NationStates Jolt Archive

World Initiative for Science Education (WISE)
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

Affirming that scientific inquiry and technological progress have had a revolutionary impact on areas ranging from medicine, hygiene and agriculture to manufacturing, transportation and communications, that scientific progress in these and other fields has contributed tremendously to the quality of human life, and that further progress in the sciences will yield still greater benefits to the human race;

Noting that today's nations and their peoples face serious challenges, including global climate change, dwindling fossil fuel resources, limited access to food and clean water, and epidemics of HIV/AIDS and other diseases;

Further noting that a solid understanding of the methods and discoveries of modern science are crucial both to continued scientific progress and to adequately appreciating and finding solutions to global challenges;

Defining science, for the purposes of this Resolution, as that system of knowledge which seeks falsifiable, parsimonious, and natural accounts of various observed phenomena through observation, repeatable experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation;

Hereby recommends that member nations:

1. Provide an age-appropriate introduction to science, its various disciplines and its basic methods during primary school education.

2. Provide all secondary school students with a minimum of three years education in major scientific disciplines (such as biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy or environmental science). Courses should familiarize students with principles of scientific reasoning and give them opportunities to practice important research methods in both classroom and laboratory (or field) settings. Schools should have additional science electives available for those students who wish to take four years of science courses.

3. Provide support for students pursuing careers in science, by increasing funding, where appropriate, for science departments at public colleges and universities; by providing scholarships, grants, fellowships, and the like to high-achieving students; and by creating tax or other incentives for private individuals and organizations which support science education.

Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to prohibit private schools, charter schools or home schooling. Each nation shall retain the right to define certain areas of research as illegal, to regulate or prohibit the use of hazardous materials or methods in research, and to set guidelines for research involving human or animal subjects.

Hey folks. Thoughts?

Firstly, this appears a very impressive draft.

However, assuming "enjoins" is a word that invokes a hard mandate, it will by tomorrow be illegal, for contradicting the UN Educational Aid Act currently at vote.

If you softened it to "encourages" or "recommends", it would be legal.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I've changed it to "recommends."

It ain't bad, but I'd rather see a general proposal on academic freedom than a proposal encouraging education in a particular area.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Hey folks. Thoughts?

Our first thought is that this is an exceptionally well-written proposal. The author deserves applause for a fine job of drafting.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It ain't bad, but I'd rather see a general proposal on academic freedom than a proposal encouraging education in a particular area.
I definitely share your respect for academic freedom. I don't see any reason why the UN can't affirm support for academic freedom and at the same time make special efforts to promote learning in the sciences. Certainly nothing in this resolution implies that nations and the schools in them don't retain freedom to devote just as many resources to other areas of study, and as the delegation from Gruenberg points out, it doesn't even compel nations to devote resources to science. WISE simply draws attention to the importance of science literacy, encourages member nations to reevaluate the quality of their own science programs, and expects that they will make a good faith effort to improve their programs as they find appropriate.

Rest assured that a quality resolution supporting academic freedom would have the wholehearted support of Myocardia.

Many thanks to Minister Olembe and to the Gruenbergian delegation for their support and kind words.

I agree science can be good, but doesn't necessarily make it good.

Technology is cool and interesting, but doesn't make us better people...

Certainly nothing in this resolution implies that nations and the schools in them don't retain freedom to devote just as many resources to other areas of study, and as the delegation from Gruenberg points out, it doesn't even compel nations to devote resources to science. WISE simply draws attention to the importance of science literacy, encourages member nations to reevaluate the quality of their own science programs, and expects that they will make a good faith effort to improve their programs as they find appropriate.

Yeah, that's why I said it ain't bad.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The IBM adding machine is responsible for the font used in Nazi concentration camps. The wonder of the combustion engine has had terrible effects on the environment. Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Monsanto, Bhopal, and the list of horrors goes on. Compulsory scientific education may have negative consequences -- especially when one considers that the horrors of the past will only be improved upon. Sure Pandora's Box has been opened -- but do you really want to open the lid as far as it will go?

