Tavern on the Meta

@OrangeDog Well they're part of their language, it seems, and they seem to regard it as important. Seems easiest just to accept that in good faith, right?

Journeyman Geek

1:07 PM

SO, folks on SU are confused cause the messaging is just .... well

confused

so we make it simple

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite exactly, except a moment ago you said you'd not accept it if you thought they were being silly

Mgetz

My point is more that any policy is subject to abuse

user194636

@OrangeDog There is a world of difference between Superman and whichever neopronoun you regard as "not part of the language". If I understood your meaning correctly. If not, please elucidate.

rene

@Mgetz let's stick with English then, so I don''t have to go through several hoops.

Journeyman Geek

https://i.stack.imgur.com/0pKjt.png

that's how we do it on root access

Mgetz

1:09 PM

@rene The point was to show an abuse of policy using something that would require going through hoops

rene

You've made your point, it didn't work out

Journeyman Geek

@Mgetz if someone is abusing it - like the old thing about identifying as an attack helicopter

we can deal with it as someone abusing it

user194636

@JourneymanGeek What was the comeback to that? At least you can still join the military?

OrangeDog

a) if you accept that it is possible for there to be a difference, then there must be closer differences
b) if you assume someone is abusing the policy, then that is not assuming good faith

Mgetz

@JourneymanGeek yes but users shouldn't be punished in the mean time

Journeyman Geek

1:10 PM

@PaulWhite there isn't

the whole point is to make fun of folks with 'different' gender identity

it isn't acceptable

user194636

@JourneymanGeek That exact example was used in a private room just recently. Perhaps you missed it.

Journeyman Geek

people don't realise why its offensive - someone was patient enough to explain it

@PaulWhite with good reason

its pretty famous

or infamous

user194636

Oh is it. I had no idea.

Journeyman Geek

That's kinda part of the problem

user194636

I see you're typing and not reading my messages.

Journeyman Geek

1:13 PM

I think I just missed the sarcasm

my apologies

user194636

I am aware that people come up with stupid "I identify as a..." examples, and that is offensive.

Journeyman Geek

ANd honestly

Mgetz

text is not a great medium for non-explicit sarcasm

user194636

I just saw a particularly witty comeback recently and thought you had too. No biggie.

Journeyman Geek

due to some quirks of my background - I thought they were making fun of a specific, unrelated subculture

OrangeDog

1:14 PM

People also come up with surprising "I identify as a..." with genuine sincerity

Journeyman Geek

@OrangeDog I know a few folks like that

Well used to

user194636

@OrangeDog Sounds interesting. Do you have an example?

Mark Amery

@PaulWhite The problem with this framing is that using pronouns as I normally would includes avoiding confusion or ambiguity for the reader - which is inherently dependent upon the specific pronoun, and automatically leads to Monica's position.

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite well, all the "common" ones were surprising at some point

user351483

M.A.R.

1:15 PM

@JourneymanGeek That's both offensive and pretty funny, I only hear it now

Mark Amery

e.g. I would not use "he" in a sentence if there are two men I might be referring two. Scenario with all else held equal but one is changed into a woman, and I might use "he" or "she".

M.A.R.

Uh, anybody seen @Tink around?

OrangeDog

And at the other end of the spectrum, the famous example is many people identifying as Napolean

I think I read a case of someone who actually thought they were an aircraft, but I may be mistaken

user351483

@M.A.R. Recently active on Meta

Machavity

@M.A.R. Last seen 34 mins ago

M.A.R.

1:16 PM

@Machavity Last chatted?

Mark Amery

Similarly, I would not use "he" in reference to SparklyPrincess1234 just because I happen to know that on the other side of the monitor, SparklyPrincess1234 is really a man - because that would be confusing to the reader

OrangeDog

Taking an example from here, I think many people were surprised/confused at an "I identify as Lavender" statement

M.A.R.

Robert Pattinson? Haha

Machavity

@M.A.R. 18h ago

user194636

@MarkAmery Indeed. But as I think someone remarked earlier (may have been you even), that means trading off someone's gender identity and someone's grammatical preferences. I think I know which one will "win" there. As regards ambiguity, that happens all the time in English as you say. Nothing new.

user194636

1:18 PM

@M.A.R. No. Not at all.

