On the doctor question, medical schools do not accept older students. In fact, competition is so tough and so favors the young--I know a doctor, board certified in family practice and emergency medicine. Both of those specialties have you on your feet quite a lot. In his spare time as a hobby he has a small farm, and one day he fell and hurt is back. It's not really a crippling disability, but it makes it impossible for him to stay on his feet constantly. So he contacted his medical school. To be certified in any specialty, you must do a residency in it. He wanted to find a residency in any medical specialty that he could do sitting. There are a lot of these--psychiatry, radiology, and any of a number of consulting fields. He was told that they could not possibly get him a residency--there were not enough available for current graduates.
You can't get into medicine if you don't do it while you're young. It's as simple as that.
--M. J. Young
We need to allow as many people as want to try to become doctors. Artificial guild limits = bad.
I read in Guinness about doctors who were over 100 years old and still practicing. I think MJ might need to check his facts.
(Doing Therapy)
Tsanslation of what a1nut recently wrote:
"I really don't understand what MJ wrote, so I'll make a brief and narrow response directed at no one in particular that hopefully doesn't reveal how poorly my clouded mind understood."
John, no one said you couldn't still be a doctor when you're old. I said you can't become a doctor if you're older.
Eric, for better or worse, not everyone can become a doctor--or a lawyer, or even a nurse. My future daughter-in-law just passed her second-to-last semester exams for an RN program, and everyone says she's home free now: two year registered nurse programs are geared to knock out as many people as possible in the third semester, and if you get past that they give you every bit of support they can to make it through the last and get to the boards. Similarly, it really is true that the first year of law school is the hardest, and they will knock out possibly half the class (possibly more) by the end of the second semester, but after that it's not that difficult.
There are reasons why "professions" have such barriers to entry. For one thing, they're demanding--you need to be smart and diligent, and the consequences of your mistakes can be devastating in the lives of other people. Most professions require a solid score on some sort of aptitude-based test as part of the admissions process to the educational program. Most also require solid performance in previous educational levels. Most professional educational programs try to prove that the students they've admitted are not qualified for the job long before they get to the point of certifying that they are. The bar is set high in order to ensure that the people who get the job are going to be at least capable at it. The rules along the way are tough--the American Bar Association, for example, will not certify a law school unless it is a requirement that you must attend at least 80% of the classroom hours for a course in order to pass it. You also must complete all degree requirements within five years of the date you began, or you lose credit for any courses predating that--and since nearly all the mandatory degree requirements are in the first year of the program, that means you probably will never graduate. Medical schools are notorious for age discrimination: it takes most of a decade from the time you finish high school to become a doctor, and that's a lot of time invested by a lot of professionals who expect that you'll continue in practice for enough decades to have made it worth their time.
With medical training, a lot is made of the fact that internships and residencies leave you zero social life. That, too, is part of your education: doctors are constantly on call (even if you have someone covering for you, you have to be available for him to reach you if there's some problem with one of your patients). A lot of doctors wind up divorced because their spouses expected actually to spend time with them, and that just wasn't part of the program.
Sorry--while we certainly need more good doctors, we don't need more bad ones, and if keeping the bar high keeps the quality a bit higher, I'm for it.
--M. J. Young
Hmmmm,
Do I want a guy who scored well indeed, and got a slot in the new expanded school and has been on the job for ten hours that day, OR do I want a guy who is on his 35th hour of the shift, and only scored a tiny, tiny bit better than guy number one?
Given how my abilities deteriorate after only 20 hours without sleep (and much of it not working), I'll go with Option A.
What we have is a Medieval Guild system which is an offense to the Free Market which I think most people would agree is a superior method of producing value.
A friend of mine was trying to get on the police force. They had those "Racial Quotas" where they have to hire a certain percentage of minorities. My friend scored higher on the test, but the job went to the black applicant because of the quotas. What that means is that there is a police officer out there responsible for your safety and mine, who is less qualified than someone else.
"Affirmative action, Reparations, Quotas. Whatever you call it, all it means is that another qualified American won't get a job, just because he's the wrong color. Isn't that what we wanted to get away from?"
Tales From the Hood.
What I'm saying is, if he can pass the test, let him be a doctor. Older when he starts just means he's wiser to the ways of the world.
