Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
If you wish to print these lists for your use, please do so at home. They are long and would be a huge waste of paper. Have Fun...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
I know we just wrapped up sense perception, but I saw this video at a conference this weekend and found it fitting. When it was used at the conference, it was talking about how we shouldn't buy into the superficial lies that we are ugly. My question is, even if everyone saw this video, do you think the media would still have a voice of what is "beautiful" and what isn't?
Please, I'm curious to hear the different opinions on this matter, but to get the conversation going, I'll start with my own.
I'm not an artist, as I have previously mentioned. So, I think, it is not such a surprise that I don't consider many forms of splatter paint to be art. If it is something that anyone could do, then how does it really have any meaning? Similarly, pieces of art that are purposely formatted after certain artists or styles also lacks individuality, in my eyes. Without being a new idea, I don't see how art (and therefore the universal meaning it conveys) could progress.
- Lauren P.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
In what way do we know the world? We experience it through our senses, but how can we know what is real and what is not? If one is not aware of the existence of some thing, the thing is not real to the observer because it is not perceived as real. There is no true knowledge that we can know, but we can create knowledge through belief formulated through observation and the other ways of knowing we have discussed, because it is the closest thing we have to the truth. What we believe as real or perceive as real becomes real simply by the act of perceiving it so.
Existence is a web of infinite dimensions in which everything is linked to everything else through the threads, which are cause-effect relationships between events; the web encompasses all space, time, matter, energy - it is everything and is always expanding as time goes forward. Paradoxically, because it is not possible for something not to exist, the blanket is infinite. It is not one-, two-, three-, four-dimensional. It includes and composes everything, in an infinite number of dimensions.
If one part of the web is changed, an infinite number of new threads spring from the changed point. The resulting threads originating from the centre [theoretically the beginning of space, time &cetera] form the web as it grows to fill the future, a process which continually alters the future as the past changes.
Though the web encompasses everything, that is not to say that it is absolute. The present [which is infinitely small because it is simply the point at which the past and the future meet] and the past exist only in perception and memory. We can perceive that there is a present, but it is impossible to define a time as the present because we can only measure it relative to the past and future. In fact, the present is perception, while what we frequently refer to as the present is often the near past or near future. The past, on the other hand, can be altered because it does exist in the web but is stored in memory that is constantly being filtered through perception, making it extremely dynamic and removing the physical limitations that, along with perception of the past, govern the future.
Since the past exists only though perception thereof, because the future does not yet exist, and because the physical world only governs the future, perception is all that is real and therefore every being has a different reality.
It is also possible to delete from or to add to the past by adding or removing events or series of events from the blanket. When an event or series of events is removed, the causes of that event or series run straight through to the effects and the event no longer exists; it never existed, in the perception of whoever removed it. When an event is added, it attaches to effects and causes, forming a new portion of the web. This manipulation of the past can be achieved through either conscious or unconscious change in perception, and when the past changes, conscious choices and in turn the future will change.
George Orwell adequately described this idea of intentional manipulation of perception to exercise control over the past and through cause and effect the future in 1984 with the concept of doublethink and the Party’s slogan that 'whoever controls the past controls the future'.
The future is governed jointly by the physical world and by the collective of individual perceptions of the past and present, making it impossible to predict due to the extremely dynamic nature of perception.
Due to this relationship between perception and reality, life only has a meaning if there is a perceived meaning. Once a meaning has been perceived, that meaning holds true within one's own reality. Life is what you make of it.
If you hear me say "In your perception", it means that whatever you've said is simply your perception, and isn't the only reality. So I guess what I mean to say is "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Monday, September 22, 2008
I'm sure some of you have seen this video before... but its just something that got me thinking.
We've all seen and heard these statistics before, but this video puts them into a much smaller context, and uses some pretty emotional images and music to get the point across.
Just thought I'd throw it out there!
Let me know what you think!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Now as for me, I guess I fell that there has to be something else out there with some intelligence. It would be unlikely for there not to be. How could it be that in the BILLIONS and billions of planets in the universe that our planet was the only one to sustain life, it just dosen't work.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Please discuss subject matter, not individual teachers or teaching styles.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
"Cogito, ergo sum"- "I think, therefore I am"
or the alternate quote
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"-"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"
So is this true. I think this topic came up in our lunch class today, are we all really in some sort of generated universe, is everything just one REALLY long dream? What exists? can a table exist, if it dosen't think?
