Burger King...Neutrality

[dezii]

[ken a.k.a OMK]

That is a good explanation. 

[Jaguar]

Awesome!

[Tennesseer]

Well explained.

[Deleted]

That. Was. Awesome!

[Virgil Showlion]

Give me a break, YMAM.

One absurd burger analogy "explains" Net Neutrality?

I wasn't a particularly strong opponent of NN, but there were dozens of good reasons to oppose it (as well as support it), none of which this video touches. The aspects it does touch, it gets wrong.

The von Mises Institute puts it thusly (bold by me):

Unfortunately their attempt at John Oliver-level policy analysis has some obvious problems.

For one, Burger King does not have a "Whopper neutrality" policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.

Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that's been proposed.)

Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you'd expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.

If Burger King implemented this policy--especially in this way, with $26 surcharges for immediate service--it would instantly kill their business. They're proffering ("explaining") NN as the solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the burger world precisely because free market forces prevent the kind of idiocy portrayed in the video.

Not only the does the analogy fail to address the problems NN creates (to add a bit of balance to the satire), it fails completely in its portrayal the problems NN solves (or in this case, doesn't solve because they don't exist in the first place). If you think this is a fair analogy, you've been duped good.

I just finished arguing with Paul that YMAM isn't full of sheep without critical thinking skills. Don't prove me wrong.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2018 20:59:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Give me a break, YMAM.

One absurd burger analogy "explains" Net Neutrality?

I wasn't a particularly strong opponent of NN, but there were dozens of good reasons to oppose it (as well as support it), none of which this video touches. The aspects it does touch, it gets wrong.

The von Mises Institute puts it thusly (bold by me):

Unfortunately their attempt at John Oliver-level policy analysis has some obvious problems.

For one, Burger King does not have a "Whopper neutrality" policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.

Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that's been proposed.)

Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you'd expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.

If Burger King implemented this policy--especially in this way, with $26 surcharges for immediate service--it would instantly kill their business. They're proffering ("explaining") NN as the solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the burger world precisely because free market forces prevent the kind of idiocy portrayed in the video.

Not only the does the analogy fail to address the problems NN creates (to add a bit of balance to the satire), it fails completely in its portrayal the problems NN solves (or in this case, doesn't solve because they don't exist in the first place). If you think this is a fair analogy, you've been duped good.

I just finished arguing with Paul that YMAM isn't full of sheep without critical thinking skills. Don't prove me wrong.

There's actually nothing "absurd" about it... and I'll break down your messed up criticism of it:

• For one, Burger King does not have a "Whopper neutrality" policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.

True, they don't have a "Whopper neutrality" policy. NO one suggested that they do. This was an example to show how removing neutrality would affect things in a "generally relatable way".

If you missed it, all the orders that were referenced in the commercial were about a Whopper. No desserts, no families of 5, just individuals getting the same thing.

And yes, in the real word, Burger King's goal IS to serve as many as possible as quickly as possible... but... That's not necessarily the goal of internet service providers. Without neutrality, this exaggeration exposes why ending Net Neutrality is BAD for consumers. And in case you missed it, none of the "customers" said that they were going to McDonald's or Wendy's or Hardee's instead... because just like with ISP's the options are limited and/or likely to have roughly equal treatment.

• Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that's been proposed.)

Again, they weren't dealing with different things, just people getting a single Whopper.

• Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you'd expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.

Again, this assumes that choice of something better exists. If all ISP's go to various speeds for various things for various prices, where will people be able to go for net neutrality? Answer: Nowhere.

If you think this isn't a fair analogy... you are the one that's been duped.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2018 22:57:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's actually nothing "absurd" about it... and I'll break down your messed up criticism of it:

• For one, Burger King does not have a "Whopper neutrality" policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.

True, they don't have a "Whopper neutrality" policy. NO one suggested that they do. This was an example to show how removing neutrality would affect things in a "generally relatable way".

1. You're missing the point. The video is the equivalent of the intro of an infomercial where the man is shown cutting himself in five places and accidentally pulling out six yards of plastic wrap from a box while the announcer says, "Don't you just hate those plastic wraps that come in dangerous boxes and never give you the right amount of wrap?" ...as though this were a problem anyone but a complete idiot would have.

