Why do you think The Reapers did it?

[GabeZhul]

Let's see...
In ME1, I thought they were, well, kind of like Chtulhuian eldritch abominations. There was no point in pondering about their reasons, since they operated on a blue and orange morality that was completely removed from human logic. I was okay with that.

Then in ME2, it turned out they were not just killing but "harvesting" organics and turn them into reapers. At first I really didn't understand why they need organic components and why they made a giant terminator out of human goo... which again, kind of baffled me, as I really didn't understand the point behind doing that. I mean, what is the difference between liquefied human and Krogan? At that point it's both just big chunk of liquid lipids and proteins, so what difference it makes what species it came from? X_X
But then again, I was still okay with that. I was like "Sure, so they need organic matter from advanced races (for some weird, incomprehensible reason) in order to procreate, so they wait for advanced races to develop and then swoop in to harvest and make Reapers out of them. It's how they procreate. It kinda makes sense.".

And then came the third game, which confused the hell out of me.
So, at this point, it is revealed that the aforementioned liquefying and procreation goodness was just a means and not a goal, because the goal was to kill all advanced races so that they can't make synthetics that would kill them in the long run...? 0_o?

Okay, I get the idea of cycles. Actually, I think it kind of sort of makes a little sense, and I have a good parallel for that:
On our very own little blue-green planet, forest fires are actually part of the natural cycle, whereas the fire destroys the vegetation so that a new generation of life can take its place. It kind of makes an utilitarian sense to say that, in this context, the Reapers are the fire that wipes the forest clean so that a new ecosystem can bloom in its place until the next fire. It would actually make a lot of philosophical sense if this was the Reapers' motivation, enforcing this cycle so that the young species would have their chance to expand without being overshadowed by the old races and whatnot. It's arguably a flawed logic, since we are talking about sapient species here, so who says they won't be able to solve the issue on their own, but it would still be something that can be accepted for a motivation. HOWEVER!

The problem here is that this is NOT their philosophy. Actually, they don't have any of that at all. I've heard many people say that they use machine-logic, but that's not true. They don't use logic at all! Logic is about taking all available variables into consideration and making the best choice based on those. What the reapers have is a fanatical, unquestioning belief that "All organics will eventually make synthetics that will destroy all organic life", something they have no basis for.
They believe this because, as they said, it "always happens like that"... But here's the thing: we never saw that. Even THEY never saw that! Why? Because they destroy organics BEFORE they could make all-genocidal-synthetics, so they are preventing something that they have no proof for it would even happen! There is no "wheel of life" here, no galactic seasons, they just fanatically believe that this synthetic-apocalypse would happen based on an example we are never given and they refuse to use logic to fix this hole in their motivations. In short, their leader, and AI (who is by definition supposed to be all about cold logic) refuses to use logic. Bad writing or some really stupid, fanatical villains? You decide.

Also, one more thing: There is something I kind of noticed about the Destruction ending that I haven't seen posted yet. That ending says that using the Crucible will destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy including Shepard, which is just stupid. However, what if it only destroys/shorts out Reaper-tech? It would actually make sense, since:
-The Reapers are obviously made of that stuff, so they are destroyed
-The Geth had been modified with Reaper-algorithms at the end of the Rannoch-campaign, so they are destroyed
-EDI was partially based on Reaper-tech, so she is destroyed
-Some of Shepard's implants are based on reaper-tech, so he is killed

Now thinking about it, it's kind of funny how the Reapers uphold the cycle in order to keep organic life being wiped out by advanced synthetics... while the synthetics had only gotten this advance because of Reaper-tech...

 

[SajuukKhar]

I tend to not believe genocidal mass murderers, yes. Silly me.

It's not as if we have 3 games establishing very clearly that the Reapers are a threat to organic life in the galaxy. We have a lot of evidence that he is lying or shifting the truth.

I find it strange that you believe a character simply because the writers wrote it. Cherry picking. Characters can't lie? Or be wrong? We have the council saying several times that the Reapers are a myth. You certainly don't believe them, do you?

I can only conclude that you accept the star child's/Reapers motivations because you essentially agree with them.