The IBM adding machine is responsible for the font used in Nazi concentration camps. The wonder of the combustion engine has had terrible effects on the environment. Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Monsanto, Bhopal, and the list of horrors goes on. Compulsory scientific education may have negative consequences -- especially when one considers that the horrors of the past will only be improved upon. Sure Pandora's Box has been opened -- but do you really want to open the lid as far as it will go?

People with a scientific education are probably more likely than people without one to spot any potential problems that a particular technology might pose, so unless you simply want to ban all "advanced" technology outright you need scientifically-educated people.
Having said which, the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic doesn't really think that this is actually an "international" enough matter to be any of the UN's business...

Bravo!

I fully support this marvellous proposal.

Benedictions,

People with a scientific education are probably more likely than people without one to spot any potential problems that a particular technology might pose, so unless you simply want to ban all "advanced" technology outright you need scientifically-educated people.
I agree. Further, bear in mind that the Crusaders ransacked the holy land and slaughtered its inhabitants without anything like modern technology, and that prehistoric humans likely maimed and killed one another with nothing more than bits of sharpened bone and their own hands. Human brutality is not a scientific innovation.
Having said which, the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic doesn't really think that this is actually an "international" enough matter to be any of the UN's business...
I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS and the other "global challenges" mentioned by the Resolution do not know national borders. It is therefore imperative that citizens of every nation be prepared to understand and respond to them. It doesn't matter, in other words, if the peoples of Nations A, B and D are well-educated about the nature and causes of global warming and run their industries responsibly if the
people of Nation C, lacking such an education, continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. (I know it's simplistic to assume that better education automatically causes more responsible behavior, but I do think it's an important factor.)

In fact, I think that addressing science education on an international level is more conservative and respectful of national sovereignty than other solutions. One option is to ensure that citizens of UN member nations are well-informed about the science behind their world, its technologies, its problems and their possible solutions, as Myocardia has proposed. The other is to wait until these problems develop further, necessitating the introduction of the United Nations Water Management Authoriry, the Global Emergency Pollutant Control Council, the World Rationing Board... you get the point. [OOC: In some areas, like Thailand and the United States, the spread of HIV has been checked, in large part because of effective education about what it is, how it spreads and how to prevent it. Imagine if that kind of education had been adopted on a global scale in 1981. Imagine if today's students around the world were given the tools to understand the challenges that will face them in their lifetimes.]

People with a scientific education are probably more likely than people without one to spot any potential problems that a particular technology might pose.

I'm not so sure about that. The pre-american aboriginals didn't need to technologically know how to make a train to know that the imposing tracks and the devices it carried were trouble. Similiarly... the nuclear experts at Chernobyl believed that their nuke plant was the safest. I think the idea that technology can save us -- even from more technology -- is an unfounded cultural meme that has led humanity down a disastrous path. Furthermore, I don't know how psychologically healthy it is to force people to learn physics, chemisty, etc. It seems somewhat like forced military service to me. And considering that most degreed scientists in the world work for the military... I don't think that's such a far off assessment.

Human brutality is not a scientific innovation.
No, but scientific innovation hasgreatly magnified the ability of human brutality.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS and the other "global challenges" mentioned by the Resolution do not know national borders. It is therefore imperative that citizens of every nation be prepared to understand and respond to them. It doesn't matter, in other words, if the peoples of Nations A, B and D are well-educated about the nature and causes of global warming and run their industries responsibly if the
people of Nation C, lacking such an education, continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. (I know it's simplistic to assume that better education automatically causes more responsible behavior, but I do think it's an important factor.)
Well you've answered yourself. The U.S. has the greatest scientists in the world and one of the most educated populations (simply being an industrialized nation with a relatively free press) but not only do it's citizens refuse to take action politically or individually (in mass) -- the nation is still the number one contributor of greenhouse gasses! The same type of technical knowledge that allows us to create this disaster also allows us skirt the laws around the issue. And were still not considering the technological horrors that have yet to be unleashed upon the world. A desire for simplicity and a reverence for the natural world seem much more healthy than trying to quantify everything and turn everything into tool. I do not want the people of my nation to be forced to learn the tedious and unhealthy sciences that this proposal would compel them to learn.

