Kings Beyond the Wall. and yes, Bael the infamous bard. (Updated again)

[Rufus Snow]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

There is no chance that there was an unknown Wildling invasion south of the Wall and unknown flaying of a Lord Stark by House Bolton in the first century of the Targaryen era, especially during the reign of Jaehaerys I. It is frankly an insane idea. It is clear that Ygritte is using anachronisms in an account of something that occurred before the Targaryens. It need not be thousands of years in the past. But there is no chance it is in the last three hundred years. The idea that Bael's son had a Stark brother is baseless speculation. The theory of Bael existing in the first century of the Targaryen era is very easily dismissed as nonsense. 

This is pure argument from incredulity. I don't deny I'm speculating, but it isn't baseless, I'm just trying to trace a possible path that allows for a 'later Bael' because so many people have said 'bah, it's impossible' on the grounds of little more than their opinion.

If it's so cut and dried, someone should be able to DISPROVE it, it can't be that difficult to point to something that makes the idea impossible.

Personally, I think that obvious anachronisms, obvious gaping holes in the Stark family tree, and a pretty unsubtle change of canon lore all consitute a big invitation to speculate. You don't have to agree, but how about engaging with evidence and/logic rather than derision?

[Bael's Bastard]

2 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

This is pure argument from incredulity. I don't deny I'm speculating, but it isn't baseless, I'm just trying to trace a possible path that allows for a 'later Bael' because so many people have said 'bah, it's impossible' on the grounds of little more than their opinion.

If it's so cut and dried, someone should be able to DISPROVE it, it can't be that difficult to point to something that makes the idea impossible.

Personally, I think that obvious anachronisms, obvious gaping holes in the Stark family tree, and a pretty unsubtle change of canon lore all consitute a big invitation to speculate. You don't have to agree, but how about engaging with evidence and/logic rather than derision?

Wrong. It is based on all the information we have. The theory of Bael's placement being proposed in this thread is contradictory to all the information we have. If the information was coming from a maester, the use of lord and kingsroad would lend credibility to the idea that this story could have taken place during the Targaryen era.

That it is used by an ignorant wildling in a story that includes information that makes it clear it could not have occurred during the Targaryen era, makes it apparent that she is using anachronisms, based on the fact that wildlings today know that the Starks are lords now, and that the road is called the kingsroad now.

There is no chance the Boltons got away with skinning a Stark lord in the Targaryen era, which only the wildlings are privy to, or that there was an otherwise unknown wildling invasion of the south during the height of Targaryen dragons, or that the Stark line came so close to extinction that there was none left but a lord and his daughter, and was continued by a bastard who would have had to be legitimized by a Targaryen king. None of that works in the first century of the Targaryen era, especially during the reign of Jaehaerys I.

[The Wondering Wolf]

14 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

You don't have to agree, but how about engaging with evidence and/logic rather than derision?

The logic goes like this:

An invasion during the reign of the king who tried to bind his realm together would be known to the king and his court. Even the flaying of the Lord of Winterfell would be noticed, because he is the guy who holds the North in the name of the king. Thus it would be covered in some chronicles, as events that concern the realm usually are. Now we know through Yandel that such reports do not exist, because otherwise he would have no reason to question the existence of Bael. To me this shows quite clearly that Bael did not live 250 years ago. He might have lived and done the things he claimed to have done 1000 or more years ago when the North was an independent kingdom and the South did not care what was happening there.

But in the end you can not use logic to debunk a theory that is not based on logic.

[AlaskanSandman]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The logic goes like this:

An invasion during the reign of the king who tried to bind his realm together would be known to the king and his court. Even the flaying of the Lord of Winterfell would be noticed, because he is the guy who holds the North in the name of the king. Thus it would be covered in some chronicles, as events that concern the realm usually are. Now we know through Yandel that such reports do not exist, because otherwise he would have no reason to question the existence of Bael. To me this shows quite clearly that Bael did not live 250 years ago. He might have lived and done the things he claimed to have done 1000 or more years ago when the North was an independent kingdom and the South did not care what was happening there.

But in the end you can not use logic to debunk a theory that is not based on logic.

