The-Brights again

[Toto]

Last night I heard a talk from Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, the originators of the term. While I doubt that it would have converted anyone, Mynga did make a few points that I thought were worth passing on:

Mynga considers herself an atheist, and is a member (if not president) of the group Atheists and Other Freethinkers of Sacramento. She is not asking anyone who considers themselves an atheist to change.

She has a lot of experience as an educator and activist, and she knows that lots of people are not comfortable with the terms "atheist" or "agnostic". She has tried to promote the word "freethinker" and thinks it is a lost cause.

The impetus for trying to find this umbrella term was the Godless March on Washington, which Mynga and Paul attended. The march was labeled "Godless" because it was not a term that any of the constituent groups "owned" - no atheists or agnostics or humanists or others were known officially as Godless, so they were all able to join under that one term.

Part of the popularity of the term Bright (defined as "a person who has a naturalistic worldview") is that it is positive, and it allows moral principles to be derived from that worldview. I realized that people may argue about whether Hitler was an atheist, but he was clearly not a Bright - he believed in mysticism and an irrational racism. Stalin was an atheist but was not a Bright - he rejected Darwinism because it did not fit his communist ideology. North Korea is not governed by Brights, but by people bound up in their own quasi-religious cult.

Then this morning I read the following essay in the LA Times:

God Help the Democrats (http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-op-bunzel14sep14,1,1351181.story?coll=la-news-religion)

Millions of Americans do not believe in God. They do not invest moral authority in a transcendent source such as the Bible, or deal in absolutes of right and wrong, or divide the world into simplistic categories of good and evil.

Such people, and I include myself among them, have tended to find themselves more comfortable in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, where a marked strain of Christian fundamentalism runs strong.

I sometimes wonder, though, whether we nonbelievers are good for the party.


Quite apart from the content of this essay, I noted the terms that the author, John H. Bunzel (who keeps some very conservative company at the Hoover Institute) used for these millions of Americans who do not believe in God. He never used the word atheist. He did use the terms "nonbelievers" and "secularists", and he contrasted "secularists and religious modernists" with "traditionalists."

"Secularist", however, does not have the full meaning of "person with a naturalistic wordview", since it does not require the rejection of the supernatural.

Mynga said that the term Bright is very popular with people who want better science teaching, and with doctors. There are definitely some people for whom this movement is the answer to their prayers (in a metaphorical sense, or course.) I actually think that these people want to identify with a naturalistic group, and are not concerned about the particular term.

So, if not Bright - what term would work better? The term must be short, catchy, and not identified with any existing faction of the freethought movement.

[Javaman]

How 'bout noun-ing either:

Clear
-or-
Sole


Someone who is "a clear" would perhaps be unfettered by dogma and someone who is "a sole" needs nothing else (supernatural). While I prefer the sound of "clear", it brings along some of the same baggage as "bright." And, although I don't quite like the possible implications of "sole" as regards normal human relationships, I like the pun-ny nature of it. Keep in mind, these two choices were made after about 1 minute with a thesaurus and I'm only on my second cup of coffee. Lastly, I'll never use the term bright because I'm not a fan of alienating anyone regardless of how I feel about them.

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Javaman,

I'd steer clear of the 'clear' term; something tells me it has already been apropriated by the Scientologists.

I'm not against the Bright terminology, apart from thinking it's a bit cute, is all.

Terri

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Toto
....Stalin was an atheist but was not a Bright - he rejected Darwinism because it did not fit his communist ideology. North Korea is not governed by Brights, but by people bound up in their own quasi-religious cult.
There must surely be some non-mystical tyrants out there - or at least some serial killers or murderers...

