Greta Thunberg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerxe

How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.

---

Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Ave

Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.

---

mic dropped.

My PPoV is that there are too many facts that prove that climate will change in future.

The more important question is the portion of climate change that is man made. Is it essential enough that we are an important factor of that change and are we able by changing our behavior to slow down that process?

No one has proven that mankind is the main cause of climate change with certainty, but also no one has disproven that climate change is caused of climate change with certainty.
I see only a lot of interpretations of whats going on in a way to defend the own point of view, either to affirm or refuse the hypothesis of mankind as cause of climate change.

My view is to use the same way of thinking as Blaise Pascal applied. How shall we deal with uncertainty when we are able to choose and a wrong decision can have a fatal consequence?
In that case of climate change:
Reduce all activity that has an negative impact to our environment with the chance to slow down climate change
or
business as usual with a unknown certainty that future generations of humans will pay the price for our actions?

A little more self-restriction for todays generation vs. huge personal restrictions forced by the natural environment.

And there is one important aspect: Laws defined by humans are changeable, the laws of nature aren't.

It's our choice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Ave

Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.

---

That's pretty good. I agree.


Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerxe

Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.

---

I agree that climate chnage is agnostic to economic system.

To comment on the whole energy debate, I do think it's possible to convert to forms of energy other than fossil fuels and still have a good economy, not that we have a choice since we will run out anyways (of fossil fuels). I don't think it's possible to convert solely to what is termed 'renewable' energy, you need nuclear (fission or fusion, though the latter is not avaliable yet despite being very promising from what I can tell) and hyrdoelectric to pick up the slack since wind and solar depend too much on variable factors at this point. But I do think you can have both a good economy and preservation of things like biodiversity and the climate.

I guess what gets me is when some environmental advocates, the more radical ones at least, seem to dismiss economic concerns entirely. Greta said it herself in the speech she gave recently in NYC when she called economic growth a "fairy tale". I get that you need more radical people not so much to get things done, but to remind the more moderate folks of a given ideology of what their principles are and keep them from being too wishy washy and complacent. I just don't agree that politcians aeren't doing anything wrt to climate change, you could argue it's not enough, but going to extreme too fast would damage the economy, and I think policians are aware of that, and not only wrt to how it affects their careers but also how it would affect our societies. I'm not a big fan of politicians, but I do get what they seem to be doing here, I think Greta is wrong when she says they don't care and tries to get them to follow exactly what she prescribes. Emmanuel Macron's response to her comments, mainly that the kind of radicalism she espouses can antagonzie our societies (if it's taken too literally) seem spot on.

Neither the dismissal of the climate in the name of the economy nor the dismissal of the economy in the name of climate are founded positions to hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reyne

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Thunberg_4.jpg

---

Looks LSI on this pic. Reminds me of putin or Stalin

But why would there be a coordinated effort to exaggerate the effects of climate change in the first place? Some of the claims surrounding climate change are indeed exaggerated―we're probably not going to go extinct as a species, for instance, and I do hope that no serious scientists are saying that. But if there is 97% consensus among experts that it's happening, and that its effects will be significant to the way our societies are organized―for the worse―then, surely, that has to raise a red flag.

Suppose there are hidden motives at play. If we're allowed to dismiss someone's argument based on a possible nefarious agenda, then we're allowed to dismiss the other side using the exact same precedent.

This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.

---

Putting all the facts and figures aside, yes, there is something mythological at play.

People have always been obsessed with the end times. In the 15th century it was fashionable in Christian Europe to think the Apocalypse would arrive at the start of the 16th Century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.

---

I agree with you that laypeople have a tendency to interpret opaque scientific conclusions through archetypal symbols and anthropomorphisms. Climate advocates will also often frame the issue by invoking moralizing language that (intentionally or unintentionally) attempts to elicit a sense of decency, like the need to act as responsible stewards towards a 'dying' planet―a clear theme of charity, perhaps of a religious kind, towards the weak and the destitute.

But if that forms the basis for dismissing the arguments of climate advocates, then climate change skeptics should also be dismissed for doing the same thing. Mankind's right to exploit the planet for its own benefit is often claimed by these people; whether or not that's true, it has parallels with the old testament theme of the conquest of Canaan, the promised land which was given by God for the Israelites to usurp. Yet another oft-invoked theme is the limited agency of man to alter the natural world. This is plainly false, but it is analogous to the mythological theme of the smallness of mankind in the face of an omnipotent deity.

Virtually every issue that becomes political is quickly wrapped in one or another mythological cloak, not just climate change, and emotionally-laden arguments abound everywhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately), facts don't care about our feelings.