M.A.R.

@Machavity Uh, Sep 27. chat.meta.stackexchange.com/transcript/89?m=7927218#7927218

Machavity

@M.A.R. I dunno then. Clearly joining chat in some form but not chatting

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery I would if he asked me to

user194636

@OrangeDog Ok but you can see the difference between someone wanting you to use a particular pronoun (because of their gender identity), and some poor soul genuinely believing they are Napoleon or an aircraft of some kind, yes?

Journeyman Geek

and if folks ask well - "Oh, he told me he was a dude, its cool!"

Also

Lets not confuse extreme cases designed to be extreme with, well reality

Mark Amery

1:22 PM

@JourneymanGeek But why? Why should SparklyPrincess1234 get to demand that you express yourself in a way that you both know will confuse your readers? It's not like most writing here is in a context where more readers have the opportunity to ask.

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery why not?

user194636

@OrangeDog Yes that was new to me too, but it was easy to look up and learn. Seems quite a convenient term actually. No idea how widespread its use is, or how acceptable to people in general. Many people are on a bit of a learning curve with this.

Andras Deak

@Machavity private room, cc @M.A.R.

Journeyman Geek

But that's also a situation where a singlar they just avoids the whole issue

Mark Amery

Because actually having my meaning understood is pretty much objective number one when I write anything

M.A.R.

1:22 PM

@AndrasDeak Whoa Matrix music

Machavity

@AndrasDeak Ah, forgot about that

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite I can see a difference, but talking about it in a rational manner is the sort of thing that gets you banned

or even just asking questions to provoke consideration

M.A.R.

(⌐■_■)

user194636

@OrangeDog We're both talking about it in a rational manner as far as I can tell and neither has been banned yet.

Veljko89

my opinion is that this is all wrong ... wasting all this time on discussion about genders when in fact they shouldn't even be in consideration when talking to people on stackoverflow ... you see problem, you answer it if you can ... with all this coming in, only more problems can happen ...

Andras Deak

1:23 PM

@MarkAmery this is not a technical issue. This is a people issue. The purpose of communicating is so that you talk to other people. You can't ignore their feelings and identity because you want to be more exact. I'm also not saying you should do everything entirely as others see fit and comfortable, but you can't just start on the premise that what other people feel or think is irrelevant.

user351483

@M.A.R. I'm told that Tinkeringbell is on vacation.

Journeyman Geek

@AndrasDeak This is kinda the heart of the problem

M.A.R.

@Snow She was, but I think that was only three weeks

Journeyman Geek

Everyone is treating this as a technical issue

Mark Amery

@AndrasDeak I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm saying that it's secondary to actually successfully expressing my point.

M.A.R.

1:24 PM

Which I might or might not know if is over OH LOOK A BIRD

user194636

@MarkAmery Why not both? Can't the writing be expressed in such a way that it is not confusing, yet still honours the pronoun?

user194636

@JourneymanGeek Lot of programmers and technologists on SE 🙂

Andras Deak

@MarkAmery and many others disagree, and treating it as secondary when people's dignity is on the line will make other people angry at you for considering it secondary

Mark Amery

@PaulWhite Well, no, because... that's the whole thing that's forbidden

We're supposedly not meant to change our writing based on the particular pronoun of the person being talked about

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite then consider precisely what is the difference between someone asking to be called "sir" to make them more comfortable with their identity that doesn't match their physical appearance

Mark Amery

1:25 PM

... even though that's a thing we do all the time, even for cis men and women

user194636

@MarkAmery Well you have to be reasonable about this.

user351483

@M.A.R. I thought it was 6-8 weeks.

Journeyman Geek

@OrangeDog And I would honor this

user351483

She probably wishes it was...

user194636

@OrangeDog What does physical appearance have to do with it?

Bart

1:26 PM

@Veljko89 that approach will still work just fine. See a problem, answer if you can. You're not going to be in trouble. There are just elements in the community which apparently make it necessary to more clearly and in a defined manner enforce the "be nice" rule. The new CoC will not affect most of us I'd assume. And if it's gonna make some people who feel left out or actively sidelined more welcome, I'm all for it.

