Meta: Mary Morstan. Spoilers for HLV

[Slithytove]

Unless she legally changes her name to Mary Morstan first? Not hard to do, fairly cheap and, unless UK laws on such a move are stiffer then here in the US....they don't look to closely into the person's background.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. She is fraudulently Mary Watson, then she changes her name by deed poll to Mary Morstan...... I don't see how that helps.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I do not think John had any idea Sherlock was expected to die abroad. If he had, I do think he would have behaved very differently.

 

Furious, I would think. (Mycroft might have needed that nice car of his as a getaway vehicle.)

[aely]

Legally, they are not married. You can't marry someone under a false identity.

 

Legally, you can't carry a handgun in this country either without serious repercussions, amongst a bucket load of other legal inconsistencies in the show.

 

 

This is all for dramatic license; time to get that hand wavy thing started, I suppose...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Okay, so people are saying that John and Mary aren't legally married. It seems the main issue is because she is not legally Mary Morstan. And I guess people are also assuming that she really doesn't love John....which is open to interpretation. People change their names all the time. I have done it, right down to my birth certificate. And yes, it is 100 percent legal.

 

 As for her not loving John so that their marriage should be null and void? That would be between them, I would think. A lot of marriages are still arranged, or for convenience, or a hundred and one different reasons other then love. It is for the two partners to work out and rearrange if possible. These two people know English law and how these things work. If John had forgiven Mary then he will know what it will take to make their union viable and legal.

[Slithytove]

Changing your name would not legalise your marriage. Mary gave false information when applying for a marriage licence, which is a criminal offence. Perjury, in fact. She could get seven years for it. A drop in the ocean, I suppose, compared to the sentence for murder and attempted murder.

 

An unlicensed hand gun is certainly illegal but easier to hide. You can't keep a wife hidden in a drawer or tucked in the waistband of your trousers!

 

In reality, I don't think the Watsons' marriage would stand a chance. Lies are hardly a basis for a strong, lasting relationship. Sherlock's lie at the end of TRF had repercussions for his relationship with John, and clearly it still isn't back to the place it was before he jumped. Maybe it never will be. Mary's lies are a million times worse. She pretended to be someone she was not, and he trusted her. She has killed people in the past and, sooner or later, he would have questions about that. Worst of all, she tried to murder his best friend, the only other person he seems to regard as family. Sherlock must have nearly died in his arms - how many times would that scene replay in his head?

 

However, this is fiction and I think we are supposed to keep loving Mary, so I would give pretty good odds on their marriage lasting. My guess is that, at some point in the future, Mary will redeem herself by sacrificing her own life to save someone else's - Sherlock, maybe, as he was the one she harmed. Again that is the sort of thing which must happen very, very rarely in real life - if you are the sort of person who kills to further your own interests, you're not the self-sacrifing type - but is very popular in fiction. I doubt Moftiss will be able to resist it

[Arcadia]

I'm thinking it's possible that she did legally change her name to Mary Morstan long before John even met her....

[Undead Medic]

One also would presume that it is common practice to furnish ex government agents with new, perfectly legal identities after they leave service. So while "Mary Morstan" may not be the name she was given at birth it may well be a perfectly legal new identity.

 

(Just reaching here )

[wildwoodflower]

 

Deception and the betrayal of trust has been a Sherlock theme from the beginning. Moriarty fools Molly into trusting him as Jim from IT and Kitty Riley as Richard Brook. Ironically, the arch-villain does the least harm, in this case, to his victims. Sherlock pretends to be dead and pretends to propose to Janine. These are serious betrayals of trust and I would say that, in moral terms, the fake proposal was worst, though in real terms John was devastated for a long time whereas Janine recovered very quickly. The lie to John was intended, it seems, to protect Sherlock but also, perhaps, to protect John too. The phoney courtship of Janine was a matter of convenience. Mary's betrayal was the cruellest of all. She lied massively to John, even going through a bogus marriage, and she was so friendly to Sherlock that he trusted her not to hurt him. Bad decision.

 

As for John being a moral man...... Yes, he was the detective's moral compass, from his first incarnation to the present day, right up to HLV. Then something seems to go wrong. He doesn't have that practical but unshakable morality which was the cornerstone of his character and that makes me annoyed with the writers, because I have always loved John Watson and everything he stands for.

