Grand Unified MMOG Theory

[Telemediocrity]

Just a thought:  How would CoH / CoV fit into his schematic?

The same way it works now. Except the interface between Game A and Game B would be in 3d.

Actually, I was referring to the schematic of the original article, where characters can move between MMOs.  Since CoH / CoV is the closest anyone's come to ever actually doing this, I figured it was an example worth bringing up.

Or, uh, we can keep going around in circles about the 3D internets that are useful for thousands of secret reasons we lack the imagination to discover.  That'd be fun too.

Here's the big test for new technology adoption:  Porn.  The web's uses for porn were relatively obvious.  What does the 3D internet bring to the table?

There isn't any reason that current games aren't meshed with existing protocols (irc/email/usenet/im/http) other than they don't want to be because they want to control their closed enviroment.

In other words, your idea is somewhat possible currently, but nobody's doing it because it's not useful?  If even the Second Life kids, probably one of the more experimental bunches around, aren't doing this, you're telling me that my grandfather who plays Bridge on Yahoo is going to someday?

How is the 3D internet useful to him?

You've been trying to paint a 3d metaverse as some kind of socialist utopia where meaningless achievements in Game A would carry over into meaningless achievements in Game B, all companies would be lovie dovie with each other, and a unified set of rules would govern the whole place. NWN already is an example of server side characters vs. bringing local characters from your own client with you (and the individual servers control the config).

Does NWN have serious PvP, either directly or in terms of peen-waving?  Also, can you see why the NWN model might be accurately defined as "niche"?

Whereas I see it as simply an open 3D interface over the existing internet architecture (re: usenet, email, irc, http, ftp, gopher). The only real difference being that people visiting a virtual location (like a website) would manifest as 3D avatars and would be able to interact and communicate with each other in 3D space in real time. Every server would govern it's own ruleset and handle it's own load just like web servers do now. AJAX is already moving the 2D web in this direction. Wizbang shit like text to speech, automatic avatar creation, and the actual 3D browser is all just gravy.

There are places already for people who visit the same website and would like to communicate with one another.  Pro Tip: You're in one of them right now!  Also, given how AOL's IM service has tried to push 3D avatars on its members (as a replacement to the 2D ones) and they've been a spectacular failure because nobody gives a fuck about 3D avatars, I'm failing to see the point to the '3D manifestation' jive.

[Stormwaltz]

Does NWN have serious PvP, either directly or in terms of peen-waving?

Just to be helpful: Bastions of War.

BoW has an exclusive character vault, though, and special rules to ensure fair and balanced play. You can't bring your character over from other servers - which is generally true of all PW servers.

[Krakrok]

Also, given how AOL's IM service has tried to push 3D avatars on its members (as a replacement to the 2D ones) and they've been a spectacular failure because nobody gives a fuck about 3D avatars, I'm failing to see the point to the '3D manifestation' jive.

Yeah, no one gives a fuck about 3D avatars thats why ~5 million people play WoW right. No one cares about 3D avatars thats why none of the MMOGs have intricate visual character creation systems. And no one gives a fuck about 3D avatars thats why there aren't 3500 people online IMVU right now, they aren't a top 10k site on the internet either, they don't have user made 3D content, and people aren't buying and selling said user made 3D content. Yeah I guess all that shit doesn't exist because your grandpa plays Yahoo Bridge and you have no idea how to make the interface easier.

Here's the big test for new technology adoption:  Porn.  The web's uses for porn were relatively obvious.  What does the 3D internet bring to the table?

A mosaic video sphere with the user inside where the user mouse overs or clicks the various videos in the mosaic, it zooms into that video, and it begins playing the 30 second trial clip. You drag & drop your "credit card" object on the video, it fills out all the payment information automatically, and unlocks the full video. Better yet, you control the camera angle from a 360 degree sphere in a PPV cam girl show because 4-8 360 degree cameras are recording all the angles and meshing the video togather in real time. Oh wait, I forgot, scrolling up and down on a 2D web page is good enough! If you had your way we'd still be jerking off to the command line.


And thank goodness your unimaginative ass wasn't alive when there were punch cards because who needs a view screen right? Punch cards are good enough!

[Venkman]

I think some of you are trying to skip ahead too far. Technology is one thing. Acceptance is another.

