to me like a three thousand post count forum troll. This thread? Not a good step in a different direction.

Nobody is their post count or their join date.

Because really, right now, you just look like an almost 200 post count troll. The difference is solely in how you go towards achieving that distinction. Unless the title sacrosanct asshole is cool with you, in which case, keep doing what you're doing.

Not sure if that word means what you think it means.

However, asshole I can live with. But really, that's just a name you're giving me because I present myself confidently and I don't back down from people who think they can cyber-bully, and instead hit them back harder. So, in a lot of ways, I'll take it as a compliment. I didn't come to this forum to "win" anything. But those two decided to try and make it a win/lose proposition instead of an exchange of ideas. That's also trolling.

You know, I honsetly didn't provide the meaning from the dictionary (after writing it, I had to check it myself, in my mind I knew it was the word I wanted) in hopes of not seeming condescending.

–adjective
1. extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2. not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.
3. above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscript deemed sacrosanct.

Yes, but that isn't describing a feeling, it is describing a state of being. A sacrosanct asshole would actually be an asshole above criticism. Not an asshole who thinks he's above criticism. I know what you meant. I'm just telling you that you're not using the right word. I think perhaps you were thinking of sanctimonious, even though that too wouldn't be entirely right because it refers more to a show a being superior via superior piety or religious standing. Self righteous would have been simplest and most correct. Or,like one guy tried to use in another thread to seem super smart by utilizing thesaurus.com, pharisaical. I liked that one. Obsolete, and really only going to be familiar to Jews or really attentive students of the New Testament, but clever.

It's probably good you didn't try to seem condescending. That would have been even more embarrassing for you. Of course, I'm sure this makes me an asshole too, and not simply your error in usage.

There was no lashing out, and you conveniently quoted only the very first part of my third reply. Given that it's a discussion of opinion, that's the support I was referring to. Again, my argument and your argument were equally supported: by opinion and a little logic. You disagree with me, and I with you, because we have opposite opinions.

As for the rest, you're not the victim, and you weren't defending yourself. You were bullying, presumedly with the assumption that it would work; I can see how it's annoying that it didn't. Just as you say you formed an opinion from other threads, I too am well aware of this tactic of yours from other threads. If there was any trolling, it was certainly on your part, but again, you accuse others of your own errors.

EDIT: Y'know what? Never mind. Kruger, you win. You're just not worth it.

Why don't you guys settle it doing play-by-post combat. Let's end it right here right now.

Damm this thread is comedy gold with Kruger trying to paint himself as some sort of victim while simultaneously acting like a rabid dog, attacking everyone who disagrees whit him whit a torrent of insults. instead of actually answering to points made in those posts.

I know we had this discussion last night Max. If anything, I answered all the posts. And answered every point, and was met by crying and whining.

And by no means am I a victim here. I'm an the pit bull mauling your toddler to death. I'm just pointing out that the toddlers wandered out into my yard looking for a fight. It seems some people here like to play the victim and cry about how I was mean to them while they try to hide the fact that they were complicit in, and often the instigators of whatever they feel victimized by. I'm a nice guy until you decide you're going to play stupid games. Yahoo with his revisionist history and the Texan with no horns and his semantics and lying. They played stupid, so they got treated as such. Seems only fair. Notice I was civil with Mooncrow and Saint Sithney even when they disagreed with me.

It isn't like I arbitrarily decided who I was going to pick apart and who I wasn't.

The two who decided to make a discussion into a contest got what they had coming to them. And now they're deflecting and copping out with lame duck responses like "You're not worth it". Spare me the self pity. Just go back to your basement and the next time you come into a thread, conduct yourself a bit smarter.

You may have missed mine in the shuffle. Unless you thought you already answered them.

Well, I was referring to all the ones between myself and Yahu and Critias. Well, I didn't answer Critias's first post because it was just blatant baiting and irrelevant to what I was discussing. Tell you what, I'll find yours right now and respond to it.