....So, if not Bright - what term would work better? The term must be short, catchy, and not identified with any existing faction of the freethought movement.
As I said in another thread, a short word that is either a completely made-up word, or a modified word from another language. It shouldn't make any implications about superiority. (Even talking about light implies enlightenment) It should also be easy to pronounce - including in its plural form. One that I thought of earlier - pretty dumb I guess though - "natch". (abbreviation for "metaphysical naturalist") The plural would be "natches" ("natchs" is too hard to pronounce). Another idea - Sagan/Sagans. "körperlich" is German for "physical" (körper is German for "body") so korper could mean "naturalist". "Natish" (like Jewish - as in "Jewish people")) and "Nat"... (of course this could be confused with "gnat" and in Australia we refer to the National party as "Nats"...) There would be better words but I've got to go...
edit: maybe "noot"? (a bit like naturalist) or amyst/amysts (non-mystical/non-supernatural)

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by excreationist
There must surely be some non-mystical tyrants out there - or at least some serial killers or murderers...Genghis Khan, perhaps. He had the idea of murdering everyone in Manchuria (NE China), so that the area would become pastureland for his subjects' horses, but he was dissuaded by some advisers who convinced him that Manchurians would pay more taxes when alive than dead.

But he did seem to have some grudge against cities; his armies would often murder entire populations of cities.

And in the pagan Greco-Roman world, people seldom fought wars for the sake of religion -- it was mostly for loot and power. Though that would also be an important subtext of the numerous Holy Wars fought in later centuries. Inquisitors would often get a convicted heretic's property. Whoever's doctrine was declared orthodox would get Church-hierarchy positions. Etc.

[excreationist]

Toto:
According to Christian sources (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp), Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin. Here (http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/miner_stalins.html) it says "Communists had been their moral certainty that their new faith in "scientific atheism" would supplant what they believed to be mystical religious "mythologies," relics inherited from a bygone era of superstitions before Darwin, Marx, and electrification". You said Stalin "rejected Darwinism because it did not fit his communist ideology". What do you mean by that? How did he think animals originated?

lpetrich:
In the recent Genghis Khan show I saw on TV it seemed that he believed in supernatural forces...
....And in the pagan Greco-Roman world, people seldom fought wars for the sake of religion -- it was mostly for loot and power....
They still probably believed in non-naturalistic things though, and so wouldn't be examples of Brights....

[Toto]

Originally posted by excreationist
There must surely be some non-mystical tyrants out there - or at least some serial killers or murderers...

...

The closest you can come (that I can think of) is Slobodan Milosevich. But even there, his politics were based on manipulating the religious symbolism that was at the heart of Serbian nationalism and politics.

[Toto]

Originally posted by excreationist
Toto:
According to Christian sources (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1285.asp), Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin. Here (http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/miner_stalins.html) it says "Communists had been their moral certainty that their new faith in "scientific atheism" would supplant what they believed to be mystical religious "mythologies," relics inherited from a bygone era of superstitions before Darwin, Marx, and electrification". You said Stalin "rejected Darwinism because it did not fit his communist ideology". What do you mean by that? How did he think animals originated?

. . .

Christian sources :rolleyes:

Stalin gave his official approval to the theory of Lysenko (http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html):

When the rest of the scientific world were pursuing the ideas of Mendel and developing the new science of genetics, Russia led the way in the effort to prevent the new science from being developed in the Soviet Union. Thus, while the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, the Soviet Union used its political power to make sure that none of their scientists would advocate a genetic role in evolution.

It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.

Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko's methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin's death.



Not very Bright.

[2human]

I first thought, why on earth do they choose a word taht is soo vulnerable to ridicule. Them being brighter than me, how could they fail to see how hard resistance it would get?

It beats me. But every time I try to come up with a better word I fail too. People tell me every time your alternative is even worse. So its not easy to come up with working alternatives that fill the function they intended that is.

I support their efforts, I saw it as very unfortunate that we named it Godless Americans March On Washington, Nov 2, 2002. Did that name further our jont cause. not in my opinion. I don't have any faith in a supernatural God what so ever. But its obvious to me that the God the religionistic fundies believe in is more like a social construct then a factual entity out there. That they refer to God as the Creator is more like a rhetoric trick to confuse us. Everything point to that its more like an inner "reality", what we usually name a make believe or illusion. But a live functional illusion that wil lnot go away as long as we treat it as a factual God out there.