FreePhilosophy']I agree science can be good, but doesn't necessarily make it good.

Technology is cool and interesting, but doesn't make us better people...

Indeed. Since it's wording has been softened this proposal only seems to *recommend* extensive training in advanced sciences and doesn't compel it. So now it just seem like fatherly advice which nations can take or leave. Aren't there famines we could be responding to or environmental crises that we could be addressing directly?

I'm tempted to keep responding to this "technology is evil" argument, but my hunch is that I won't change any minds on the matter and that the thread will just veer away from this specific proposal and into an abstract back-and-forth debate about the value of technology. If you want to have that debate, I'd love nothing more than to take it up with you in a separate thread. I'm still happy to respond to criticism of this specific proposal here.

I do want to address one point you raised:
Furthermore, I don't know how psychologically healthy it is to force people to learn physics, chemisty, etc. It seems somewhat like forced military service to me.
...hereby recommends that member nations...
The Resolution doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. Also, it seems that you're arguing that local school boards traumatize students whenever they set curriculum standards.

With friendship,
Jeremiah Dodge
Ambassador to the United Nations
Scientific Republic of Myocardia

EDIT:
[OOC: I just posted this, only to find that Frieks had added two posts while I was responding to his first. I'll repeat that I don't want to get into a "technology is evil" debate. I really take issue with the assumption that most Americans are well educated about science, but I'll respect my own request not to get into that here. Also, assuming you're posting in character, neither you nor I have ever heard of the United States anyway. Finally, it seems pretty inconsistent to berate my proposal when you erroneously thought it "forced" people to do things, and then berate it for being mere "fatherly advice" after seeing that it simply recommends action.]

Aren't there famines we could be responding to or environmental crises that we could be addressing directly?
You know, if you don't like the ideas that people are writing proposals about, maybe you should write one yourself. Oh wait! you can't because you aren't a UN member, so why are you complaining about what we're debating?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

why are you complaining about what we're debating?Potentially for the same reason our representative occationally voices his concerns. Of course, the good doctor isn't a tinfoil hat wearing luddite.

While the Oligarchy doesn't like the concept of the United Nations focusing, laser like, on individual areas (like the horrid Right to Learn Evolution), we do find ourselves supporting an increase in science budgets. Of course, I doubt that surprizes anyone who knows about our nation.


- Anesca PHALANX
Administrator of the Neural Network, Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Should the good old Arts vs Sciences debate resume, we Ardchoilleans would not hesitate to cast ourselves enthusiastically upon the generous and comfortable bosom of the Arts.

But that's not what this is. It's a carefully crafted proposal that (now) simply urges nations to give their children one of the basic tools of adulthood. The scientific method can be applied across disciplines. It is as useful in dealing with famines and environmental crises as it is in dealing with bridges or plagues or space exploration.

Which is not to say it's always immediately successful. But learning the techniques of observing, hypothesising, experimenting, recording, testing and so on provides an intellectual framework for learning about life. Teaching it is as basic as teaching kids to wash their hands (in water which they won't have unless we globally apply a bit of scientific method to seeing that they do). Hygiene fights disease; science fights ignorance.

It's a matter for the NS UN because the lives of our peoples are interlinked. Say Ardchoille buys seeds of Mikitivity's wonderful herb *(something that I've forgotten the name of)* Sage. It spreads; it becomes a weed; it's a menace. It's going to infect all our region-mates, too. Now they'll pay for our ignorance. We should have done our research, shouldn't we? Maybe if our population had had a basic scientific education, someone would have thought of asking questions. (We do, and they did, actually; we're still checking it out.)

The proposal's author has been downright finicky in his care to avoid impinging on national sovereignty. He falls over backward to avoid moral imperatives. The looniest religion, the most determinedly blind disbeliever in theories of contagion or whatever's the latest topic of denial, can still live with this.

