Thursday, October 26, 2006
Underwear and other party topics
I've got a Halloween party coming up; sounds like fun, doesn't it? The thing is, I'm not a party person; I've never cared much for any sort of group socialization, not even good friends under ideal circumstances, because it's not conducive to the sorts of conversations I prefer (eg intense), and with parties there's the whole merry-making thing that's utterly foreign to my Puritan nature. Even if there's no alcohol involved (I don't drink, and don't enjoy being surrounded by tipsy folks who think they're being amusing), there's an unwritten rule that party conversation should be festive, or at least very casual; it's not that I'm unwilling to be light-hearted or discuss frivolous things (if someone throws a party with the theme of men with hairy chests I'll be there with bells on), it's that there isn't really anything in that genre that I have in common with random strangers... and that's the real downer, that my husband and I won't know anyone at the party but our hosts. Oh, HE doesn't care, because he'll vanish into the gaming room as soon as we set foot in the house and not emerge until the final game is done, 10 seconds before we have to leave (men all intently playing the same dumb game don't need to come up with social chitchat)... but what am *I* supposed to do all night? What do I say to a bunch of total strangers for 8 hours?
The problem isn't that I'm ever at a loss for words (obviously, lol), it's that in a social situation you have to come up with words that people find enjoyable to listen to... and how many of them do you think will want to sit around in Halloween costumes, eating candy and discussing metaphysics or the psychology of evil? My hosts are geeks, so their guests mostly will be too, which will help a little, because I can discuss "Babylon 5 vs Star Trek" with the best of 'em; I've gotta be wary of tech talk, though, because it'd be too easy to get carried away and let slip the phrase "my blog"... which, since no one is supposed to know about it, and my hosts are mentioned in multiple posts, would be a disaster.
How long can we ramble on about geek stuff? Longer than you'd imagine, but even geeks talk about pop culture and current events at parties, and I'm mostly outta luck there; I don't go to the movies, I haven't seen the latest episode of anything since "Queer as Folk" was cancelled, I know virtually nothing about music made after 1990, I'm almost entirely indifferent to celebrities and I don't follow the news. What's left, religion and politics? I might luck out with the former, as there's a good chance that there'll be a few Wiccans there and maybe I can steer them into discussing karma for a while, but politics is a total waste of time to debate, as all it accomplishes is creating bad feelings... especially if you're a cutthroat debater like ME.
After much thought, here's what I've come up with that I should be able to have normal, and perhaps entertaining, conversations about, even with strangers:
1) Animals: The hosts have pets, and the doodads and hair thereof are everywhere, so it shouldn't be too hard to work in a mention of critters; nearly everyone has some pet stories, and I've got endless tales about the furry and feathered visitors to my patio and the cute things they've done, so this could use up alot of time.
2) Spouses: Thank goodness I'm old enough now that any group of my peers will mostly be coupled up; yes, even geeks find love, and although the male of the species does so at a rate much lower than average they're also not likely to be sociable enough to be invited to parties, so it evens out. If you're a regular reader, you know that I have numerous heinous-hubby stories, and can tell them with a reasonable degree of humor; I know better than to tell too many of them, as I don't want to sound like a malcontent, but everyone in earshot will have contributions to make to this topic, so it can go on for ages, and as a bonus it's a good way to get to know people.
3) Underwear: Well, not that specifically, but whatever I've seen recently that's struck me as being worthy of a stand-up routine, both to regale folks with and to encourage them to add their perceptions to, which at this point in time is the ladies underwear ("lingerie") section of WalMart:
I hadn't gotten any new bras in far too long, so since we had to go to WalMart anyways I figured I'd send my husband to look at boxers (most of his are in SHREDS) and take the plunge. Have you looked at a bra display zone recently? It used to be a small area with mostly-white, simple bras in the various sizes, the majority of which came in boxes, with a little annex with strapless, convertible, padded and a few colored or lacy ones hidden decorously in the back; now, it's row after row of racks extending for nearly half the length of the store, with a dizzying array of styles, colors, patterns and decorations that you can clearly see because they're NOT in boxes (except for in a tiny section of one aisle that incongruously had drawers full of the old-style packages)... it was a little embarrassing to be there, because it looked like stuff for strippers and hookers rather than for normal women. Who the heck is buying all those wild bras? I can see having a couple of fancy ones for, um, erotic enhancement, but usually you want a bra that's not visible through your clothes, and you'd have to be wearing a suit of armor to hide most of the ones I saw.