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite because the person does not appear to have a penis / be a french emperor

user194636

@MarkAmery Perhaps you could provide an example sentence that you would struggle with? I don't have answers by the way, but someone might.

user194636

@OrangeDog I don't see the correlation between either of those things, and calling someone "sir" if they ask?

Journeyman Geek

@OrangeDog uhm

So I have a few friends who're trans

the process of transitioning isn't a switch

Bart

^ that

Journeyman Geek

1:28 PM

Not even considering the whole medical side of it

there's the whole needing to deal with friends and family

How they present themselves shouldn't be the only source of deciding how to refer to them

OrangeDog

sigh, clearly I do not have the time to fully qualify every single aspect of this dichotomy I am trying to make Paul think about

Journeyman Geek

@OrangeDog "Dichotomy" is the heart of the problem

Mark Amery

@PaulWhite The first example with Bob at meta.stackexchange.com/a/334219/200582 is illustrative, even though it was meant for a different purpose.

user194636

I just look at it as if a friend were in the same room and asked me to use a particular pronoun for them. Of course I would. Why not? It's only polite.

Journeyman Geek

People are... squishy

OrangeDog

1:29 PM

I am presenting a literal dichotemy as an example

Mark Amery

> Bob climbed up the tower and put his bags on top. Then he fell off.

vs

> Bob climbed up the tower and put their bags on top. Then they fell off.

user194636

@OrangeDog I am trying hard to understand your point of view, but I am quite stupid.

Mark Amery

The first is unambiguous and the second is ambiguous, as a direct consequence of what Bob's preferred pronoun is.

user194636

@MarkAmery That example seems very familiar. Oh I think you had in a meta answer, yes?

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery what if it wasn't bob?

What if it was Jay?

Or I donno

some name that's gender neutralish

user194636

1:31 PM

> Bob climbed up the tower and put their bags on top. Then Bob fell off the tower.

OrangeDog

My point of view is that Paul is (in good faith) expressing contradicting beliefs of what is right. I make no judgement on the validity of either belief, only that enforcing compliance with one will exclude the other.

Mark Amery

@PaulWhite Aaaaand now you're doing the evil verboten Monica thing

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery nope

Bob did fall off the tower

user194636

@MarkAmery Well few people know the exact details of Monica's case, so it is better to talk in the abstract.

Journeyman Geek

and the bags did belong to them.

There was no complete avoidance of the pronoun

Andras Deak

1:32 PM

@MarkAmery use "Bob" or "bags", or deal with it

OrangeDog

@AndrasDeak which again is verboten

user194636

There's a "their" right there 🙂

Andras Deak

@OrangeDog we're talking about different things

Journeyman Geek

"Bob climbed up the tower and put Bob's bag on top. Then Bob fell off the tower" would be an alternative

Mark Amery

@PaulWhite Eh, fair - it does work in the pronoun

Journeyman Geek

1:32 PM

But its... messy

Andras Deak

no amount of language lawyering (heh) will justify misusing language when you can do better

OrangeDog

@AndrasDeak that was exactly one of the offending questions - "what if I just use their name"

Mark Amery

@JourneymanGeek Yes, in that case it's clunkier than using the pronoun

Journeyman Geek

Yup

and avoids it totally

user194636

@MarkAmery That's all I'm saying. English is flawed. This usage will have flaws too. Use your best judgement is all.

Andras Deak

1:34 PM

@OrangeDog with the controversy on SE, yes. But the way Mark objects sounds like he's generally against using pronouns right

user194636

@OrangeDog The difference is always avoiding one person's pronouns by using their name, when you don't normally do that, and wouldn't do it for other people. It's just about treating people with equity.

Andras Deak

the alleged stance of SE can't be justified

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery and its slightly obvious the writer is avoiding using pronouns

Which can be distressing for some people - which can be an issue.

Robert Columbia

News article from a few years ago: iwf.org/news/2802621/…

Journeyman Geek

Like I said

squishy

@RobertColumbia People can do things without seeing the bigger picture

what else is new?

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

1:37 PM

@Caleb I may actually be able to do something this evening.