This conversation brought to mind a book that I'd read that some of you may be interested in. The book is called Till We Have Faces and is a retelling of the myth of Psyche and Cupid by C.S. Lewis. Besides being a fascinating story it also contains some parallels with Plato's ''Allegory" regarding the way in which humans deal with being shown truth and the discomfort that sometimes accompanies acquisition of knowledge. I think the themes presented would lend themselves very well to a ToK discussion and fit in with what we've been learning about.
I've attached a link explaining some of the key themes/concepts of the book to the title of the post, the ones that would be most applicable are towards the bottom of the webpage. If you have time (I know it's a laughable concept in most of our lives...) please read it!
Let me know what you think...
Monday, August 25, 2008
My goal for this post if for everyone to put everything on the table. Why they believe or even know God exists or why they believe or even know God doesn't exist. The "What do you believe" topic was a bit to broad for me and so I'm asking my fellow Theory of Knowledgians a more specific question that hopefully will raise many more.
I will start by saying that I do believe in a God. Perhaps not "The God" as described in the bible but rather a greater entity that created the universe. My reasons for this belief are faith, as I have always felt in a near impossible to describe way that there was something that I couldn't fathom that had to have created the very smallest fabric of space and time that makes up my eyes, ears, hair, pajamas, and keyboard that I type on, and that, while I believe evolution and even string theory, that there logically had to be something that created the strings.
Please respond to this post as I'm very agnostic and very unsure of many of my beliefs regarding religion and God. I'm not asking for someone to preach to me, I'm just curious what other's beliefs are and why they believe that way.
Also please be respectful in your comments as this is a delicate subject.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
OK... where to start?
Basically, i just went to youtube and typed the only thing i knew to - "Freedom of Speech is the Right to Hate", and clicked on the first video in the mix.
In short, it's a video response to an atheist concerning free speech.
In the video the man, (who, i thought really interstingly is MUSLIM) describes how even though people have "the right to engage in intellectual discourse, criticism and debate", they should still stay true to others' right to respect and dignity.
Wasn't that the main thing we talked about??
This creepy old man with a creepy little sign is protesting at an innocent young man's funeral, completely disrespecting the dead boy's parents and family. All for his own, creepy, old (yet still 'wise and authoritative') beliefs.
There's the other thing! He mentions authority later in his video description. Word for word:
"Who would win in a slandering fight between you and Rupert Murdoch? You both and the same 'freedoms' but he has more POWER than you (since he owns SKY channels and newspapers)."
Thats's it. Who determines whether this guy is just old and creepy, sick, and wrong for coming to this boy's funeral and undermining every last bit of importance he had in life, destroying the good memories of him with messages of hate, or whether he's an Authority, a vietnam war veteran who's seen more than any of us IB kids combined, who knows - and FEELS what's right for himself (and obviously others around him)? Who decides this?
It's his belief.
It's his choice.
I guess we have to give it to him, right?
But no matter what is decided, someone else has to come in and throw in their two cents. The majority of the comments were hate messages, not only to the man himself, but also to Islam, Middle Eastern Countries, and people of color in general!! It disgusted me... i had to leave 3 comments politely telling some people off. Oh well.
I just thought that this man, known as youtuber mujtahid2006, summed up everything we talked about in the last 3 days perfectly. Check out the video so you can see waht im talking about, the hate comments, and how right this man is on everything we talked about.
Go, my fellow IB students...
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, August 04, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
In the movie, how do you know what you know and why do you accept it to be true?
Were there any points in the movie when you did question the validity of the information that was presented?
Please discuss but try not to give too much away for the people who haven't finished it yet. Thanks :)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Follow this link:
Daily Show Global Warming
and explore the justifications of this viewpoint from a TOK perspective.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
We’ve been hearing a lot in the news about the candidates, an important issue to be sure, as it will determine where our country will be headed in the next four years. But a trend has been emerging in the media coverage of this important race: the determined focus of coverage on “political gaffs” made by the candidates in their bid for nomination. For example, Hilary has been labeled a liar for saying she was “under sniper fire” in Bosnia. Obama has been called elitist by saying that people from Pennsylvania who were frustrated have been turning to “religion and guns”.
The most surprising thing about all this political hoopla is how many intelligent people I have heard justifying their positions on these candidates based upon these gaffs (versus the issues, as I expected).
