The New Grämlins

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Golan 1st' date='11 May 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1273605201' post='2294958']
You got it right. Your insistence to unnecessarily keep us in a state of war is wrong.[/quote]

I don't understand this sentence.

[quote]And you are not pointing a gun (if jammed) to our head?[/quote]

No, we're not. We standing in the doorway.
The Gremlins isn't capable of "killing" you (nor would we want to) in the sense of keeping your alliance at ZI or something similar.

[quote]Again, you are in no position to say what the moral standard is. [/quote]

I don't need to say it. The vast majority of people [b]know[/b] that IRON's attack was morally wrong.

[quote]Let's see if I get it right. Since they use the commonly accepted definition of "unconditional surrender" they agree with you? [/quote]

I'm glad you wanted to clarify. No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that they are decrying what The Gremlins are doing using an inaccurate description of what The Gremlins are doing; and on the basis that we are demanding something we have not, in fact, demanded.
That doesn't mean they agree with me; it means their opposition is unfounded and misguided.

[quote]This is really irrelvant anymore. We are not going to surrender to you, with or without conditions.
[/quote]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='11 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273605289' post='2294959']
Since apparently IRON offered to admit their actions were wrong as part of the ESA and were turned down, I think the victims disagree with you. And in light of that, your complaint is pretty much groundless.
[/quote]


Let's start to argue about the definition of "Compelled Confession"

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273605297' post='2294960']
honestly i don't know but the true question then is why are you(as in Gremlins) doing just that? [/quote]

Because we must.




[quote]and yet you still do not get it. IRON did just that when they signed the ESA. just because you do not agree with the sentence given to them by CnG does not mean you can extract your own payment. again, since you like to use the term criminal, what you are doing is called double jeopardy. you are attempting to make IRON/DAWN pay restitution twice. [/quote]

We were at war with IRON when the ESA was signed. We were not a party to the ESA and thus IRON's surrender to the other members of "my side" is not equivalent to their surrender to The Gremlins. It is not double jeopardy because we are not declaring an additional war on the same basis of their same transgression.
They have not yet served appropriate restitution for their war against The Gremlins and therefore are not yet released to a state of peace.
Your definition of "double jeopardy" is flawed lest you imply that securing peace with *any* of your opponents necessitates a peace among them all.



[quote]actually IRON did see themselves as culpable for wrongdoing, hence their surrender and payment of reparations already. this was good enough for CnG to serve as an admission of wrongdoing. you have yet to list Gremlins' credentials as to why they can do this. why is it that Gremlins can continue this war without any actual just cause?
[/quote]

There isn't even a horse here; there is only a red spot on the ground.
[size="5"]Surrender, admission of defeat and agreement to pay reparations are not the same as admitting wrong.[/size]

You cannot conclude that such is "good enough for CnG to serve as an admission of wrongdoing"
CnG has asserted no such thing, and even if they did it would not satisfy The Gremlins that reparations with no allocution are inadequate.

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='11 May 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1273605645' post='2294965']
Dude, I did. [b]The other alliances in the TIDFTT coalition. They did the [u]exact[/u] [u]same[/u] thing.[/b] You can't oppose one without opposing all. [i]What makes IRON so special that your vendetta is against only them of the coalition?[/i] Unless there is anouther reason.

If it is such a gross injustice, there is no reason why you can't oppose all of us. Nation strength doesn't matter, right? It's doing that right thing that matters.

Your nation is in the range of many of nations formerly in the TIDFTT coalition. Back up your words that you are opposing injustice if you truly believe them. Start attacking people. You aren't busy with IRON, your alliance is. You haven't done anything personally.
[i]
Acta non verba.[/i]
[/quote]

The Gremlins are at war with IRON. This is a relevant war in which we were already engaged for this purpose.
Doing what is right does matter; and I have the ability to make a difference in standing against IRON.
I haven't done anything personally?

I've been near ZI and back this war. I've been fighting the entire time. I am here fighting now.
I am standing in the doorway opposing [b]you[/b] and you want me to demonstrate my cause by vacating to oppose somebody else? One day at a time, Gamemaster.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Artigo]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='11 May 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1273605645' post='2294965']
[b]The other alliances in the TIDFTT coalition. They did the [u]exact[/u] [u]same[/u] thing.[/b] You can't oppose one without opposing all. [i]What makes IRON so special that your vendetta is against only them of the coalition?[/i] Unless there is another reason.
[/quote]

Hey, this.

