Glib

glib (adjective) 

( glibber , glibbest )

fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, I want to apologize for the UNCERTAINTY I caused with my last post. I had to intended to psyche you out with wanting to talk about BATTLE STAR GALACTICA, and then dramatically switch to HARRY POTTER (ooh, Harry Potter, Harry Potter, that's me) and TWILIGHT. I also want to thank you for using the word uncertainty seeing as it is way easier to work into a sentence than Binomial Nomencalture or any other word that gives my grasp of the English language a sudden burst of uncertainty (Just that easy).

I would also like to point out that, yes, I know how much you like Harry Potter, that was the inspiration for the post. I thought I was fairly big Potter Phan but then I met you and I'm very uncertain. Anydangway, sorry for the confusion, I'll try to clarify my post of any uncertainties and make my transitions more "flowy".

On that note, I sure do love BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. I mean, really.




However, I think I can work it into my post this time. I say, "I think" because I have no idea what I'm really even talking about at this point, I'm just sort of typing what comes into my head and hoping it makes rational potato.

But seriously, I want to talk about the word glib not just because it make smile when I say it or any of its derivatives, but because I think connotes any issue that so many of us in the academic world struggle with every day.

For example, look at the last paragraph I just typed. Why on Earth did I use words like derivatives or connotes? How necessary was it to use those words when I could have just said that we all can be glib? (Heeheehee). I think that being fluent and incessant can be useful, especially for rhetorical purposes when presenting or using apologetics, but if we bring those skills and techniques into our everyday speech, trying to sound exquisite and erudite all the time, we tend to alienate our strangers and even our friends.

Like, there was this one time when I was working at Day Camp and I had to tell a parent that their kid was acting out. We believed that is was because the kid didn't have enough to eat in their lunch, so I asked the parent to maybe pack some more food. However, I phrased it with too many "proper" words and I had a parent yelling at me the next day because they thought I was talking down to them.

By trying to sound too educated or using too many "fancy" words, I had made myself look pompous and arrogant. While this is not technically a glibber (Teehee) action, I think the act of trying to make yourself sound overly academic and intelligent can involve glib speaking and using what I regret to admit can be too advanced diction.
I think this relates to a fact that many people in academia have a hard time admitting, myself included: This is very little that separates an educated person from an uneducated person in terms of basic human interaction. No matter how much we learn, no matter what institution we attend and no matter how long we spend there, if we cannot learn the most fundamental elements of being human, than we may as well have quit halfway through high school. As humans, we need to learn to love and communicate. We cannot live a good life in this world without having the ability to act and grow upon these two fundamentals.

I know that if me and my brother don't communicate properly, then we can run into all sorts of problems, mundane (using the car without asking the other brother) and serious (not letting each other know how much we care about each other). While for some relationships, this can be fairly simple, while for others, especially with people you don't know, it can be a huge strain just to get the easiest of ideas across.

However, I know that the conversations we've had together, and if I may be so bold, our friendship as a whole, is based on that desire to show love to one another and to work at being understood. Even on this very blog we have to be careful to make sure we can properly communicate subjects in our areas of speciality are understood without coming off too terse, sardonic or condescending. Obviously this is something I've gotten in trouble for before, even by accident, so I want to control the way in which I communicate so I don't damage something even more precious than an Counselor-Parent relationship.

In English studies, we have to work seemingly endlessly on filling all the criteria of writing.
We must write in a way that is logical, factual and structured, but also beautiful, original and aesthetically pleasing all the while sounding sincere and honest. Whatever we write, be it an essay, a letter or even a comment on a facebook status, we must write in a way that makes sense with our personalities: not trying to sound more intelligent or distant than you could hear someone talk in real life. This is what good writing consists of: writing that anyone can read and understand. So I can read something by Nabokov or Faulkner and while I know I won't fully recognize all the words or understand the writer's full intention right off the bat, I can still get a general sense of what is being attempted and I can still follow the narrative or direction of the prose. The same goes with good poetry, properly-constructed legal documents and well-written blog posts. And, since language, despite how flawed and lacking it is in this role, is intended as the primary means by which humans try to convey ideas and emotions, this must also be true for any instance where we try to talk to people. So, this must apply IRL, as well.