Journeyman Geek

I'd say its a failing in teaching people what its for

Mark Amery

Okay, but it's non-obvious to me whether any of us here are expressing any position substantively different to Monica's. I realise that in the abstract she expressed general opposition to the singular "they", but... do y'all (who have seen more of the dialogue than me) actually think she was saying she would write that sentence in the clunky Bob Bob Bob way you've suggested, @JourneymanGeek? Her motive was explicitly about clarity of communication.

OrangeDog

The "clunky" way is unequivably the most clear

Caleb

@rene Thanks for that, that's downright embarrassing. Luckily unique and easily updated (and sessions reset) but ya, not a good move there.

OrangeDog

We're not writing novels here

user194636

1:38 PM

@MarkAmery I think a key observation here is that we are talking about how the CoC might be applied to users. Presumably, moderators will be held to a higher standard, as is often the case.

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery it could!

But honestly

I really feel that is something that we can work with, and for, gradually

user351483

@@Draken Thanks. I appreciate what you did there.

Journeyman Geek

@PaulWhite I've always been a little unclear on the COC being applied to people

user194636

@MarkAmery No I think she would write elegantly, and SE would not find complete avoidance of singular "they" acceptable by a moderator. So it seems anyway.

Journeyman Geek

I've always been of the "Folks, we do not do things this way" school of thought

user194636

1:40 PM

@JourneymanGeek Seems coherent to me in English, but then I live in a small country so.

user194636

Bigger than yours, I think, but still small 😀😀😀

Journeyman Geek

Yup

Stevoisiak

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree we're more upset about the way this was handled than the policy itself.

2

Journeyman Geek

^^^

this

user194636

@Stevoisiak Absolutely! The policy itself is small beans by comparison. Almost zero beans in fact.

Journeyman Geek

1:42 PM

I don't have an issue with what was asked of us

in spirit

user194636

There are certain practical issues we will have to work through.

user194636

But that's always true.
Also, I expect it to come up almost never on my home site.

user351483

@Stevoisiak I was initially upset by the policy, but it took me a couple of weeks to process and accept it. Now I'm just upset by the process failure.

OrangeDog

I'm still upset about licensing

Journeyman Geek

@Caleb as a commandment, no

user194636

1:43 PM

Last time I looked on Law.SE both answers said the licencing change was ok.

user194636

But who cares anyway.

Journeyman Geek

I don't share a religion with you

So I'd seriously hope you forgive any presumption - all I know of christianity is a decade in a christian school

Stevoisiak

@OrangeDog I remember when Dolphin wanted to relicense, we got permission from a majority of developers to relicense, then rewrote code from anyone who didn't want to relicense

Journeyman Geek

But I'd consider respecting someone's identity and sense of self an act of love for a sibling

OrangeDog

@PaulWhite source?

@Stevoisiak exactly, that's not what's happened here

user194636

1:45 PM

@OrangeDog My memory.

Stevoisiak

@OrangeDog Article on Dolphin relicensing for reference: dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/05/25/relicensing-dolphin

user194636

I forget how I ended up there. Probably a link from some meta answer or comment. Should be easy to find if you search for it.

Caleb

@JourneymanGeek I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Journeyman Geek

And loving one another is one of those things they kept talking a lot at chapel ;)

OrangeDog

and as it the usual case, more upset that there's been no responce to any of the questions about the probable problems with the relicensing than the initial event itself

Stevoisiak

1:46 PM

Disclosure: I previously contributed to Dolphin and gave permission for relicensing my contributions

Journeyman Geek

@Caleb I don't think accepting someone for what they are is fundamentally incompatible with anything else.

Machavity

6

Q: Is Stack Exchange allowed to unilaterally change previously published content license?

The original thread can be found here: Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow are moving to CC BY-SA 4.0 As far as I understand, Stack Exchange can move on to CC BY-SA 4.0 for content published in the future, but they are not allowed to unilaterally change the license of previous publications. Severa...

licensing

Journeyman Geek

I respect any reservations you have

but eh.

user194636

@Machavity Thank you!

Journeyman Geek

My main issue is with how this was done, in every aspect

not what is asked of us

Mark Amery

1:47 PM

Yours, yes. Not @Caleb's; that was clear in his resignation post.