According to your logic Matthew, anyone culpable for wrongdoing should be attacked. Is that right? So in that case why not engage the rest of our coalition? What makes IRON special?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Artigo' date='11 May 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1273606194' post='2294976']
Hey, this.

According to your logic Matthew, anyone culpable for wrongdoing should be attacked. Is that right? So in that case why not engage the rest of our coalition? What makes IRON special?
[/quote]


You don't seem to understand that by opposing IRON (as the initiator of the transgression) I am opposing the entire idea.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1273605933' post='2294970']
There isn't even a horse here; there is only a red spot on the ground.
[size="5"]Surrender, admission of defeat and agreement to pay reparations are not the same as admitting wrong.[/size]

You cannot conclude that such is "good enough for CnG to serve as an admission of wrongdoing"
CnG has asserted no such thing, and even if they did it would not satisfy The Gremlins that reparations with no allocution are inadequate.



The Gremlins are at war with IRON. This is a relevant war in which we were already engaged for this purpose.
Doing what is right does matter; and I have the ability to make a difference in standing against IRON.
I haven't done anything personally?

I've been near ZI and back this war. I've been fighting the entire time. I am here fighting now.
I am standing in the doorway opposing [b]you[/b] and you want me to demonstrate my cause by vacating to oppose somebody else? One day at a time, Gamemaster.
[/quote]

Despite you saying the contrary, I can't see anything other than Gramlins playing Policeman with this whole mess.

What gives Gramlins the right to determine what is proper restitution, but not the victims?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='11 May 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1273606876' post='2294998']
Despite you saying the contrary, I can't see anything other than Gramlins playing Policeman with this whole mess.

What gives Gramlins the right to determine what is proper restitution, but not the victims?
[/quote]


The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Artigo' date='11 May 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1273606194' post='2294976']
Hey, this.

According to your logic Matthew, anyone culpable for wrongdoing should be attacked. Is that right? So in that case why not engage the rest of our coalition? What makes IRON special?
[/quote]

With his logic all of Planet Bob should DoW Gramlins. Then according to him Gramlins would happily accept being culpable and offer to surrender uncondionaly. Its a special place where Gramlins lives full of unicorns and talking cats. Reality and Gramlins are clearly at war with each other.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1273603368' post='2294900']
I would have no issue accepting unconditional surrender (pursuant to the procedure Gremlins has clearly outlined) were I as clearly culpable for wrongdoing as is IRON.
[/quote]

That's funny.

You would accept unconditional surrender so long as it included conditions that make it acceptable to Gramlins.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']
The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.
[/quote]

You see the entire cyberverse does not agree with that. They think the only people victimizing them is Gramlins demands for unconditional surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='11 May 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1273607136' post='2295008']
That's funny.

You would accept unconditional surrender so long as it included conditions that make it acceptable to Gramlins.
[/quote]


I was simply reversing the roles.
Were I as clearly culpable as IRON, and had IRON clearly outlined that "Unconditional Surrender" doesn't imply agreement to subsequent terms (which The Gremlins has), I would have no problem with it.

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='11 May 2010 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1273607236' post='2295011']
You see the entire cyberverse does not agree with that. They think the only people victimizing them is Gramlins demands for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

So now you know what the entire cyberverse thinks?

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']
The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.
[/quote]
You speak so much of an allocution, but what end will that serve? The real victims here have put this matter behind them, they have been satisfied. All that stands now is a petty grudge between Gramlins and IRON.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Felix von Agnu

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='11 May 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1273607333' post='2295014']
You speak so much of an allocution, but what end will that serve? The real victims here have put this matter behind them, they have been satisfied. All that stands now is a petty grudge between Gramlins and IRON.
[/quote]


It's not a grudge and it's not petty.
IRON must acknowledge the moral failings of their actions.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273606816' post='2294992']
You don't seem to understand that by opposing IRON (as the initiator of the transgression) I am opposing the entire idea.
[/quote]
No, you aren't. You're opposing IRON. Oppose all of us. Or none of us.

