Gammas are not welcome here

I think it is now time to openly institute an anti-gamma policy. It’s no secret that I detest them and their behavioral patterns, but I simply don’t have the time or the patience to tolerate their antics any longer. The now-banned Pale Male’s nonsense is a good example of why they simply aren’t worth the effort required to put up with them.

You forgot the modifier:  Social science is not scientific. That’s because “social” is a modifier meaning “not”:  social science, social justice, social work…. Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?

This is classic gamma bullshit utilizing the four As of the gamma.

  1. Assume a superior, lecturing pose.
  2. Assert that the other party has made a mistake, and in doing so, demonstrate a complete failure to have understood what the other party said.
  3. Attack the other party instead of addressing the subject at hand.
  4. Attempt to disqualify and discredit the other party in lieu of demonstrating the errors of their position.
The whole point of the post, which was explicitly stated, was that scientistry (the scientific profession) is increasingly not utilizing scientody (the scientific method). That is what “science is not scientific” means and the observation applies to both the hard and the soft sciences, as has been chronicled here on several occasions. My having taken, or not taken, courses in physics at the high school and college levels has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of my observations concerning corruption in science. All aspects of science. After all, I haven’t taken a single course in psychology, which would theoretically be even more relevant to the subject, and yet the gamma doesn’t ask about that… because he knows perfectly well such questions aren’t relevant.

You forgot that using the Stanford prison experiment to conclude anything whatsoever about physics is a non sequitur. Completely different people, methods, standards of evidence, reproducibility (institutional review boards would no doubt prohibit it today), everything.

I didn’t forget anything. I’m literally the individual who coined the sarcastic expression “You can trust biologists. Because physicists get amazingly accurate results.” As I pointed out in my response, that is like saying that because Charles Ponzi was a completely different person living at a completely different time and using completely different methods than Bernie Madoff, and operating under very different regulatory standards, it is a non sequitur to use his actions to conclude anything about Madoff’s.

Physicists are people, subject to the same incentives and motives and character flaws as psychologists. They are corrupted in the same way and for the same reasons. And we already possess considerable evidence that some of them are behaving in exactly the same way, despite their various differences. Just ask Stickwick about how intellectually and scientifically pure academic physicists are these days.

Tell us, Vox: have you ever taken a course in physics? Did you pass? Your own rule: 2… If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner… I’d bet 10:1 I know the answer but I want it straight from you.

Notice that he is posturing as if he is confident, and yet he doesn’t commit himself publicly to a position, for fear that he will be proven wrong. This is textbook gamma posturing. And he is still trying to make the subject about me, rather than about the big news concerning the scientific fraud underlying one of the most famous studies in social science, while trying to use my own rules against me.

Of course, being careless and obsessive like all gammas, he stopped reading once he found what he was looking for and failed to read the whole thing.

29. These Rules may in no case be interpreted contrary to the purposes and principles of Vox Day, as solely determined by Vox Day.

I’m still waiting for him to tell us if he’s actually gone there in physics, and how far.

Notice how he’s “still waiting” for an answer to a question he never even asked. That’s because this is not a relevant question, it is an attempt to “win” the discussion through discrediting and disqualification; he’s begun to fear that I have taken a course in physics and is preemptively laying the groundwork for moving the goalposts. Which, of course, is why I ignored the question in the first place. Whenever you successfully answer a gamma’s initial attempt to discredit and disqualify you, he will simply respond with another question intended to do the same. This process never ends until a) you kick him out, b) he finally manages to come up with a question that allows him to say HA!, c) you have such impeccable credentials that he falls silent in embarrassment, or d) you ignore him so long that he finally gives up and goes away.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the flashing neon signs saying “warning: gamma at work ahead”.

In what way is Vox’s educational history relevant to the question? Are you always this dishonest, or only when challenged? This is a sneering, gamma-ish, and obviously false assertion of the appeal to authority, and you should know this.

And notice how the gamma always eventually brings the discussion back around to himself. Every single time. Note that literally no one asked about his credentials, his degrees, or what subjects he studied, but that didn’t prevent him from telling everyone anyhow.