Put it this way: there has been a general warming trend shown since the 1880s until today. In what manner that will change in the future and by how much is still up for debate. So far the models produced haven't been shown to be accurate enough to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

That's exactly what I'm wondering. What would the purpose be, who has what to gain? People could say for example that this study in China is all a farce to prevent the Chinese from having to reduce their emissions in a time period of rapid growth: Chinese scientists warn of global cooling Because there could be political motivation people might take it less seriously. Personally, I think it's probably legitimate but very likely a microclimate effect. In other words, the area around the lake shows patterns in temperatures that don't necessarily reflect global trends.

---

I didn't know about that study, and I'll definitely look into it. From what I previously understood, the global cooling trend was known about decades ago, and that it has been reversed by man-made global warming.

I was also under the impression that the Chinese government was taking climate change very seriously. It (along with India) has planted an enormous number of trees to combat deforestation. It's also in the process of imposing severe restrictions and regulations on what can be built.

It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination―China continues to build polluting industries and energy generation facilities. But, over the past several years, Chinese emissions from growth have remained neutral, and China is on track to meet its Paris 2020 targets. It has also become the leading manufacturer of renewable energy technology (like solar panels).

Quote:

---

In other words, no, I don't think studies and data should be dismissed out of hand because of possible political motives. But, there isn't actually a consensus. There's a lot of data and studies against the models produced and the numbers projected by global warming enthusiasts. I keep seeing it quoted that 99% of scientists agree, etc. but then you look into this and you see that the IPCC just removes dissenting opinions because their whole GOAL is a consensus. They have to present a unified front.

A lot of times when you look not at the headlines, but the actual studies behind the headlines you see a slightly different picture from what's being presented. Sometimes that picture only vaguely resembles the headlines.

---

I didn't know that. I'll definitely look into the allegation that the IPCC promotes research selectively. But is the IPCC the only authoritative source? This page from NASA's website lists a number of other authoritative bodies that make the same claims about climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

They didn't draw the same conclusions. And they were turned into advocates.



People like to act like there's a total consensus and it gets bandied about a lot "proven fact" blah blah, but that's far from reality. The loudest advocates who preach to the media and give them dramatic headlines aren't the whole picture. They're just the only picture most people see.

--Obviously those who make money off of all the industries that create emissions will have their own agendas to push, it'd be silly to deny it. But that doesn't mean you're getting "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" from others pushing their agendas either.

---

The IPCC does not publish any original research. All they do is look at the greatest number of scientific studies possible and determine an average of what the effects of climate change will be based on those studies, and try to influence public policy as a result. The IPCC neither projects the worse case scenarios nor the best case scenarios, it is like a mean of these scenarios.

Of course, this methodology is questionable.

And yes, there is manipulation of the masses being commited by the IPCC, because they make claims in a way that are emotional and reductionistic in order to create fear/panic in the average citizen in order for people to accept certain policies. This is typical of environmental causes. For example, the polar bear and giant panda being used as mascots for saving biodviersity, when neither species is essential to it in comparison to insects, algae, fish, etc which have less emotional appeal as mascots. I'm not a fan of saying things for emotional effect so I agree that such methods are questionable, and that it's turning science into propaganda. Propaganda does not have to be ill-intended in order to qualify as such, and its consequences can be good, bad or neutral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerxe

I don't give a flying fuck how the message is delivered. Facts are facts, and skepticism about climate change is at the same level as flat-earth theory.

---

Maybe we're in the sophist age of disenlightenment where even substantiated science and facts can be twisted into mere conjecture. All hail President Camacho.

LSE?

I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

---

Word of warning about Impossible Burgers, from a vegan doctor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f24kR3hGaQ0 TL;DW: Probably ok for occasional consumption, but has some worrying ingredients.

I love animals and have seriously considered veganism, or at least vegetarianism. And modern animal farming is often not only cruel and debasing to our humanity, but very harmful to the immediate and greater environment. That said, I have discovered my personal biology requires a certain amount of animal products for optimal health. And from what I've been learning, a well-raised animal is going to enhance the environment, not destroy it (e.g. poop that becomes fertilizer that makes for better crops, and less farting). It will also have magnitudes greater nutrients.

If I'm going to eat an animal, I want it to have the best life it can and to die as painlessly as possible. Not only is that humane but it's becoming more and more obviously practical.