To stay on point, the sovereignty of MMO "countries" is more about the finances and resources of building them than any arrogance over who runs them. Governing an MMO is protecting one's IP, which one spent a few to scores of millions building. The result of this is people who apply for citizenship in new MMOs through what amounts to an Ellis Island and as if they were poor people who just managed to jump onto the boat before it left harbor. This fits within the Heroics mythos though. Start weak, progress strong, take vengeance on what once beat you. That sorta thing.

Since MMO companies are about finances and resources too, the core of business would need to change in order to get to the One World/Many Facets concept.

It could happen, but I imagine if it does it'll be more because of business reasons. If companies could band together to make separate MMOGs with a common suite of tools (Big World?), they could achieve, and somehow work out the financial sharing, for One World.

But we're a ways away from that. The tech is there, but the will is not.

[Telemediocrity]

Also, given how AOL's IM service has tried to push 3D avatars on its members (as a replacement to the 2D ones) and they've been a spectacular failure because nobody gives a fuck about 3D avatars, I'm failing to see the point to the '3D manifestation' jive.

Yeah, no one gives a fuck about 3D avatars thats why ~5 million people play WoW right. No one cares about 3D avatars thats why none of the MMOGs have intricate visual character creation systems.

You're making the same mistake the original author does, by assuming that this is why people play the game.

And no one gives a fuck about 3D avatars thats why there aren't 3500 people online IMVU right now, they aren't a top 10k site on the internet either, they don't have user made 3D content, and people aren't buying and selling said user made 3D content.

I've never heard of IMVU before.  Top 10k site doesn't mean shit.  Especially not when compared to the number of people using AIM, and MSN messenger.

Also, you're shooting yourself in the foot; if people who want 3D avatars can go to IMVU, that lessens their demand for the 3D internet you speak of.

A mosaic video sphere with the user inside where the user mouse overs or clicks the various videos in the mosaic, it zooms into that video, and it begins playing the 30 second trial clip. You drag & drop your "credit card" object on the video, it fills out all the payment information automatically, and unlocks the full video.

Note: Any and all links that follow will be NSFW.

Drag and dropping your credit card is in no way different than the many 'wallet' tools offered by Google, Yahoo, et al. at the moment.  As for video trials, what you're proposing is already done, if anything done better, by websites such as shooshtime.com, kaktuz.com, and more importantly, VideoBox.com.  VideoBox actually gives you a filmstrip of the entire movie, and you can select whichever portion you'd like to download, and it'll start streaming instantly.

You're not offering anything that the 2D internet doesn't already do.  In fact, given how hyperlinks usually make for faster surfing than having an avatar, your way would be less efficient.  And when I'm surfing that sort of material, I do not want to be in contact with other avatars doing the same.

Better yet, you control the camera angle from a 360 degree sphere in a PPV cam girl show because 4-8 360 degree cameras are recording all the angles and meshing the video togather in real time.

That's a very... um... detailed description.  That said, what you're talking about the kind of thing you'd program an app for on the webpage itself.  There's no reason to make the entire web 3D for this sort of thing; you'd program it in Java or Flash or ActiveX or whatever, and visitors to the website would use it just fine as-is.

Oh wait, I forgot, scrolling up and down on a 2D web page is good enough! If you had your way we'd still be jerking off to the command line.

Gee, I could have sworn I said that the reasons for adopting the web were readily apparent at the time to those who cared to think about it.  The issue here isn't that I'm "against advancement", it's that you've latched onto a really stupid idea and somehow convinced yourself that it'd be an advancement when it's probably not.  Straw man, ahoy!

Oh, and you've still failed to offer a single reasonable advantage that the 3D internets would provide over our current setup.

[Krakrok]

Drag and dropping your credit card is in no way different than the many 'wallet' tools offered by Google, Yahoo, et al. at the moment. You're not offering anything that the 2D internet doesn't already do.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it.

There's no reason to make the entire web 3D for this sort of thing; you'd program it in Java or Flash or ActiveX or whatever, and visitors to the website would use it just fine as-is.

Online Bridge is over rated. Just play with your own card deck at home. There is no reason to have 3D MMOGs either. UO 2d was just fine.

Gee, I could have sworn I said that the reasons for adopting the web were readily apparent at the time to those who cared to think about it. 