Another scary observation was how many of the bras were padded and/or pushup; are there really that many WalMart customers who want to look that hooterific? I certainly want bras that are sufficiently lined to conceal if I'm, er, standing in a draft, and I want good support, but nothing on Earth could persuade me to try to draw attention to my chest with a "sexy" bra; I want to be taken seriously, looked in the eye, and valued for my intellect, NOT my cleavage. The absolute WORST thing, though, was the preponderance of underwires, those excruciatingly uncomfortable shaping elements that had been almost entirely eradicated until a decade or so ago; literally about 95% of the bras had them.
I wanted bras that would provide proper lift and coverage without enhancement, ornamentation or underwires, in basic beige or tan; out of the hundreds of available styles, know how many fit my criteria? TWO... and only 1 had my size in stock. sigh
Then came the search for panties... and I do mean PANTIES, not thongs, boyshorts or the giant granny undies that come up to within an inch of the boobs, although those varieties made up ALL of the stock that could be examined and bought individually off the rack and most of the packaged types. I don't want anything digging up my butt all day, I don't want the lower half of my butt hanging out, and I don't want my underwear visible over the waistband of my jeans; is that so outrageous? There's something vaguely degrading about having to get underwear in a sealed bulk package from the far end of the department, like it's something shameful to want more than an inch-wide strip of fabric covering my privates, and I'm not thrilled that I have to get at least 3 pairs at a time even if I only want 1, but the most aggravating part isn't WalMart's fault; the bulk-panty-pack companies appear to be run by blithering idiots. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a pack with cute, colorful patterns... and one plain white pair (occasionally it's beige or battleship gray). What MORON decided that someone looking for patterned panties would want to pay for a plain pair along with them? As my husband pointed out, the plain-white and the patterned-panty preferers are NOT the same women, so why combine those things? They don't stick a patterned pair in every pack of white panties, so why stick a white pair in nearly every pack of patterned ones? I don't wear white panties, and I don't want to have to pay for them and then donate them to Goodwill, so most times there's nothing I can get; this time, I found a pack with an attractive enough solid color mixed in with the patterns that I was willing to buy it, but it still drives me NUTS that something as basic as attractive cotton panties has become so difficult to find and onerous to purchase.
Once we've all talked about spouses, pets and underwear, hopefully we'll be capable of chatting naturally about whatever; cross your fingers for me that I'll be able to enjoy getting to know these friends of a friend... and that maybe, just maybe, there'll be a kindred soul or 2 to exchange ideas with.
The problem isn't that I'm ever at a loss for words (obviously, lol), it's that in a social situation you have to come up with words that people find enjoyable to listen to... and how many of them do you think will want to sit around in Halloween costumes, eating candy and discussing metaphysics or the psychology of evil? My hosts are geeks, so their guests mostly will be too, which will help a little, because I can discuss "Babylon 5 vs Star Trek" with the best of 'em; I've gotta be wary of tech talk, though, because it'd be too easy to get carried away and let slip the phrase "my blog"... which, since no one is supposed to know about it, and my hosts are mentioned in multiple posts, would be a disaster.
How long can we ramble on about geek stuff? Longer than you'd imagine, but even geeks talk about pop culture and current events at parties, and I'm mostly outta luck there; I don't go to the movies, I haven't seen the latest episode of anything since "Queer as Folk" was cancelled, I know virtually nothing about music made after 1990, I'm almost entirely indifferent to celebrities and I don't follow the news. What's left, religion and politics? I might luck out with the former, as there's a good chance that there'll be a few Wiccans there and maybe I can steer them into discussing karma for a while, but politics is a total waste of time to debate, as all it accomplishes is creating bad feelings... especially if you're a cutthroat debater like ME.
After much thought, here's what I've come up with that I should be able to have normal, and perhaps entertaining, conversations about, even with strangers:
1) Animals: The hosts have pets, and the doodads and hair thereof are everywhere, so it shouldn't be too hard to work in a mention of critters; nearly everyone has some pet stories, and I've got endless tales about the furry and feathered visitors to my patio and the cute things they've done, so this could use up alot of time.