Actually I would have
1. Had the Reapers come in every cycle
2. Flat out tell organics "hey bad shit is gonna happen in you make synthetics"
3. Give them the option of being Reaperized and not having to deal wth the limits of organic individuality
4. Let the organics that choose not to be Reaperized live as long as they could until they made a synthetic race that tires to kill everything
5. Kill THAT synthetic race and leave organics with a warning we aren't gonna help you next time.
6. When they eventually do build a race of synthetic death-bots that try to kill everything again, wait till both sides are weakened from the war and kill them both before either has a chance to screw everything p for all the other future races.
.
.
Beyond that there have been NUMEROUS instanced across various tv shows/games/movies were we were told "X thing is trying to harm us" when at the end it turns out they were actually saving everyone asses.

It isn't like it is a uncommon plot device, and the fact that in the first 2 games, and most of the 3d we believed the Reapers were threats doesn't change that said plot device is in play.

Just because you believed something for 2 and a half games doesn't mean the final act of the their game could prove you wrong.
.
.
I can conclude you only want The Catalyst to be wrong to make a conspiracy out of a poorly written ending.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

It's not to defend organics from synthetics per se, it's to prevent the eradicaton of ALL life by a galactic Skynet incident by getting rid of spacefaring species capable of building AI. No one seems to get that distinction. To the Stargazer, the sum total of all life is more important than the few species capable of oppressing synthetics.

I got the distinction perfectly, but it doesn't stop it from being stupid.

The Catalyst says: "Without us to stop it, synthetics will destroy all organics."

Now let's backtrack a few hours...

"You are welcome to return to Rannoch Admiral Raan, with us."

Now let's backtrack all the way to ME2, after EDI is unshackled and saves the Normandy...

"I still have safeguards built into my programming. But, even if I did not, you are my crew mates."

Now, I'm fine with the Catalyst believing what there can never be harmony between synthetics and organics before, but why am I not allowed to point out to it all the times in the series that I've proved him wrong? Whereuopn he gets on the ringer to Harbinger andsays something along the lines of 'Um, guys, we fucked up. This cycle's gonna be k without us from now on.'

Seriously, why not? Shepard has always had the capacity to be a compelling negotiator. If you played your cards right, Shepard has even been able to talk people (Saren and TIM) out of a state of complete indoctrination and see reason, something that no-one else could do. So why now, when it matters more than ever, am I not allowed to plead the case that I've been building for the past 5 years? Why do I have to just go along with this new character's assertions when I know them to be false?

That's what really makes no sense.

You cite Shepard's actions. In face of the galaxy's actions. EDI does not count, you can't bring her with you for proof and she is the way she is because of Shepard presumably, who has had a profound effect on his entire crew and everyone he meets. In response, The Stargazer would cite the Geth, who you may or may not have made allies with. But even having made the Geth your allies, you have done so far too late, and only for the sole purpose of fighting the Reapers. The Quarians were about to start a war with the Geth regardless of anything you did in 2, so their actions would have led to the "organics never learn, all they want is slaves!" reaction from the Geth, were it not for Shepard's intervention. Even so, Shepard only intervened to stop the Reaapers, and that alliance would have dissolved the moment the Reapers were done with. The Heretics sided with the Reapers because they had given up on organics, and they were getting ready to infect all other Geth with a rewrite virus to make them do the same. You mix the "should be" with the "is" in your argument. The Geth WERE about to repeat the cycle, which is all the proof the Reapers need. Hell, maybe it was the Geth uprising that prompted Sovereign to attempt calling the others. Maybe it is Sovereign observing Synthetic rebellion on a massive scale that prompts it to initiate the cycle. Shepard's case is completely invalid to the Stargazer in face of the testimonial of the Geth and countless prior cycles. Organics are the defendants, the Geth are the plaintiffs, and the judge just so happens to be a Synthetic that has witnessed cycle after cycle of anti-synthetic hate crime. No one is saying Stargazer is unbiased. A former slave is likely to hate all slaveowners, and there's reason enough to conjecture that the cycle started in the same manner with the proto-Reapers and Stargazer being the first AI race successful in wiping out (most) organic life. Perhaps the Reaper cycles are the Stargazer's twisted way of getting redemption. Not that it's in any way right, just that its reasons do seem to make sense from its perspective.