There were plenty of naysayers just like you. "Any promising new invention will have its naysayers, and the bigger the promises, the louder the nays. It's not hard to find smart people saying stupid things about the Internet on the morning of its birth. In late 1994, Time magazine explained why the Internet would never go mainstream: "It was not designed for doing commerce, and it does not gracefully accommodate new arrivals." Newsweek put the doubts more bluntly in a February 1995 headline: "THE INTERNET? BAH!" The article was written by astrophysicist and Net maven Cliff Stoll, who captured the prevailing skepticism of virtual communities and online shopping with one word: "baloney."" - Wired

The issue here isn't that I'm "against advancement", it's that you've latched onto a really stupid idea and somehow convinced yourself that it'd be an advancement when it's probably not.

You're still pretending that a 3d web is some kind of socialist utopia. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

[Telemediocrity]

You're not offering anything that the 2D internet doesn't already do.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it.

Your point was that you're not offering anything substantive?

Your point was that you have no point?

WTF?

There's no reason to make the entire web 3D for this sort of thing; you'd program it in Java or Flash or ActiveX or whatever, and visitors to the website would use it just fine as-is.

Online Bridge is over rated. Just play with your own card deck at home. There is no reason to have 3D MMOGs either. UO 2d was just fine.

This is silly.  Expanding MMOs (and games in general) into the 3rd dimension expanded the gameplay.  Just as expanding into true 'virtual reality' would do so as well.  The whole issue here is that you're not making any compelling arguments as to how expanding internet surfing into a 3D protocol (as opposed to localized applets for individual webpages that might use 3D, such as porn - i.e., the system we have right now) provides these benefits.

There were plenty of naysayers just like you. "Any promising new invention will have its naysayers, and the bigger the promises, the louder the nays. It's not hard to find smart people saying stupid things about the Internet on the morning of its birth. In late 1994, Time magazine explained why the Internet would never go mainstream: "It was not designed for doing commerce, and it does not gracefully accommodate new arrivals." Newsweek put the doubts more bluntly in a February 1995 headline: "THE INTERNET? BAH!" The article was written by astrophysicist and Net maven Cliff Stoll, who captured the prevailing skepticism of virtual communities and online shopping with one word: "baloney."" - Wired

Using the label of "naysayer" as an epithet is generally a mark of someone who doesn't know much about technology but fancies themself a dreamer.

There are all sorts of tech issues where the naysayers were largely right:  On SDI (some caveats on that, but that's a side topic), on a space elevator, on Betamax, on cold fusion.

Try investing in the stock market without listening to anything said by "naysayers".  I'm sure you'll do great.

Simply calling someone a naysayer and then pointing to an example in history of naysayers having been wrong is not an actual, defensible, position.

You're still pretending that a 3d web is some kind of socialist utopia. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

Socialist utopia?  I'm going to make a genuine effort to translate your writing into actual thought...

...Are you saying that I'm pretending that a 3D web is some kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy when I shouldn't be?  In other words, that I'm underestimating its feasibility?

This is an incredibly stupid analogy.  The issue with the whole "socialist utopia" thing was that they had something they perceived as being de-facto desirable, and the counterargument was that in the real world it was not feasible.

I'm not debating the feasibility of your 3D internet, though barriers to implementation would be significant.  I'm saying that there's no point to it once you get there, and so people won't be terribly interested in getting there.

If you really believe the shit coming out of your mouth, shouldn't you be making a list of every company working on 3D internet technology, and rushing to offer funding, or acquiring stock where applicable?  Surely, one of them will be the one to shift the paradigm, and you'll make a fat sack of cash off your prescient wisdom!


Question to any possible lurkers:  Is there anyone who agrees with Krakrok's position but actually makes sense, and can thus explain to me in English the great joys of the coming proletarian revolution3D internet?

[bhodi]

Question to any possible lurkers:  Is there anyone who agrees with Krakrok's position but actually makes sense, and can thus explain to me in English the great joys of the coming proletarian revolution3D internet?