(Doing Therapy)
Yeah, O.K., it's an unresolvable argument--do we want more doctors at a lesser level of quality control, or fewer doctors who are better?
It is easily objected that fewer doctors means inflated prices for medical services. For what it's worth as an argument, the life of a doctor is going to be extremely tough no matter how many doctors we have, and high salaries are about the only incentive apart from saintly devotion to induce people to do the job. At the same time, the high cost of medicine is not built on the salaries of the people doing it, but on the costs of malpractice insurance and the corresponding necessity to order "unnecessary" tests and confirmatory opinions. (The logic there is "Well, it's 99.9% likely that you have this relatively common X, but there's one chance in a thousand that you've got Y, in which case we need to treat you for Y, so we need to order a thousand dollars worth of tests to prove that you have what we believe you have and not this other thing, or you'll sue when you find out you were treated for X and we should have caught Y at this early stage.") It's also because of advancing technology--I mentioned in one of the Game Ideas Unlimited articles that I could remember when the local rural hospital sent those few patients who needed CT scans to Camden or Wilmington to get them, and now they have their own CT and MRI and routinely scan dozens of patients every day. That means a multi-million-dollar piece of equipment had to be put into a rural hospital so that patients would get the correct tests, and the price of everything went up. The salaries of doctors have not risen appreciably in comparison with those of the population generally.
Further, we probably all agree that anyone who wants to practice medicine ought to have to meet certain requirements. I should not be allowed to say, "Well, my wife is a nurse and I learned a lot helping her through medical school, plus I did a radio talk show co-hosted by several doctors, and I've read a few books, so I'm going to start seeing patients and treating them for their illnesses--I mean, how hard could it be?" Certainly I could offer discount rates and still turn a profit--I don't have all those medical school educational loans to pay, and I'm not carrying malpractice insurance, and all my patients sign a disclaimer to the effect that they understand that I am not liable for any harm that comes from an incorrect diagnosis or treatment recommendation on my part. That's ludicrous--and the more so, because there are hundreds of people who would pay my thirty dollar office visit rate to avoid having to pay a seventy dollar office visit with a real doctor, in the hope that I could fix whatever's wrong with them.
So if we agree that there have to be standards, then it's only a question of what standards. Your argument really is "The standards are too high." My argument is "It's better that they be too high than too low, and with some of the doctors I have met I'm not persuaded the standards are high enough."
John, I agree that racial quotas are counter-intuitive; but then, being a white male who has not been able to get a real job for a long time, I am exactly the person who would find them onerous, and my opinion thus is inconsequential.
--M. J. Young
By the way, you guys do know that there's a new Random Chat thread on the new forum, right?
--M. J. Young
John, I agree that racial quotas are counter-intuitive; but then, being a white male who has not been able to get a real job for a long time, I am exactly the person who would find them onerous, and my opinion thus is inconsequential.
I still say you should try to apply for medical disability. Between your asthma and your depression, you'd probably be a shoe-in. So it's *only* $500 a month. That's $500 a month more than you've got coming in now.
Two
On second thought, I think I'd rather be a Fraggle than a Smurf. Fraggles only have a 30 minute work week. There's so many of them and so little that they need, they can get away with that.
(Doing Therapy)
I'd rather be a Fraggle than a Smurf.
Yes I would, if I could, I surely would...Mmmmmmmmm.
I'd rather walk the caverns than the turf.
Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would....Mmmmmmmm.
Away, I'd dance the day away,
Sing my song the whole day long.
The Smurfs may live together well,
But still must hide from Gargamel,
From Gargamel.....Mmmmmmmmm
I'd rather meet the Trash Heap than the Stork.
Yes I would, if I could, I surely would.
I'd rather see the garden of the Gorg.
Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would....Hmmmmmm.
(Now, that's random chat.)
--M. J. Young
Did you make that up on the spot? If not, is it a song, poem, what? Information please.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, you said that I was afraid if I prevented something bad, something worse would happen. Define "Good" and "Bad" if you would please. One of the best things that ever happened to me was breaking my leg, one of the worst was dating a gorgeous blonde. Things aren't "Good" or "Bad" they just are what they are.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ,
Do we want more quality, or more quality control?