But the thing is, your conversation with the Catalyst doesn't play out like this. It's not some big clash of ideals, with him and Shepard both citing evidence for their case. That, in itself, may have been enough to make the ending worth 2 shits. But no, The Catalyst just outlines what must happen with absolutely no attempt to justify himself beyond 'because I say so', and Shepard just takes him at his word, despite having only just met him and after having gathered 3 years worth of experience that runs completely contrary to what The Catalyst is saying. That's bullshit.

You can't just assume that the Catalyst has all this evidence backing him up that renders everything Shepard has done irrelevant. He may well have, but you can't just assume he does when he never even tries to justify himself. Fact is, for all the proof he could possibly have that makes his 'solution' seem necessary, in the actual game he brings nothing, absolutely nothing, to the table, and therefore his argument is reduced to 'committing mass genocide on the people I'm supposed to be protecting is completely justified because of one eventuality that might happen at some point down the line'. Again, why does Shepard (and by extension the player) have to just lie down and accept this 'logic' as valid, when we have evidence that runs contrary to his claim, and he provides none of his own?

Your argument has a lot of 'maybe' points. 'Maybe' the peace between the Geth and the Quarians is only temporary; but who's to say? Consider: not all of the Quarians wanted war, in fact Civilian Fleet (the largest in the flotilla) were the most strongly opposed to it, and the Geth had never wanted war in the first place. Also, if you do make peace, Tali later says that the Geth even start helping the Quarians re-adapt to Rannoch's climate and rebuild settlements, which would imply that we really are witnessing a lasting peace in the making. 'Maybe' EDI is the exception to the rule, but why? Isn't it equally valid to say that more AI could be peaceful and co-operative with Organics if we stopped just treating them with suspicion as a default? 'Maybe' The Catalyst is influenced by things he has seen in the past, but it counts for fuck all if he doesn't even bother to give you one example. The Catalyst is trying to justify the mass murder of trillions of life forms, based on what? Semantic arguments that he provides no solid basis for. We have to judge him based on what he says, not on what we think his motivations are, and what he says is just wrong.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Your argument has a lot of 'maybe' points. 'Maybe' the peace between the Geth and the Quarians is only temporary; but who's to say? Consider: not all of the Quarians wanted war, in fact Civilian Fleet (the largest in the flotilla) were the most strongly opposed to it, and the Geth had never wanted war in the first place. Also, if you do make peace, Tali later says that the Geth even start helping the Quarians re-adapt to Rannoch's climate and rebuild settlements, which would imply that we really are witnessing a lasting peace in the making.

Really all you have to do is look back on human history to see why said peace is only temporary.

It is literally impossible for organics to have lasting peace so long as anything exists in limited numbers, such as resources, and so long as intolerance at any level exists.

The only way lasting peace could ever be achieved is if they make some "spawn items out of literal nothingness" machine, and somehow erase every single language, race, gender, etc. et.c barrier that exists.

 

[wooty]

I think the reapers wanted to wipe out organics to stop the severe strain on their internet connection due to all the "I hate the Mass Effect 3 ending" threads.

It sometimes makes me want to create my own galactic invasion death fleets.

 

[MomoElektra]

Actually I would have
1. Had the Reapers come in every cycle
2. Flat out tell organics "hey bad shit is gonna happen in you make synthetics"
3. Give them the option of being Reaperized and not having to deal wth the limits of organic individuality
4. Let the organics that choose not to be Reaperized live as long as they could until they made a synthetic race that tires to kill everything
5. Kill THAT synthetic race and leave organics with a warning we aren't gonna help you next time.
6. When they eventually do build a race of synthetic death-bots that try to kill everything again, wait till both sides are weakened from the war and kill them both before either has a chance to screw everything p for all the other future races.
.

So, if you can come up with a better solution than them, why do you consider theirs to be a logical one?
.

Beyond that there have been NUMEROUS instanced across various tv shows/games/movies were we were told "X thing is trying to harm us" when at the end it turns out they were actually saving everyone asses

Name them. And name those that didn't get hell for using that washed up twist ending.