2) Spouses: Thank goodness I'm old enough now that any group of my peers will mostly be coupled up; yes, even geeks find love, and although the male of the species does so at a rate much lower than average they're also not likely to be sociable enough to be invited to parties, so it evens out. If you're a regular reader, you know that I have numerous heinous-hubby stories, and can tell them with a reasonable degree of humor; I know better than to tell too many of them, as I don't want to sound like a malcontent, but everyone in earshot will have contributions to make to this topic, so it can go on for ages, and as a bonus it's a good way to get to know people.
3) Underwear: Well, not that specifically, but whatever I've seen recently that's struck me as being worthy of a stand-up routine, both to regale folks with and to encourage them to add their perceptions to, which at this point in time is the ladies underwear ("lingerie") section of WalMart:
I hadn't gotten any new bras in far too long, so since we had to go to WalMart anyways I figured I'd send my husband to look at boxers (most of his are in SHREDS) and take the plunge. Have you looked at a bra display zone recently? It used to be a small area with mostly-white, simple bras in the various sizes, the majority of which came in boxes, with a little annex with strapless, convertible, padded and a few colored or lacy ones hidden decorously in the back; now, it's row after row of racks extending for nearly half the length of the store, with a dizzying array of styles, colors, patterns and decorations that you can clearly see because they're NOT in boxes (except for in a tiny section of one aisle that incongruously had drawers full of the old-style packages)... it was a little embarrassing to be there, because it looked like stuff for strippers and hookers rather than for normal women. Who the heck is buying all those wild bras? I can see having a couple of fancy ones for, um, erotic enhancement, but usually you want a bra that's not visible through your clothes, and you'd have to be wearing a suit of armor to hide most of the ones I saw.
Another scary observation was how many of the bras were padded and/or pushup; are there really that many WalMart customers who want to look that hooterific? I certainly want bras that are sufficiently lined to conceal if I'm, er, standing in a draft, and I want good support, but nothing on Earth could persuade me to try to draw attention to my chest with a "sexy" bra; I want to be taken seriously, looked in the eye, and valued for my intellect, NOT my cleavage. The absolute WORST thing, though, was the preponderance of underwires, those excruciatingly uncomfortable shaping elements that had been almost entirely eradicated until a decade or so ago; literally about 95% of the bras had them.
I wanted bras that would provide proper lift and coverage without enhancement, ornamentation or underwires, in basic beige or tan; out of the hundreds of available styles, know how many fit my criteria? TWO... and only 1 had my size in stock. sigh
Then came the search for panties... and I do mean PANTIES, not thongs, boyshorts or the giant granny undies that come up to within an inch of the boobs, although those varieties made up ALL of the stock that could be examined and bought individually off the rack and most of the packaged types. I don't want anything digging up my butt all day, I don't want the lower half of my butt hanging out, and I don't want my underwear visible over the waistband of my jeans; is that so outrageous? There's something vaguely degrading about having to get underwear in a sealed bulk package from the far end of the department, like it's something shameful to want more than an inch-wide strip of fabric covering my privates, and I'm not thrilled that I have to get at least 3 pairs at a time even if I only want 1, but the most aggravating part isn't WalMart's fault; the bulk-panty-pack companies appear to be run by blithering idiots. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a pack with cute, colorful patterns... and one plain white pair (occasionally it's beige or battleship gray). What MORON decided that someone looking for patterned panties would want to pay for a plain pair along with them? As my husband pointed out, the plain-white and the patterned-panty preferers are NOT the same women, so why combine those things? They don't stick a patterned pair in every pack of white panties, so why stick a white pair in nearly every pack of patterned ones? I don't wear white panties, and I don't want to have to pay for them and then donate them to Goodwill, so most times there's nothing I can get; this time, I found a pack with an attractive enough solid color mixed in with the patterns that I was willing to buy it, but it still drives me NUTS that something as basic as attractive cotton panties has become so difficult to find and onerous to purchase.
Once we've all talked about spouses, pets and underwear, hopefully we'll be capable of chatting naturally about whatever; cross your fingers for me that I'll be able to enjoy getting to know these friends of a friend... and that maybe, just maybe, there'll be a kindred soul or 2 to exchange ideas with.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Why do the evil usually triumph?