Sounds all good but it's all rubbish. But it sounded good. 

Yandel is reporting on times that his only source for is Maester Glydan. Who lived during Aegon V. And the Citadel is super happy that Yandel found Glydans records. Meaning up till recently, the Citadel didn't know much about those times. For some reason the Citadel is missing records, and the only records they have recently found are from long after the events happened.

So everything you said is false.

We dont even know what sources Gyldan is using for those times if any. So your "perfect records of history" is false on every front

[The Wondering Wolf]

26 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

Yandel is reporting on times that his only source for is Maester Glydan. Who lived during Aegon V. And the Citadel is super happy that Yandel found Glydans records. Meaning up till recently, the Citadel didn't know much about those times. For some reason the Citadel is missing records, and the only records they have recently found are from long after the events happened.

Nonsense. Here is the quote I also posted in the other thread, clearly stating that there are a lot of works about the Targs Yandel had access to.

Quote

Here follows an account of the reign of House Targaryen, from Aegon the Conqueror to Aerys the Mad King. Many are the maesters who have written on these matters, and the knowledge they have fashioned informs much of what will follow. But in one thing, I have taken a liberty: the account of Aegon's Conquest is not my own work but something lately discovered in the archives of the Citadel, forgotten since the sad end of Aegon, the Fifth of His Name. This fragment—part of a greater work that seemed intended as a history of the Targaryen kings—was found gathering dust among papers belonging to the Archmaester Gerold, the historian whose writings on the history of Oldtown were well regarded in his day. But it was not written by him. The style alone gives it away, but certain notes found with these papers indicate they were written by Archmaester Gyldayn, the last maester to serve at Summerhall before its destruction in the reign of Aegon the Fortunate, the Fifth of his Name, who may have sent them to Gerold for his commentary and approval.

 

The history of the Conquest is as complete as any, and that is why I have placed it here, so that—at last—more eyes than mine and the late Archmaester Gerold's may appreciate and learn from it. There are other manuscripts by this same hand that I have discovered, but many pages have been misplaced or destroyed, and still others have been damaged by neglect and by fire. It may be that one day, more will be found, and this lost masterwork will be fit to be copied and bound, for what I have found has stirred great excitement in the Citadel.

 

[AlaskanSandman]

5 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Nonsense. Here is the quote I also posted in the other thread, clearly stating that there are a lot of works about the Targs Yandel had access to.

 

That doesn't state any maesters other than Gerold's recently discovered works though. Why were his lost? What else was lost?

Edit- What ever they have that was supposedly Gerolds is also actually a retelling by Gildayn.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The anachronistic content of the wildling songs is being 'explained away' as Ygritte knowing no better. But why assume she's just aping 'current knowledge' rather than the songs' actual contents, which 'all the free folk know'?

Jon knows about Bael despite Winterfell having no record of Bael - that's 'explained away'... oh wait, no-one HAS explained that away yet. My bad

We can be pretty sure Ygritte knows nothing of the North from firsthand experience, and even less about its history. It is basically another country. It is pretty obvious why details about Bael's adventures would survive in oral form beyond the Wall, but things like titles and roads have actually nothing to do with the content of the story. It is on the same level as the medieval morons imagining Alexander the Great as a king in a castle with knights serving him, or them depicting people from ancient times in such a manner on pictures and the like.

There would be oral traditions at Winterfell, too. Old Nan is the best example for that. There is a very good reason why House Stark might not talk much about Bael the Bard, but this doesn't mean there are no records or stories about him in the North or the rest of the Seven Kingdoms.

6 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The mysterious gap in knowledge of the Stark family tree for the first hundred years of the Targ era is 'explained away' as because something, just not this. Because? For instance, Lord So-and-so can't be 'the bastard' because he has a brother. Well, in the 30 years of the bastard's life, is it known that his mother bore no more children? No, it is not known. Therefore a presence of a brother is no proof at all.

There is no mystery there, just an incomplete family tree. Just as gaps in knowledge are no proof for god, gaps in the Stark family tree don't prove anything. The reason why Bael cannot have lived in that era has nothing to do with names and everything with the content of his story.

