Euthanasia

[K e r b e r o s]

Sorry, Kerberos. The courts concluded that consent was given.

Sorry Absinthe, the courts did not have legally documented consent, wether it was written and recognized or audio recorded and played for ears to hear, therefore making it illegal to recognize such a will. It's a shame you skipped over that such a will has not existed.

Wait... What are you doing here?

Argueing that her killing was illegal on two accounts:

• No Legally Documented Consent, written or audio, was ever recorded therefore her killing cannot be justified under this.
• No wills, written and documented, seen and acknowledged by courts were ever recorded as incidences in the past, therefore also making it illegal to kill her ... if murder was legal anyway.

-AND- argueing further on two more accounts:

• That because the courts do not have legally recorded (written or audio-taped) admitals to consent being given or reaffirmed, they cannot legally kill her in this circumstance.
• Secondly, that because no written wills were produced or at least recognized by the Judicial system, then we also cant kill her legally because such contracts were not recognized

-ENDING- at

• The United States does not allow Euthanasia and has laws against murder -- without documented consent, without recognized wills, the courts basically commited murder and should be tried immediately with violation to the US law, and this womens constitutional rights.

Explain to me what fruits of your labor would be brought about by prolonging the life of a terminal patient that does not want to live.

Constitutionally and Lawfully, we cannot kill anyone as murder, or mercy killing, is not a recognized principle in the fundementals of our Judicial system. It is also not legally advocated or defended.

Kerberos, for a person that apparently finds the law to be infallible, you continue to ignore the fact that the courts came to the conclusion that Terry would have refused medical treatment, something which is completely legal.

Key word there: "would" if she "could", but because she "could not" the courts "do not have" the "proper" admittance or re"consenting" on the go ahead to pull the plug.

With or without your circumstance, she again gave no consent that has been recognized as a written will (that also has not been recognized nor produced as valid representation of the Mrs's wishes), which therefore flaws your arguement and the courts.

Further denying it, is the fact murder is not legal within the United States; Euthanasia is considered a form of homocide.

So, you'd laugh at a person who took the word from a health professional and proved you wrong?

No, I'm laughing at the element anyone right now, without actually having seen a doctor, could post they went to one. I would'nt know if someone did, now would I? So you expect me to take them at their word?

Maybe with some audio recordings, or a movie documenting it then I could be silenced; but is that so demanding to ask?

 

[Absinthe]

I thought about properly replying to your post, but you completely skipped out on addressing one very integral piece of this argument: the difference between euthanasia and refusal of medical treatment.

That's when I realized that you effectively proved me correct and that arguing with you further would be like smashing my head into a wall, and I'd actually be dumber because of it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I thought about properly replying to your post,

But then, you did the typical Absinthe thing, which was [Choose one!]:thumbs:

• Make a retort, call me an asshole
• Make a retort, say I'm not worth it
• Make a retort, ... then make another one

the difference between euthanasia and refusal of medical treatment.

However, this woman did not refuse Medical Care, therefore its illegal to take it away from her.

That's when I realized that you effectively proved me correct and that arguing with you further would be like smashing my head into a wall, and I'd actually be dumber because of it.

It's all impressionism; Absinthe it's natural to feel dumber around smarter people.

 

[Absinthe]

However, this woman did not refuse Medical Care, therefore its illegal to take it away from her.

Again, courts disagree with you. And that's that.

The rest of your post was just more typical BS'ing, Kerberos-style.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Again, courts disagree with you.

... and I disagree with the courts. :thumbs:

 

[Apos]

I think you owe posting a link that directly cites into who else has testified about the consent. But again, should that matter?

It matters in part because you've been falsely claiming otherwise!

Here's a page with links to all the major court decisions, where you can inform yourself on all the facts you seem to be completely ignorant of.

It was not legally recorded or documented -- so it entirely flaws your arguement from the get go. Why you keep argueing there's some saving light to this, is'int beyond me so much as its now beyond your control. You cannot contest that her consent was not given. Even now, its difficult for you to argue further.