This is the duty of the English major: to master this type of communication, both in and outside of writing so that we can truly become better communicators and by effect, better people. At least, that is what the original intention of education was.
I believe this is also true for all types of education, no matter what the field. I can't say how this is done in, for example, the sciences, because I have so little experience in that field that any attempt I would have to categorize the end purpose of these studies would be insulting and blunderous at best. But I know there is one. And I know that there are people out there who know it, recognize it and utilize it. There are people who have educations and actually are separate from the uneducated masses, not because of the knowledge the have required, but because of how they use it. This is the purpose of education in the highest sense: to train people to become better people. Better at communicating and better at loving.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would also just like to say that I enjoyed reading your thoughts on uncertainties and I agree wholeheartedly with what you have to say. That's so true obviously for English and Philosophy, but even studies like History and Bio-Chemistry are not without their biases and uncertainties. Even mathematics and physics are put into question as they are all only based on our own perspectives of the universe (I'm thinking of the ol' fish in a bowl looking at a beam of light). In fact, how can I even know any truth behind what I'm typing right now, or what I believe and how that has influenced what I write here?

We can never know any of these things for certain, and that's part of being human. And this is where faith comes in.
I just wanted to note here that I love Mr. Moorhead and I love what he does for young minds (the sharp and dull-witted alike), however I do want to note that he was always using a postmodern perspective in everything that he taught. I believe that in order to have a better understanding of 20th/21st century beliefs, we do have to acknowledge this mentality and have a full grasp of it's basic principles (eg. The difference between Absolute Truth and just plain truth). But I think one of the reasons I never fully hung on to every word that he said was that I knew that he had only scratched the surface.

There is indeed an Absolute Truth, and we need to first abandon our first notions of what we think is absolute before we can truly grasp its magnitude. I believe that the Gospel — the news of the existence of the Kingdom of God present in our world, today — is the real Absolute Truth. But the issue is that we cannot prove it to be true, the reason why the modern world rejects the gospel and even scorns it for presupposing its truth over the philosophies of the modern age. This is why Moorhead was right in that we must admit that we cannot know the truth of the Kingdom in any sort of qualitative sense and he was also right in that we cannot know it in the sense of fully understanding it, just like we can never fully know ourselves or the other in a complete sense. However, by faith, we can know of the truth of the Kingdom of God and we can know of its existence and power in our world, here and now by faith and belief.
Moorhead himself is a Christian and he is aware of these distinctions, but he is also concerned about communicating these truths properly and effectively and not creating more uncertainties in the minds of some 150 already-flabbergasted young people. I believe that is the genius of that man in that he knows so much, but doesn't bombard teenagers without offering logical connections and a clear path that he is taking them on. Sure, he confused so many people (and I hope continues to do so), but he always offers the reasoning and directions to navigate the treacherous waters he knows that we all must embark upon.