There's a lot of stuff you could do with 3d. You're talking about the internet, though, so it's fairly tricky to know where to draw the line. Are we talking about software downloaded, or client media you stick in your computer? Maybe in the future it won't matter. What's the display device? Advantages to looking at 3d on a 2d monitor are limited, but what if we had a holo-cube type setup, or monitor-glasses that create 3d, or a holodeck, or the matrix style direct neural feed? Here are a few things I would find useful even on a current monitor or with some sort of 3d glasses setup:

Virtual home renovation. Imagine the home builders give you soft copy of the blueprints, or you are looking to build/buy a house. Try everything from colors to seeing what it would look like with that optional kitchen island, or how stainless steel fridge compares to white. Hardwood now Carpet now Tile. Add a room! Change the yard around!

CAD Desgin. Like the one above, but for real engineers. Coupled with the up-and-coming fabrication technology, this would be very useful.

Virtual Sightseeing. Yeah, OK, it's not the real thing as being there, but wouldn't it be cool to see a real 3d picture of a place? Virtually walk inside the pryamids or check out the forbidden city. This goes for news reports as well, it's just added depth that you'd get as opposed to 2d.

Layered Desktop. We're always looking at new ways to process images, a 3d desktop could theoretically give more performance. It's been tried before, with varying degrees of success.

TV. We sold the public on HDTV is better than regular TV; Just use 2 cameras for the 3d effect while filming. Maybe too expensive a display for home use, maybe movie theaters will be saved after all...

Video Games. Yeah, they're already in 3D. It'll just be better, faster, and higher definition.

The idea isn't to re-invent the wheel; Print is 2d and we're going to be reading it till the end of time; It doesn't get any real benefit out of 3d. The same goes for a lot of websites out there; 3d will likely be an auxiliary technology at first, but with the advent of new display devices, computers may be 3d by default and you will use 2d planes within.

[Telemediocrity]

There's a lot of stuff you could do with 3d. You're talking about the internet, though, so it's fairly tricky to know where to draw the line. Are we talking about software downloaded, or client media you stick in your computer? Maybe in the future it won't matter. What's the display device? Advantages to looking at 3d on a 2d monitor are limited, but what if we had a holo-cube type setup, or monitor-glasses that create 3d, or a holodeck, or the matrix style direct neural feed? Here are a few things I would find useful even on a current monitor or with some sort of 3d glasses setup:

Virtual home renovation. Imagine the home builders give you soft copy of the blueprints, or you are looking to build/buy a house. Try everything from colors to seeing what it would look like with that optional kitchen island, or how stainless steel fridge compares to white. Hardwood now Carpet now Tile. Add a room! Change the yard around!

I could definitely see the usefulness of this, but I'm not sure how it'd be dependent on the internet itself being 3D; it seems like the Home Depot would make this kind of thing a localized applet on their webpage.

CAD Desgin. Like the one above, but for real engineers. Coupled with the up-and-coming fabrication technology, this would be very useful.

That's actually my mom's field.  When I talk to her, I'll bring it up and ask how that sort of thing would impact her work.

Virtual Sightseeing. Yeah, OK, it's not the real thing as being there, but wouldn't it be cool to see a real 3d picture of a place? Virtually walk inside the pryamids or check out the forbidden city. This goes for news reports as well, it's just added depth that you'd get as opposed to 2d.

This would be awesome - though again, I see it as a combo of genuine 3D technology (as opposed to 3D rendered on a 2D plane) and being a specialized app, as opposed to being 'part of the internet itself'.

To be fair, I think I noted a while back in this thread that true virtual reality (3D viewed in 3D) is something I'm a big proponent of, and clearly passes all the tests I laid out.  This is different, however, from the topic we've been debating, which is 3D viewed on a 2D plane a-la a MMO, or Second Life or whatnot.  To be fair, I think you recognize that distinction as well.

The idea isn't to re-invent the wheel; Print is 2d and we're going to be reading it till the end of time; It doesn't get any real benefit out of 3d. The same goes for a lot of websites out there; 3d will likely be an auxiliary technology at first, but with the advent of new display devices, computers may be 3d by default and you will use 2d planes within.

I, too, think that this is roughly how the technology will progress.

[Krakrok]

round and round the merry go round

Instead of admitting your assertion that "no one thought the internet was bullshit" is wrong you move on and say "but naysayers are usually right so whatever". Your kind of "me me me" attitude is what is ruining America.

Thanks for trolling; check back soon for prizes.

[Telemediocrity]

round and round the merry go round

Instead of admitting your assertion that "no one thought the internet was bullshit" is wrong you move on and say "but naysayers are usually right so whatever".