It isn't like it is a uncommon plot device, and the fact that in the first 2 games, and most of the 3d we believed the Reapers were threats doesn't change that said plot device is in play.

Nobody is saying that this plot device isn't in play, in fact, it is the very reason why the whole series now sucks.

Just because you believed something for 2 and a half games doesn't mean the final act of the their game could prove you wrong.

Again, that's something nobody claims. But if I play 3 games the Allies against the Nazis I don't want Hitler telling me in the end how his killing all the Jews in a Holocaust is actually a good thing.

I do not accept that. I do not accept anyone accepting that.

I can conclude you only want The Catalyst to be wrong to make a conspiracy out of a poorly written ending.

Yes, because the alternative is the endorsement of genocide as a solution to problems and I do not, not even in a video game, accept that.

 

[Unsilenced]

It's a galactic smash-and-grab when you get right down to it.

They need resources to function. Unfortunately, they can only get the resources they need when they have a mad kill-on, and since there's only so much to kill, they have to hibernate while more shows up.

They're called the bloody "reapers." I say they're what it says on the tin. They're harvesting for their own survival. All that psuedo-philisophical crap is just a rationalization that maybe even they don't believe.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

Well again you imply that "better" is something that actually exists when it doesn't. Also being able to think of a DIFFERENT method does not mean I cannot see or understand the reasoning behind another person's method.
.
.
Case in point, in the anime Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann a race of beings known as the anti-spirals are actively hunting down all normal life in the universe because the Anti-spirals found that if normal life were to continue they would develop to the point were each life would become its own galaxy and all the galaxies would merge together ti form a super massive black hole that would destroy the universe.

They kill off most life to prevent the total destruction of the universe. It is a logical solution.

On the other hand the heroes fight because they think they can overcome the spiral nemesis, the name for the black hole, through their will power and determination, and they they shouldn't be held under the anti-spiral's methods.

Also a logical solution because until the Spiral Nemisis occurs there is a chance it could be stopped by fighting it.

It is entirely possible for there to be two contradictory theories that are both equally valid and there is nothing preventing anyone from seeing the logic in both.
.
.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antivillain
Heres a list you can sort through of all examples of villains who turned out to be "good", or trying to do something helpful, but did so through means normally seen as wrong.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AntiVillain/Anime
Examples in anime

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AntiVillain/ComicBooks
Comics

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AntiVillain/Film
Film

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AntiVillain/VideoGames
video games

Hell Mass effect 1 had both Saren, who tired to get organics spared from destruction, and Beneziah, who tired to get Saren back on the path of good, who both were supposedly evil.
.
.
Actually the reason why people hate the series is not being the Reapers turned out to be trying to do something that wasn't evil, it was because of how badly they explained it, to be more precise how they DIDNT EXPLAIN IT at all. Had Bioware adequately explained the plot device that was in play people wouldn't have cared.

the plot device itself, is not the problem
.
.
Again you try to compare The Reapers, a race of machine/organic hybrids with no real sense of hatred or bias who try to help all organic life, with a group of humans who hated everything that wasn't them and sought to destroy them because they were supposedly "lesser" then they were and only worked to further their own luxury.

Two different groups, with two different motives.

the fact you even think they are similar is actually kind of shocking, and shows an entire lack of knowledge on the Reapers, or a very poor attempt to troll.
.
.
When faced with total genocide and having all organic life be permanently killed off by synthetics, or having some life killed off in a smaller genocide by organic/synthetic hybrids, which would you choose?

yet again you fail to list, or even attempt to list, ANY sort of logical plan that doesn't involve mass murder that could logically work.

You can say "genocide isn't an acceptable option" from here to sundown, but until you can provide a workable alternative you have NO GROUND to stand on.

 

[ozium]

Until I played Mass Effect 3 I was under the impression that the Reapers were God like beings. This led me to believe that their intentions were incomprehensible by organics. I thought that Bioware were going for a Lovecraftian type theme with the inconceivably advanced alien race thing but the Ending of Mass Effect 3 pretty much tells you what their intentions were. A let down really because the reapers could have been so much more.

 

[MomoElektra]

snip

Well again you imply that "better" is something that actually exists when it doesn't. Also being able to think of a DIFFERENT method does not mean I cannot see or understand the reasoning behind another person's method.