It doesn't help us as humanistic naturalists or freethinking secularists if we debunk God out there as long they feel the factually existing social construct within.

Yes illuions has real effects cause inner motivators has real political power in social groups and in individuals lives cause they personally act on these inner motivators even if these notions are illusions.
As an intellectual constructs these claims are not logical, they claim things not supported by logic but from a rational point of view its very pragmatic to have faith in the powerful memes that the in-group have.

To be part of the outgroup is almost a sure way to ask for to be marginalized.
but we have to stay honest to our intellectual cause so we should adopt their faith but we have to see it for what it is. A live social power. The God within really do exist as a factual effect acted upon by the believers and that is that which gives it real political power.

We would only accomplish a change in this if we use real science that try to get what is going on when somebody have a fundamentalistic faith.

Try to read "In God we Trust" by Scott Atran and tell me what you think of his views.

Bernt

[dettus]

non-supernaturalist

I like how it's the anti, rather than being it's own term.

I want to be NOT what they are.

I want them to know what the heck I mean. (Ask someone if they know what a Bright is, they'll look at you funny.)

Anyway, I'm fine calling myself an atheist. And if the word 'atheist' strikes a nerve with someone, good.

-debaser71 (can't get rid of wife's screen name)

[john_v_h]

The "anti" part of terms such as atheist (without god), agnostic (without knowledge), infidel (unfaithful), nonbeliever, etc. is what spurred this search for a new label. Some of us are tired of posing (or being viewed) as opponents rather than proponents. I don't like the term "bright" but I understand the desire to show that we are actually for something of value.

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by Toto
Last night I heard a talk from Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, the originators of the term. While I doubt that it would have converted anyone, Mynga did make a few points that I thought were worth passing on:

Mynga considers herself an atheist, and is a member (if not president) of the group Atheists and Other Freethinkers of Sacramento. She is not asking anyone who considers themselves an atheist to change.

She has a lot of experience as an educator and activist, and she knows that lots of people are not comfortable with the terms "atheist" or "agnostic". She has tried to promote the word "freethinker" and thinks it is a lost cause.

This simply indicates that she doesn't understand the problem.

The problem is not what atheists/agnostics/freethinkers etc are called. It is what we do or rather what we don't do.

Part of the popularity of the term Bright (defined as "a person who has a naturalistic worldview") is that it is positive, and it allows moral principles to be derived from that worldview. I realized that people may argue about whether Hitler was an atheist, but he was clearly not a Bright - he believed in mysticism and an irrational racism. Stalin was an atheist but was not a Bright - he rejected Darwinism because it did not fit his communist ideology. North Korea is not governed by Brights, but by people bound up in their own quasi-religious cult.

I would arge that the term isn't popular. I think the sentiment is overwhelmingly against it.

Mynga said that the term Bright is very popular with people who want better science teaching, and with doctors. There are definitely some people for whom this movement is the answer to their prayers (in a metaphorical sense, or course.) I actually think that these people want to identify with a naturalistic group, and are not concerned about the particular term.

I don't know who she is talking to. My impression is that there is overwhelming rejection fo the term by 15 to 1 or 20 to 1.

So, if not Bright - what term would work better? The term must be short, catchy, and not identified with any existing faction of the freethought movement.

Again its not what we call ourselves.... It's how we go about our business that is part of the problem.

DC

[2human]

So some of us are Atheists, yes I have been a very aggressive atheist for some 30 years and it didn't make any difference to the actual number of fundies around where I live. On the contrary, my emotional denial of their faith in god spur them to be even more evangelical in spreading there "Good News. "

So we need positive words, why else is there sites naming themselves "Positive Atheism".

Now not being bright and naming myself A Bright seem to all aroud here as a bragg or bad selfknowledge. you not bright at all they would tell me.