Journeyman Geek

And if we start argueing- precisely the effect this has on folks ><

Stevoisiak

Thing is, I'm not sure how you could properly re-license SE content. It was difficult enough with Dolphin's 200 contributors

user194636

I thought @Caleb's post was exceptionally well-written.

Journeyman Geek

It was

Mark Amery

I have a great deal of respect for Caleb after reading that post, but I think it's also fair to say that his take on this is very different to Monica's or that of the mods who resigned in protest.

Journeyman Geek

1:48 PM

Which is also fine

user194636

There is always a range of views on any topic.

Journeyman Geek

yup

user194636

I enjoy reading alternate opinions and viewpoints.

Andras Deak

@PaulWhite I disagree

user194636

Sometimes I even change my mind about things.

OrangeDog

1:49 PM

@Machavity thanks, a) I think the answers are wrong and b) it is SE that should be justifying it - even a simple "yes our lawyers checked and said we could" has not been forthcoming

user194636

@AndrasDeak ha!

Caleb

@JourneymanGeek Sorry mate I'm not trying to be dense but I feel like I'm looking at half a conversation. I'm being pinged and I the replies don't seem to be in connection with something I said.

Mark Amery

@JourneymanGeek Indeed. But with that in mind, I thing it's not quite true to claim that "we all" are primarily upset about the handling of Monica, and not the policy

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

@PaulWhite Even if the licensing change is legally okay, the way they handled the communication around it (by simply ignoring all concern) was a problem. And symptomatic of wider problems.

user194636

@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Yes communication has been exceptionally poor recently. Deliberately so, one might think.

Journeyman Geek

1:50 PM

@Caleb eh. Never mind then. Lets chalk it down to ... the sheer level of stuff going on and me being scatterbrained ;)

user194636

@Caleb JG is often hard to follow. I find it helps to say woof every now and again.

Stevoisiak

You'd be surprised how many times things like relicensing happens and nobody notices.

Heck, it happened on SE once

user194636

I wonder how many people carefully assess the implications of CY-BY-SA-XX before posting on SE

Stevoisiak

The problem is, they're now backed into a corner. Anything they say can be used against them in a court of law

Bart

@PaulWhite pretty close to 0%.

Mgetz

1:52 PM

@Stevoisiak arbitration, you can't sue SE

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

@Stevoisiak Has SE relicensed before? I know there was a lot of talk about code relicensing, but that time they did (reluctantly) listen to the community and back off.

user194636

I mean I know I had every word of the Terms validated by my own legal team before joining, but probably not everyone does.

Mgetz

they have forced arbitration

Caleb

@MarkAmery This is true. I've thought about going back and adding more emphasis to that point, but it's not entirely different either. E.g. Robert and Gilles have similar issues even if their background for them came about differently. A lot of the outrage is directed at the way it was handled and I'm actually far more concerned about the underlying cause for why they thought there was something to handle in the first place.

OrangeDog

@Mgetz unless you opted-out, or are European

Stevoisiak

1:52 PM

6

A: Should Stack Exchange switch to CC BY-SA 3.0?

As of around April 8, we re-licensed under 3.0: There are some noteworthy differences between the two. 3.0 has a no endorsements clause, and it introduces the concept of a "Creative Commons Compatible License", a third-party license approved by CC as "essentially equivalent" (none are approv...

Andras Deak

@Stevoisiak I have the feeling that due to their detachment from the community they've managed to get from "it's OK guys, we can figure this out" via "you're not lawyers, we don't have to explain anything to you lot" to "OK, let's sue SE and see what happens"

OrangeDog

@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Check my answer on the subject

Journeyman Geek

@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen twice

Stevoisiak

They relicensed from 2.5 to 3.0 in 2011

Mgetz

@OrangeDog AFAIK they don't have any facilities or personnel in Europe, you'd have to go to the US to pursue anything.

Caleb

1:53 PM

And I suspect they will try to address the way it was handled and a lot of people will calm down and go back to their jobs. But I don't see the slightest hint that they are going to back away from the why this happened in the first place.

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

@Stevoisiak Okay. I somehow never even noticed that one.