If a Lord Stark had tried to make his daughter's bastard his heir he would have to legitimize him. Why on earth should King Jaehaerys do that, and why on earth didn't we learn anything about that in TWoIaF. This is not something the Starks could just keep secret. It would be a huge scandal and source of many a ribald story and song. The very rumor that the grandson of Lord Stark was the son of the wildling king would be very devastating to the Starks.

In addition, there is the problem of Bael's son dealing with him rather than, you know, the dragons. King Jaehaerys was obviously interested in the North and spent a considerable amount of time there. He build roads everywhere in the Seven Kingdoms. If Bael attacked the North and if it was known to King Jaehaerys that Bael was actually Lord Stark's father then Jaehaerys would not have had this man fight his father - he would have taken command himself. And the dragons would have made short work out of the wildlings long before Bael could have gotten as far south as Winterfell.

Finally, there is the scenario of a Bolton flaying a Stark lord during Targaryen rule. That is simply impossible. It would have led to the eradication of House Bolton and the destruction of the Dreadfort in dragonfire. Not to mention that the buildup to such a cruel thing would have likely have to be some form of civil war in the North - with the Boltons and others rising up against Bael's son and defeating him in battle, or something along those lines. This wouldn't have been tolerated by Jaehaerys, either. If he had legitimized this bastard - as he would have done if the bastard became Lord of Winterfell - then he would have been his lord, a man he would have supported rather than abandoned (especially after the man defeated the wildling king).

If one moves Bael back in the era where he belongs then all those problems go away. The Starks were kings then, and could legitimize who they wanted to legitimize - or even name heir whoever they wanted. The North would have still been a cruel and harsh place and it makes sense that a bastard king who slew his own (alleged) father may have faced difficulties and uprisings from all sides (especially trueborn Stark cadet branches through the male line!), explaining how a Bolton could capture and eventually flay him.

The only 'remaining problems' is the 'Lord of Winterfell' and 'Kingsroad' stuff - and those are not really a problem. In fact, as has been pointed out before, the Kings of Winter/in the North would always have been Lord of Winterfell. And it most definitely makes sense that a wildling like Ygritte does not recognize the presumptuous and (from her point of view) rather ridiculous style of 'King of Winter' and 'King in the North'. The wildlings do know that the Starks do not rule winter, and from their perspective they most definitely do not rule 'the North'. If they ever recognized the Starks as kings, they would most likely refer to them as 'Kings in the South', because that what they are from their perspective.

[Rufus Snow]

5 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

If the information was coming from a maester, the use of lord and kingsroad would lend credibility to the idea that this story could have taken place during the Targaryen era.

Fair enough - you believe maesters in Oldtown over wildlings in the north.

Such a standard of credibility wouldn't help much in determining the truth about all those giants, Children, wights and Others we see in text.

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The Wall and Beyond: The Wildlings

...... After him, centuries later, came Bael the Bard, whose songs are still sung beyond the Wall...but there are questions as to whether he truly existed or not. The wildlings say he did and credit many songs to his name, but the old chronicles of Winterfell say nothing of him. Whether this was due to the defeats and humiliations he was said to have visited upon them (including, according to one improbable story, deflowering a Stark maid and getting her with child) or because he never existed, we cannot truly say.

Even Yandel is less certain than you appear to be regarding the lack of corroboration from Winterfell He at least concedes there is a motive for a cover-up, rather than flat out assuming a cover-up is impossible.

[Rufus Snow]

@Lord Varys

OK, that's a more reasoned position, and it would take a few unlikely things all to happen together for a 'late Bael' to work, even though we might disagree about how unlikely some of them are

One last observation: talking of Gendel & Gorne, Ygritte refers either to 'the Stark in Winterfell' or 'the wolves', using neither 'Lord' nor 'King', and later assumes even watchtowers must be built by 'kings', so I don't think she's totally naive regarding titles...

For now, I'll retire though. I still think there may be a gap, but I'll leave it to George to fill it if that's his intent

[AlaskanSandman]

Well Ran killed it in another thread stating that Bael is Pre-Targaryen. Idk if that's him confirming Bael's existence or not, but if Bael did exist, he was likely in the 1000 years before the Targaryens as the list still has him closer to more recent times than ancient. 