As for specifying "science" rather than education in general, well, some of us don't take to science. Science is vegetables, art is sweets. Some of us don't take to brushing our teeth, either. But it's good for us. We've got to learn it if we want to grow up into big, strong nations, okay?

Oh, this debate gives me a headache... I think it's a good idea, though... I think.

*wanders out of the room*

*peeks back into the room*

I could have a Guardian remove the... er... nonrepresentative of Frieks, if someone wants... no? Ok, then.

*leaves this room for the duration of this debate*

You know, if you don't like the ideas that people are writing proposals about, maybe you should write one yourself. Oh wait! you can't because you aren't a UN member, so why are you complaining about what we're debating?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Because the things you people do in the UN screws the world up for all of us. Your subjecting your people to hurtful programs that have consequences outside the borders of UN states. How's that for a reason?

Because the things you people do in the UN screws the world up for all of us. Your subjecting your people to hurtful programs that have consequences outside the borders of UN states. How's that for a reason?
That's a perfectly valid reason (although it would be more justifiable if you were making comments about how these proposals would affect non-members, which I've seen little evidence of you doing) and I have no objection to non-members being here.

I just have an objection to you being here.

Potentially for the same reason our representative occationally voices his concerns. Of course, the good doctor isn't a tinfoil hat wearing luddite.
Thanks for defending my right to free speech BUT I am NOT a "tinfoil had wearing luddite" TYVM. On the other hand... I don't believe that technology has never caused any problems and has only ever helped and therefore offers all the solutions to the world's problems. No, I am not a tinfoil hat wearing luddite, merely a luddite. The luddites had good reason to act, BTW, if you care at all about the origins of that movement. But the point remains -- I prefer reverence of the natural world over objectification and manipulation of it for the purposes of nuclear science or other materialistic pursuits.

That's a perfectly valid reason (although it would be more justifiable if you were making comments about how these proposals would affect non-members, which I've seen little evidence of you doing) and I have no objection to non-members being here.

I just have an objection to you being here.

Perhaps that because you're petty, small-minded, and intolerant of anyone who actually has a fundamental disagreement with your views. Anyway... in regards to this proposal... ratcheting up education of nuclear sciences and bio-technology DOES effect non-members because the products of these sciences freely cross borders as they get caught in the jetstream and flow down rivers, etc.

Not that I should take the bait, but: how exactly do you propose cleaning up nuclear waste or disassembling nuclear facilities, or identifying and destroying dangerous GM crops and developing means of preventing them damaging the environment, without science?

I really take issue with the assumption that most Americans are well educated about science, but I'll respect my own request not to get into that here. Also, assuming you're posting in character, neither you nor I have ever heard of the United States anyway. Finally, it seems pretty inconsistent to berate my proposal when you erroneously thought it "forced" people to do things, and then berate it for being mere "fatherly advice" after seeing that it simply recommends action.]

Right, I was talking about the fictional people of the U.S. who have the strongest university system in their world and a relatively free press to distribute scientific information. Anyway...
I was under the impression that you edited your original proposal to make it less forceful. Is that not true? So I stand by my criticism -- it's either overbearing or mere suggestion (in which case the UN should have more serious issues to consider). But I don't see how you can try and extract any criticism of technology from this debate when you are proposing that everyone should study advanced technological sciences. We could debate about how great technological science is and how much better it has made the world, but that would be a bit ridiculous -- don't you think?

Not that I should take the bait, but: how exactly do you propose cleaning up nuclear waste or disassembling nuclear facilities, or identifying and destroying dangerous GM crops and developing means of preventing them damaging the environment, without science?
Seeing as how this is a debate, were you trying to make a pun in that first line? In any case, bravo! If I could insert a golf-clapping smiley here I would -- you've finally asked a decent question (which is fairly useful in a debate IMHO). So... first of all, before I respond, let me just say that this seems to be an acknowledgement that technological sciences have indeed brought about horrible products (global warming, nuclear disasters, overpopulation, etc.). So... in responding to these calamities I think the focus on technological sciences ought to be explicitly directed towards cleaning up and dealing with the consequences of previous technologies. But this is more of a fundamental cultural ideal than something that can just be stated or claimed. Teach 100 people about how to clean up nuclear waste or GMO's and you may very well get one who makes the problem 1000 times worse -- and then were are you?