This is an incoherent response. You seem stuck on this point, and yet you've provided no evidence or argument to back it up. Consent is NOT required to be documented or videotaped. You've provided no evidence other than your own opinion that it must be, but this stands in direct opposition not only to the law, but to every single one of the courts that have ruled on this case.

You're some random dude on a messageboard without a law or medical degree, and yet you claim to know better than the entire state of Florida's court system what hearsay is, what testimony is sufficient to show consent, and so forth: some of the most basic issues of jurisprudence. Why should we believe you, and not believe what every lawyer in the country, including Terri's parents own lawyer, says about the matter?

I mean, it's VERY telling that not even the zaniest radical fringe groups filing briefs in this case have asserted that oral testimony is inadmissable in determining consent. That's because even they have people that actually went to law school, and know that this claim is nonsense.

I mean, names? People? Your own quote does'nt cite this, and is very inspecific, which does very little to further educate myself on plausible entities who've provided other testimonies for this case.

Read the court documents!!!

Here's the Second District court:

"We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process."

So it seems that you are wrong: it wasn't only the husband's word. As for the names, I find it incredible that you are still asking for them, because anyone who actually knew what the facts of this case were, having read the documents, would already know who they were.

But does that matter? No, it does'nt, because legal consent was not documented or recorded; and since Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, its still considered murder and mandates a Capital Punishment.

Not even her parents make this ridiculous argument.

It evidently did, and now she's starving. (You've yet to provide me names alongside her Spouse, that alleged she stated a will. But a spoken will, cannot be recognized by the law -- there must be signatures, agreements, and documentation. Spoken words, five years ago, not documented by our law, is considered unconstitional and therefore cannot be recognized nor enacted).

Which part of the constitution is this, exactly? The K e r b e r o s amendment?

However, she gave no refusal to the treatment -- only her Spouse did in court.

No, the court found that she would have refused treatment, based on his testimony as well as others. And regardless, this is an incoherent and off-topic answer. You had made up a bunch of examples in which you portrayed doctors refusing to treat people. But that was itself nonsense, because it was in response to my pointing out that doctors MUST, by law, respect a patient's refusal of care. You denied that this was so: not just in Terri's case, but in general. This is wrong. But instead of admitting your error about the general issue of refusal of care, you incoherently switched back to claiming that Terri didn't give consent. Whether that's true or not is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing: whether doctors must respect refusals of care in general.

 

[Apos]

Just for reference, here is the Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that it is morally and legally acceptable, and not a violation of any constitutional right, to withhold hydration and nutrition from a PVS patient if there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the patient wished to refuse such treatment. All that is necessary is for a state court to conclude that there is such evidence.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=497&invol=261

Again, the only issue of ANY legal consequence here is whether Terri Schiavo is in a state in which she would not have wanted to be maintained. This was a finding of fact on which a duly instated court in Florida ruled, and every single court that has reviewed the case has upheld. One can disagree with their decisions, but one has to give an actual legal reason for doing so, not just invent goofy principles and laws out of the blue the way Kerb has been doing.

 

[el Chi]

I started this thread...

...and you barely posted in it. :/

So!? Others are doing a sterling job at backing up his assertations (not that I'd like to sound self-congratulatory, natch; almost everyone except yourself). Why add to the discussion for the sheer sake of it?
A guy gets flamed for that sort of stuff, y'know!?

Have I not already stated that starvation is a horrible way to die? (I remember I had, I'm just checking in with you).

YES YOU F*CKING HAVE. And so have I!!! Why must you keep reiterating the same tired, dreary argument when we agree on this matter!? You aren't defending your case very well.

I'm bored of arguing this same bloody case.

So go elsewhere. If this is'int the place for you, then why are you still here? Go on -- none here have ordered your stay. But I can tell you through observation, your the only person demanding your stay.

No mate, it doesn't work that way, and you should know it.
If I started ANOTHER debate, it'd get shut down. And rightly so.
Should I put in my opening post: "This is exactly like that other debate except Kerebos isn't allowed to mention that same tired case he's been peddling for the last couple of days."
Bollocks to you if you don't like it; this thread is called "Euthanasia" and that is what we shall discuss. If you refuse to discuss any other avenue of debate, then I propose your OWN thread called "Why Kerebos is fixated on the Schiavo case." It would seem FAR more relevant given your skewed tangent on the subject in hand. Please do so, or actually submerge yourself in a grand debate beyond one case.