I had some new insights today as to why evil people enjoy such enormous success:
1) Evil has few, if any, opponents: To earn the label of "good" or "evil," you have to take ACTION that demonstrates your moral standing; most people neither attack/screw over (evil) nor defend/assist (good) the innocent, and thus are morally neutral... and the neutral tend to not get involved when there's trouble. Since evil is easier and more exciting than good, there are more evil people than good ones, to the extent that in most social groupings there aren't ANY good people; this means that the evil can usually act unopposed... and THEY KNOW IT.
2) Evil is fearless: Evil people are aware that, contrary to how it SHOULD work, it's highly unlikely that they'll receive censure from the authorities or the members of whatever group they're acting up in; that doesn't matter much to them, though, because they're NOT AFRAID of censure, or even punishment... either they're so arrogant due to their many successes that they truly believe it can't happen to them, or they've experienced it and realize that it's not particularly painful and has no lasting ill effects, and thus can be dismissed from their calculations. The good and the neutral, in contrast, ARE afraid of censure, which causes them to hold back from taking action, making it easier for the evil to steamroller onwards.
3) Evil understands psychology: They instinctively grasp the grim fact that how a person typically behaves is seen as a baseline on which no judgment is passed (see my post of 2-2-06), so if they misbehave consistently people just accept it as a given and ignore it; worse, if they get into a dispute with a neutral or good person, this means they're seen as doing nothing wrong (because they're acting in the normal, accepted manner), and leads to the blame for the disruption being placed on the only other available party... the innocent victim. They also understand intermittent reinforcement (see my post of 9-10-04), which tells them that if they're nice occasionally it has way more impact than the behavior of those who're always nice, and so causes them to be seen as far nicer than the latter; this protects them from well-deserved harsh judgments, and even gains them the friendship of people who should know better.
4) Evil lays the groundwork: They know to go around and lavish some charm on everyone in the group, especially those seen as leaders or authorities, before acting up, because this provides them with an absurd amount of protection from being judged against. They also know to talk privately with others of their kind, and any they think might join them, and get everyone worked up to take action so that they can come out of nowhere with a mass assault that's very difficult to combat. Most diabolically of all, they complain to everyone about their victims before the latter can complain about THEM, so that the members of their social circle, and, more importantly, the authorities, will automatically discount whatever the victims say because they've already leapt to judgment against them; sadly, most folks will continue to believe whoever talked to them 1st no matter what evidence of what really happened is presented to them afterwards, so the victims are out of luck.
5) Evil knows the value of gradual escalation: If you drop a frog into boiling water, it'll hop right out; put it in cool water and heat it slowly, and it'll boil to death without ever having tried to escape. In similar fashion, evil types will start small and build to ever-greater evils, with an unerring instinct for how far and how fast they can successfully increase their level of misbehavior without alarming the witnesses... and then folks finally wake up and wonder how things could have gotten so BAD without anything being done.
6) Evil is unhesitatingly active: In order to accomplish your goals (whether constructive or DEstructive), you have to DO something, and the evil are like barking dogs straining at their leashes; the good and the neutral, meanwhile, hang back from taking action, even in their own defense, and while they're dithering and discussing the evil are kicking butts right and left.
7) Evil loves to team up: Evil people smell each other out and rush to join forces, because it's so clearly in their best interests to do so; it gives them vastly enhanced power and protection. The goals of the good and the neutral don't include acquiring the power to hurt others and having the safe exercise thereof, so they do NOT automatically form "battle groups"; it never occurs to them that they'll eventually need a group for protection, and if you tell them that they'll brush it off as nonsense. Sadly, even AFTER the evil make their move, the good and the neutral are blind to the need to scramble into protective groups... they scatter like rabbits instead.
8) Evil effortlessly pads its ranks with the neutral: Once the evil go into action, neutral types will all too often join them out of fear of being targeted if they're not in the group, or because they see it as a safe way to release the anger and hostility caused by their rotten lives, or because they're weak and attackers seem strong (think moth to the flame), or because they're worthless and only the evil will have them. The good are notoriously bad at luring and keeping the neutral, because the neutral stand to gain little and forfeit much if they join what's usually the losing side, and they're drawn to, and fooled by, the wonderful-seeming fake friendships that the evil offer, never seeing that they're being used and held in contempt.