I stopped my formal study of chemistry in my freshman year of college, but I’m still working on it.  Autodidact, check.  I’m sketching hardware to do practical applications. 

After initially trying to ignore his antics to no avail, I opted for Option A and kicked Pale Male out. He’s now banned from commenting on the blog, and I plan to similarly ban every single gamma who acts up and subjects us to similar antics. From now on, if anyone even addresses me in a personally challenging or passive-aggressive manner, I’m just going to delete their comments. I have learned over 15 years of daily blogging that it is always a waste of time to even answer such commenters; they add nothing to the discourse, they inevitably attempt to derail the discussion, they try to snarkily disqualify everyone who disagrees with them, and they inevitably start to talk about themselves instead of the subject at hand.

This is not a place for gammas to show the whole world what smart boys they are. This is not a place for anyone to attempt to work out their psychological issues. And above all, this is not a place to waste my time. Everyone is welcome to express THEIR OWN opinion about THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED, they are not permitted to attempt to hijack the microphone or try to elevate their perceived status at my, or anyone else’s, expense. If I tell you that you are wrong, you are welcome to try to prove that you were actually correct, but any attempt to attack, disqualify, or discredit me in lieu of an actual defense of your assertions will be nuked on sight.

And while you’re welcome to try to correct me if you think I am wrong, you had damn well better cross your t’s, dot your i’s, and get all of your ducks in a row while you make your case for it, because there are few things I despise more than one of my intellectual inferiors wasting my time by erroneously attempting to “correct” me, especially by citing orthodox information with which I am obviously already familiar. If all you’ve got is a snarky passive-aggressive statement of opinion that is a prelude to the usual routine, just go away and don’t come back. Or at the very least, keep it to yourself. I’m not even remotely interested in playing stupid gamma games.


The Swamp still protecting itself

Does Inspector General Michael Horowitz think he’s been employed as a defense attorney or something?

A bombshell report released Thursday by the Justice Department’s inspector general includes new evidence that an FBI agent and an agency lawyer who were having an affair in 2016 were also plotting to keep President Donald Trump from winning the election.

In an email on August 8, 2016, Special Agent Peter Strzok reassured Page that she needn’t worry about Trump winning the White House.

Trump is ‘not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page texted Strzok. 

‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,’ he responded.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote that ‘[s]everal FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages,’ but concluded that ‘the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.’

He declared that the IG’s office ‘did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.’

The 500-page report also found that then-FBI Director James Comey ‘deviated’ from the standard practices of his agency when dealing with the probe into Hillary Clinton’s classified emails.

But IG Michael Horowitz emphasized that Comey was more knuckleheaded than malicious.

‘While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,’ the report reads.

I’m beginning to notice a certain pattern to the Swamp’s ability to excuse itself from any and all culpability for criminal activity. Even when a crime has been committed, it’s excused because the perpetrator didn’t mean to commit it, they’re just one of a bunch of knuckleheads who mean well and are good boys and are gwan to go to college.

It’s remarkable how this so-called investigator sounds like a old black community activist lamenting how a few gang-banging knuckleheads ruin it for everyone.


Science is not scientific

And as a result, it’s mostly fake. That’s the only conclusion that can be honestly reached in light of the fact that the single most famous experiment in social science turns out to have been a fraud:

One of the most famous and influential psychology studies of all time was based on lies and fakery, a new exposé reveals.

The Stanford prison experiment purported to show we are all naturally inclined to abuse positions of power – after volunteers randomly assigned to act as prison guards began abusing volunteer inmates in a mock prison.

But now a report from author and scientist Dr Ben Blum claims the research was all a sham. It points to recordings found in archives at Stanford University which show the study’s author Professor Philip Zimbardo encouraged guards to treat inmates poorly.

Also, one volunteer prisoner has now admitted to faking a fit of madness that the study reported was driven by the prison’s brutal conditions.

The revelations have sent scientists into uproar, with some calling for the experiment and its findings to be wiped from psychology textbooks worldwide.

We certainly live in interesting times. I knew that most “scientific” economics was a fraud, and I’d concluded that all “scientific” evolution was a fraud, but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

The central problem is simple enough, as it is the result of the gap between the theory of scientody and the reality of scientistry. Scientistry doesn’t incentivize or require replication, so no one even bothers trying to replicate the vast majority of studies and experiments.