Mistake
Two
Something just occurred to me. You said that you thought I would want to warn Pearl Harbor. You were basing that on what you would do and what every other player you know would do. How many of those are non-involvement players? Of course everyone else would get involved. They aren't non-involvement players. You were making an apples and oranges comparison. It's like what Zsa Zsa Gabor said when she got arrested for slapping a police officer (Paraphrasing) "I was supposed to be tried by a jury of my peers. There wasn't a single actor, director, producer or press agent there." Saying that you thought a non-involvement player would get involved and basing the assumption on players who just love to get involved is an unfair comparison, and quite frankly, insulting.
The poem--I made it up on the spot, I guess. I thought that most people would recognize it as a "parody" of Simon & Garfunkle's El Condor Pasa (If I Could). Obviously you didn't. My fault. Who listens to Simon & Garfunkle anymore?
John, on your examples of good and bad, you are again confusing the up front with the consequences, and I think in two different ways.
You broke your leg. That was bad. However, because you broke your leg, something good happened. That did not make breaking your leg good; it only meant that the bad thing that happened made possible a good thing. It's possible that having broken your leg, something worse would have happened.
You dated a gorgeous blonde. I presume it did not go well. The fact that you dated a gorgeous blonde, or for that matter an ugly witch (um--no offense to the pretty witches we have on this board), is not in itself good or bad. Either way it's a situation in which something good or bad might emerge. You expected dating a gorgeous blonde would be good; apparently you were mistaken. But that doesn't mean that the good thing was bad. It means that the thing you expected to be good was bad.
There are genuinely good and bad things. Sometimes things we think will be good prove to be bad, and sometimes things we think will be bad prove to be good. Sometimes things which are good are followed by things which are bad which might not otherwise have happened, and sometimes things which are bad are followed by things which are good which might not otherwise have happened.
But let's face it, you know that some things are good and some things are bad. You said that breaking your leg proved to be good and dating the blonde proved to be bad. That only shows that you can think something is going to be bad and find out it was actually good, or that something was going to be good and it turns out bad. Rather than disproving the existence of "good" and "bad" things, it proves it.
--M. J. Young
Oops--sorry, Eric, got so tied up answering John I forgot I was going to answer you.
We need more consistent quality. That is, we could have more quality by having a hundred better doctors added to the list, but that would still leave us with the idiots who never should have been allowed to practice. Thus we need ways to induce more capable people to get into the field, but also ways to keep incompetent people out.
That means that we do need better quality control, but we also need greater incentives. Further, the greater the incentives the better our quality control needs to be, because more incompetent people will be attracted to the field if the incentives are higher, and so we need to block them.
Now, if you've got good ideas for how to do that, I'd love to hear them, although I don't know that I'm in a position to implement them--not in this universe, anyway.
--M. J. Young
Oops--sorry, John, it appears that I didn't notice your post because of the thread error.
John, the point of sending you to Pearl Harbor was to determine whether or not you really were a non-involvement player. So it doesn't really matter how many non-involvement players I have had--you're not actually one of them. You're a PLR, and you always will be, and you can stop claiming to be Non-Involvement because we all know better now.
--M. J. Young
MJ, I'm not certain that you understood what I was saying. You said that you dropped me in Pearl Harbor thinking that "Non-involvement would be sorely tested"You were testing my non-involvement philosophy. You assumed that I would want to warn them because every other player you knew, including yourself, would do so. You believed that I was non-involvement. None of the players you compared me to were non-involvement, were they? You have reason to believe that I'm non-involvement, and you make your guess about me based on what you think involvement players would do. What do you think a non-involvement player would do? Not what you think an involvement player would do. I can understand why you would have thought I would want to, but I don' think you're understanding me. To me, that was the epitome of reason why you DON'T get involved. A well-meaning verser stops the bombing. Whether or not this would result in losing WW2 is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it was a critical turning point in history. In stopping the bombing, the well-meaning verser potentially changes history forever. That's the epitome of reasoning why you don't get involved. I bet other non-involvement players would have the same sort of idea. You never considered what a non-involvement player would do or how they would be thinking. You just used the same measuring stick you use for players that dive into every scenario. I find that a little bit insulting.