This BK skit is: "Don't you just hate it when fast food companies charge you $26 to get your fast food quickly?"  Um, no. Because CEOs of fast food companies, like the CEOs of ISPs, aren't complete idiots, and if they are, their businesses don't last very long.

If you missed it, all the orders that were referenced in the commercial were about a Whopper. No desserts, no families of 5, just individuals getting the same thing.

And yes, in the real word, Burger King's goal IS to serve as many as possible as quickly as possible... but... That's not necessarily the goal of internet service providers. Without neutrality, this exaggeration exposes why ending Net Neutrality is BAD for consumers. And in case you missed it, none of the "customers" said that they were going to McDonald's or Wendy's or Hardee's instead... because just like with ISP's the options are limited and/or likely to have roughly equal treatment.

• Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that's been proposed.)

Again, they weren't dealing with different things, just people getting a single Whopper.

2. This is Mises' comment on another ill effect of "Burger Neutrality", if it were truly analogous to NN.

• Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you'd expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.

Again, this assumes that choice of something better exists. If all ISP's go to various speeds for various things for various prices, where will people be able to go for net neutrality? Answer: Nowhere.

3. A fundamental principle of free market capitalism is that mass price fixing conspiracies are rare, and can be kept in check with anti-trust laws. There's no evidence thus far to suggest the ISP market won't function competitively (and quite a bit to suggest that it will).

If you want to argue for NN on the basis of getting the best deal for the consumer, you have to reject free market capitalism ab initio and rest your argument entirely on communist theory. Good luck with that.

If you think this isn't a fair analogy... you are the one that's been duped.

Replies inline and numbered.

[wyouser]

Just give me 1974, when "Whoppers"were uncomplicated.......you know....remember....    hold the pickle, hold the lettuce  special orders don't upset us   all we ask is that you let us serve it your way The only "net" Burger King used back then was a metal one to do your French fries in.....and, if you were little you got a "real" free paper crown....BUT nooo...we have to take something as simple as a Whopper (or the net) complicate it, polarize it, charge it politically, and then act surprised when Willie Wants-a-whopper, grabs one wrong an gets zapped by a million volts of regulated neutrality........

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2018 10:51:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 27, 2018 22:57:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's actually nothing "absurd" about it... and I'll break down your messed up criticism of it:

• For one, Burger King does not have a "Whopper neutrality" policy - and for good reason. If a family of five places a large order, while the next customer simply orders an ice cream cone, most Burger King employees will not refuse to serve up the dessert until after they fulfill the first order. The aim is to serve as many customers, as quickly as possible.

True, they don't have a "Whopper neutrality" policy. NO one suggested that they do. This was an example to show how removing neutrality would affect things in a "generally relatable way".

1. You're missing the point. The video is the equivalent of the intro of an infomercial where the man is shown cutting himself in five places and accidentally pulling out six yards of plastic wrap from a box while the announcer says, "Don't you just hate those plastic wraps that come in dangerous boxes and never give you the right amount of wrap?" ...as though this were a problem anyone but a complete idiot would have.

This BK skit is: "Don't you just hate it when fast food companies charge you $26 to get your fast food quickly?"  Um, no. Because CEOs of fast food companies, like the CEOs of ISPs, aren't complete idiots, and if they are, their businesses don't last very long.

If you missed it, all the orders that were referenced in the commercial were about a Whopper. No desserts, no families of 5, just individuals getting the same thing.

And yes, in the real word, Burger King's goal IS to serve as many as possible as quickly as possible... but... That's not necessarily the goal of internet service providers. Without neutrality, this exaggeration exposes why ending Net Neutrality is BAD for consumers. And in case you missed it, none of the "customers" said that they were going to McDonald's or Wendy's or Hardee's instead... because just like with ISP's the options are limited and/or likely to have roughly equal treatment.