"Nobody thought the internet was bullshit" wasn't a substantial assertion I was making; amend that to "Most smart people who thought about it saw the benefits" and you get the point.  You're dodging the main argument because you're clearly wrong.  Also, I didn't say "naysayers are usually right", I said "being a naysayer is not necessarily a good or bad thing", in response to your using 'naysayer' in a derogatory way.

Your kind of "me me me" attitude is what is ruining America.

Uh... WTF?   ROFL.

[Glazius]

God. We haven't even gotten like _any_ of the potential performance out of the 2D web and people are already saying we should switch to 3D?

3D makes a nice metaphor for navigation, but, uh, has anybody built a 3D interface to some non-navigation task that hasn't beein _inferior_ to a 2D interface?

Even then, how are you going to map the Internet to make it useful to a 3D navigator? On one level I can see 3D being your own custom metaphor for the space of the Web, but, uh, to get any kind of actual "thereness" going we're going to have to rip out the entire HTTP underpinnings of the Internet and replace it with some non-idempotent protocol. The groundwork for doing this in a non-scorched-earth way is progressing with AJAX.

--GF

[HaemishM]

The biggest question I can ask, without really reading this topic because it seems to have gone off the rails, is...

What can a 3D interface offer to web users who can barely understand the current 2D interface? I'm thinking not much.

A 3D web sounds really cool, but in practice, it just adds "travel time" to what is a simple process. Click on the link, you get information. Why is that hard, or a bad thing? On a 2D output device (monitor) with a 2D input device (keyboard/mouse), what's the point of a 3D interface? Again, there isn't a point. It's not necessary.

Now if we are talking about a 3D output device, such as a surrounding holographic display, or better yet, a display that is in the mind as opposed to one projected out into real space, a 3D interface would probably make sense. But we are decades away from that kind of technology being affordable to the home user, and even then, I'm not sure it's necessary.

[CadetUmfer]

So...Microsoft Passport 2.0 will include avatars and a little chat thing and the entire internet will adopt it?  Basically what you're saying?

[Glazius]

The biggest question I can ask, without really reading this topic because it seems to have gone off the rails, is...

What can a 3D interface offer to web users who can barely understand the current 2D interface? I'm thinking not much.

Navigation and spatial awareness are a lot easier in 3D. Even if it's only metaphoric navigation, if the metaphor's 3D rather than 2D there's a significant increase in efficiency and usability.

Erm, don't have the paper on me, but back when 3D tech was in its infancy these were the conclusions of a study of 3D vs. 2D trees for navigation and suchlike. Also telling was that where the 3D interface didn't perform as well people were kludging around with the 2D bit bolted on to the 3D, suggesting that if a metaphor could have been implemented for the task in 3D there would have been gains.

Is the metaphor the limiting factor? Maybe. Are there some tasks that can't be ported to 3D? According to the study's background information, yes, up to and including stuff like condition monitoring with 3D bar graphs.

--GF

[Krakrok]

Oh look, Jeff Bezos invests in the potential future of Amazon in 3D.

Edit: And a second article about blurring the virtual/real currency line.

[HaemishM]

Oh look, Jeff Bezos invests in the potential future of Amazon in 3D.

Second Life is hardly the same thing as a 3d spacial web.

[Krakrok]

Second Life is hardly the same thing as a 3d spacial web.

I don't agree. List some reasons why. The only difference I see is there is no open standard SL server.

Terra Nova discussion on the same Wired article.

[Telemediocrity]

Second Life is hardly the same thing as a 3d spacial web.

I don't agree. List some reasons why.

Because the benefits of 3D are highly dependent on what kind of content you're trying to deliver - and thus localized applets on individual webpages can provide the benefits of 3D without making the whole internet so?  I.e., you type amazon.com into your usual web-browser, Amazon.com pops up in 3D, and nothing else is affected?

For instance, CNet offers a multidimensional 'web' for seeing how its news stories link to one another.  It's useful, it's on the CNet webpage as an applet, and it doesn't require any change in the overall internet to implement.  You're totally dodging how much of what you're banking on as 3D's uses can be accomplished in a similar format.

For your argument to be correct, you'd have to make the case that it's not just better to have 3D on Amazon or 3D on CNet, but that we want a full 3D experience for going *from* Amazon *to* CNet.