So the question is: do these gaffs represent simple mistakes made during a stressful time by overtired candidates or are they signs of major character flaws? What WOKs do we use to justify our judgment of this? And how does the media coverage play into our perceptions of these gaffs (as it focuses on these versus the issues)?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Remember: Anyone who contributes (With POK’s WOK’s etc.) to this post will get a cookie if they show up to the Eminent Domain IA presentation on May 14th.
Note: If you want more background information, or interesting stories, ask and I’ll post them to this thread.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
When my Norwegian relatives came over a few summers ago, my second cousin discussed subliminal messages. Since he was majoring in psycology, he talked on how most subliminal messages do not actually work, and it is actually better to just show a commercial about your given product.
However, this brings to light many ethical decisions.
Should subliminal messaging be allowed? Why or why not?
Try your best to use the POKs and WOKs for your justification
Monday, April 14, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Reading this quote made me really think about ways of knowing outside of science. While an echo can be defined with sound waves and logical explanations, here is a definition that seems to be driven more by emotion and even sense perception. How can changing our usual ways of knowing help us gain a new perspective on something, such as the nature of an echo?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Read this article, it is quiet entertaining.
Question: Do you agree with this article or not? Use the TOK terminology and understanding to support your claim.
(click on the topic title to read the article)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Recently however, there are some chances or coincidences..."luck" as many people say that are just so unlikely that I start to question that maybe there is a higher force looking out force us.
Friday, March 07, 2008
I'm sure we've all discussed this topic before, but now, as educated TOK students, I'm curious to know how everyone views this. With different truth tests and justifications, how do we know in which of these areas truth exists? Also, how have your opinions on this changed issue since taking TOK? Use examples!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
This is the message given by the Documentary Film Partners:
"Documentary Film Partners is a new, independent filmmaking collective looking to develop and produce hard-hitting documentary programming with unflinching dedication to the facts.
The Collective, as we call it, is made up of both student and veteran filmmaking professionals who strive to teach and learn from one another while producing a style of filmmaking rare in today's festivals. This brand of collaboration is in the DNA of our company, and every film we develop and produce.
Our independent spirit drives us to tell stories that shock audiences out of their comfort-zones. This isn't your prime-time news magazine, expose fare, but rather a startling view of the world as it is. Sometimes, the world at its worst.
The DFP promise is to deliver audiences film experiences that change them forever. Films that awaken the mind, inspire the heart, and even anger the soul. No subject is off-limits, nothing is sacred. Documentary Film Partners is committed to this promise, and we believe it is our responsibility to produce films that achieve so much more than entertainment."
What's your reaction to this, based on a ToK standpoint?
Is releasing such material moral/ethical?
Is it a necessary part of knowledge?
What purpose does it actually serve?
(I don't care if you answer these questions; just comment in general...)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Why do humans respond more emotionally when the animal dies (I am Legend, Volvo ads (the foreshadowing), etc.) than when humans die?*
*I know humans are technically animals. But I'm using the very generic separation term
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
If this is so, how can we as mankind reconcile the fact that no two people experience certain stimuli (qualia) the same way? How can everyone agree as to exactly what a headache feels like, what colors are, or what being in love feels like?
2) Jung suggests "personalities are shaped by feelings and thoughts while sensations color the deetails and inutition interprets the currents".
Is this true? What exactly are personalities? Are they our personal interpretations of a person? Or their expression of themselves as they see? Or something else entirely?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
I thought the problem was much more interesting than the inappropriate-relationships-at-work problem we thought and I would like to pose it to you guys.
Do you think looking at these profiles should factor into the judgment of possible employees in determining their effectiveness? For example, a person that is portrayed as a very social and unfocused individual on a myspace page versus a person with the exact same resume but no online profile are weighed and the one without a myspace gets the job. Do you think this is fair?
We came up with the solution that in order to ensure equal opportunity, an applicant should be informed that all public records concerning him or her would be looked at, just like they are required to talk about past convictions on an application. This would allow the applicants to have more equal chances in applying.
Please use personal examples and logic to justify. For example, I know that at Poudre a while ago there was some sort of situation with a teacher or coach looking at myspace accounts.
Monday, February 04, 2008
However, I'm interested in how many of you know who you support and whether it's because you agree with their views or just their general image/message.
The link provided is a test that shows who you mostly likely align with as far as ideology; for how many of you does it match up? (I'm not sure how accurate it is...but it was the best I could find).