Mailvox: righteousness and virtue

A reader asks about a distinction:

I have recently been reading Aristotle to get my head around many of the arguments you make against Jordan Peterson. As such, I am curious about what you see being the difference between acting righteously and virtuously, or are they one and the same to you.

Acting righteously: acting in accordance with God’s Will. Only God can determine this, Man can only make the attempt without full knowledge of whether he is doing so successfully or not.

Acting virtuously: acting in accordance with a specified virtue. These are mostly defined and determined by Man, so one can behave virtuously and know that one is doing so, except in the cases where virtue and righteousness happen to overlap. But one can act in a virtuous manner that is unrighteous; not all Satanists are cowardly and even a murderous thief can be charitable with his ill-gotten gains.

Aristotelian moral virtue falls somewhere in between virtue and righteousness. It is more akin to what I would describe as eucivicism, or civic virtue. Due to his philosophy being pre-Christian, I tend to be more influenced by Aristotle’s thinking on intellectual virtue than on moral virtue, although eucivicism is definitely desirable from both worldly and philosophical perspectives.


June Brainstorm

Tonight we’re having a Member’s Only Brainstorm to discuss the latest developments in Alt-Movies. Invites have been sent out. I THINK I’ve finally got the time zone thing straight, but regardless, the event will be at 7 PM Eastern time.

For those of you who are interested in the subject, we’ll be holding an event that is open to everyone interested in supporting the project next week. Tonight’s meeting is to lay the groundwork for that one, so just be patient.


Trying to create a martyr

If the UK Home Office is successful in getting Tommy Robinson killed in prison, I suspect they may be more than a little surprised at the consequences.

U.K. officials have moved political prisoner Tommy Robinson from the safety of Hull prison, where he was serving out a 13-month sentence, to Onley, near Birmingham. The move, which happened on June 12, effectively hurls Robinson into what supporters say is certain death.

Onley, a notoriously violent prison, is overrun by Muslim gangs and has a reputation for riots. A colleague of Robinson told InfoWars Robinson estimated the wing of his new cell was about 70 per cent Muslim.

InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson tweeted inmates were banging on Robinson’s cell all night chanting death threats. According to a press release, Robinson’s family confirms he has received numerous death threats from Muslim inmates who object to Robinson’s critique of radical Islam.

They’ve also reported he is sleeping in an unheated cell that has nothing but a thin mattress. The family believes the abrupt move, which happened without warning, was intended to disrupt a new legal appeal being put together in his defense.

This appears to be war by judiciary. If the UK authorities are willing to go this far – and the death of Kevin Creehan suggests that they may be – the British people are going to have to accept that they have entered glorious times and respond accordingly.


Comic Book Review: Alt-Hero: Crackdown

Bounding Into Comics reviews Alt★Hero #1:

The road to publication that Alt-Hero: Crackdown has traveled is well known by many who follow comics. Creator/writer Vox Day introduced us to the idea for his creation some time ago and it made an insane amount of money on the online fundraising platform, Freestartr. It was met with almost equal parts excitement and anger. Some saw it as a return to classic comics from someone other than the “Big 2,” some saw it as a natural response to the increasingly leftist slant most modern comics were developing and pushing, and some saw it as a mean-spirited jab at people with different views as them. I’m not here to talk about any of that though. This is a review and all that matters is whether the book was any good or not. So was it? Actually, yeah. It was pretty good.

The best satire is the kind that while reading it, you’re not too sure if it’s actually satire or not. Alt-Hero: Crackdown excels in this area on nearly every page. It’s nice to read a comic story directly for those of us who tire of the constant barrage of hard left-wing ideology and it’s even better that the focus is NOT on political agendas, but rather, telling a good story. Some of the bigger comic publishers should take a few notes.

Go there to see what kind of rating they gave the inaugural issue….