These are the waters of the world, both physical and spiritual. Both carry a plethora of beasties and snares. But God offers us faith and reason as oars to pull ourselves through, the Truth of His Kingdom as the Lighthouse to guide us and His own son as the boat by which we are saved.

~~~~~~~~~~

So that's what I believe and I hope I have communicated in a better fashion than last post. If you wish to take any issue with what I say, I will defend it or clarify it to the best of my ability whenever is best.

Oh and yes, I didn't forget. The way in which this connects to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is this:



The show is about the last humans of a separate galaxy than our own striving to find a new home after their twelve colonies are destroyed by the intelligent race of robots they created themselves. The last 49,000 people travel aimlessly throughout space looking for a new planet suitable for habitation, all the while trying to fight off the seemingly random attacks of the hoards of organized Cylons. While the alternating threats of immanent and eventual death constitute the majority of the show's plot lines, the main motif of the show is the issues of faith and trust. The main characters have to learn to trust each other (which is made particularly different as there are 12 types of Cylon models that look exactly like humans), but they also must learn to trust the belief that they will eventually find a new home.

The issue of belief manifest itself more clearly in the latter seasons of the show as there begins a series of divine interventions that test and try the rapidly decreasing number of survivors. In fact, my favorite point of the show is right at the end *SPOILER WARNING* when one of the characters stands up to the notorious Cylon leader and asserts his belief in a higher power in control of all of their actions. When asked for proof (at gunpoint), the character asserts that he has seen angels (which he has), but has no tangible proof. Violence ensues, but later another character is forced to make a leap of faith by entering a random code she was given into the ship's FTL drive, not knowing where they'll end up in space (the potential of ending up inside a star or a black hole a considered possibility). She punches in the code to discover it takes them to . . .

Well, I think you get the general idea. The idea of a leap of faith is very powerful, particularly for me because I have never taken a very large one before.
I do love this show and I believe it was one of the most intelligent shows on television, which isn't saying a lot, I know. However, to finish the idea I started last post, I don't believe that it will ever have any literary merit or any elements worth studying based on this one simple reason: No one watches it.
If this show had any sort of impact, then perhaps this would be a different story. But I know that, for now, it will remain in obscurity, and I'm OK with that (even if Ronald Moore, the producer isn't).

So that's why I like it. I'd like to hear more about Fire Emblem and what makes its story so great to you, too.

I hope the midterm crunch won't be too hard! Maybe the faculty will realize what a large Asian population it has and reschedule?
Either way, I'm sure you'll do great! Don't get too bored with classes, try doodling like Crazy Math girl!

Oh and my break is on the week of Feb. 19th. B's Mom is coming here for that time. She's spending a day at my house and then they'll both go do some stuff together in Langley at TWU, so I'll be free for about a week, but I don't know if a longer road trip would work out. I checked and Whistler is booked, so we can't got there, but we can go to Washington or Oregon somewhere for a day or two with a group of people, perhaps?

Anyway, talk to you soon,
have a good weekend!

-Clayton

Uncertainty

un•cer•tain•ty (noun)
(scientific) the margin of error associated with every measurement made.
Origin: Medieval English uncerteynte


~~~~~~~~~~

Scientific uncertainty, as it is defined above for the physical and analytical sciences, deals with the size of error that is associated with all measurements. I'm sure you remember the concept of error from Physics 11 and 12, yes?

If not, scientific error can be defined as the amount by which a measurement differs from the true value of what is being measured. This arises from the concept that we, as imperfect beings, can never measure or create anything that can measure anything precisely: our measurement never completely reflect the true value. This itself is connected to significant figures (sigfigs), bringing us back to the uncertainty of measurement.

For example, let's say we want to measure the length of a hippo's foot using a ruler: we put the foot on the ruler, and all is well until we look very closely, and see that the tip of its toe lies somewhere between the line for 10.47cm and the line for 10.48cm. What is the actual length of the foot? Our instrument is not precise enough to tell us exactly where between 10.47 - 10.48 the real length of the foot lies, and so we must make our best estimate. Let's say we decide that the foot's length is 10.473cm. This is all very well, but that can't be the exact, definite length of the foot because we had to guess the value of the last decimal place, the "3". This makes the "3" our first uncertain digit, because we are uncertain about the accuracy of this digit in the measurement.

Now we must determine our uncertainty, so we examine out ruler and assess our ability to use the ruler properly, and decide that our measurement probably contains 0.002cm error: this is our estimated error. That means that we are reasonably confident that the true value of the foot's length is 10.473 +/- 0.002 cm long (read as: "10.473 plus or minus 0.002 cm," meaning that we are reasonably confident that the true length of the foot lies between 10.471cm and 10.475cm). The +/- 0.002 is also called the uncertainty associated with our measurement.