Now, why do some people defend a candidate just because they are of the same party? Has politics become so Democrat vs. Republican that many people cant see beyond the party and into what a cadidate stands for? How many people would vote for someone merely because they are in that party, without stopping to consider their view beyond that it "should fit because thats what the party always represents"?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Sorry, it’ll be long. This is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, though I’m editing the middle out because otherwise it’d be longer and I really wanted the beginning and end.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
If you ask me the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-as, I think, he will.
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns- or dollars. Take your choice- there is no other- and your time is running out.”
My question to you guys is; what do you think? Is money the root of all evil? Is it the root of all good? Or neither? And, of course, please justify.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
I just finished a new book, Empire, by Orson Scott Card. For those of you who are not familiar with him; Card is mainly science fiction author; his most famous works are the Ender's Game series. This new book is different from most of his others books as it is set in the
In the novel the media is shown not as a reporter of the news but rather as a manipulator of the news. Characters in the novel are careful to choose their language so it will be "spun" the way they intend for the news. How does the Media manipulate what we think about world events? Does it matter to us what news outlet reports the news to you, Fox News or CNN? How can language an interviewee uses be turned to show whatever the interviewer wants, or fits with his/her ideology. Lastly, ethically/morally or on whatever scale you choose: should journalists try to avoid editorializing in their news pieces and attempt to remain objective, or should they present the events through the lens of their Ideology?
(I apologize for the long ramble but I found the book very thought provoking on this issue and others)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
So, I was trying to write my second english EA and thinking about finishing my biology lab at the same time, and I got side-tracked into thinking about how everyone's perception of the world differs. And I asked myself a question that I couldn't find an answer to, so I posted it in a note for some of my friends to answer, and Madi suggested I post it on here. Thus, the following is the question I've been pondering, and I'd like some answers to it:
If you could comprehend the world through someone else's perception (Just for a day or so), getting all of their recognized and unrecognized bias and history and everything, whose perception would you want to "see" the world through? And why?
So my question for you is, at what point in time, socially and politically, do we recognize racism in an aspect of our society that was once widely accepted as moral? Why did it take so long for the American public to realize that those types of movies were racist and immoral?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I therefore had to make the choice of either pushing my way through the mess without consideration of the other people I may be affecting and getting to class on time or politely wading my way through the sea of people as I usually do and in all likelihood arriving to class late.
What should I have done and with what ethical justification/s should I have done it?
Also what parallels do you see with this situation and larger picture world situations (for example world politics or war) and do the same ethical justifications for my situation take effect for the larger one?
I recently saw the movie "Control" at the Lyric. "Control" is a biopic of Ian Curtis, who was the lead singer and lyricist of the British band Joy Division. Ian only lived for 23 years, he committed suicide on May 18th, 1980. Check Wikipedia for a more complete biography or YouTube for some original Joy Division music videos (you've all heard their song "Love Will Tear Us Apart", you just don't know it). The film was very good, it was honored recently at the Cannes Film Festival and won several major acting awards in the
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
So I was wondering--
During our little research of slangs, I realized that we still use a lot of phrases from 20, 80 years ago. For example, the word "crush" (as in I have a crush on someone) was around ever since the 1920s. We discussed this in class a little bit, but what is it about some slangs that are still relevant today? What are some new slangs of our generation, and which of those do you think will last and still be used by the upcoming generations? Please justify your answer.
All of these definitions have merit, but I was curious to see what people outside of our IB community had to say on the subject. In order to find out I went to one of the places where pop culture, one of the sources that we named as an influence in the development of slang, is compiled from all over the world: youtube.com. What I found is that there are many socially conscious people who are eager to lend a hand to those of us who are uneducated in the language of slang, but even though I picked up some handy new phrases, some of the information in those videos was a little sketch (probably put there by a robocracy), ya know what I’m sayin’ homeslick?
After that experience I went to urbandictionary.com, which describes itself as “a slang dictionary with your definitions” to find out their definition for the word. Like wikipedia.com the information on the website is completely supplied by regular people, but after all I was looking for other people’s definition of “slang”, so it was exactly the type of source I was looking for. Of the two most common definitions (one not having anything to do with language) I found this applicable meaning:
“slang is the continual and ever-changing use and definition of words in informal conversation, often using references as a means of comparison or showing likeness. some modern slang has endured over the decades since its inception (i.e. cool) and some will only last a few years before being rendered obsolete or outdated (i.e. bling bling). slang can be born from any number of situations or ideas, and can be blunt or riddled with metaphor, and often quite profound. the use of slang is frequently ridiculed by culturally-ignorant people who feel it is the product of insufficient education and believe it to be counter-evolutionary; of course, they couldn't be farther from the truth. human language has been in a state of constant reinvention for centuries, and slang has been used and created by poets and writers of all sorts (William Shakespeare has been credited for the upbringing of at least a couple of words). it is the right and responsibility of the modern human to keep re-evaluating language, to give dead words innovative contemporary meanings or to simply invent new ones, in order to be more appealing and representative to the speaker/listener (which was essentially the basis behind language anyway, to understandably communicate thoughts or ideas verbally).”