And [i]you[/i] are still doing nothing.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1273607046' post='2295001']
The entire cyberverse is victimized if IRON is permitted peace without an allocution.
That The Gremlins are the only ones putting themselves at risk to demonstrate this is circumstantial.
[/quote]

this is a nice soundbyte that has no factual evidence supporting it, nor does it have any relevance to the question that was asked but is instead simply meant to divert the attention to another area.

actually try answering the question matt. i have asked it at least once if not twice already. here goes a second or third shot:

Why do Gremlins think they have the right to do this?

and i am gonna add another question to this mix.

you stated before that IRON were criminals because they kept targeting your friends and thus, you were doing this to help your friends. when did that change to helping the entire cyberverse? if the original reasoning was that IRON were targeting your friends, when did Gremlins befriend the entire cyberverse?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1273607489' post='2295022']
It's not a grudge and it's not petty.
IRON must acknowledge the moral failings of their actions.
[/quote]

if IRON were to ever do that, would Gremlins then acknowledge the moral failings of their actions and submit themselves to proper restitution for this entire fiasco? since you seem to think that Gremlins can speak for the entire cyberverse in some sort of self-proclaimed manner, i now submit that i can speak for the entire cyberverse by stating that Gremlins needs to do the morally right thing and turn themselves into me in order to receive proper restitution for their crimes against the entire cyberverse. Only then will Gremlins show themselves to sincerely believe that the actions they have taken are morally wrong and can truly pay for their heinous crimes.


amidoinitrite?

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1273607489' post='2295022']
It's not a grudge and it's not petty.
IRON must acknowledge the moral failings of their actions.
[/quote]
Which they have essentially done in their surrender to C&G and friends.

Of course you're just going to come back with "Well, we don't think they have." Which is just going to lead to a circle of debate.

Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you attempted to gut their alliance in an attempt to "allocute them." If you want allocution, tell them how you think they can allocute themselves. Unless of course you are operating under the idea that an unconditional surrender is equal to an allocution.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1273600754' post='2294844']
Here is an example: IRON has a standing offer of "white peace" yet they diligently assert that Gremlins actions are evil, unjust, etc.
If they [b]actually[/b] believe what they are saying (that we are evil) then their offer of "white peace" to merely "let us go" is in itself a detraction to moral standards.
[/quote]

Just because it's your policy to at this point in time to be the moral police doesn't mean that it's everyone's policy. Besides, there's something important to understand here; different people have different views of how morality works. Some believe in universalism, what you're arguing; there are a set of moral laws written into the fabric of the universe, and they will never change. Others argue that the cyberverse sets its own morals through the societal standards people generally hold. I think the most prevalent view here is the combination of the two; there are a few moral laws of the cyberverse that hold true and are punishable (in the most extreme circumstances) by banishment from this realm. These laws, however, are held and enforced by the almighty Admin and his Mods. Those that try to enforce these rules themselves, not under the guidance and approval of Admin himself, also face retribution from the Mods.

Barring those laws that we refer to as the "Terms of Service", morality (in the third system I'm describing) is determined by a majority of opinion here. Spying? Most consider it immoral, so it can be considered a just reason for war. EZI? Arguably a violation of the holy laws, but it has also been firmly decided by the masses that this is also unjust. PZI is another case of something decidedly immoral. Preemptive strikes are a trickier situation, since a preemptive strike is usually a direct military response to a threat of some sort. In this case, we thought it would be okay to strike; evidently, we were wrong, and we've come to realize that. But that isn't to say that preemptive strikes are morally wrong, just that this one is.

So if I am to take your current argument and put it into the context of the third system there, what you're doing is trying to convince the world not only that our strike was wrong, but that we haven't paid or dues for it. What the world is doing (or has done) is saying that they think we've paid our dues, and understand the problem with what we've done. You're trying to convince the world that we embody this moral wrong until we follow your process.

I respectfully disagree with your stance. I believe that we have paid our dues. I also believe what you're doing is wrong; however, you've paid for it with a third of your membership and half of your NS. At this point, if you were to have some sort of epiphany and realize that what you're doing is wrong (in the eyes of much of the cyberverse, if you agree that the relatively diverse group of people posting here indicates that), I'd be perfectly willing to give you white peace. I'd be willing to do that because you've paid for the act simply by committing it as you have. It'd be arrogant of me to assume that I could determine what your final restitution is, regardless of what I came up with. Reparations make some sense, in the context that because of this war, we've suffered from a growth standpoint. That, however, is a general standard that is direct punishment for a war, not for the reason it started. If there's any punishment for that reason, it's an admission of guilt, something we've done. At this point, I'd rather put this behind us and move on, so we can try to improve the state of this world, as opposed to trying to ultimately destroy what is bad.