Shadier and shadier

Brett Kimberlin and DNC Staffer Helped Push ‘Russiagate’ to Feds

Before he went live on Twitter with this report, Lee called me to explain what he had discovered. Alexandra Chalupa was a DNC staffer who left that job in summer 2016 to focus full-time on the Trump/Russia angle. Her association with Kimberlin was reported in 2017. Yet until Lee started poking around, no one seems to have caught the significance of her Facebook post, in which she asserted that “The Protectors” (apparently an online front for Kimberlin’s tax-exempt Justice Through Music Project, and likely involving Neal Rauhauser) had “teamed up” with federal agencies to encourage investigation of the phony Russian “collusion” narrative.

This borders on pathetic. Was the local homeless guy otherwise occupied? I’m beginning to understand why Q keeps repeating “these people are stupid”.


Stalin’s strike: the historian’s view

I asked Nigel Askey, the author of the massive Operation Barbarossa: The Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation, about his opinion of Viktor Suvorov’s thesis we’ve been discussing this week. He graciously gave permission for me to quote his reply on the blog.

Your email has prompted me, and I have now ordered a copy of Suvorov’s Chief Culprit. I haven’t read this one by Suvorov; I probably should. However it looks very similar to, and an extension of, his original Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? This one was also an entertaining read. I might as well express my opinion about the overall Suvorov hypothesis as it has gained such a lot of attention.

I agree with Suvorov on some points, but definitely not on others.  I believe Stalin did have plans to invade Western Europe at some point, and it completely fits with the overall Soviet – and Stalin – policy of communist expansion as well as Stalin’s character. He definitely gambled on the fact that Germany would be embroiled in  prolonged war with France and Britain, which would buy him time to prepare. He gambled on it lasting at least until 1942, which was backed up by his own Stavka assessments. In addition, it was around this time he attenuated, and mostly stopped, the massively damaging officer purging that were going on. He realised that any Red Army that was going to conquer Western Europe would need decent officers, and that Germany was now a bigger external threat to him than any ‘internal’ threat from his officer corps. I believe Stalin was hoping his Army, especially the mass of newly formed Mechanised Corps with its new tank types; all belatedly formed after the Germans had demonstrated their panzer corps in France, would be ready by the summer of 1942, one year after Barbarossa started. Similarly, his air force was desperately reequipping with more modern fighters and bombers (Yak-1, LaGG-3, Mig-3, Pe-2, etc), and a massive air crew training program was underway.

France and Britain, of course,  had handed all this to him on a plate, so to speak, by declaring war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland, but then only a few days later did not declare war on the USSR when it did exactly the same thing from the East! From a moral perspective, this has always left a ‘bad taste in my mouth’: especially when Britain and France historically claim the moral high ground about why they declared war on Germany in 1939. It turns out that so called treaty with Poland by France and Britain was worded so that it only applied to German aggression; apparently anyone else could do what they liked to any of the three countries. How’s that for selective moralising  and post-war hypocrisy? Anyway I digress.

Where I really disagree completely with Suvorov is timing. 1941, definitely not. The summer of 1942 was very likely Stalin’s plan, and even then, there was a struggle to be ready. I can guarantee that there was absolutely no way the Soviet armed forces were in any shape to conduct a major offensive into Poland and then into Western Europe in June or July 1941. They were just so totally unready at so many levels, they would have been very easily stopped. Their logistical and C&C set up was so bad they would have almost stopped themselves, as they almost did in Poland in 1939. One just has to look at their absolutely dismal performance when they did invade Poland from the East – it degenerated onto a ludicrous fiasco against a  very token Polish force – and the almost equally poor performance against Finland in the Winter War to see just a few of the problems.

I have examined in extreme  detail the Soviet forces right across the USSR on 22nd June 1941, and not just apparent raw number in the Western Military Districts  as Suvorov does. This analysis has been done for the Red Army (the RKKA) and the air force (the VMF). Special attention has been reserved for the forces deployed in the Western Military Districts and the Mechanised Forces. These include a massive and complete Soviet Tank Deployment Matrix and Aircraft Deployment Matrix, which in a great many cases go down to individual tanks and aircraft. In addition, readiness, training, and HQ assignments are included, as well as positions ‘on the map’. In addition, the Soviet truck park is analysed, and it was in a terrible state, along with the Red Army supply and logistics state. All this will be fully published in Volume IIIB. The published Volume IIIA has the Western Military District land forces already.