• Similarly, a Whopper meal comes in various sizes - all with different prices - all so that customers have more flexibility based on having their food desires met. Imagine if a government regulator decided that since Americans have a right to have their thirst quenched - no matter its size - all fast food restaurants had to price all drink sizes the same? The result would be the prices for small drinks going up, while restaurants having to submit to occasional inspections by government agents to make sure no one was violating beverage neutrality laws. (This of course would still manage to not be the worst soda-related policy that's been proposed.)

Again, they weren't dealing with different things, just people getting a single Whopper.

2. This is Mises' comment on another ill effect of "Burger Neutrality", if it were truly analogous to NN.

• Additionally, Burger King certainly has the right to not prioritize delivering their customers food in a timely matter, just as customers have a right to avoid their services as a result. Whether or not the customers in the video were authentic or not, their reaction to the absurd fictional policy is how you'd expect someone to act. The video suggests that none of them would be excited about returning to Burger King if this had become actual franchise operating procedure. Once again, the market has its own ways of punishing bad actors.

Again, this assumes that choice of something better exists. If all ISP's go to various speeds for various things for various prices, where will people be able to go for net neutrality? Answer: Nowhere.

3. A fundamental principle of free market capitalism is that mass price fixing conspiracies are rare, and can be kept in check with anti-trust laws. There's no evidence thus far to suggest the ISP market won't function competitively (and quite a bit to suggest that it will).

If you want to argue for NN on the basis of getting the best deal for the consumer, you have to reject free market capitalism ab initio and rest your argument entirely on communist theory. Good luck with that.

If you think this isn't a fair analogy... you are the one that's been duped.

Replies inline and numbered.

Replies are completely bogus... and here's why:

1> I didn't miss the point. You missed the point of the video. It's not ABOUT BURGERS. It's a way to relate internet traffic to the general public.
2> NO idea. WTF you are talking about. Who is "Mises"?
3> A fundamental element of "Free market capitalism" is "capitalists will charge for anything that people are willing to pay for"... and faster speeds is something that many are willing to pay extra for.

[Virgil Showlion]

1. Your insisting "It's not about burgers. It's a way to relate internet traffic to the general public." as though I somehow wasn't aware this means you are missing my point. Let me put it simply: Just as "Burger Neutrality" isn't required to prevent the situation depicted in the skit, Net Neutrality isn't required to prevent an analogous situation in Internet access speeds. The skit fails by inadvertently demonstrating that the problem "Burger Neutrality"--and by extension, "Net Neutrality"--is meant to solve simply doesn't exist in a capitalist system.

2. I don't know. I lack the ability to read my previous posts where the meaning of the name is clearly defined.

3. Indeed. So produce a burger skit where the man willing to pay $26 dollars for a burger has it flown to his house via drone, while everyone paying $3 for a burger has to drive to the store, but gets their food as quickly as they ever have. This would be the status quo in a free market system.

Rather than ending with ticked off customers who now "understand" NN, the skit would end with amazed customers who "understand" NN, some of whom would probably be willing to pay $26 for the speed and convenience of having BK fly a Whopper to their house.

[steff]

 oh good lord they've spread their never ending debates to EE now.  It's like a disease that has no cure except death. 

[Deleted]

I can't help it if Virgil want's to fight logic.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2018 0:09:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1. Your insisting "It's not about burgers. It's a way to relate internet traffic to the general public." as though I somehow wasn't aware this means you are missing my point. Let me put it simply: Just as "Burger Neutrality" isn't required to prevent the situation depicted in the skit, Net Neutrality isn't required to prevent an analogous situation in Internet access speeds. The skit fails by inadvertently demonstrating that the problem "Burger Neutrality"--and by extension, "Net Neutrality"--is meant to solve simply doesn't exist in a capitalist system.

2. I don't know. I lack the ability to read my previous posts where the meaning of the name is clearly defined.

3. Indeed. So produce a burger skit where the man willing to pay $26 dollars for a burger has it flown to his house via drone, while everyone paying $3 for a burger has to drive to the store, but gets their food as quickly as they ever have. This would be the status quo in a free market system.

Rather than ending with ticked off customers who now "understand" NN, the skit would end with amazed customers who "understand" NN, some of whom would probably be willing to pay $26 for the speed and convenience of having BK fly a Whopper to their house.