In essence, I don't believe that you are evil. I don't believe that the Gramlins in general are evil. I believe that the idea of unconditional surrender is wrong (evil, if you define evil as against morality). Therefore, if you were to disassociate unconditional surrender from Gramlins, I wouldn't see anything wrong with Gramlins except the fact that Gramlins are at war with us right now. And in that case, I'd give you white peace. Heck, even if you cling on to the idea of unconditional surrender, if you took white peace, it means that you didn't end up using it on us, so the wrong wasn't committed. I'm okay with that. If you tried to get someone else to unconditionally surrender in the future, I'd oppose it then, just as I do now. But I believe in the capacity of alliances to change. Maybe that's where I differ.

[TypoNinja]

Matthew PK, you have conveniently (for you) missed replying to all my points [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2294923"]Here[/url] Please address these.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1273607261' post='2295012']
I was simply reversing the roles.
Were I as clearly culpable as IRON, and had IRON clearly outlined that "Unconditional Surrender" doesn't imply agreement to subsequent terms (which The Gremlins has), I would have no problem with it.[/quote]

i thought the whole point of this ordeal was that IRON was incapable of doing any sort of negotiation due to their culpability? Why should Gremlins be capable of negotiating anything since ya'll are even more culpable than IRON?



[quote]So now you know what the entire cyberverse thinks?
[/quote]

you seem to think you do.

[Derantol]

Actually, I think I understand the first piece of that one. He's saying that if we admit that we're wrong, to a power that can't defeat us, it's more sincere than if we admit that we're wrong to a person holding a gun to our head. I'd disagree, on the basis that it can be just as sincere, even under stressful circumstances. The difference is that it is *definitely* sincere in the first case, while it might not be in the second.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='11 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1273607530' post='2295025']
No, you aren't. You're opposing IRON. Oppose all of us. Or none of us.

And [i]you[/i] are still doing nothing.
[/quote]


My existence as a formidable nation obstructing IRON [b]is[/b] doing something.

"Declare war" is not the only thing people can do.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1273607736' post='2295029']
this is a nice soundbyte that has no factual evidence supporting it, nor does it have any relevance to the question that was asked but is instead simply meant to divert the attention to another area.

actually try answering the question matt. i have asked it at least once if not twice already. here goes a second or third shot:

Why do Gremlins think they have the right to do this? [/quote]

All nations on the planet have a right to stand up for what is morally right. What's more, they have an [b]obligation[/b] to do so.

[quote]and i am gonna add another question to this mix.

you stated before that IRON were criminals because they kept targeting your friends and thus, you were doing this to help your friends. when did that change to helping the entire cyberverse? if the original reasoning was that IRON were targeting your friends, when did Gremlins befriend the entire cyberverse?
[/quote]

IRON are "criminals" because they assert the right, and exercise the ability, to attack with no valid reason.

Since my friends exist in the cyberverse, by helping the cyberverse I help them.
Which, funny as it is, include IRON who will have a basis for moral righteousness should they ever be attacked for no valid reason in the future.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1273607902' post='2295033']
if IRON were to ever do that, would Gremlins then acknowledge the moral failings of their actions and submit themselves to proper restitution for this entire fiasco? since you seem to think that Gremlins can speak for the entire cyberverse in some sort of self-proclaimed manner, i now submit that i can speak for the entire cyberverse by stating that Gremlins needs to do the morally right thing and turn themselves into me in order to receive proper restitution for their crimes against the entire cyberverse. Only then will Gremlins show themselves to sincerely believe that the actions they have taken are morally wrong and can truly pay for their heinous crimes.


amidoinitrite?
[/quote]
I don't believe, and will not claim, that my actions are morally wrong.
On the contrary, I contend there is little doubt about the moral failings of IRON's actions.

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='11 May 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1273608064' post='2295036']
Which they have essentially done in their surrender to C&G and friends.[/quote]

Please try to keep up. It has been repeated ad nauseum that surrendering and paying reps are not the same and do not inherently imply and admission of moral failings; merely an admission of strategic failings.
Righteous parties lose wars and pay reps all the time. The fact that they lost a was does not mean they were morally wrong.