For the sake of our example, let's say that the foot's actual, real, definite length is 10.474cm. Our measurement is off by 0.001cm: this is our absolute error. Error is thus associated with every single measurement. The more accurate we make our measuring instruments, the more accurate we can be. Measurements can be made in the lab that are accurate to 0.0001 grams, or 0.000000001 m, but the point is that no matter how accurate it gets, it is still not quite the true value.

~~~~~~~~~~

Uncertainty is our vonerdword today because I've been thinking about uncertainty in the non-scientific sense, as well as definitions, which connects me to my thoughts from my last post (sorry I didn't post last week, btw, I didn't want to post twice in a row, plus I had to do a lot of data crunching for my AnaChem lab). A number of things that have come to my attention/happened recently to stimulate thought on the subject of the validity of rules and definitions.

John Green made a vlog last week that echoed the sentiments of something Mr. Moorhead brought up in Eng12: reality and truth resist simplicity.

I realized that this is true for everything, whether it be religion, law, politics, science, english, and everything else in the world. Mr. Moorhead talked about how there will always be a gap between language and reality because no matter how hard one strives, language and words can never fully capture the real world. You can use all the words in every language in existence to try and describe something like the blistering hot sun shining down on a Costa Rican coffee plantation, or the warm glow of the sunrise on new years morn; the grandeur and spectacular presence of an ancient Japanese castle, or the sense of peace that comes with being with the most amazing friends on earth; even describing something as simple as the art on a card, but that description will never exactly be able to capture the reality; reality resists the simplicity of language.

In the sciences, reality resists our ability to describe it with words, scientific definitions, theories, mathematics, or even something as plain as measurement.

And so it is with religion. I've described to you on many occasions about how I'm trying to define my religion with two simple truths, and deriving the morals and laws I support or reject based on these truths, but I've recently realized that all of these rules I've been evaluating should not be treated as black and white rules, but sort of as guidelines, because the reality of the world resists my attempt to simplify it into "agrees with my truths" and "disagrees with my truths." The reality of the world resists my attemps to categorize and separate into groups, and urges me to consider each situation fully and independantly.

For example, something seemingly as simple as "One must not murder" can turn out to be something more complex than at first glance. My initial reaction to the statement "one must not murder" is to agree with it: murder disrepects the lives of others and violates their right to live their own lives. But imagine someone alone in their home, and a burglar breaks in and attacks the homeowner, and in an attempt to protect themself from being stabbed to death, s/he its the burglar over the head with a large heavy object (lamp, frying pan, baseball bat, miniature house hippo, etc), and the burglar ends up dying because of the injuries sustained from the blow to the head. Technically, the homeowner has murdered the burglar, but it was completely non-intentional. If one is to stand by their rule that "one must not murder," then the homeowner would be considered a murder.

However, I don't think that it is fair to put the homeowner in the same category as a person who intentionally goes out into the world and murders people for his/her own twisted pleasure. There are big differences between the two situations, and although they both technically performed the same act (the taking of another person's life), I am inclined to believe that the two are by no means the same.

In this way, even the most simplest of religious rules can only be a guideline to help us dictate how we live our lives, and in truth, we must consider each and every situation independently; we should try to avoid making large, general statements and then cement those statements as binding, because in truth there is no "yes" and "no," but varying degrees of agreement and disagreement.

~~~~~~~~~~

LOL k Clay, TOTALLY had to read your post like 3 times in order to understand what you were trying to say XD Good looooooord there were so manyh syntax, usage, and grammar confusions. Like, I completely didn't get that you'd changed the subject to Twilight when I first read that part, and I was becoming increasingly frantic because I thought you were bashing Harry Potter (which I cannot stand for; I LOVE HP!) TEEHEE I totally agree with you on that series; it will not last. There are very, very big differences between the Twilight and HP phenomena.

For one thing, Twilight is/was only really popular with females. Second of all, it doesn't even come close to the influence that HP held over the world.

Harry Potter is much more than a book, or a movement. It has become a part of the lives that it has touched. I first read Harry Potter in grade 3/4; I still remember buying Goblet of Fire at the Scholastic Book Fair in grade 4, and then following the rest of the books through high school. I grew up alongside Harry and everyone at Hogwarts. It was also a series for all ages: young kids and old wrinkly people alike could read Harry Potter and still enjoy it. The series was action, mystery, fantasy, and children's literature all rolled into one. It entertained while provoking (at least in me) thought about many things (for example, social structures and social perception during adolescence). This is something that Stephanie Meyer could never hope to achieve: her books are way too empty, the style is way to deprived, and they were written/published way to fast.

I will admit to having read all four of the books, and while they were entertaining, I really don't feel the same emotional attachment to it than I do to Harry Potter. There's just no comparison.

SO YEA... the week i made my last post, I went to see Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows pt1 with Asia and Kelsey, and I've been re-obsessed with it ever since: seeing as I read the 7th book over the winter break, I started the 6th book and rented the 6th movie last weekend; I finished the 6th book on Wednesday night and I'm 1/5th the way through the 5th book. Going through the series in reverse order is interesting; I'm finding a lot more stuff because the details of what happen next are fresh in my mind.