1. Regardless of whatever your point was, it didn't address the point of the video. It went off onto some weird unrelated tangent. 

3. When does an internet provider distribute internet content in a completely different way for the higher price? That's what you are suggesting with your "but do it by drone to their home if their are willing to pay more for highest delivery speed of their burger". That would be like "provide a device that beams internet directly into the brain of people willing to pay extra for speed". No one even suggested that. That's just a moronic comparison.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2018 5:24:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 29, 2018 0:09:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

1. Your insisting "It's not about burgers. It's a way to relate internet traffic to the general public." as though I somehow wasn't aware this means you are missing my point. Let me put it simply: Just as "Burger Neutrality" isn't required to prevent the situation depicted in the skit, Net Neutrality isn't required to prevent an analogous situation in Internet access speeds. The skit fails by inadvertently demonstrating that the problem "Burger Neutrality"--and by extension, "Net Neutrality"--is meant to solve simply doesn't exist in a capitalist system.

2. I don't know. I lack the ability to read my previous posts where the meaning of the name is clearly defined.

3. Indeed. So produce a burger skit where the man willing to pay $26 dollars for a burger has it flown to his house via drone, while everyone paying $3 for a burger has to drive to the store, but gets their food as quickly as they ever have. This would be the status quo in a free market system.

Rather than ending with ticked off customers who now "understand" NN, the skit would end with amazed customers who "understand" NN, some of whom would probably be willing to pay $26 for the speed and convenience of having BK fly a Whopper to their house.

1. Regardless of whatever your point was, it didn't address the point of the video. It went off onto some weird unrelated tangent. 

3. When does an internet provider distribute internet content in a completely different way for the higher price? That's what you are suggesting with your "but do it by drone to their home if their are willing to pay more for highest delivery speed of their burger". That would be like "provide a device that beams internet directly into the brain of people willing to pay extra for speed". No one even suggested that. That's just a moronic comparison.

3. ISPs use numerous technologies to provide connectivity--cable, satellite, point-to-point broadcast, cellphone piggybacking--each with its own price profile. But this isn't my point either.

For the analogy to fairly convey the state of data rates (fast food rates) without NN ("Burger Neutrality") as opposed to with NN, the lowest-end price point would still have to provide good value to the consumer, which is not the case in the current skit. Customers having to wait 30 minutes for a $3 burger is a painfully contrived example of poor value. And before you say "The only purpose of the skit is to teach people that greater speed comes with greater cost in free markets.": this is not the purpose of the skit. The purpose of the skit--the whole point of driving the customers up the wall--is to convince viewers that the repeal of NN will lead to absurd price hikes for acceptably fast Internet service and absurd penalties for those unwilling to pay.

Not only is there no evidence to suggest this will occur, the industry they're using to make NN "relatable"--fast food--is a singularly lousy choice of analogy. It's operated under free market principles for decades without need of "Burger Neutrality", and its success only emphasizes that the horror show in the skit is contrived to deceptively stir up viewers' fear about a nonexistent problem.

Finally: Would you mind not throwing a "your messed up criticism", "Replies are completely bogus", "WTF you are talking about.", or "That's just a moronic comparison." into every single reply? Even one post with academic tenor would be nice.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2018 9:15:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 29, 2018 5:24:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

1. Regardless of whatever your point was, it didn't address the point of the video. It went off onto some weird unrelated tangent. 

3. When does an internet provider distribute internet content in a completely different way for the higher price? That's what you are suggesting with your "but do it by drone to their home if their are willing to pay more for highest delivery speed of their burger". That would be like "provide a device that beams internet directly into the brain of people willing to pay extra for speed". No one even suggested that. That's just a moronic comparison.

3. ISPs use numerous technologies to provide connectivity--cable, satellite, point-to-point broadcast, cellphone piggybacking--each with its own price profile. But this isn't my point either.