So my question to all of you is do you agree with this definition that we have a responsibility to revaluate/reinvent language? What purpose does the creation of a new word serve if it will only disappear in a few years, months, weeks?
So don’t be a dandruff, and answer my post!! m’kay.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
—Deuteronomy 21:18-21, KJV
But as we have seen, the repressive structure of the segregated classroom [Julia’s note: age segregation, not race segregation] itself guarantees that any natural interest in learning will finally serve the essentially disciplinary interests of the school…. If they [idealistic young teachers] had forgotten what a jail school was for them, it all comes back now. And they are soon forced to see that though there are liberal jails and not-so-liberal jails, by definition they are jails….
Children, then, are not freer than adults. They are burdened by a wish fantasy in direct proportion to the restraints of their narrow lives; with an unpleasant sense of their own physical inadequacy and ridiculousness; with constant shame about their dependence, economic and otherwise (”Mother, may I?”); and humiliation concerning their natural ignorance of practical affairs. Children are repressed at every waking minute. Childhood is hell.
—Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex
Public education, in its present form, is oppressive of children. This is to be expected; when the entire society is oppressive of children, why should the educational system be any different? Public schools are grounded in ageist assumptions about the nature of children and the proper relationship between adults and children in society. Among these assumptions:
1. Adults deserve respect by virtue of their age alone.
People deserve respect because of their knowledge and wisdom and ability. These attributes may be correlated with age, but that correlation is at least in part a result of the deliberate, institutionalized benighting of minors. Despite this oppression, there are children who manage to exceed adults in knowledge, wisdom, and ability in certain subjects; in public schools, these children must feign respect for their teachers or be considered delinquent. Teachers feel entitled to this respect and feel entitled to enforce it; hell, the whole society affirms their automatic superiority over children, so the origin of their entitlement is no mystery.
2. Children need education for X number of years (X a positive integer whose exact value varies from state to state) before they can be allowed into society.
I have never liked mandatory education laws. Who is the state to dictate how long children must remain economically dependent and helpless? Who is the state to dictate the pace of each child’s learning? Firestone argues—correctly, I think—that the “myth of childhood” oppresses children under the guise of offering protection; the economic dependence caused by mandatory education laws goes far beyond the scope of children’s biological dependence.
3. Children should be segregated from people who are not their age.
Two implications are present here: first, that there is a gulf between children and adults because the natures of the two classes are so fundamentally different; second, that age indicates ability. From the first, we can explain the existence of an educational institution that isolates children from egalitarian relations with adults. From the second, we can explain why administrators are so reluctant to destroy the Herculean obstacle course that faces students who try to skip multiple grades. Implicit in the organization of public schools is an essentialism—age essentialism, we can call it—that holds children of different ages to be intrinsically different from one another and children of the same age to be uniform in their social and intellectual development. The opposition to gifted education, therefore, can be interpreted not only in terms of our society’s anti-intellectualism, which is undeniable, but also in terms of our society’s commitment to the oppression of children.
4. Children need to be disciplined when they defy authority; schools should put children in their place.
Wherever an oppressor/oppressed dynamic exists, there is the threat of rebellion. The public school system reduces this threat through a combination of indoctrination and fear. The obsession with order, control, and uniformity, so prevalent in public schools, is at odds with a worldview that treats children as human, for no human could be so restricted in eating, drinking, peeing, asking questions, talking, sitting down, standing up, or moving.
The natural solution is homeschooling, but this poses a problem for feminists. In the present patriarchy, it is reasonable to assume that the burden of homeschooling will fall on females. It is also reasonable to assume that homeschooling will reinforce the nuclear family and propagate ignorance. In these respects, it appears that insofar as widespread homeschooling would alleviate the oppression of children, it would also exacerbate patriarchal ideals about women’s domesticity. Is public schooling the least of many evils in an unenlightened society?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Whenever one makes an argument, people will try to poke holes in it by asking "Well, what if
Hope everyone had a restful and fun break.