Ardchoilleans'] It's a carefully crafted proposal that (now) simply urges nations to give their children one of the basic tools of adulthood. The scientific method can be applied across disciplines. It is as useful in dealing with famines and environmental crises as it is in dealing with bridges or plagues or space exploration.
Pardon me, but plenty of decent nations had no idea about the scietific method and they were still adults -- who happened to be slaughtered by people wielding the products of technological science. And while science and technology can supposedly deal with the issues you have brought up... the argument is that they have played a greater role in exasperating these problems. Allow me to introduce a website which responds to these points rather well: http://awok.org

Ardchoilleans'] Teaching it is as basic as teaching kids to wash their hands (in water which they won't have unless we globally apply a bit of scientific method to seeing that they do).
But technological "progress" is the number one reason for polluted water and the global water crisis we are facing!

As for your sage analogy... that's precisely the problem with technologically minded peoples. They have no reverence for nature and the bounty it originally offers (before getting trashed by overpopulated technological civilizations). They have to tinker tinker until they make a big mistake and then they tinker tinker more to try and fix. Then they find they've created more problems and so they tinker some more. There needs to be more reverence for nature and less technological objectification of it. Please do check out that link (awok.org) as I think it will help clarify the points I'm trying to make.
Cheers!

I'm leaving this "debate" to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Come along, Bala. Let's go have some fun.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

====

You know, of course, it'll cost you...

Bala
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Okay, so it seems that no one else -- at least no one who might support something like this Resolution in some form -- has any objections to or advice about this proposal. I think I'll officially propose it tonight or tomorrow morning, unless anyone else has more constructive criticism for me. In that case I'd love to hear it. Thanks everyone for your input so far.

OOC: Bravo for Monty Python's Flying Circus, "Election Night Special" sketch!
And, aren't non-UN nations not affected by UN resolutions in NS? That was the impression that I got, at least.

THIS JUST IN: Oh, dear. Frieks has created a poll to determine if non-NSUN should be involved in NSUN. I really need an answer to my question. Mechanically speaking, are non-NSUN nations affected by NSUN resolutions?

OOC: Mechanically speaking, no, they aren't. This is in the main NS FAQ:
As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions.
I think you can still make an acceptable in-character argument that UN activities affect nonmembers -- this is why the Vatican and the PLO have "observer" status in the RL UN. I wouldn't worry too much about it though -- it seems to me that Frieks' poll is less about "UN and non-UN member communication" and more about Frieks. I'm staying out of that one.

I am [...] a luddite.I have nothing more to add.


- Anesca PHALANX
Administrator of the Neural Network, Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I have nothing more to add.


- Anesca PHALANX
Administrator of the Neural Network, Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Only something to delete for the purposes of misrepresentation?
Whatever.
I suppose no bothered to check out the link: http://www.awok.org ?

No, I am not a tinfoil hat wearing luddite, merely a luddite. The luddites had good reason to act, BTW, if you care at all about the origins of that movement. But the point remains -- I prefer reverence of the natural world over objectification and manipulation of it for the purposes of nuclear science or other materialistic pursuits.

OOC: So what are you doing using a computer & here on the internet? Seems a bit inconsistent to me... Shouldn't you be off hugging a tree somewhere, instead?

We will always support a resolution which aims as disseminating knowledge and combatting ignorance. This has our support.

As a point of detail, perhaps the definition of "science" should be nearer the beginning of the text than the end.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I suppose no bothered to check out the link: http://www.awok.org ?
Actually, I did. I don't think most people are as close-minded as you'd like to be convinced they are. If you'd like to craft a Resolution encouraging alternative education programs based in mindfulness and in cultivating a sense of unity with nature in students, I'll submit it for you by proxy. I'm not saying I think it would pass.