[AlaskanSandman]

That's not to say theres not more to Bael's story or influence on Westeros, as we see peter Baelish and Rhaegar, repeating some of Bael's actions.

Another thing to note, is when discussing hair and eye colors with GRRM, (after discussing regretting doing hair and eye color stuff) GRRM say's people would have better luck looking to names rather than hair and eye colors as cultures use specific spelling.

So 

Aegon

Bael

Baelish

All share a common long A vowel spelling. As opposed to say, House Dayne.

So still keep an eye out imo.

Edit- Note that GRRM is the one spelling it Ae also, we dont see any one in world spell Bael's name till Yandel.

Quote

 

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man.

https://archive.is/St3S6#selection-3661.1-3665.285

 

 

[AlaskanSandman]

@Ran is there any possible other Kings beyond the Wall, or are the listed Kings (with Bael aside) all the Kings who ever attacked the wall. Curious as far as duration between attacks and frequency of them. Raymun and Mance are really close compared to the others. Motivation for crossing the wall obviously being one purpose of the question among others. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

I would add that pretty much the whole point of this story is the ambiguity. We’re meant to be uncertain about the exact timeframe and puzzled by the details (like Jon was). This is how legend actually works, particularly in the oral tradition.

That he’s erased from the Winterfell records is a comment on how recorded history can be altered to suit someone’s narrative, that the Wildlings don’t actually know when exactly Bael lived is a comment on the uncertainty of legend.

Personally, I think he lived pre-Conquest, for the reasons @Lord Varys outlines, but the whole point is that we can’t be certain (unless it’s presented conclusively in the text in the future, though I doubt it will be).

[AlaskanSandman]

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I would add that pretty much the whole point of this story is the ambiguity. We’re meant to be uncertain about the exact timeframe and puzzled by the details (like Jon was). This is how legend actually works, particularly in the oral tradition.

That he’s erased from the Winterfell records is a comment on how recorded history can be altered to suit someone’s narrative, that the Wildlings don’t actually know when exactly Bael lived is a comment on the uncertainty of legend.

Personally, I think he lived pre-Conquest, for the reasons @Lord Varys outlines, but the whole point is that we can’t be certain (unless it’s presented conclusively in the text in the future, though I doubt it will be).

Its covered in the Op boss. Ran mentioned else where that he his a pre-targaryen figure. I adjusted Op accordingly.

If Bael did invade it may have been when Theon attacked Essos and that would present an opportunity. Though that may have been the Horned Lord. Depends on how you view the added info i provided on Brandon the Burner and Manderly saying it's only been hundreds of years. 

If you want to figure out a family's descent, the names are a better clue than the eyes. Houses descended from the First Men tend to have simple short names, often descriptive. Stark. Reed. Flint. Tallhart (tall hart). Etc. The Valyrian names are fairly distinct are well: The "ae" usage usually suggests a Valyrian in the family tree. The Andal names are . . . well, neith Stark nor Targaryen, if that makes sense. Lannister. Arryn. Tyrell. Etc. Of course, you also need to remember that there have been hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of interbreeding, so hardly anyone is pure Andal or First Man.

 

This is another point of interest with Bael. Baelish (Ae hint) and Rhaegar are both copying this legend supposedly only from the North.

[Rufus Snow]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I would add that pretty much the whole point of this story is the ambiguity. We’re meant to be uncertain about the exact timeframe and puzzled by the details (like Jon was). This is how legend actually works, particularly in the oral tradition.

That he’s erased from the Winterfell records is a comment on how recorded history can be altered to suit someone’s narrative, that the Wildlings don’t actually know when exactly Bael lived is a comment on the uncertainty of legend.

Personally, I think he lived pre-Conquest, for the reasons @Lord Varys outlines, but the whole point is that we can’t be certain (unless it’s presented conclusively in the text in the future, though I doubt it will be).

I'd definitely agree that the uncertainty of history is a theme for the George, and I also suspect that the 'true' timeline is a lot shorter than people (in-world) believe. I can't help but feel that the further back in time we go, the more the timescales are exaggerated.