 

Unless, of course, the writers have a long-term plan and it is all a bluff.....

 

I have to disagree about the marriage being bogus, at least on the level of sincere desire to be married and a geuine love of the man (even by your standards of how much she is capable of doing so). She isn't getting married to John in order to deceive him. She wants to forget her past (impossible, obviously) and pretend she is this new person. Only at the wedding she is reminded that that isn't possible.

 

I don't need to forgive the character. I want to see what happens. It may be that she gets killed, maybe she'll reddem herself by some grand self-sacrifice (which is often how these things are managed), maybe they'll work it all out and it will be all wacky Raising Arizona-like with the baby accidentally left on the roof of a car. Or both will tragically die so the boys can finally realize their sexy love for one another (like in all the fix-it fics ever). I like the damned character because she is interesting and complicated and seeking redemption but not doing a good job of it. If Buffy taught me anything, it's that redemption is possible for anyone who genuinely wants it. BBC Sherlock and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, two shows I love because of the juxtaposition of the mundane with the fantastical.

[T.o.b.y]

...this is fiction and I think we are supposed to keep loving Mary, so I would give pretty good odds on their marriage lasting. My guess is that, at some point in the future, Mary will redeem herself by sacrificing her own life to save someone else's - Sherlock, maybe, as he was the one she harmed. Again that is the sort of thing which must happen very, very rarely in real life - if you are the sort of person who kills to further your own interests, you're not the self-sacrifing type - but is very popular in fiction. I doubt Moftiss will be able to resist it

 

I have a similar impression. I just hope you / we prove to be wrong about the sacrificing her life bit. That would be a waste of a very interesting character and a much too predictable, boring plot in my opinion. And I know I've said this a dozen times, but we've had John devastated at someone's grave and I don't think they should try to cash in on the success of that episode by repeating the experience. Let them come up with something new.

 

[Slithytove]

I was talking about marriage in the legal sense. In that sense, one's motives are entirely irrelevant. If you assume someone else's identity- which she evidently did, as there would be no point in Sherlock referring to the stillborn child if she had merely changed her name - any subsequent marriage is null and void. Whether you love each other does not make any difference as far as the law is concerned.

 

As far as forgiving the character.... Obviously no-one really interacts with fictional characters. Mary does not want or need our forgiveness, because she does not exist. What I am trying to discuss here is morality within the parameters of fiction. What interests me are the questions raised by the imaginary decisions made by these imaginary characters. For instance - does love justify everything? If not, what are the limits? If so, how can society be protected? Can you be forgiven for killling an innocent witness? If so, why?

 

I like Mary as a character because I think she has the potential for strong storylines. I think that the most logical explanation for her behaviour, given the information we have received so far, as that she is a psychopath, and this would give her character the potential for plenty of conflict, which is the life-blood of fiction, after all.

 

What I don't like is the way the writing seems to have altered John's character without explanation. It is good for a character to be unpredictable but when his behaviour appears to violate everything we know of his nature and his values, we need some sort of reason. That is Fiction Writing 101.

 

I also do not like writing which tries to manipulate us into particular reactions, and I think Moffatt has a tendency to do this ( seen more clearly in Dr Who.) I got this feeling in the latter part of HLV, even though it was an excellent episode in many ways. A lot depends, I think, on how things play out in the next series.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

What I don't like is the way the writing seems to have altered John's character without explanation. It is good for a character to be unpredictable but when his behaviour appears to violate everything we know of his nature and his values, we need some sort of reason.

 

  I get the feeling that John's character didn't change, especially without explanation. We are just being shown different facets of him. He's under stress and in shock and under pressure throughout Season Three.

 

 In Seasons One and Two we see a the kind, caring, and kind of fluffy John Watson. But this whole season was very different, as we have all noticed and John Watson took the brunt of it. I don't see him violating anything, he is still caring and forgiving in the face of a whole lot of reveals that would throw anyone off kilter and into an emotional tail spin. We're upset because he forgives Mary after months of silence. Yet we aren't satisfied with it? He is being the caring and forgiving yet even then people find fault with that.

 

 Poor John, damned if he does, damned if he don't.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

What I don't like is the way the writing seems to have altered John's character without explanation. It is good for a character to be unpredictable but when his behaviour appears to violate everything we know of his nature and his values, we need some sort of reason.