9) Evil follows the leader: I used to wonder about movies, and even cartoons, that showed world-class villains with swarms of henchmen; it didn't seem possible that someone could get a group of even their fellow evildoers to willingly follow their orders day in and day out... but I don't wonder anymore. Through some psychological pathway that still eludes me, once someone is seen as the leader of an evil group, usually by being the most dramatically evil member thereof, their orders get OBEYED; it doesn't matter how many orders there are, or how extreme or difficult they are, the flunkies can't WAIT to carry them out to the letter. The good and the neutral, however, even if they've explicitly agreed that they're all going to do what THEIR leader says for their own frigging good, will argue, complain, drag their feet, promise but not follow through, make excuses, do things their own way or half-@ss-edly, etc... getting them to all do what they're supposed to is like herding cats, which makes their groups of limited use even if they manage to form them and stick with them.
10) Evil is persistent: They'll gleefully do an infinite # of evil deeds, and will literally NEVER grow tired of it, because they LOVE what they're doing; if there's a goal other than just causing trouble forever, they've got what it takes to see it through. On the other hand, if you can get good or neutral people to make ONE decisive move, they act as if they've just climbed Everest and are all done in... and just plain DONE, because, no matter how obvious it is that the evil have NOT been stopped yet, their attitude will be that they did their best and that's it. Even if they're being personally attacked, even if they stand to lose a great deal if the attack "destroys" them, they'll rarely put forth more than a token effort before giving it up as hopeless.
Given all that, the amazing thing is that the evil don't ALWAYS win... they do come close, though, and it's largely because YOU aren't taking action to stop them. If you're tired of little cliques of evil people running things, or at the very least causing constant irritation and making chosen victims miserable, at your office, school, and every social group you're in, online as well as off-, DO something about it: Taking a page from their book, secretly talk to everyone you think might be willing to act against them, tell them to all tie broomsticks to their spines to stiffen them if necessary (be a little less blunt than that, of course), and when the evil ones take their next action, CRUSH THEM. Even if you can't get enough people to keep fighting long enough to get the win, you can still make being evil much more trouble and much less fun, which will dampen their enthusiasm and reduce their bad behavior.
And if you're unwilling to do that? They win. You lose. It's that simple.
1) Evil has few, if any, opponents: To earn the label of "good" or "evil," you have to take ACTION that demonstrates your moral standing; most people neither attack/screw over (evil) nor defend/assist (good) the innocent, and thus are morally neutral... and the neutral tend to not get involved when there's trouble. Since evil is easier and more exciting than good, there are more evil people than good ones, to the extent that in most social groupings there aren't ANY good people; this means that the evil can usually act unopposed... and THEY KNOW IT.
2) Evil is fearless: Evil people are aware that, contrary to how it SHOULD work, it's highly unlikely that they'll receive censure from the authorities or the members of whatever group they're acting up in; that doesn't matter much to them, though, because they're NOT AFRAID of censure, or even punishment... either they're so arrogant due to their many successes that they truly believe it can't happen to them, or they've experienced it and realize that it's not particularly painful and has no lasting ill effects, and thus can be dismissed from their calculations. The good and the neutral, in contrast, ARE afraid of censure, which causes them to hold back from taking action, making it easier for the evil to steamroller onwards.
3) Evil understands psychology: They instinctively grasp the grim fact that how a person typically behaves is seen as a baseline on which no judgment is passed (see my post of 2-2-06), so if they misbehave consistently people just accept it as a given and ignore it; worse, if they get into a dispute with a neutral or good person, this means they're seen as doing nothing wrong (because they're acting in the normal, accepted manner), and leads to the blame for the disruption being placed on the only other available party... the innocent victim. They also understand intermittent reinforcement (see my post of 9-10-04), which tells them that if they're nice occasionally it has way more impact than the behavior of those who're always nice, and so causes them to be seen as far nicer than the latter; this protects them from well-deserved harsh judgments, and even gains them the friendship of people who should know better.
4) Evil lays the groundwork: They know to go around and lavish some charm on everyone in the group, especially those seen as leaders or authorities, before acting up, because this provides them with an absurd amount of protection from being judged against. They also know to talk privately with others of their kind, and any they think might join them, and get everyone worked up to take action so that they can come out of nowhere with a mass assault that's very difficult to combat. Most diabolically of all, they complain to everyone about their victims before the latter can complain about THEM, so that the members of their social circle, and, more importantly, the authorities, will automatically discount whatever the victims say because they've already leapt to judgment against them; sadly, most folks will continue to believe whoever talked to them 1st no matter what evidence of what really happened is presented to them afterwards, so the victims are out of luck.