You dont have to say everything you want, because not everything you say is right, wrong, or the best choice in your personal interest.

Yet another statement of yours that sounds like it ought to go somewhwere but, ultimately, does not.
Partial credit.

No, you are wrong. In Switzerland and the Netherlands...

I stopped right there.
You don't get it, do you? Here, in America, Euthanasia is illegal and therefore this case...

I stopped right there.
You don't get it, do you? Here, in the actual debate, euthanasia is illegal, but many agree that it ought to be.

This is not Europe. I'm assuming you know this? But I'm still questioning the idea that if you did know, your still trying to use Europe as an example.

Well forgive me for using the ONLY TWO EXAMPLES IN THE WHOLE WORLD. It's not a question of it being Europe. I can't believe you're bringing that xenophobia into the debate as if that were some impervious counter-argument; you'll stump few people's perspective with this nonsense, I'm afraid.

As I have become sick of saying; this is an isolated case.

No its not. Soon, instead of all the calamity for declaring yourself insane, the guilty of murder would instead say that the other person was in suffering, and like all defense attourney's, they would argue that and win with that.

Your projection is fantastical at best.

Putting criminals back on the streets -- you dont realize what kind of impact this will have on the criminal world.

Erm, the two bear very little to do with one another, realistically. Even this sodding Schiavo case you keep hurtling back to does not release "criminals" back onto the streets. Say these folks get back on to the streets, they're not going to go:
"Awesome! Now I can starve ANYONE I WANT to death! Aaaw that's great. Shit, I'ma start a tally tomorrow!"

However, whats the United States law most known for? Not properly implementing.

A barely comprhensible sentence AND a seemingly befuddled point at the SAME TIME!? Well, book me a stripper dressed as Mrs. Claus and stick her in a cake, because it must Christmas AND my birthday at the same time!

You've proven yourself an expert

Thanks, whats my score?

Daaaw bless you! If that's the best way you can pick up credibility then I may as well dip myself in salsa and run around Trafalgar Square. But enough about my usual Saturday nights! Here's what I REALLY said, before your oh-so-motherf*cking-clever editing madskillz!!!11!

You've proven yourself an expert in conjuring up some nightmarish world where doctors don black, hooded robes and wander hospital wards armed with scythes, administering large quantities of lethal hideousness to anyone with the slightest hint of a sniffle. An "element of death"!? Such floral language!

You really are a bloody genius to GRAVELY MIS-QUOTE a post that was on the same page as your own.
Of the sections of my posts you choose to try and counter, post them in their ENTIRETY, or don't bother.

Riddle me this then, Batman: How does health qualify as death?

<Sighs> I never said "health". At not one single sweet point did I ever say that euthanasia was good for one's HEALTH. How dare you try, so explicitly, to inanely to portray me as some moron with no point or grasp of the human condition. I don't so EXPLICITLY do that to you, so please have the courtesy to return the favour.

"Health" and "well-being" are not intrinsically inter-twined. Besides, keeping you alive when you really ought to be DEAD is hardly a matter of HEALTH, is it now?

Do you really think you're doing that well that you can give [PvtRyan] such an arrogant response!?

Taking offense to something that was directed at someone else? How can YOU give someone such an arrogant response?!

No, dear. I was defending someone who shared a similar perspective to mine. You would and have done the same. So don't try and criticise ME for standing up to you when YOU make a nonsensical, mis-guidedly arrogant post against someone. You may as well have called him a "n00b" for Christ's sake - as if that was going to add to your already-sound-and-impenetrable arguments.

[Kerebos'] own debating technique was lacking in the extreme, and as such it was particularly tiresome to try and reason with him, much less hold a coherent debate.

Yet, your still trying to prod at me -- have'nt you learned anything yet? I've won (retarded), you lost (still retarded).

"your" = You're
"have'nt" = Haven't
I've learned stuff, it would seem; how about yourself?