Are you talking about #111? I'm not really seeing anything to respond to. You didn't really ask a question or bring any new ideas to the table. You did say you don't like it when people aren't civil. I guess my response is "Oh well" and that you should probably take it up with the two previously mentioned posters, since they were the first to drop the civility. I'm just not bothered by things turning uncivilized and happy to play in that sandbox too.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Between me and you, Kruger, you were the only one to use "lame duck responses like "You're not worth it"." I've already explained why your claim of 'revisionist history' is incorrect; I've also already pointed out that you instigated whatever 'fight' you think we're having.

So, we're right back at a familiar situation: you're accusing other people of your own errors, and, in the presence of two equally opinion-based positions, you're characterizing yours as innocent and reasonable, and mine as unreasonable and adversarial. You're certainly free to do so, of course. It's just wrong.

#111, #113, and #120 all (to some degree) cover the original point you brought up in attempt to get back to the discussion. If, as you say, you don't see anything to respond to then that's fine too.

I'm not really concerned with who was first. I left it an open statement for a reason, rather than simply point a finger.

See, in English, along with proper diction like X-Kalibur learned, quotations should only be used to reference words actually used by the party they are being attributed to. Critias said "You're just not worth it" so I used quotations to properly attribute the statement.

See, it's this severe lack of attention to detail that started this mess in the first place. So I don't know at what point you think some kind of battle was joined, but it happened right around the time you chose to pull the "you're wrong" card, and never back it up with anything more than opinion. From there it was just all downhill because every time you tried to make a point, I asked you a knew and challenging question you didn't want to answer. If that, to you, is starting a fight, then so be it. You kinda dipped and dodged around, making a mountain of of a molehill about me shortening your name because it made a convenient distraction. I've been at this Internet forum thing for a long time. Likely longer than you. It was like me trying to get away with lying about schoolwork to my mom who taught middle school. You're just not going to fool me because I've seen every type.

And while it seems redundant to say you've missed the point... yet again... I never called your opinion or position adversarial. Just your style of arguing and your demeanor in posting. You never said "I think this way because of this" in responses to my posts about having witnessed what I was offering opinion on first hand. You chose to pull the "you're wrong" card, and then supported it with more opinion. Opinions aren't evidence man. I know that may blow your whole posting philosophy out of the water and force you to do some deep consideration of your style, but I have faith you'll make it through unfettered by such weighty thoughts.

To be fair to you, when I say I don't have any response, it's simply because your posts don't offer anything to contend. The meat of #111 was essentially true, and not really in disagreement with anything I'd said. There really seems to be a glaring misunderstanding among several posters here of the point I was making, and then it got dragged off on all these inapplicable tangents for whatever reason. Take an early post for example which contended because I mentioned elves, that it must have meant that dis-included all other forms of longer living metahuman, from dragons to leonized humans. That isn't true, and it's an incredible leap of a logic gap to put that together. But I find myself less and less surprised by the Internet as time goes on. I'm not talking about you btw; don't know, don't care who made that reply, just using it as an example. I didn't bother to reply to that because, in the wise words of Anthony Kiedis in Point Break: "That seems like it would be a waste of time." #120 had nothing to do with any subject I'd touched on and by that time I was already engaged. I'm a quick typer, so volume is rarely an issue, but I'd have to use Cliff's Notes in my posts if I tried to address everything. The topic isn't mine alone, and I'm certainly not here to weigh in on everything.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding quotations; no matter. Once again, 'you're wrong' has no special subtext. It means that I disagree. It is not a 'card', and it's certainly not instigation. Your argument is, again, no less opinion-based than mine; the entire discussion is opinion. There is zero evidence possible, so there is zero evidence in your posts or mine.

In fact, I asked you quite politely to use my name, or a shortened version which I supplied. It is common courtesy, and you've already pointed out the value of civility.

At no point did I avoid your questions. Indeed, I attempted to bring you back to the discussion, but you ignored it.