[quote]Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you attempted to gut their alliance in an attempt to "allocute them." If you want allocution, tell them how you think they can allocute themselves. Unless of course you are operating under the idea that an unconditional surrender is equal to an allocution.
[/quote]

You have misunderstood me.
A surrender is [b]not[/b] equal to an allocution. In fact, that has been the basis of many of my claims.
That they surrendered does not mean they admitted moral failure.
Surrendering is functionally equivalent to turning themselves in.
An alloctuion is a subsequent action.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='11 May 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1273608346' post='2295045']
i thought the whole point of this ordeal was that IRON was incapable of doing any sort of negotiation due to their culpability? Why should Gremlins be capable of negotiating anything since ya'll are even more culpable than IRON?[/quote]

I'm not suggesting the capability of negotiating.
You have misunderstood.

The Gremlins have explicitly explained that Unconditional Surrender [b]does not imply agreement to subsequently delivered terms.[/b] In fact, I have asserted that it cannot possibly.

Er go, for me to say that I would have no problem surrendering via this same procedure is not "negotiating"; it is, in fact, [b]precisely reversing the roles[/b]




[quote]
you seem to think you do.
[/quote]


I speak to what is a moral absolute. TBB claimed to speak to what they all think.
Haven't I made it obvious that I don't believe those two are always mutually inclusive?

That our ancient ancestors on planet Bob predominantly thought Bob was flat does not invalidate the fact that he is round.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Matthew PK

[Shodemofi-NPO]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1273592914' post='2294765']
You are saying they won't surrender because they're strong enough not to have to.
Fine; but I'm telling you that's the "might makes right" argument.

Then you also state (quite correctly!) that their surrender now would only happen if they felt they need ot make ammends for their past.
That has been my point (and stated multiple times) that they should surrender because it's the right thing to do to begin the restitution process for their actions.

I'm glad you and I are on the same page.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. At this point, Gramlins is not winning the war. As such, the only reason that IRON would ever agree to any terms at all would be because they want to make amends. As such, the bit about unconditional surrender is unnecessary as a gesture to show genuine contrition, agreeing to any terms at all would show said contrition.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Derantol' date='11 May 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1273608447' post='2295047']
Actually, I think I understand the first piece of that one. He's saying that if we admit that we're wrong, to a power that can't defeat us, it's more sincere than if we admit that we're wrong to a person holding a gun to our head. I'd disagree, on the basis that it can be just as sincere, even under stressful circumstances. The difference is that it is *definitely* sincere in the first case, while it might not be in the second.
[/quote]
Either way it could be insincere.

I disagree with his stance though. I think admitting you were wrong to the victims would always be more meaningful than doing so to a 3rd party.

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
My existence as a formidable nation obstructing IRON [b]is[/b] doing something.

"Declare war" is not the only thing people can do.
[/quote]
You aren't doing anything about the rest of the equally guilty coalition.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
All nations on the planet have a right to stand up for what is morally right. What's more, they have an [b]obligation[/b] to do so.
[/quote]

Then you have an [b]obligation[/b] to do something about the rest of the coalition. [i]You aren't.[/i]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
IRON are "criminals" because they assert the right, and exercise the ability, to attack with no valid reason.
[/quote]

Then so is the rest of the coalition.
You aren't doing anything about the rest of the equally guilty coalition.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
Since my friends exist in the cyberverse, by helping the cyberverse I help them.
Which, funny as it is, include IRON who will have a basis for moral righteousness should they ever be attacked for no valid reason in the future.[/quote]

I'm not even going to bother responding to this one.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
I don't believe, and will not claim, that my actions are morally wrong.
On the contrary, I contend there is little doubt about the moral failings of IRON's actions.
[/quote]

What about the 'moral failings' of the rest of the coalition? There is "little doubt" about them, too.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Gamemaster1

[Wes Walz Pants]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='11 May 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1273608794' post='2295053']
[b]My existence as a formidable nation obstructing IRON [b]is[/b] doing something.[/b]
[/quote]
That which you are doing is obstructing IRON from fulfilling their reps to those you "claim" as allies. Please continue on your embarrassing path cause at this point it only serves to help IRON.