But on a serious note: "Haven't you learned anything yet?"
Which is pretty much the exact same respone I'd get from you, if I asked the same question.
Perhaps I shouldn't have condescended you, as I did, with those grammatical corrections.
Still, you attempted to belittle me, and as the old adage goes; "One good turn deserves another."


I'd love for this to not be personal and for this to be some vaguely coherent, sensible debate. Yet, too much of the time, you seem intent on the opposite.

 

[CptStern]

hehe this is entertaining :thumbs:

 

[el Chi]

Isn't it, though?

 

[KoreBolteR]

lolol! how long did it take you too write that post el chi?

must have taken you the length of the movie "forrest gump". :O

anyways, nice comeback, lets see if Kerberos has a reply.

 

[Absinthe]

The latest appeal to reinsert Terry's feeding tube has been denied.

So now this is probably going to head to the Supreme Court.

 

[KoreBolteR]

The latest appeal to reinsert Terry's feeding tube has been denied.

So now this is probably going to head to the Supreme Court.

she wanted to die, so im glad it's been denied, its her own wishes.

supreme court should stay out. :frown:

 

[el Chi]

lolol! how long did it take you too write that post el chi?

must have taken you the length of the movie "forrest gump". :O

anyways, nice comeback, lets see if Kerberos has a reply.

God knows how long; truth be told, I was pretty pissed.

 

[Danimal]

I'm starting to think that the politics forum should be deleted... All I see is flaming.

Anyway, my views on euthanasia are simple. If you are terminly ill or in a perment state of horrific pain, you should be allowed the option of euthanasia.

 

[KoreBolteR]

I'm starting to think that the politics forum should be deleted... All I see is flaming.

Anyway, my views on euthanasia are simple. If you are terminly ill or in a perment state of horrific pain, you should be allowed the option of euthanasia.

WHAT?

politics forum rules!!!

 

[Edcrab]

Meh, my usual haunt (no surprises for guessing it) recently dropped their own Politics forum equivalent.

It was something to do with certain members constantly reiterating the exact same points and remaining dead to the concept of opinion... no danger of that happening here!

I won't get tangled up in the "law breaking" aspect- because I personally think euthanasia should be legalised.

The concentration on "the law" is a bit extreme- perhaps, as this is a political discussion in a gaming forum (i.e., this isn't the real world and our decisions and statements won't endanger our futures in politics) we should centre more on the ethical collateral (and personal opinion) rather than some forumites' will to stick stubbornly to established practise?

I said that and meant it and considering that the courts still refuse to reinsert her feeding apparatus I thought I could return here for a debate on euthanasia itself. Instead, I find we're still talking about the legalities of one lone case.

Why, exactly? Or would that be another epic thread in and of itself?

But see, lets say we replace this chick with you, and you gave consent -- I would'nt be whinning ... much.

So, are we concentrating on this lone example which you see as illegal because you can, to some degree, cope with the concept of euthanasia and fail to see the point of debating it? Or what?

 

[john121]

in the terry schiavo case... i think that the best decision was to take out the feeding tube. This sounds inhumane, but once they decide to get it put back in, she could already die and the court case would have to be closed. With the courts being as backed up as they are, the soonest might be a month before they do hear her case again.

 

[Apos]

I wonder if it's sunk in with Kerb yet that he is wrong. If not, here's a lawyer explaining in depth the issue of why no one, not even Terri's parents, is making the argument that oral evidence is inadmissable hearsay. It's not. Even if it didn't fall clearly under several different exceptions to the hearsay rule, oral testimony is explicitly allowed in just such this situation, as affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.
http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111167384435979940

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

If the person suffering, their doctor and their closer family agree, then yes, Euthanasia should be allowed

So your right to life is bypassed by others?

Euthanasia is a violation of ones personal right to life, and thus should never be allowed. Arguments like euthanizing children with birth defects because they will not have a good life is no argument at all. Murder is murder, good intentions have no sway. Oh, and don't forget who started a huge euthansia program, yup, good ole' Hitler (Weeee! Playing the Hitler card is fun) . I do, however, support ones right to take their life (if not depressed/unstable) when very ill with no hope of recovery.

 

[Absinthe]

So your right to life is bypassed by others?

I think you missed a very obvious and important part of that post.