It was an episode of Star Trek TNG. Picard got stabbed in the heart when he was in Starfleet Academy. He wishes he could go back and change that. Q gives him the opportunity. He stops himself from getting stabbed, and when he returns to the future, he's a second lieutenant science officer. Looks like getting stabbed in the back was the best thing that ever happened to Jean-Luc Picard. In the same way, the Pearl Harbor bombing might have been the best thing that ever happened to the United States.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
John, on your examples of good and bad, you are again confusing the up front with the consequences, and I think in two different ways.
No, I think I'm just taking a broader look at things. I read an email forward (which probably means it's not true, but still an interesting story) Supposedly, Erma Bombeck was in a German prison camp in WW2. There was all sorts of fleas in the prison barracks. Erma's sister insisted that, when she pray, she even give thanks for the fleas. After a couple of weeks, they were surprised at how openly they could hold worship services in the barracks. The guards wouldn't come in there. The reason? The fleas. You, like most people, probably think fleas are annoying and automatically bad. Allegedly, Erma Bombeck was grateful for them. Nothing is good or bad. The relationship with the blonde was one of the worst mistakes I ever made in my life. I learned from it. It was neither good nor bad. It was a mistake from which I learned a great deal.
For a brief time, I knew one of the militant African Americans. He was always preaching about how Africa was his homeland, he said "Back to Africa" more than once. He thought slavery was the worst thing in history. Then he actually went to Africa. When he saw what it was like over there, his attitude changed completely. He actually said "Slavery was a good thing. Get out of Africa any way you can." Nothing is good or bad. It's all how you look at it.
(Doing Therapy)
Falcon Punch
BLAM chuck chuck BLAM chuck chuck BLAM chuck chuck BLAM chuck chuck BLAM chuck chuck BLAM "Come with me if you want to live. Come on!! COME ON!!!!"
What movie?
Piece of junk
bumpity bump bump bumpity bump bump
Bumper bumper
I guess the best way I can put this is that in thinking I was non-involvement, you never considered what it was LIKE to be a non-involvement. "Every other player I know would get involved". Well, if every other player gets involved in anything, of course they will. A non-involvement would take a broader view. See things differently.
There's a 100% chance we will win WW2 if Pearl Harbor is destroyed. Save it. Now there's only a 99.99% chance. Is saving a few hundred people worth taking that .01% chance? You weren't thinking like a non-involvement.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm not certain that you understood what I was saying. You said that you dropped me in Pearl Harbor thinking that "Non-involvement would be sorely tested"You were testing my non-involvement philosophy. You assumed that I would want to warn them because every other player you knew, including yourself, would do so. You believed that I was non-involvement. None of the players you compared me to were non-involvement, were they? You have reason to believe that I'm non-involvement, and you make your guess about me based on what you think involvement players would do. What do you think a non-involvement player would do? Not what you think an involvement player would do. I can understand why you would have thought I would want to, but I don' think you're understanding me. To me, that was the epitome of reason why you DON'T get involved. A well-meaning verser stops the bombing. Whether or not this would result in losing WW2 is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it was a critical turning point in history. In stopping the bombing, the well-meaning verser potentially changes history forever. That's the epitome of reasoning why you don't get involved. I bet other non-involvement players would have the same sort of idea. You never considered what a non-involvement player would do or how they would be thinking. You just used the same measuring stick you use for players that dive into every scenario. I find that a little bit insulting.
I don't see the problem. An involved player would do X; a non-involvement player would avoid doing X. In testing whether you were genuinely a non-involvement player, I put you in a situation in which I wanted to see whether you could be induced to become involved. In other words, I had to know what the involvement player would do to see if you would do that. I did not have to know what a non-involvement player would do--although in fairness to me, I did know. He would go along for the ride and watch what happens, watch the bombs fall, not mess with anyone or anything along the way, give no information other than that he'd somehow gotten lost and wandered into their secure area, and expect to die or not die as fate falls.
A non-involvement player certainly would not TK-pulse an MP's head while he's driving. That's actually a "let me #~(% with the referee's scenario" player, which is what you tend to do and another reason why I'm not interested in having you back in the Terminator scenario.
Supposedly, Erma Bombeck was in a German prison camp in WW2.
I'm sure it was not Erma Bombeck. That sounds like it was probably Corrie Ten Boom (whom I've met).