My obsession with the Fire Emblem series has also been rekindled over the winter break, so I'm in the midst of purchasing a lot of the old GBA games I can find b/c I'd love to play them; the plot and character development in this series is phenomenal!

Also: HOW IS TERM GOING FOR YOU? School's been rather dull this term so far. I'm enjoying some of my classes, but others are just such a bore. Midterm season starts soon, and it couldn't have been timed worse: the weekend of Feb 4-6 is Chinese New Years, but I have four midterms during the week Feb 7-12, which has got me rather alarmed. Oh well, at least reading break is the week after! Is that the same week you have reading break too? I hope so. I remember you mentioned that TWU likes to try to make reading break line up with Easter, but this year Easter is very late in April, so... If our reading breaks coincide, I totally thing we should go for a road trip! It'd be so much fun!!!

Anyways, I hope classes are going well for you!
Chat soon,
~Tim~

Autochthonous

au•toch•tho•nous  (adjective)

(of an inhabitant of a place) indigenous rather than descended from migrants or colonists

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, well, well. The time has come. I've been postponing it for a long time until now, but here it is. 

I'm finally going to talk about the show I've only alluded to to you before. It's time for:

BEARS

 

BEETS

 

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

Oh yes, time to talk about one of favorite shows to ever grace the DVD shelf. 

So here's what I have to say about it:

It's pretty awesome. You should watch it when you have the time.

OK, moving on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have to say I really liked your post about Eukaryotic cells was really sweet and I really liked what you had to say about scientific definitions. 

It got me to thinking about literature, as most things do, and I was thinking about what defines something as legit literature (legiterture?). 

For example, BattleStar Galactica is actually really well written and (I like to think) has a lot of merit to it in terms of the real-life issues of slavery, abandonment, love, sex, betrayal, war, exodus, rebirth, and theological wrestling. However, does that make it worth studying? Is it something that can be directly descended from the inspirational lines of Western literary thought? Is it autochthonous and canon? 

Or, here's a novel example: there's a class going on right now that studies Fantasy throughout the history of the western world, starting with Beowulf and ending with Wizards of Earthsea, which we've already talked about.

Anyway, seeing as they will be studying Harry Potter (Harry Potter, Harry Potter, Ooh!), which raises the question in my brain, "Does that Make Blast-Ended Skrewts part of the Literary canon?"

And I think the answer I have come to in that same confuséd brain of mine is that the literary merit of something is dependent upon many factors, one of them being the degree of impact the book has.

Obviously that impact is dependent upon how well the book is written, which determines how many people read it and most importantly, how long it will actually stay in circulation. Or to put it another way, how many more individuals will be impacted by this book in the generations that follow? Will my children read this book and still find it worth their while? Will their children's children read it and find that despite its archaic language it still has a lot to say on love, the force of good and evil, and the human condition?

Personally, I think that the impact of Harry Potter won't just fade away and kids in the next few decades will still read it, in the same way that we still read The Chronicles of Narnia and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. But maybe that won't be the case. I can't truly know that, only God knows for certain.

However, I can tell you that I picked up a couple of books out of my cousin's house the other day that she said she had read and didn't want anymore. So I took them and me and my dorm mate read passages of these books to each other all last night. 

And now I can legitimately say I know enough about this series to say that there is no monkey-fighting way these books are literature. They only even attain the status of "book" by the mere loophole of each separate volume possessing a spine (something the main character seems to lack on every page). 

If I may quote a passage.

[From the beginning of Volume 4, Book 2, after quoting a line from Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream] 

"Life sucks and then you die.

Yeah, I should be so lucky."

Good Lord, I just want to poke out my eyeballs with a sharpened metre stick and flambé them over a pyre of love letters written to Stephanie Meyer thanking her for blessing yet another self-deluding pubescent with the mindset of believing they will one day have the great fortune of being carried off by an aged somnipathic covered in glitter paint. 

Oh yes, there book have had an impact, there's no doubt. But to say that that impact will not only carry through the lives of our generation and share its precious influence with our offspring is as much a ludicrous statement as saying "Hmm, maybe genocide isn't all that bad".  The day that my children and all their friends are given a curriculum with these atrocities hastily inserted is the day I add broken glass into my daily diet. 