I ususally argue the side of the stories being unreliable (ALL the stories - those of the Citadel too...), and that they err more on matters of fact, but tend to convey values better. For instance: the Rat Cook tells us about the sanctity of guest right, not the reality of the Gods turning men into rats; the Night's King probably didn't exist, and if he did his wife was probably not an Other etc, but the tale is a warning against the LC going rogue and reminding the NW of its duties, and so on.

We can get some weird ideas by looking at stories from the wrong end - a useful touchstone would be Pinnochio : if you find yourself reading the story as meaning little boys are made of wood and have telescopic noses, you've probably misinterpreted something. If instead you take the message to be that lying is bad, and that lies tend to reveal themselves in time, then you're getting the point.

And I hold my hand up to that here: I think I was reading the anachronisms in Bael's songs more like the nose, but it's not always easy to tell the moral from the nose

[Ser Micaelys]

okay, this is the other thread I was getting mixed up with so moving my comments here.

As to the existence of Bael, it's strange to discuss if a mythical hero in a fictional world really existed in the histories of the fictional world. But I think King Arthur as a comparison is the best one. A mythical King passed on down in folklore, his existence (and date of possible said existence) debated and studied, various things attributed to him that did in fact happen. You know what else goes hand in hand with the legend of King Arthur, Camelot and the round table? Guinevere and Lancelot, which is not an original part of the legend, Lancelot was a much later add on, yet these days try to have any Arthurian story which doesn't include Lancelot and Guinevere's romance, a romance which just so happens to have many similarities to the story of Tristan and Iseult. Somebody said you cannot compare Arthur to Bael, yet it's proof how even our society can be confused on our history and if someone existed or not. How that folktale absorbs others, twists facts and fiction. So if it can happen in real life, why is it not possible in a fictional world which happens to be inspired by the same region where it's from. Another big part of the King Arthur legend - his enemy was his bastard son who eventually killed him in battle. Hmm. 

Even if he did really exist in the histories of ASOIAF that doesn't mean everything about his tale is true, did he ever go to winterfell, did he ever steal a Stark maiden, did she give birth to his son, did his son become the King or Lord of winterfell, did this son kill him? he is called Bael the Bard both North and South of the wall, not King Bael or something of the like but Bael the bard . What is in a name? what does his whole name tell us. Perhaps that he is a storyteller.

Why wouldn't the south know about bard but yet they do know about him. Well clearly his songs have made it down to the south, perhaps he existed or some basis to his myth, enough that the south knows of him. Was there a conspiracy or cover up, or just the fans of the hero bolstering up their folk hero. The Starks aren't the only ones who may have motive to change the facts. Perhaps Bael's demise at the hands of the son he refused to kill is more romantic than he got his arse kicked and they were all pushed back to beyond the wall. A legend that he 'plucked a rose' from the Stark's and planted his seed was to mock their southern enemies, some propaganda, that the Stark's have Wildling blood through Bael to add prestige to the wildlings or diminish them in their eyes.

When it comes to the time line of if Bael was pre or post conquest, I lean towards pre. The tale's of the freefolk vs the lack of records south of the wall speaks more of folk story of the past getting added to as time goes on. The south has no reason to cover up that sort of thing, the Stark's maybe, but post conquest I don't see the point of covering up a bastard and then raising him as heir and then lord. Kind of defeats the purpose of a cover up. A Bolton skinning a Lord of Winterfel also seems unlikely to have been unrecorded or covered up, Bolton is a much lesser house compared to Stark, killing and flaying a Warden of the North would be a huge thing. Pre conquest though it's not a problem, these houses and many others were always at war, Kings themselves, no higher King needs to seek retribution. Also I would think pre conquest it would be much, much more likely that if the freefolk tales are true or could be true,  for a bastard Stark to become the actual King/Lord. Legitimising a bastard and said bastard inheriting and not having other claimants fighting over it would be a lot harder post conquest when the Targaryens would need to be involved, perfect time for others to stake their own claim or a power grab from another house. If the Stark maiden in the Bael legend did in fact remarry and have other children, other sons, those legitimate heirs could easily have inherited instead and would have had the backing of their father's family to help stake the claim. Let's say Bael did take the Stark Maid, did impregnate her and leave his son behind, well then whose to say the Wildings and their songs are correct about that child being th e future lord and the one who killed Bael. They're North of the Wall, that could be a huge assumption on their and Bael's side, he thinks his son, the eldest Stark grandson, is the Lord and leader, his big enemy, meets him in battle and cannot kill him but it's actually his own son's legitimate half brother (who could be as young as only one year younger than Bael's son and at a fighting age a year or two or three or more might be impossible to tell), or second cousin, or some other distant relative who has risen to that position, while his bastard is somewhere else in the fight, hell he might have already slain him, or he is back home, or he was fostered off to another house, or left to freeze one hard winter. From the Targaryen reign we see how inheritance works, so post conquest definitely lowers the chance of Bael's bastard inheriting the highest position in the North without any records. 