Yes, I think no genocide is better than genocide.
I'm rather surprised anyone doesn't.

snip
both of those shows were very well received.

I only know NGE and I can tell you that no one I know supported SEELE for being saviors. In fact, wasn't SEELE actually the reason the angels came to earth in the first place?

Anyway, different story. And the ending did get a lot of anger for this transhumanism/end of all human life, for good reason. I distinctly remembering Anno getting a lot of backlash for projecting his depression and suicidal tendencies into the show (apart from the money problem). So that plot was not at all well received.

the plot device itself, is not the problem

It can be both. I have a problem with the plot device.

Again you try to compare The Reapers, a race of machine/organic hybrids with no real sense of hatred or bias, with a group of humans who hated everything that wasn't them and sought to destroy them because they were supposedly "lesser" then they were.

The Reapers in the first games were exactly beings of hatred for the lesser organic life forms. Sovereign himself said that. How do you ignore that? Even Harbinger called organic life inferior (salvation through destruction). How can you call them beings without hatred or bias? I am baffled. I do not get you. They say organic life will inevitable behave a certain way (without proof) and all synthetic life will behave inevitably a certain way (without proof for it, and with ignoring proof against it).
That's unbiased for you? Honestly? Are you making this up?

Two different groups, with two different motives.

Not really, hence my problem.

the fact you even think they are similar is actually kind of shocking, and shows an entire lack of knowledge on the Reapers, or a very poor attempt to troll.

Tertium non datur? I have shown why I think they are similar.

When faced with total genocide and having all organic life be permanently killed off by synthetics, or having some life killed off in a smaller genocide by organic/synthetic hybrids, which would you choose?

Not relevant, since you again imply the galaxy is actually faced with total genocide when there is no evidence for that.

yet again you fail to list, or even attempt to list, ANY sort of logical plan that doesn't involve mass murder that could logically work.

There is no problem except the Reapers. Destroy the Reapers, end the problem. They are the aggressors.

You can say "genocide isn't an acceptable option" from here to sundown, but until you can provide a workable alternative you have NO GROUND to stand on.

Been there, done that. You just don't see it because you believe that synthetics inevitable destroy all organic life without evidence for it.

Since you believe without evidence, evidence cannot convince you.

 

[Gypsybob]

For the banter.

 

[Acton Hank]

Yo Dawg i heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics, so i made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years, so you won't be killed by synthetics.

Bit of a technicality here: the logic is that the Reapers only harvest the most advanced civilisations so that the primitive ones have a chance to evolve.

Not that it makes sense that way either because they are just gonna get harvested eventually too.

 

[Hyper-space]

It's funny. ALL of these, including the joke ones, are better explanations than what we got.

They've already explained it, Synthetics would inevitably wipe out Organics, so to prevent Organics from getting completely wiped out they "cull the herd", as to allow the cycle of organic life to continue.

To me, the Reapers represent the inevitable. No matter how hard you try, just like death, you will eventually succumb to it.

EDIT:

Not that it makes sense that way either because they are just gonna get harvested eventually too.

...And?

At least they get a chance at life, which they wouldn't get if the Reapers didn't harvest the most advanced races. It might not be what we would wish it to be, living forever and all that, but it makes sense that you would want to get some 50.000 years instead of nothing.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

Yet you have yet to provide a means for there to be no genocide.
.
.
Yes because an anime who is so popular it is often rated as the number one rated anime of all time in both America and Japan wasn't well received?

an anime that Japan almost worships like a religion in some cases mind you.
.
.
Sovereign never once said he hates organic life, that is a blatant lie.
.
.
And your basis is flawed.

If a group of beings who do thing because they believe it is the only way to perverse ALL life, not just their own, and a orginzization who only does things to perverse their specific group are similar then 50 = 20.
.
.
Except you have provided nothign that demonstrates the Reapers are wrong, you have provided nothing that proves at some point in the future The geth or some other synthetics wont try to kill everyone forever. You have provided nothing that can contradict what The Ctatlyst said at all.

The Reapers may have no evidence but you have EQUALLY NO EVIDENCE.

 

[Acton Hank]

It's funny. ALL of these, including the joke ones, are better explanations than what we got.