"If the person suffering, their doctor and their closer family agree, then yes, Euthanasia should be allowed"

 

[Tr0n]

Kinda wish I could be euthanized right about now.

I say keep it legal...if the person asks to be euthanized then thats his/her option and right.Let them die a painless death....

 

[Calanen]

The woman is dead but alive. A person with no brain function as attested to by experts with degrees who I would say are far smarter and no what they are doing a lot better than the armchair commentators.

So the woman has no brain function. The question is - what do u do. She can breathe on her own, so you can't turn off the ventilator. But she has a feeding tube. So you remove that. As I said before in another thread, that is an incredibly cruel way for a person to die. I would prefer that she die by lethal injection rather than be starved to death. But like so many legal choices, there is no easy answer. If I were a judge and it came before me, I would have opted for the tube to be removed. Its the best of the two bad choices you have before you.

 

[Zeus]

Why are they letting her die? If it was your family member would you want them to die of starvation?

 

[AntiAnto]

Why are they letting her die? If it was your family member would you want them to die of starvation?

I don't think you would like to see or know that you have a family member who suffer and who isn't conscious.

 

[Edcrab]

My honest opinion?

If my wife was in that state, and she wanted it, yes, I'd let her die. Starvation is the only method they're legally entitled to utilise: and there's debate over just how bad a demise it really is for her.

 

[PvtRyan]

My grandmother passed away today, she never really recovered from that hip surgery. Sure, she lived, and was kept running by medical science. But as she developed a fever today, it was decided to not treat her new infection, she had a shot of morfine and she died a few hours later. If she had gotten antibiotics again, I'm sure she would have managed to survive for some time again, until the next infection or disease, and so on and on. She didn't wanna live on herself either, there was no quality of life this way. I wonder what the 'pro-life' lobby would say about this, continue treating her with medication, until she was 90 or above (now almost 86) without improving the quality of life? What good does that do? No, at a certain point you reach a time where it has been enough, treatment is futile and it's in the best interest of the patient to die.

Why can't some people realize that staying alive is not always in the best interest of the patient?

 

[Absinthe]

Why are they letting her die? If it was your family member would you want them to die of starvation?

The alternative is prolonging her sad state until the end of time.

I'd opt for euthanasia, but that's not possible. So if it was my family member's wishes, then I'd let them starve. And if I were in a similar state, I would hope that I'd also be allowed to die.

 

[Calanen]

Yes, the Fantasy world were she magically gave consent ... but Ooops! Not legally recorded, signed -- therefore, making such an event even more illegal.

Husbands and wives talk a lot about what they are going to do with their money and their lives. They very rarely record their conversations in a legal document. I am not married, but a few of my relatives have told me that they want to be switched off and should not be resuscitated. I have not filed an affidavit saying that I know this is what they told me. However I would say on oath that this is what they told me.

Fortunately, my family are reasonably pragmatic. While Catholics, we have switched a few people off. So I doubt anyone will challenge me if I switch my father off. But should I file an affidavit, or get him to do so? In a perfect world it might be pragmatic. But few outside of the legal profession and before this case would know that it was the most sensible thing to do.

Speaking of which, Mr Kerberos - have u filed your living will with your attorney? I bet not.

 

[Edcrab]

That is, of course, sadly true- it is not common practise for people to prepare a living will, because clearly they don't expect the horrible catastrophy that puts them in a critical position or brain damages them.

So it's only fair that the courts are allowed to consider the verbal evidence forwarded by her husband.

 

[Calanen]

For a time in Australia there was legalised euthenasia, in the Northern Territory. The Federal Government in Australia overrode the Northern Territory legislation - so it only existed for a few months I believe. During that time however, it was quite legal for euthenasia to occur.

World first as I understand it. Apparently the Dutch have something similar, but the Australian legislation went further than this.

Needless to say, the Howard government did not like it and got it changed.

 

[Kebean PFC]

In the Shiavo (sp?) case i think that removing the tube was the right thing to do. I just wish that you could choose when to die. Regardless of your mental state at the time. It may help those who want it to end do it properly, vs. parking their car on the train tracks, or driving the wrong way on the freeway.