In comparison to this and some research done by others, I find Suvorov’s figures to be high-level, superficial, token, and worst of all, very selective. I am sorry to say he takes the statistics that suit his agenda, and then simply throws them at the reader with a convincing argument. For the reader, presented with these ‘facts’, the conclusions are  convincing. However, no amount of convincing rhetoric can, in the end, replace weak argument foundations. For example, deeper analysis shows that the Soviets were employing what is termed an echelon defence strategy as laid out by various (now dead from the purges) Red Army theorists in the ‘Deep Battle’ and Deep Operations’ manner. These are not just offensive methodologies, they also lay out the mechanism to defend against  these types of attack as well. The fact that the Wehrmacht had surpassed this in real practical terms and totally ripped through both the 1st and 2nd level of these defences and then encircled them all was surprising, especially  to the Soviets. This, of course, has led to the “why were so many Soviet forces forwards and vulnerable?” questions. The Germans then had to work a bit to penetrate the 3rd echelon defences which were also being deployed and still formed on 22nd June 1941, largely the Stavka Reserves.

Well, its only with post-war hindsight, and the realisation of just how fast the Wehrmacht could operate and had perfected mobile warfare, that we realise how vulnerable the Soviet echelon defence was. To the Soviets at the time, and to the Western observers, it looked like a very reasonable set up. We are talking hundreds of kilometres of depth here, with multiple lines of defence, and not just a single concentration  of forward deployed troops apparently massing for an attack as proposed by Suvorov. Unfortunately, the Wehrmacht, as it was in 1941, could penetrate even hundreds of kilometres of such a defence in days, making all this look extremely vulnerable. Thus, with post-war hindsight, this looks like an extremely incompetent deployment, even for a defensive posture. Note, the Deep Battle and Deep Operations theories stressed the ability to go from a defensive posture to an offensive posture relatively quickly. Thus, when ready, the Red Army could transit from one to the other in a matter of weeks. Eg, in this case the  1st defensive line, mostly rifle divisions, would perform the breakthrough assault, while the 2nd echelon defensive lime, usually mobile mechanised forces, would exploit the breach. I am only stressing this because I do not want to portray the Red Army, or Stalin’s regime, as inherently a defensive force backed by a defensive ideology: the echelon defence used suited both. But it does not mean the Soviets were about to attack in June 1941, and it does explain why they were deployed as they were historically.

Another example is the relatively forward deployment of many VVS units, another fact used by Suvorov. Yes it was stupid to deploy so many VVS air units within a few hundred km of the border and these were hit by the initial surprise airfield attacks. However, the VVS was a huge force, the biggest air force in the world at that time, and was deployed in a great many locations across the USSR. The very large majority of these units were undergoing replacement and training operations and exercises, including those in the Western military Districts, the vast majority of the VVS including most of their new fighter and bomber units were actually deployed well inside the USSR in the Internal Military districts, and the vital Long Range DBA forces, the largest strategic bomber force in the World at that time, was deployed very deep in the USSR and completely unreachable by the Luftwaffe. Suvorov only talks about the VVS forces in the Western Military Districts and how they were therefore obviously “deployed for an attack?”. He doesn’t mention that over 70{329aa4aef5613a80085c3dd6bd84f5d0e8f5581fdc29e0868f0c3a40e8b25a32} of the VVS and VMF (naval air-forces), and especially the bomber forces, were in no position to attack anything in the West, and that the DBA, a very large and totally offensive force was so far back it could barely reach Western Europe.

He also doesn’t focus on the overall readiness of the VVS forces in the Western Military Districts just as he doesn’t focus on the readiness or state of the mechanised force (see below). Only raw numbers are used, which are close to useless if there is no context and other factors are not included.  No doubt these VVS forces in the depths of the USSR would have been redeployed forward by the summer of 1942. As it was they survived the initial Luftwaffe onslaught. The fact that the Luftwaffe the systematically destroyed these forces from July to October 1941, is a separate discourse. It does, however, again, highlight how unready the VVS was overall (again, supposed to be fully ready by 1942, if lucky), and how most of the VVS units were entrenched in the depths of USSR that it took that length of time for the Luftwaffe to reach them. None of this suits with Suvorov’s hypothesis.