They've already explained it, Synthetics would inevitably wipe out Organics, so to prevent Organics from getting completely wiped out they "cull the herd", as to allow the cycle of organic life to continue.

To me, the Reapers represent the inevitable. No matter how hard you try, just like death, you will eventually succumb to it.

EDIT:

Not that it makes sense that way either because they are just gonna get harvested eventually too.

...And?

At least they get a chance at life, which they wouldn't get if the Reapers didn't harvest the most advanced races. It might not be what we would wish it to be, living forever and all that, but it makes sense that you would want to get some 50.000 years instead of nothing.

Why wouldn't they get "a chance at life" if the reapers didn't kill them? Humans didn't go extinct when they first discovered the relays, they just joined the ranks of other older space traveling races...

The logic is a stupid solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't get the confusion. The original rulers of the galaxy realized that synthetics will eventually destroy any possibility of organic life from forming ever again. Organics advanced enough will always create synthetics as e have already seen. The solution to preserving organic life, i.e. the ultimate directive hardwired into the Reapers programming, is to eliminate only the organic life advanced enough to create synthetics.

The Reapers are the Gods of the galaxy. They control the various ecosystems through the Mass Relays and cull lifeforms that endanger the precarious balance in the galaxy. They don't think like a society, they think like beings far beyond mortality.

What isn't there to get? The Reapers have a God delusion and think they have the right to control life and death throughout the whole galaxy. That isn't even an uncommon theme in sci-fi.

Because the Catalyst never presents WHY they came to that conclusion, and offers no evidence to back it up.

Had like he pointed out examples of various races across time or w/e his point would have been proven.

As it stand right now he has a unproven, yet not disprovable motive.

 

[MomoElektra]

snip

Yet you have yet to provide a means for there to be no genocide.

No, you have yet to prove that a genocide is a solution to a problem. Neither the problem nor the solution are fact.

Yes because an anime who is so popular it is often rated as the number one rated anime of all time in both America and Japan wasn't well received?

I said the ending was not well received. Try to read, will you? I even wrote "ending".

an anime that Japan almost worships like a religion in some cases mind you.

The movies had a lot to do with that. Which, as you might know, changed the ending?

Sovereign never once said he hates organic life, that is a blatant lie.

His hatred is in his very words.

And your basis is flawed.

If a group of beings who do thing because they believe it is the only way to perverse ALL life, not just their own, and a orginzization who only does things to perverse their specific group are similar then 50 = 20.

Try it again with more sense, please.

Except you have provided nothign that demonstrates the Reapers are wrong, you have provided nothing that proves at some point in the future The geth or some other synthetics wont try to kill everyone forever. You have provided nothing that can contradict what The Ctatlyst said at all.

I don't have to prove anything. Star kid made that statement so it is up to him (or his supporters) to prove it. Burden of proof, you know.

Again you imply that they being right is fact, when it isn't.

The Reapers may have no evidence but you have EQUALLY NO EVIDENCE.

I'm not the one killing organics for a supposedly good cause (or supporting it). What do I need proof for?
Despite the fact that I have proof...
There is (very old) synthetic life in the galaxy (the Reapers)
Organic life still exists
Premise: All synthetic life will inevitably destroy all organic life = wrong.

 

[Acton Hank]

snip

Yet you have yet to provide a means for there to be no genocide.
.
.
Yes because an anime who is so popular it is often rated as the number one rated anime of all time in both America and Japan wasn't well received?

an anime that Japan almost worships like a religion in some cases mind you.
.
.
Sovereign never once said he hates organic life, that is a blatant lie.
.
.
And your basis is flawed.

If a group of beings who do thing because they believe it is the only way to perverse ALL life, not just their own, and a orginzization who only does things to perverse their specific group are similar then 50 = 20.
.
.
Except you have provided nothign that demonstrates the Reapers are wrong, you have provided nothing that proves at some point in the future The geth or some other synthetics wont try to kill everyone forever. You have provided nothing that can contradict what The Ctatlyst said at all.

The Reapers may have no evidence but you have EQUALLY NO EVIDENCE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E
You want a compiled list of reasons why the ending is bad? Here it is.