 

[nutcrackr]

Still have mixed feelings for this but I think we should be allowed to die. We cannot choose our birth but we should be able to choose death in certain cicumstances. For many people and their families the prolonged pain and suffering can actually have a far worse impact. I know this from experience . I support methods of self termination through drugs for incredibly sick people. I don't think I support killing those who have not decided to die and are incapable to communication.

 

[KoreBolteR]

I think you missed a very obvious and important part of that post.

"If the person suffering, their doctor and their closer family agree, then yes, Euthanasia should be allowed"

No. Its wether or not there is Evidence that person wanted to die if in this situation. now she is... her request should be granted. give her what she wants. ;(

For a time in Australia there was legalised euthenasia, in the Northern Territory.
Needless to say, the Howard government did not like it and got it changed.

do you agree with the howard government on this issue?

 

[KoreBolteR]

In the Shiavo (sp?) case i think that removing the tube was the right thing to do. I just wish that you could choose when to die. Regardless of your mental state at the time. It may help those who want it to end do it properly, vs. parking their car on the train tracks, or driving the wrong way on the freeway.

i want to know why they are starving her to death? i agree with letting her die (because thats what she wanted), but why didnt they just give her the lethal injection to make it quicker?

 

[GhostFox]

i agree with letting her die

The thing that concerns me about this case is the whole issue with PVS. Some people say she is just a sack of flesh with no thought, while others claim that she laughs, cries, tries to speak, recoknizes people etc. I don't know if the latter claims are accurate, but if they are then this whole PVS thing is BS.

And if there is any chance to the validity to those claims, then I think erring on the side of life is best. After all, if she is actually in a PVS, what she would have wanted doesn't really matter, because for all intents and purposes she is already dead.

 

[DarkStar]

i want to know why they are starving her to death? i agree with letting her die (because thats what she wanted), but why didnt they just give her the lethal injection to make it quicker?

Because active euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Doctors can withold life support but they cannot actively kill a patient. I agree though, it's a silly distinction, they're essentially the same thing.

 

[Calanen]

No. Its wether or not there is Evidence that person wanted to die if in this situation. now she is... her request should be granted. give her what she wants. ;(

do you agree with the howard government on this issue?

Actually no I don't. I think the Federal government should have stayed out of it for two reasons:

1) The Territorians can decide for themselves; and

2) It probably makes sense to put people to sleep when they are just sufferring needlessly.

I have seen people die horrible deaths from cancer - and they would have been a lot better off going sooner.

I cannot remember precisely how the polls came down on what to do about it, best recollection is it was a 50/50 type affair for and against. Comedians were doing jokes about giving grandma a greyhound bus ticket to the Northern Territory for her birthday.

 

[Apos]

The thing that concerns me about this case is the whole issue with PVS. Some people say she is just a sack of flesh with no thought, while others claim that she laughs, cries, tries to speak, recoknizes people etc.

The first group of people are actual intelligent doctors. The second group are quacks and a bunch of deluded family members. The End.

In PVS, your higher brain (seat of consciousness) is destroyed. However, your motor cortex and reflex brain is still intact. The result is that the person has a lot of reflex action like vocalizations, blinking, movement, and so on. But none of it is actually cognitive: it's the motor cortex trying to make sense of things and perform actions without having the direction it's used to relying on.

And if there is any chance to the validity to those claims, then I think erring on the side of life is best.

This stupid phrase... "erring on the side of life." It doesn't actually mean "err on the side of life": it means, never let her die, period. That's because anyone can raise a goofy claim and apparently that's all it takes to make people decide to "err on the side of life." I think erring on the side of "she wouldn't have wanted to live as a gorked body in a bed for 15 years" is the correct way to "err."

After all, if she is actually in a PVS, what she would have wanted doesn't really matter, because for all intents and purposes she is already dead.

People expect that their wishes are carried out. If they can't expect this, because people constantly reneg on their promises, then people will have to resort to all sorts of crazy nonsense to see that their will is done.

 

[Absinthe]

No. Its wether or not there is Evidence that person wanted to die if in this situation. now she is... her request should be granted. give her what she wants. ;(

My reply works when you take into account the post I was replying to. Pay attention. :|