So why not take the advice of Digital Chicken "The problem is not what atheists/agnostics/freethinkers etc are called. It is what we do or rather what we don't do."

Not that I get you 100% but I agree that if we first has a practice then a positive name will be given us.

John V H may have the answer:

" I understand the desire to show that we are actually for something of value."

We are those who value intellectual honest interretations while the supernaturalists value old traditions answers of emotional security. We value real knowledge while they value Abolute Truth form a Revealed Source.

Now from that we could find words like Freethinker or Humanist or Rationalist and many more, Realist for example.

All these names has been tested and to those who selfidentify with them they work but we need a name that is ok as an umbrella term that could be used to refer to all of us.

to name it the Godless Americans is to give the enemy the positive terms.
They beleive in somethign and we as Godless fail to care at all.

Human values is important to me.
God's values is important to te believer.

anthropocentrism would be a good term if it didn't sound to exclude the rest of the ecosphere. Earth First is such a militant group that we can't use such terms either. Valuers of Life sounds good to me until I realised that I am a pro-choice when it comes to such cnsiderations.

I am a supporter of Human values.

If I manage to get together with other "Supporters of Human values"
Then our positive actions in the society will be given a popular name by the media.

All these negative reactions towards The Brights Movement fail to give a better name for the purpose they had. We could let time show if Bright will succeed as a positive term but we could also get inspired to come up with alternative. But if we fail to do positive actions then it wil be looked upon as only a theorethical construct. First a practise then a name suiting that practise.

I propose that all of us meet where we live in small gathered groups that support human values and don't care about which name to use. Try any name until it works. the name I feel for just now to test is kind of crazy. Its positive with a tad of being too dependent on others, the name would need a tint of supporting the individualism too.

"The Commoners".

Very naive and typical of me but my reasoning is this. The tradegy of the Commons show how vulnerable we are to individuals who misuse the opportunity to cheat and defect what is shared. To me fundamentalists jsut do this. They take advantage of our vulnerability in relation to the pressure of a groups need over and against the individual. We are very individualsitic in our appreoach most of us. Nobody shold give us a name, we are the individuals that choose our own names to identify with. The fundies accept to be given names by their leaders. "In the Name of Jesus" The give in to the Groups norms, while we are proud of our intellectual integrity and nobody is telling us what name to identify with.

So we are individualistic Commoners.

To survive we have to get along with others so we need a Common taht is open to all, to us this is the secular state that protect us from religious theocratic propaganda. It should be a personal choice if one choose to take part in religious propaganda.

We want to be recognised as a political voice to be reckon with so we need to be easely refered to and given a positive name. To us The Individualists as a name would hide our recognistion of us neeing to have a shared place for community. The Commons.

so I see us a protectors of the Commons I am a Commoner someone who see the need for a palce to meet others on equal footing and discuss what is important to us all our human Values.

Bernt

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Toto
Christian sources :rolleyes:

Stalin gave his official approval to the theory of Lysenko (http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html):

Not very Bright.
Thanks for the info. I think it is kind of borderline mysticism/supernaturalism though...

[excreationist]

Originally posted by john_v_h
The "anti" part of terms such as atheist (without god), agnostic (without knowledge), infidel (unfaithful), nonbeliever, etc. is what spurred this search for a new label. Some of us are tired of posing (or being viewed) as opponents rather than proponents.....
From the Brights' site (http://www.the-brights.net/):
A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview.

A Bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

The ethics and actions of a Bright are based on a naturalistic worldview.
I put "free" in bold because that is actually a negative word. The Brights often define themselves in a negative way in order to clarify what naturalism means.

e.g. http://www.the-brights.net/dennett_nyt.htm
A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

Using the word "free" doesn't sound that negative though...