My in-laws are considering purchasing a couple of steers to raise for meat. If they do, I plan on visiting the cows, loving on them as much as they'll let me, and assisting with making their lives good. They will live in a big field with lots of grass and eat apples from hundred-year-old trees for dessert. And when we kill them I will cry. I will honor them by facing what I do, and by not wasting what they offer. The modern popular cuts are only a part of the sustenance a whole cow can provide. Healthy cow liver has invaluable nutrients, particularly if a woman wants to be pregnant / have kids. Bones and connective tissues make collagen-rich broth. Etc.

Looking away from death makes it easier to do.

All of that said, I do eat mostly plant foods. Thankfully while I need animal products, they're more like supplements/sides than main dishes.

Maybe XLI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

---

Its likely not at all easier on your arteries. Cholesterol only blocks arteries if inflamation from high triglicerides destroys them. Cholesterol is the building block of cells and there to repair the arteries when the inflammatory shit rips them up. Those vegan burgers have tons of inflammatory shit, if they didnt, plant substitutes would have tasted like meat a long time ago.

I listened to an interview she did on NPR as well as the one linked in post #16. She strikes me as archetypally Beta. Very passionate and expressive even for someone with Asperger's.

I glanced through previous comments and saw it mentioned that she claims to be a realist who focuses on the facts. With all due respect to Ethical types, she would not be the first to overestimate and exaggerate her rationality. Especially in service of a cause she holds near and dear to her heart. I think what she demonstrates in her actions, especially her conviction about the utility of symbolic action, rather than taking the truly pragmatic approach of finishing school to become a climate scientist or lobbyist with tangible authority and influence points to her being an ethical intuitive.

I think EIE is compelling.

She VI's as an LSI 1w2

Previous thread was closed for some reason.

I've been watching "Greta Thunberg: A Year to Change the World"

She becomes very upset at one point "If you feel bad today...so many people are so sad and so depressed...but that's a good thing because that means they still have empathy. And they don't want to live in this world where we have lost empathy."

"So many people come up to me and say they believe there is something wrong with them because they are feeling like shit. But I think it's the opposite. It's the rest who can maintain living in this society where we care only about prestige and these shallow things that don't matter and being the best and so on. Those are the people who are not normal."

She had depression for several years before she started protesting, so clearly she is speaking from experience.

She's very aware of the impact her words can have (that she might get headlines about making an emotional speech, that there will be a reaction):
"People are only listening to the emotional bits, like "How dare you!" and "I want you to panic!" and so on. I say these things because they get people's attention, and now I have people's attention. I don't need to make a speech like that. I want them to listen to the actual content and the science."

From a speech: "Hi. I've given many speeches and learned that when you talk in public, you should start with something personal or emotional to get everyone's attention. But today, I will not do that. Because then those phrases are all that people focus on. They don't remember the facts, the very reason why I say those things in the first place. We no longer have time to leave out the science.

She considers herself an introvert ("a small, shy, girl who's speaking about science versus Donald Trump" and of course she has Asperger's).

I can certainly see why people would say EIE or ILI. I can imagine her having a :Se: or :Fi: HA and don't get any sense that she values :Si:. EIE was the type that I saw most fitting, but the two key details about her personality are that the climate change situation has made her depressed (at least in the past), and that she has a condition that impacts social interaction (although as far as I can see, she is well-adjusted). Being single-minded in a cause that requires social activism (at least in her opinion) may make her seem more conscientious, and may lead to some social mastery.

Being sad or depressed doesn't necessarily mean 'you still have empathy' - you could just be sad and depressed. Plenty of sad and depressed people are jerks that don't have much empathy- I don't know where she gets her logic from. That Inside Out movie? It was a cool movie but it was just a movie- and real life is more complicated than 'Sadness having Empathy.'

And being happy doesn't make you this bad immoral person that's without empathy either. :8* I guess that's how a lot of Fi valuers view the world though. (I do think Greta is Fi valuing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

---

I personally just don't like how the animals are treated. CAFO's are a horrible way to treat the animals. I'd gladly pay double for my meat if it meant the cows, chickens, etc. weren't packed in so tight they can't really move and are knee deep in their own excrement. I'd be a bit careful with that meatless Whopper though. I hear its got the problem of breaking down into stuff that's basically estrogen. Not a big deal if you're a girl but yeah, dudes aren't meant to have high levels of estrogen in their system. Don't become a soy boy.