For the analogy to fairly convey the state of data rates (fast food rates) without NN ("Burger Neutrality") as opposed to with NN, the lowest-end price point would still have to provide good value to the consumer, which is not the case in the current skit. Customers having to wait 30 minutes for a $3 burger is a painfully contrived example of poor value. And before you say "The only purpose of the skit is to teach people that greater speed comes with greater cost in free markets.": this is not the purpose of the skit. The purpose of the skit--the whole point of driving the customers up the wall--is to convince viewers that the repeal of NN will lead to absurd price hikes for acceptably fast Internet service and absurd penalties for those unwilling to pay.

Not only is there no evidence to suggest this will occur, the industry they're using to make NN "relatable"--fast food--is a singularly lousy choice of analogy. It's operated under free market principles for decades without need of "Burger Neutrality", and its success only emphasizes that the horror show in the skit is contrived to deceptively stir up viewers' fear about a nonexistent problem.

Finally: Would you mind not throwing a "your messed up criticism", "Replies are completely bogus", "WTF you are talking about.", or "That's just a moronic comparison." into every single reply? Even one post with academic tenor would be nice.

LOL... You honestly believe #3, don't you? Too bad it's already been proven false in places where Net Neutrality is NOT an absolute.... Read the following link: www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11




As to your "finally" note:
Certainly... as soon as you stop using messed up criticism, bogus ideas, moronic comparisons, and things that are so confusing that the only reasonable response is "WTF?". I don't know if you've noticed or not, but when people don't use those things, I don't use those comments.

One kind of goes with the other because replies of academic tenor would require academic tenor in the posts that they are replies to... and posts with messed up criticism, bogus ideas, moronic comparisons, and things that are so confusing that the only reasonable response is "WTF?" don't exactly qualify as "academically sound" or as having "academic tenor"... do they?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2018 22:01:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... You honestly believe #3, don't you? Too bad it's already been proven false in places where Net Neutrality is NOT an absolute.... Read the following link: www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

Firstly, the US consumer market isn't the Portuguese consumer market.

Secondly, the problems they're talking about in the article aren't the one being parodied in the skit. They're warning about ISP-producer partnerships and barriers to entry for startup content producers.

My argument isn't that NN has no potential upside (see my first post). It's that this Burger King skit is plugging NN using an invalid argument, deceiving the viewership about the real risks and rewards.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2018 8:53:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 29, 2018 22:01:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... You honestly believe #3, don't you? Too bad it's already been proven false in places where Net Neutrality is NOT an absolute.... Read the following link: www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

Firstly, the US consumer market isn't the Portuguese consumer market.

Secondly, the problems they're talking about in the article aren't the one being parodied in the skit. They're warning about ISP-producer partnerships and barriers to entry for startup content producers.

My argument isn't that NN has no potential upside (see my first post). It's that this Burger King skit is plugging NN using an invalid argument, deceiving the viewership about the real risks and rewards.

Firstly.... duuuuh. But both ARE made up of human beings. Most of whom generally react the same in a capitalistic system.

Secondly, Wrong. Did you even read the article... or did you just look at the charts and graphs? The article DID go into more detail and cover other things, but it also addressed speed v. content v. cost.

Your argument is flawed because the argument that the Burger King skit "plugs" is absolutely valid. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 31, 2018 0:43:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The article DID go into more detail and cover other things, but it also addressed speed v. content v. cost.

It mentions it in one paragraph, without arguing that the costs are unreasonable.

This TechDirt article, along with the replies and comments, is one of the best online debates I've found vis a vis NN:

www.techdirt.com/articles/20171206/22535138758/why-i-changed-my-mind-net-neutrality.shtml

It addresses anti-competitive practices, investment, censorship (both with and without NN), regulatory abuses, telecom abuses, and other real problems in NN. It also doesn't resort to absurd stunts such as forcing customers to wait half an hour for a $3 hamburger and having them declare they "understand" NN.

The BK skit misses the mark. It pulls the debate out of the rational and into the surreal, to the point where it's deceptive. It deserves nobody's praise, including that of NN proponents.

[Deleted]

Long winded and way too hard to read (they chose a very bad font & size & color-scheme... actually hurt my eyes to be there)...

I think I'll just "agree to disagree" with you on this one and leave it at that. I KNOW that you are wrong, and you (incorrectly) believe that I'm wrong. Whatever... we'll soon find out which of us was right...