5) Evil knows the value of gradual escalation: If you drop a frog into boiling water, it'll hop right out; put it in cool water and heat it slowly, and it'll boil to death without ever having tried to escape. In similar fashion, evil types will start small and build to ever-greater evils, with an unerring instinct for how far and how fast they can successfully increase their level of misbehavior without alarming the witnesses... and then folks finally wake up and wonder how things could have gotten so BAD without anything being done.
6) Evil is unhesitatingly active: In order to accomplish your goals (whether constructive or DEstructive), you have to DO something, and the evil are like barking dogs straining at their leashes; the good and the neutral, meanwhile, hang back from taking action, even in their own defense, and while they're dithering and discussing the evil are kicking butts right and left.
7) Evil loves to team up: Evil people smell each other out and rush to join forces, because it's so clearly in their best interests to do so; it gives them vastly enhanced power and protection. The goals of the good and the neutral don't include acquiring the power to hurt others and having the safe exercise thereof, so they do NOT automatically form "battle groups"; it never occurs to them that they'll eventually need a group for protection, and if you tell them that they'll brush it off as nonsense. Sadly, even AFTER the evil make their move, the good and the neutral are blind to the need to scramble into protective groups... they scatter like rabbits instead.
8) Evil effortlessly pads its ranks with the neutral: Once the evil go into action, neutral types will all too often join them out of fear of being targeted if they're not in the group, or because they see it as a safe way to release the anger and hostility caused by their rotten lives, or because they're weak and attackers seem strong (think moth to the flame), or because they're worthless and only the evil will have them. The good are notoriously bad at luring and keeping the neutral, because the neutral stand to gain little and forfeit much if they join what's usually the losing side, and they're drawn to, and fooled by, the wonderful-seeming fake friendships that the evil offer, never seeing that they're being used and held in contempt.
9) Evil follows the leader: I used to wonder about movies, and even cartoons, that showed world-class villains with swarms of henchmen; it didn't seem possible that someone could get a group of even their fellow evildoers to willingly follow their orders day in and day out... but I don't wonder anymore. Through some psychological pathway that still eludes me, once someone is seen as the leader of an evil group, usually by being the most dramatically evil member thereof, their orders get OBEYED; it doesn't matter how many orders there are, or how extreme or difficult they are, the flunkies can't WAIT to carry them out to the letter. The good and the neutral, however, even if they've explicitly agreed that they're all going to do what THEIR leader says for their own frigging good, will argue, complain, drag their feet, promise but not follow through, make excuses, do things their own way or half-@ss-edly, etc... getting them to all do what they're supposed to is like herding cats, which makes their groups of limited use even if they manage to form them and stick with them.
10) Evil is persistent: They'll gleefully do an infinite # of evil deeds, and will literally NEVER grow tired of it, because they LOVE what they're doing; if there's a goal other than just causing trouble forever, they've got what it takes to see it through. On the other hand, if you can get good or neutral people to make ONE decisive move, they act as if they've just climbed Everest and are all done in... and just plain DONE, because, no matter how obvious it is that the evil have NOT been stopped yet, their attitude will be that they did their best and that's it. Even if they're being personally attacked, even if they stand to lose a great deal if the attack "destroys" them, they'll rarely put forth more than a token effort before giving it up as hopeless.
Given all that, the amazing thing is that the evil don't ALWAYS win... they do come close, though, and it's largely because YOU aren't taking action to stop them. If you're tired of little cliques of evil people running things, or at the very least causing constant irritation and making chosen victims miserable, at your office, school, and every social group you're in, online as well as off-, DO something about it: Taking a page from their book, secretly talk to everyone you think might be willing to act against them, tell them to all tie broomsticks to their spines to stiffen them if necessary (be a little less blunt than that, of course), and when the evil ones take their next action, CRUSH THEM. Even if you can't get enough people to keep fighting long enough to get the win, you can still make being evil much more trouble and much less fun, which will dampen their enthusiasm and reduce their bad behavior.
And if you're unwilling to do that? They win. You lose. It's that simple.