I found a lot of what's on this site dubious. One central assumption is that apprehending things "as they really are" without applying our own preconceived semantic discriminations to them -- "nonconceptual awareness" -- will lead to enlightenment and a healthier relationship with the natural environment. There actually are people whose eyes work fine but who can't make "objectifying" discriminations about their environment -- they can't put together the information from their eyes to recognize objects or people around them. Usually this happens in visual agnosia, where the brain has through illness or injury lost important sensory integration functions. From what I understand, none of them feel enlightened -- they just struggle to function in a world that has lost coherence for them. I don't envy them.

I also found this interesting:
what we mean is that the meditator observes experiences very much like a scientist observing an object under a microscope without any preconceived notions, only to see the object exactly as it is.
But I thought science was evil! How could you lead us astray, Bhante? Unless... science and "other ways of knowing"... aren't mutually exclusive? Maybe this is why the site opens with a quotation from... Albert Einstein? But wouldn't that mean that this whole crusade to suppress destructive science is... misguided?

As a point of detail, perhaps the definition of "science" should be nearer the beginning of the text than the end.
That would make sense, wouldn't it? We'll make the necessary changes. Thanks for your support.

Jeremiah Dodge

OOC: So what are you doing using a computer & here on the internet? Seems a bit inconsistent to me... Shouldn't you be off hugging a tree somewhere, instead?
Well, I never claimed to be a purist or absolutist! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif
;) Still, I think perhaps that the greatest use of technology is against itself. A bit paradoxical -- but not wholly. As for hugging trees... I've seen people risking their lives to block logging roads and to stop clear-cutting, and I do think that's an admirable way to spend one's time.
Cheers!

Actually, I did. I don't think most people are as close-minded as you'd like to be convinced they are. If you'd like to craft a Resolution encouraging alternative education programs based in mindfulness and in cultivating a sense of unity with nature in students, I'll submit it for you by proxy. I'm not saying I think it would pass.
A very friendly and thoughtful offer. I may take you up on this offer! TYVM.

Only something to delete for the purposes of misrepresentation?There was no misrepresentation there. You called yourself a luddite. I may have condensed your satement, but I certainly didn't misrepresent anything.

Nice try though.


- Anesca PHALANX
Administrator of the Neural Network, Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Please do check out that link (awok.org) as I think it will help clarify the points I'm trying to make.
Cheers!

I did and it did.

I think your point is much wider than the aim of this proposal, though. But I can't see that the one invalidates the other.

The site you quote is about ways of looking and seeing. What (I see in) this proposal is directed to training a physical object, the brain, to perform a physical action, thinking, in a specific way.

Not all forms of thinking use the same physical parts of the brain. You don't use the same area to walk as you do to, say, meditate; maths and music apparently use closely related areas; learning a language triggers another area, analysing it sets off yet another.

But they're all ways of thinking we've come up with in our short part of the planet's time.

To deliberately close our minds to any way of thinking would be unwise. To shut ourselves off from ones that have worked, however patchily, seems to me even less wise. Adopting this proposal wouldn't prevent anyone from exploring other ways of looking at the world.

In short, I think you can have your intuition cake and analytically eat it, too.

Ardchoilleans']In short, I think you can have your intuition cake and analytically eat it, too.

That is an excellent phrase! I'll have to tack it to a wall somewhere. Mind if I quote you? (lol)

The thought occurs: Forum-wise, I just did. (lol)

There was no misrepresentation there. You called yourself a luddite. I may have condensed your satement, but I certainly didn't misrepresent anything.

Nice try though.


- Anesca PHALANX
Administrator of the Neural Network, Member of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I guess it was merely unnecessary obfuscation when you stripped my statement of it's qualifiers. Ah well... whatever.

I think I'll officially propose it tonight or tomorrow morning, unless anyone else has more constructive criticism for me.
Okay, so that was apparently just a malicious lie. Whoops. But this will get submitted in the next few days, for real this time.