[Venkman]

A 3D web is not an exclusive endeavor. For 3D to be truly useful, we have to get out of the two dimensional interface of mouse, keyboard and monitor. Not really VR with GestureTek or one of these things per se. But we do need something a lot better than poking holes at animated paper.

The metaphor of the 3D environment matters for the experiential quality of an immersive environment. But it doesn't make data fundamentally easier or harder to sift through unless the entirety of the interface is considered.

[Krakrok]

look at me look at me

You demonstrate a fundamental incomprehension of the topic at hand.

[Yegolev]

You demonstrate a fundamental incomprehension of the topic at hand.

Ah, finally.  Also: the original article was stupid.

[Telemediocrity]

look at me look at me

You demonstrate a fundamental incomprehension of the topic at hand.

Life involves a lot of interactions with people who don't comprehend all sorts of things.  If you have a grand idea and you're not able to guide people to comprehending it, all that speaks poorly of is your communication and persuasion skills, which is no skin off my back.

In the end, the sophists (And AC. Grayling, whose book, "The Art of Always Being Right", is essential - import it from Amazon UK if they're not publishing it in America anymore) were largely correct - oftentimes what matters isn't whether you're right or wrong, what matters is your ability to turn your opinions into actionable consensus.

In that respect, you failed.

Oh, and there's also the whole "Sophistry and the powers of persuasion aside, you're probably wrong" thing.  But don't trip on that too much, it's more fun to edit my quotes and pretend I'm debating you because I want attention.

[Krakrok]

Another article from January regarding SecondLife publishing an open standard at some point.

[Lantyssa]

We could comprehend it better if we were not limited to a 2D interface. :-D

[Krakrok]

We could comprehend it better if we were not limited to a 2D interface. :-D

And you disapprove of Televangelist trolling? The hypocrisy is so ripe I could pluck it from a tree.


Edit: Changed complaining to disapprove.

[Lantyssa]

I never complained about his trolling.  I disagree with his views on in-game communities certainly, but not the act of posting itself.

[Krakrok]

Trolling and griefing are one and the same. You were being snarky.

[Lantyssa]

Yes, I was being snarky here.  But I never complained about or claimed he was trolling.  I was honestly trying to figure out how he could feel that way.

[Telemediocrity]

Hay guys!  There's this really neat private messaging feature built into the board software.

With all the definitions of sociopathy being tossed about and the talk of a sociopath being someone who disregards "societal norms"... Isn't it a societal norm not to have a derogatory 3rd person conversation about someone when they can obviously hear you, while you act as if they're not there?

Obviously, I'm a big boy who will not break down into a blubbering mass at the thought of someone speaking ill of me, but the casual hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

[Lantyssa]

Being online, this isn't a community after all.  There are no social mores for me to break, so no, I do not think taking this to PMs is necessary.

Were I talking about someone else it would be hypocritical, but I am respecting and supporting your stance.

[Edit - Not no double-negatives no more.]

[Hoax]

Everyone knows social mores dont apply to people with sickeningly cute avatars...

[Telemediocrity]

Being online, this isn't a community after all.  There are no social mores for me to break, so no, I do not think taking this to PMs is not necessary.

Uh, but that's my reasoning.  You were just arguing the opposite.  Since when are you holding yourself to my codes of behavior, which you've stated you believe are incorrect?

So when you encounter someone who has a belief system you disagree with and think is immoral, whenever you're around them you toss off your own belief system?

In other words, you only stick to what you believe is right because there are other people around who also believe that it's right?

Isn't that tantamount to only being moral out of a fear of punishment?

By your own logic, isn't that sociopathic?



Sorry to drag the other thread over here, but Lantyssa and Krakrok started that up for reasons unknown.

[HaemishM]

Your thread fagger is showing.

[Lantyssa]

You don't understand sarcasm very well, do you?

I did not consider you trolling prior to this, perhaps because I was trying to talk with you even if I did disagree strongly.  I was being upfront and honest about our exchange and trying to remain neutral about you.  When you start acting like it bothers you, which is hypocrisy itself, my inner bitch is going to run with it.

With you pushing it I don't feel much sympathy for you anymore.  If that makes me sociopathic so be it.  At least I am willing to accept the possibility.

[Sorry to everyone else.  I really wasn't trying to derail this.  I guess I need to work on that... I'll stop now.]