And all your examples about bad things being good or good things being bad only prove that good and bad still exist. The fleas in the barracks are probably the "not desired but generally favorable result", because they got what they wanted in an unexpected way. But the very fact that you can say "what you think is bad turns out good" means that there really is good and bad, and it's just a matter of recognizing which is which, which is not always as easy as you think.
Besides, the fact that you can make lemonade if I give you lemons doesn't mean you didn't get lemons--it only means you're good at getting something good from a bad situation, and that's exactly why we have those rolls. If it goes good, that's good, because you get things the way you want. If it goes bad, that's good, because it drives the story forward as you attempt to fix things and get them the way you want.
--M. J. Young
A non-involvement player certainly would not TK-pulse an MP's head while he's driving. That's actually a "let me #~(% with the referee's scenario" player, which is what you tend to do and another reason why I'm not interested in having you back in the Terminator scenario.
If the referee can't handle something completely unexpected and off the wall, he has no business running the game.
(Doing Therapy)
Well with Eric running you, you had better make it fun for him, or stuff will happen. That kinds kills your training time.
I have known players who come into a scenario and ask themselves, "How can we break this?"
For example, I know a referee who runs a D&D type game in which player characters never die (or at least, never stay dead) unless the player wants that to happen--but the players are not told this. I knew a couple of players in that game who realized it, and from that point forward they did all kinds of insane and inane things, because they wanted to see if they would ever get killed for their stupidity. They never did, but the other players did not enjoy the the game so much for it.
I know a referee of whom it was said that if you spoke the words "I'm bored" at his table, disaster would immediately fall upon your world. I saw a player quite intentionally look him in the eye and say that. Abruptly his character was stripped of all his possessions down to his undergarment by a marauding band of creatures (who touched no other player character, and since this particular player character had just approached the party we felt no obligation to involve ourselves). However, it was evident that the player thought he'd found a way to bring trouble on us by playing the referee, and it was not fun for anyone.
As a referee, I am ready for anything, but I think if you had pulled that TK stunt in my game you'd have gotten a lot worse than you got from Adam, because I would have been particularly annoyed. After all, don't we have reason to believe that the Russians have been training spies with telepathic powers, and if you exhibit telekinesis, aren't you going to wind up finding out what vivisection feels like? You can heal fully from a lobotomy.
Don't do things specifically to annoy your referee, and don't do things which you know are going to annoy him. The fun of this game comes from cooperation in the creative process. If you don't want to cooperate, just say so, and we'll end the game. Don't do things just to mess with what the referee is doing.
--M. J. Young
Oh, and this is me being mildly irate.
--M. J. Young
Oh, and this is me being mildly irate.
"You can't spell Pirate without IRATE"
Maddox
(Doing Therapy)
Two
As a referee, I am ready for anything, but I think if you had pulled that TK stunt in my game you'd have gotten a lot worse than you got from Adam, because I would have been particularly annoyed.
Why would you have been particularly annoyed? Seriously. I learned all these awesome psionic powers, I don't yet realize that they can be taken away without my knowing so, and the first person I encounter is someone I really don't like. (A police officer) It seemed stupid to you because you've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie gamer. To the newbie gamer, it was the most natural thing in the world.
You're saying that I was "Supposed" to play along with it. No, I'm "Supposed" to do what I feel I would do in that situation. What right do you have to get annoyed with me for doing exactly what you told me to do? I learned all these psionic powers, I don't yet know that they're gone, then a cop shows up. Who likes cops? I bet more people would do that under those exact circumstances than you realize.
The whole premise of the game is that you're playing yourself. You're telling me in not so many words that I should have played nice. When I started the game, you told me to do what I would do in a situation. In a rather convoluted sense, you told me to TK pulse the MP's head. What right do you have to get annoyed with me for playing myself, something you specifically told me to do?
I could tell that you were mildly annoyed that I didn't go after the princesses in Dancing Princess. If I had, I wouldn't be playing myself. So do you want me to do what I'm "supposed" to do, or do you want me to play myself? If you really want me to play myself, I don't see how you have any right to get annoyed with me for doing so. If you want me to do what I'm "supposed" to do, then the core premise of the game goes out the window.