============================
Ok, I've thought of one I think is pretty good...
metan! (pronounced met-tan)
It's an abbreviation for "metaphysical naturalist".

http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/M0250500.html
http://dontgohere.nu/oe/as-bt/read.htm?page_nr=37
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mete
Apparently it is old English/Anglo-Saxon for "to measure", but it doesn't have a current English meaning. "To measure" is a little similar to "to study" or "to analyse".

In Spanish it seems to mean "put".
In some languages like Japanese (http://www.animelab.com/anime.manga/dictionary/me/1720/40), it means "methane".
It's a city in Argentina (http://maps.netstoreusa.com/m03/5350/arg25025664.shtml).
As a plural, "Metans" is a surname, and may be a group of people in sci-fi stories...

[Rational BAC]

How about ------I am a nogodatall?

Sounds like a prescription medicine, but otherwise rather innocuous. Neither positive nor obviously negative which would work out perfectly.

Most people would would react with "Yeah, OK"-------and think that it is some kind of cult they never heard of before.

[Heathen Dawn]

“Humanist” is a positive term, but among fundamentalist Christians it’s become a swear-word. The same thing will happen to “bright” if the term catches on.

I agree with DigitalChicken that what we do is far more important than what we call ourselves. Though I’m not optimistic that fundamentalism can be checked by peaceful opposition.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
How about ------I am a nogodatall?

Sounds like a prescription medicine, but otherwise rather innocuous. Neither positive nor obviously negative which would work out perfectly.

Most people would would react with "Yeah, OK"-------and think that it is some kind of cult they never heard of before.
It implies that the person is simply an atheist though... but naturalists/Brights also don't believe in mystical stuff or the afterlife, etc.

[dettus]

Originally posted by excreationist
It implies that the person is simply an atheist though... but naturalists/Brights also don't believe in mystical stuff or the afterlife, etc.

maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying that there are atheists who beleive in the supernatural?

For me being an atheist implies you are a naturalist. How can you deny the existance of gods and yet accept the supernatural? But being a naturalist doesn't mean you are an atheist. You don't have to believe in ghosts to believe in a god. At least that's how I see it.

[Toto]

There are people who are not exactly consistent in their beliefs. They do not believe in a god, but still believe in some irrational or paranormal phenomenon, or in some ideology with no scientific backing.

[dettus]

I guess that makes me an atheist and a naturalist.

This makes me a Bright?

yuk, the first person that calls me a Bright is gonna get a tongue lashing, grrrrrrrr

They might as well call it the Self Proclaimed Intelluctual Elitists Movement, or S.P.I.E.M.

hey I like that, Spiem. I'm a Spiem.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by dettus
maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying that there are atheists who beleive in the supernatural?....
They might believe in astrology or hauntings or reincarnation or something.... atheists aren't necessarily scientific-minded.

[Gunnaheave]

One need not actively believe in the supernatural in order to reject naturalism as a thesis. The objections could be based on semantic grounds, e.g. the notion that naturalism effectively pre-empts a range of claims best considered (and probably rejected) on their own merits rather than their inconsistency with a metaphysical stance.

I for one am less oppsed to worship or God or belief in God than I am to worship in general and "Belief" as such. (By that I do not mean the mundane sorts of beliefs, such as; "my computer is on." so much as a range of belief-projects or beliefs-as-character-traits, which always seem to lead people down the road to the inane. Honestly. to hear people talk about "their beliefs" always seems so contrived to me - as if they were describing their wardrobe. I understand some of the desire to find a term which shares some of the positive characteritics of other religions, but frankly, I think that is a large part of what I gave up when I gave up belief in God. So, if the term 'Bright' ever does catch on sufficiently to denote the beliefs of people with whom I share a good deal of my general outlook, I shall happily disown the term itself and distance myself from the emergent cult with all due haste. Just call me a "Dim" if you must.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Gunnaheave
One need not actively believe in the supernatural in order to reject naturalism as a thesis. The objections could be based on semantic grounds, e.g. the notion that naturalism effectively pre-empts a range of claims best considered (and probably rejected) on their own merits rather than their inconsistency with a metaphysical stance.....
To reject naturalism you'd have to be quite open-minded to so-called supernatural and mystical type world-views then like Plato's idealism, dualism, etc, then. (I think dualism and idealism is incompatible with naturalism?)