Mark Amery

@Caleb I think there are three possible levels of disagreement, and people drop off at different levels

Stevoisiak

The strange part is, I don't think anyone is opposed to the 4.0 relicensing in concept

Mgetz

and it's highly likely the courts will rule that they can change the TOS to remove opt out

Journeyman Geek

> I suspect they will try to address the way it was handled

This would be a start

> a lot of people will calm down and go back to their jobs

I would love this

Mark Amery

1:54 PM

There are people who object to the way Monica was fired. That's basically everyone.

user194636

@Caleb You mean beyond things like @Aza's post?

Journeyman Geek

boo chat

Stevoisiak

Nobody raised an eye at the 2.5 to 3.0 relicence.

OrangeDog

@Stevoisiak the one issue I saw was that it's then not compatible with Wikipedia

Caleb

@MarkAmery Broken down the way I split my 3 reasons, or some other way?

Mark Amery

1:55 PM

Then there are people who object to enforcing use of pronouns instead of names, because, for liberal reasons, they don't want to impose beliefs about trans people on speakers. That includes me, you, but by no means everybody here. Maybe we're a minority.

user194636

@JourneymanGeek Are you having fun with that formatting at all

OrangeDog

@Stevoisiak it wasn't announced, it was mostly a typo on one page/footer that eventually got unified

Journeyman Geek

@PaulWhite no

Stevoisiak

Software copyright gets broken all the time. Heck, there's a fairly popular VR build of Dolphin that is technically illegal under our license, but developers look the other way.

user194636

@MarkAmery The compelled speech argument? That is coherent.

OrangeDog

1:55 PM

@Stevoisiak and there was a lot less content and fewer users back then

Stevoisiak

Is it right? Not necessarilly

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

@MarkAmery Liberal being a word with many many reasons.

user194636

@JourneymanGeek Yeah chat markdown sucks like nothing else.

Mark Amery

And then there are people who personally object to them, personally using trans people's preferred pronouns. That includes you, @Caleb, but at that point, I'm not longer with you. I defend your right to hold that view, but don't defend the view.

Stevoisiak

Licensing is complicated

Gwideon

1:57 PM

hello

TRiG is Timothy Richard Green

@PaulWhite I'm not entirely sure that it is coherent, actually. I think it's often (usually) an excuse to be petty and bigoted while pretending to care about some weird abstract principle which doesn't actually make much sense.

Stevoisiak

Once again, I think people are upset about how it was relicensed, rather than the relicensing itself

user194636

I have a great deal of empathy with people that hold strongly conflicting religious views on this.

Journeyman Geek

@Stevoisiak but... wierdly, it happened with no fuss

but no one's really gotten to us about the legal stuff yet - and I don't even think anyone would notice this week

Stevoisiak

@JourneymanGeek The 2.5 > 3.0? Or the 3.0 to 4.0?

Gwideon

1:58 PM

is everyone doing good

Andras Deak

@Stevoisiak 2.5 < 3.0, dude

Journeyman Geek

@Stevoisiak wiki-cc to 2.5 and 2.5 to 3.0

OrangeDog

@MarkAmery not to put words in Caleb's mouth, but those sorts of objections are at a personal level of believing that reinforcing a trans identity is detrimental to the trans person's welfare, and a high-level philosophical argument of denying objective truth

user194636

@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Assuming good faith, yes I have encountered people that can provide rational reasons for holding that view. That does not mean I agree with them by the way. No doubt there are bad actors too.

Stevoisiak

Just double checking.

Mark Amery

1:58 PM

And I guess I think it's interesting that the universal agreement on the wrongness of the manner of Monica's firing has meant that the other two levels of disagreement have gotten close to no airtime here. And as someone who personally disagrees with the policy, I think that's a pity.

OrangeDog

"wiki-cc" was never really a thing, and is the same terms as 2.5

Journeyman Geek

@MarkAmery One problem at a time

user351483

@MarkAmery You don't know the specifics of that policy yet.

Mark Amery

@JourneymanGeek Fair enough.

Gwideon

I guess everyone is to caught up in the discussion

Caleb

1:59 PM

@PaulWhite Lets talk about the concept in the abstract, not individual cases. I'm not blaming Aza in specific and I'm not even sure all the pointers to their post are any more than a less volitile corollary case. One of a set maybe, but not the cause in the way I'm thinking about it.

Transcript for