Or is there insinuation that Bael didn't knock up a stark but queen alysanne, in which case there's obviously many flaws in the wildling legends and they are totally unreliable, it doesn't even make sense for the freefolk to cover up for the targs, hiding the truth doesn't need some elaborate lie.  It's like Ned Stark, he keeps it simple comes back with a baby says its his and says like nothing else. boom, truth hidden. Or is Bael because of the ae meant to be the targ bastard? i'm lost with vague mentions of queen's crowning at the wall, did she give birth and dump her bastard in the north, what's that got to do the stark's, other than if a targ bael then got targ blood into the stark tree explaining away magical abilities in current starks. or did the stark's claim her bastard and her shame. But with my above paragraph I find anything targ related unlikely due to believing if bael did exist it was pre conquest.

A little bit of wording in folk legends and folk songs moving things forward isn't a huge thing, it's what our own history shows us what happens with folk legends and myths and well stories to this day. It's why people seemed to live for thousands of years in old stories, myths and other texts. Think of it as old school rebooting of a franchise.  It may be bias but folk songs and stories, even if they are written down later, vs at the time records of a... more advanced society, I'm going for the latter. It's not about bias, it is about what isn't there and is, the conspiracy argument that the losers were defeated so they didn't record it or destroyed their records is so weak. It's weak in the infamous Moses example as it is with Bael. The Starks were the winners, the freefolk were the losers who were defeated, there are records and lots of south of the wall stories and legends about the Starks losing, dying, being defeated, having awesome strong enemies, huge battles, so why the huge cover up with Bael because they did win and continued to shine. And when there are records, or presumed records, it's said Bael isn't mentioned in Winterfell records so imo that means there were records, so it's not that there aren't records of that time even if we the reader don't know their content  - we are told what's not there. And certain things would collaborate the story even if there was a conspiracy, the biggest example in the Bael legend is his bastard son being lord of winterfel later flayed (and the fact that north of the wall this would be none post conquest yet apparently didn't get recorded anywhere south of it), things that would be really hard to cover up and for no reason. Stark enemies wouldn't just happily ignore those details.  If the logic is that the Stark's had some complicated conspiracy because of shame or defeat (for things that aren't that shameful or an enemy who never defeated them) to hide info, instead of having their own bolstered up version of their real defeat and their own propaganda going on, and that this logic is compelling, wouldn't it be just as logical to look at it from the other side and say that the wildings are the ones in fact doing that, that their Bael the BARD who was killed by the head Stark had his story nip and tucked to cover up the extent of their and his loss.

The most obvious reason for such huge discrepancies between Ygritte's tale of Bael and the lack of knowledge and records in the south to collaborate it is that it's simply not true. It's as Jon called it, a lie.   

Imo, though it means little, it is totally probable for Bael to have existed or to have never existed, each as likely as the other. It's totally possible for him to have not existed or not have lived in the way the freefolk believe yet still vaguely be known south of the wall. It's possible, and in my opinion waaaaay more likely, to have all happened pre conquest despite some wording, and in that case parts of it never having happened or Bael's legend is a combination of feats of various other freefolk, or hugely exaggerated, or a combination of all three.

this is way longer that I expected, sorry for babbling and rehashing some points others have said.