[Gunnaheave]

"Open-minded" is a fairly vague term though. I can accept that it means I have no pre-emptive arguments against such views, but it does not mean that I must accept them either. To reject another belief system because it is not consistent with your own outlook is hardly the best approach in any event. So, I really so no advantage here to adopting a metaphysical stance on the subject.

Originally posted by excreationist
To reject naturalism you'd have to be quite open-minded to so-called supernatural and mystical type world-views then like Plato's idealism, dualism, etc, then. (I think dualism and idealism is incompatible with naturalism?)

[ohwilleke]

I second "Sagans".

As far a "Secularists" go, I think it probably does imply a naturalist world view. Most superstitution can be boiled down to residual animism and paganism. Hence, a secularist would not abide by it. It wouldn't include all weird ideas (e.g. technical analysis of the stock market), but those views alone probably don't cease to make you a "Bright" either.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Gunnaheave
"Open-minded" is a fairly vague term though. I can accept that it means I have no pre-emptive arguments against such views, but it does not mean that I must accept them either. To reject another belief system because it is not consistent with your own outlook is hardly the best approach in any event. So, I really so no advantage here to adopting a metaphysical stance on the subject.
I kind of agree... but a person could suspect that reality is naturalistic (be a tentative naturalist) while be open to other explanations if the right evidence emerges...
BTW, is dualism and the idea that reality is just made up of ideas (Plato's idealism?) compatible with naturalism?

[Gunnaheave]

Fair enough on the default, which is pretty much what I'm saying myself.

I'm not sure how one could advocate dualism and also say that reality is just made up of ideas. It seems to me that one would have to admit of both ideas and material reality to be advocating dualism. Whether one could be a aturalist and advocate the reality of ideas is another matter, which might depend on what one meant by reality. If ideas or spirit is thought to be a thing, then certainly not, but if one merely wishes to aknowledge that ideas seem to have a logic which is distinct from material reality, perhaps aknowledging even that this is as much a distorion in human cognition as anything else, one might be able to reconcile it with at least some forms of materialism, I would think anyway.

[Toto]

Another Dawkins Essay in Wired Mag on the bright meme (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/view.html?pg=2)

How is a meme created? You can sit back and observe the spread of a new fashion, a new slang word, a new way of walking or talking - and let a meme burst onto the scene in its own good time. An example would be the current epidemic of basically, which, as a synonym for er, has infected a ludicrously high proportion of sentences now uttered by English speakers. But the ultimate test in science is experiment: You don't just wait for something to happen and observe it, you make it happen.

. . .

The noun bright was coined in March by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of Sacramento, California. In April, I heard them give a presentation on the new word in Florida, and they launched The-Brights.net soon after. The new meme was almost immediately given a boost by two enthusiastic articles in large-circulation newspapers. On June 21, I wrote "the future looks bright" for the Guardian, one of Britain's leading national dailies. And on July 12, the distinguished philosopher Daniel Dennett followed up with "the bright stuff" for The New York Times op-ed page.

So, the bright meme is launched. Will it spread, like gay, and basically, and the backward baseball cap? Or will it nose-dive into the sand? I'm hoping it will take off. I'm even betting that it will, despite the hostility of those who misunderstand the humble noun as an arrogant adjective, and those who, notwithstanding the success of gay, resent all such coinings out of hand. But mostly, I am simply curious, as a disinterested scientist, to see what will happen.


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/images/VW_dawkins_1.jpg

[DigitalChicken]

How is a meme created?

I thought it was created the same way all pseudoscience was created?

DC

[lpetrich]

Saganics?

Complete with a Saganic Verses?

*ducks rotten tomatoes*

Perhaps composed by our resident versifier, QoS.