That being said, I would just like to conclude that yes, I have just proven that Harry Potter is better than Twilight. QED.

On that note, I will talk to you soon, Tim.

-Clayton

Eukaryotic

you•ka•ree•o•tic (noun)
organisms whose cells are characterized by a membrane bound nucleus, membrane bound organelles, and linear DNA (as opposed to Prokaryotic organisms, whose cells are characterized by the absence of membrane bound internal organelles and circular DNA)
Orgin: Greek (eu = true, karyo = nut - i.e. the nucleus; eukaryotic = having a true nut/nucleus)

~~~~~~~~~~

All organisms on earth are split into two categories: Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic. I now realize that during the course of the Vonerdculary, I've been using these terms without realizing that you may not completely understand their definitions. This leads to today's topic: Science and the importance of definitions.

Science can be described as the art of precision, be it the precision of the measurements one takes in the laboratory (which, I assure you, is of utmost importance; whole fields of science and whole lives are dedicated to understanding the accuracy and precision of scientific measurements, and whole fields of science are dedicated to calculating the certainty of the error involved in measurement, but that's another topic for another post =P) or the precision of the definitions one uses when describing natural phenomena.

The two main "branches" of science, Practical and Theoretical, both require precision: on the practical side, measurements must be as precise as possible (this is self-explanatory); on the theoretical side, definitions must be as precise as possible in order to clearly communicate the description of what is being studied.

For example, in thermodynamics, the equation E = q + w describes the relationship between Energy, Work, and Heat. But knowing this equation is useless unless you understand what the variables mean. E = the internal energy of the system, w = work done on the system by the surroundings, and q = the amount of heat given off by the system that is absorbed by the surroundings.

But even this is difficult to understand until we properly define what "system" and "surroundings" mean. intrinsically, one may have a general idea of what these terms mean, but in a scientific sense, these words are useless until properly defined. So, in thermodynamics, a System is defined as the part of the universe which one is interested in for scientific purposes, and the Surroundings is defined by the rest of the universe that is not included in the system. Practically, this means that the system  is usually separated from the surroundings by a barrier, but it doesn't have to be. Examples of systems inculde: the contents of a beaker, the contents of a flask, the air in a room, the part of the atmosphere defined by coordinates in space, etc.

Another example: Popular media is always outraged when a member of an extinct species in found alive, and the newspapers are all "OH THE SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG! THIS SPECIES IS NOT EXTINCT YET! TAKE THAT SCIENCE!" But this is due to a misunderstanding of the scientific definition of "extinct." Biologists define Extinction as the state of a species where the population of the species that remains alive does not have enough genetic diversity for the future generations to have a successful chance of surviving. Basically, it means that a species is deemed extinct when there are so few individuals that future generations will be so genetically weak that they will have almost a zero chance of surviving. If the population of a species of dolphins consists of only one individual, then that species is technically extinct. I think people associate "extinct" with "no more individuals left" because of the discussion in paleontology, where all of the species are extinct because there are no living individuals today.

Indeed, the science of definition has a discreet pulchritude to it.

~~~~~~~~

I remember the word pulchritude from watching a movie about the US National Spelling Bee; it was the word with which the heroine won the conpetition =)

In response to your sentiments about commercialism, I do agree that it does have a large effect on people, especially children, who are so easily impacted, but even without the media, I think people get much of their sense of beauty from their elders and family members. It is true that many times people are too much swayed by outer beauty and not often enough look at inner beauty; I am glad that I'm friends with people who understand the value of inner beauty.

On a more personal note, UG I totally didn't realize how much chemistry I had this tem until going through the first week; TOO MUCH CHEMISTRY! This totally reaffirms my suspicions that, although I enjoy chemistry, i would not be able to tolerate a major in chemistry, and also reaffirms my love for biology, both microbiology and macrobiology; I think going into physiology is the right choice for me. (Side note: I find it funny that the study of biology is often looked down upon by people be it the general population or other scientists compared to chemistry or physics, but medicine, which is essentially the application of biology to humans, is highly regarded by people.)

Anyways, I hope you had a good start to the new semester!
Chat soon,
~Tim~