This likely sounds far more argumentative than is intended. Seriously. I'm trying to learn. If you were playing an actual character other than yourself, I could understand getting annoyed at stupid actions. "What were you thinking? A 300 year old tree elf would be smarter than that!!!!!" In this game, you're playing yourself. Either you want me to play myself or you don't. Kindly make up your mind.
I never would have thought I'd get into trouble with you for doing exactly what you told me to do.
(Doing Therapy)
Why would you have been particularly annoyed?
I apologize for that statement. In fact, I am not certain what I would do or how I would have reacted. It was not my game, it it was a long time ago. I remember thinking that you were doing something really stupid and it was going to get you in trouble, but I also remember thinking that since it was not my game it was not my problem, so any emotional response I might have had as referee was absent.
I'm "Supposed" to do what I feel I would do in that situation. What right do you have to get annoyed with me for doing exactly what you told me to do?
You're right again. I forget that you have very few friends, and that it's because when you are "yourself" you can be a very annoying person (as others on this board will attest--that is not meant offensively but observationally). I suspect you have to work at most of your relationships. Most people by the time they are adults learn to moderate what they say and do in order to become accepted by society. You and I have not learned that. Fortunately for me, I'm a nice person who hates practical jokes, bullying, and all forms of mild torture, and who discovered decades ago that even when people insult me they are not necessarily opening the door for a game of insults (one of my preferred games in high school, at which I was quite skilled) but building a defensive wall against the possibility of hurt. So I gave up that particular vice not so much to please as not to hurt others.
You don't like bullies, but you easily became one when given the power. That's interesting. It suggests that you don't really think that bullying and irritating others is wrong, but only that you don't like being the victim and want to trade places with the abuser.
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.
--M. J. Young
You're right again. I forget that you have very few friends, and that it's because when you are "yourself" you can be a very annoying person (as others on this board will attest--that is not meant offensively but observationally)
One of my best friends is the most annoying person I've ever met in my life. He has mental problems comparable to but completely different from my own. He talks to himself, he repeats the same thing over and over, a lot of the idiosyncrasies that I have. He's the most annoying person that I know, AND HE'S EXACTLY LIKE ME!!!!!!!! I don't let myself get annoyed with him. Well, not overly annoyed anyway. I guess I just don't understand why everyone can't do that.
who discovered decades ago that even when people insult me they are not necessarily opening the door for a game of insults (one of my preferred games in high school, at which I was quite skilled)
Yeah, you did that with me in Columbus. When we were having breakfast. I said something smartaleck. You returned in kind. I thought "Oh it's on now" and returned fire. We went back and forth like that for about 20 minutes until finally you said something I couldn't come back on. I said "OK, you win!!!" Like you, I don't lose that game very often. I must say, it was one of the most interesting conversations I had had in a while.
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.
I think you might also need to be a little more careful about how you judge people. I'm buying guns hands over fist and think psionics are the coolest thing since sliced bread. <sarc>Obviously, the best world to send me to is one where the guns aren't likely to be used and the psionics don't work.</sarc> WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?!???!!!??! (excited shouting)
I still take great exception at the leap from "John likes guns and has seen Final Countdown" to "John is an expert on Pearl Harbor and will certainly want to stop the bombing." That's about as offensive to me as the leap from "MJ has long hair and a beard" to "MJ must be a stoner" would be to you. We're all guilty of it, but we're still allowed to take exception to it.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
But you're right: I told you to be yourself, and you revealed who you were. I'm not so much annoyed at what you did as I am at who you turned out to be.
Please explain this statement.
He means he disapproves of what you did, specifically psionically pummeling the back of the MP's head just to mess with him. He means you revealed that your true nature is petty and mean for no other reason than that others have been mean to you.
It isn't just annoyance, though, knowing him; he is probably sad for you too.
You don't like bullies, but you easily became one when given the power. That's interesting. It suggests that you don't really think that bullying and irritating others is wrong, but only that you don't like being the victim and want to trade places with the abuser.
Children who are abused are far more likely to become abusive themselves. It's a documented fact.
He means you revealed that your true nature is petty and mean for no other reason than that others have been mean to you.
No, I revealed that my true nature is someone who despises authority figures. Trust me Brock. If you lived through some of the things I have, you'd probably despise authority figures too.
(Doing Therapy)