A final example is the state of the Soviet Mechanised Corps. This is arguably the biggest single massive hole in Suvorov’s whole hypothesis. Over two-thirds of this entire Red Army force had only started forming in February-March  1941, only months earlier. This was the most critical force for any invasion of Europe. The divisions in this force had plenty of tanks, especially those in the Western Military Districts. But this was simply because the USSR had the biggest tank park in the world due to its pre-war production going back to the early 1930s. I have no doubt that Suvorov sticks to these raw tank numbers, most of these were T-26s and BT types only because this is what was mostly produced. However, over 80 percent of these divisions were barely mobile in June 1941! Most were still actually forming and, incredibly, only one mechanised corps in the entire Red Army had actually done any pre-war divisional sized manoeuvres by June 1941! All this is detailed in extreme detail in Volume IIIA for each division for anyone who really wants to know the facts. These divisions had barely mobile artillery, most had no trucks for their infantry, most had almost no mobile  workshop and repair facilities for their tanks, many had almost none at all yet, etc. The list goes on and on.

Many of these so called tank and mechanised divisions were far less mobile than the standard German infantry divisions they faced in June 1941. In fact we find that the average German infantry division that invaded the USSR in June 1941 had considerably more trucks and other types of vehicles than the average Soviet tank and mechanised division. Yet the German infantry divisions were apparently horse-drawn according to most western literature.  What people don’t realise is that the vast majority of Soviet tanks and mechanised  forces in 1941 were destroyed by German infantry divisions. In many cases the German infantry divisions, which almost all had a  motorised anti-tank and reconnaissance battalion, moved faster than the floundering and barely formed tank and mechanised divisions (in the 2nd defensive echelon),  and encircled them! These Soviet divisions never even got to see a German tank, as the German panzer divisions had already moved far eastwards. The biggest actual killer of Soviet tanks in 1941 was the much misaligned little 36mm PaK 36, called the ‘door knocker’ in post-war literature in the West, in German infantry divisions, and the result of breakdowns and abandonment by  the Red Army tankers because there was never any infrastructure(in the barely formed divisions to keep them going.

And yet, despite all this, Suvorov maintains that this force was going to attack and run over Western Europe in June 1941. It is really a joke!  I believe Suvorov is banking on people’s general ignorance and sensational revisionism to sell books! In reality, the Red Army in June 1941 would barely have reached the others side of Poland against the Wehrmacht in 1941 before it ran out of steam at the operational level. It would have then been promptly encircled by the many-times-more combat ready Wehrmacht and annihilated. The Soviets and Stalin were many things in the summer of 1941, but they were not that stupid.

I am all for revisionist history, but only if it is carefully researched and thought out. For example, despite the apparent crazy numbers that apparently make Hitler look nuts to attack the USSR, you have to take into account all the factors. Hitler always planned to “destroy the Bolshevik menace to Western Civilisation” from the very earliest days: he made this very clear. The German OKH new the Soviets were preparing to attack at some point, but would not be anywhere near ready by June 1941. This was also why Stalin was so diplomatically passive at this time: he did not want to prematurely trigger a military conflict until at least 1942. Even the Germans were surprised how fast France had fallen. They also knew the state of the Red Army as they had studied their recent operation.

Thus, despite their underestimating the Soviet raw numbers of tanks and aircraft, they actually accurately estimated the Red Army’s readiness, training, logistics and C&C. With these factors and many others I have not included, they laid their plans, and ultimately came much closer to defeating the USSR than most people realise. With a few different strategic-level and operational-level decisions, I believe the Axis forces might very well have defeated the USSR by mid-1942, or at least enforced some type of Vichy French type treaty. Stalin, of course, would have likely met his end.  In that sense, Hitler waiting until 1942 to attack a much stronger Red Army and VVS was definitely not a good idea.

Also, yes, I believe in the longer term that Stalin was definitely planning to conquer Western Europe. As I said, I do not have a problem with revisionist history as such, as long as it stands up to some close scrutiny.