As for the subject of this thread. She's a "ticket taker" as I like to refer to people like her. The PTB made her an offer (the "ticket") and she took it. Fame, wealth, whatever you want it's yours. There's just that fine print at the end of the contract that says "we own your ass/soul" that most people don't notice or simply don't care about giving that up in exchange for what is offered (poor dumb fools). She is a puppet, a moist robot parroting the propaganda her masters want her to. Maybe she's a true believer. I'm not saying that's impossible but I am saying possibility is non-zero that she's just an actor playing her part. The layers of control, disinfo, and propaganda we're all subjected to on a daily basis go way deeper and further than most people would dare to think is even possible. Oh well, at least her meme is funny if timed right. "How dare you" can be used to quite the comedic effect.

Also, I'm with George Carlin on the whole "saving the planet" BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by End

I personally just don't like how the animals are treated. CAFO's are a horrible way to treat the animals. I'd gladly pay double for my meat if it meant the cows, chickens, etc. weren't packed in so tight they can't really move and are knee deep in their own excrement. I'd be a bit careful with that meatless Whopper though. I hear its got the problem of breaking down into stuff that's basically estrogen. Not a big deal if you're a girl but yeah, dudes aren't meant to have high levels of estrogen in their system. Don't become a soy boy.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BqsG6AKGI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

---

Sounds nice. I need to do more research, but I've also been thinking of going vegan. Possible complication: every time I see the word 'Vegan', I think of the star Vega and the eponymous alien race that inhabits one or more of its planets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerx

Sounds nice. I need to do more research, but I've also been thinking of going vegan. Possible complication: every time I see the word 'Vegan', I think of the star Vega and the eponymous alien race that inhabits one or more of its planets.

---

I don't think that Vega has planets, or if it does, they are unlikely to harbor life. The star is only 450 million years old and is an A-type star, which means that it's hot. Really hot. When the Earth, not the Sun, was that age, it had barely cooled enough to support liquid water on its surface. Any planets orbiting Vega are probably being stripped of materials by the radiation. Jupiter-like gas giants being turned into rocky Mercurys, their former atmospheres and lighter surface metals being blown out to the edge of the system, to condense once again into comets.

So, no Vegans. Unless they are doing a Motel 6 thing while setting up a communications station.

P.S.
If you go vegan, supplement with B-12 and some iron, and be sure to get enough protein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I don't think that Vega has planets, or if it does, they are unlikely to harbor life. The star is only 450 million years old and is an A-type star, which means that it's hot. Really hot. When the Earth, not the Sun, was that age, it had barely cooled enough to support liquid water on its surface. Any planets orbiting Vega are probably being stripped of materials by the radiation. Jupiter-like gas giants being turned into rocky Mercurys, their former atmospheres and lighter surface metals being blown out to the edge of the system, to condense once again into comets.

P.S.
If you go vegan, supplement with B-12 and some iron, and be sure to get enough protein.

---

Oh, I'm not picky about the kind of Vegan life that I'm willing to consume. Gaseous lifeforms inhabiting the atmospheres of gas giants may turn out to be a nice treat.

LSI

ILI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BandD

Being sad or depressed doesn't necessarily mean 'you still have empathy' - you could just be sad and depressed. Plenty of sad and depressed people are jerks that don't have much empathy- I don't know where she gets her logic from. That Inside Out movie? It was a cool movie but it was just a movie- and real life is more complicated than 'Sadness having Empathy.'

And being happy doesn't make you this bad immoral person that's without empathy either. :8* I guess that's how a lot of Fi valuers view the world though. (I do think Greta is Fi valuing)

---

I did not say that being depressed means that you have empathy. I merely think that her being depressed because of climate change, and being concerned about others being depressed because of climate change might be indicative of being an Agreeable type (in the Big Five). I certainly did not link those traits to :Fi:, either.

It's difficult for me to imagine that a young Socionics LIE for example would be so motivated and act as she has done to tackle the climate crisis. Although I am increasingly finding Socionics unhelpful when analysing others.

I've since decided I can't really decide between EIE and ILI.

I think if she was being typed in the Big Five, she would score:
introverted
high openness to experience
conscientious
neurotic
and possibly moderately high on agreeableness.

Quote:

---

I did not say that being depressed means that you have empathy.

---

I know you didn't. I was responding to something Greta herself said. Not anything you said. Maybe my Fi comment wasn't fair though, I certainly don't think all Fi valuers are like that or anything. Still think Greta is very Fi though.

I'm not against k4m's interpretation of her being a INFj with Aspergers.

I watched a three part documentary on her on PBS and this is how I also interpret her sociotype as being. Her Father also struck me as being either her dual, or her activator at SLI.

This is what happens when the victim mentality goes off the balance

https://pics.me.me/thumb_youve-stole...e-63547587.png

I can't see EIE anymore. Just think INXX perhaps.

Yeah there is no way she'd be from a Merry quadra.

EII