 

  I get the feeling that John's character didn't change, especially without explanation. We are just being shown a different facets of him. He's under stress and in shock and under pressure throughout Season Three.

 

 In Seasons One and Two we see a the kind, caring, and kind of fluffy John Watson. But this whole season was very different, as we have all noticed and John Watson took the brunt of it. I don't see him violating anything, he is still caring and forgiving in the face of a whole lot of reveals that would throw anyone off kilter and into an emotional tail spin. We're upset because he forgives Mary after months of silence. Yet we aren't satisfied with it? He is being the caring and forgiving yet then people find fault with that.

 

 Poor John, damned if he does, damned if he don't.

 

 

Interesting that so many people around here think John has changed. I don't see him as very different than he was before. And I certainly never would have described him as "fluffy" at all.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

And I certainly never would have described him as "fluffy" at all.

 

 

  it's all those jumpers, I guess that gives me that impression. And all the tea he makes, and doing the grocery shopping. Asking Sherlock if he's ok. Yes, he has his prickly moments and take charge moments, like at Baskerville when he pulls rank....yelling at Sherlock when John believes that Sherlock doesn't care about the old woman and other people who died in that blast. But he still has a warmer, brighter appearance then in Season Three and with good cause.

[Caya]

 

I like the damned character because she is interesting and complicated and seeking redemption but not doing a good job of it. If Buffy taught me anything, it's that redemption is possible for anyone who genuinely wants it.

 

That, for me, is exactly where my problem with Mary lies. Does she even seek redemption? If so, she's certainly not particularly enthusiastic about the whole "making up for past mistakes" bit. We never see her apologize, of feel sorry (other than for herself). She appears sorry that she got caught, not sorry for what she did. If she showed even a sliver of remorse, I might make my peace with the char. But she seems a-okay with everything she did, up to and including killing Sherlock.

 

[Zain]

 

That, for me, is exactly where my problem with Mary lies. Does she even seek redemption? If so, she's certainly not particularly enthusiastic about the whole "making up for past mistakes" bit. We never see her apologize, of feel sorry (other than for herself). She appears sorry that she got caught, not sorry for what she did. If she showed even a sliver of remorse, I might make my peace with the char. But she seems a-okay with everything she did, up to and including killing Sherlock.

 

 

 

 

That's exactly the problem.

I really don't understand why people keep bringing up that Sherlock deceived John by faking his death and compare it to Mary's actions. It's certainly not the kind thing to do but he feels sorry. Enough not to force his way into John's life like he did before. He doesn't antagonize Mary, he doesn't barge into John's new life after his return when he realizes the consequences of his actions. That there's no room for him.

It's some form of respect, I think. A sign that he feels guilty to a certain degree. He is able to look past himself. Mary completely lacks this form of empathy.

 

I don't know if I could stomach it if they did not clear up this moral issue.

I find it very distasteful that John takes Mary back when she shows no will to atone for her sins while his relationship with Sherlock is shattered enough to be shaky at best. Sherlock had to work through their issues on his own (as he should) while Mary is handed everything on a silver platter by John. She doesn't have to change, she doesn't have to compromise. I sometimes wonder who forgave whom. The way she acts up at Christmas, it's more like Mary accepted John back after he dared to question her actions.

There's a form of injustice, and that's mainly what makes me feel uncomfortable with John in HLV.

 

For now I am desperately hoping it's some sort of set-up for season 4. For all I care, let Mary sacrifice herself for somebody. It won't redeem her in my eyes. That ship sailed the moment she self-absorbedly hurt an innocent to further her own gains. 

 

Btw, thanks slithytove for the link to the other meta.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I also do not like writing which tries to manipulate us into particular reactions, and I think Moffatt has a tendency to do this ( seen more clearly in Dr Who.) I got this feeling in the latter part of HLV, even though it was an excellent episode in many ways. A lot depends, I think, on how things play out in the next series.

Truer words were never spoken!

 

Of course, drama always aims at eliciting a particular reaction from the audience. But "Last Vow" has so damned many big-surprise moments that we could easily sprain ourselves, jumping through all those hoops -- that is, if we don't become so jaded that we lose interest first.

 

I guess I prefer my big moments a bit more spread out, so I can savor them.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I really don't understand why people keep bringing up that Sherlock deceived John by faking his death and compare it to Mary's actions.

 

I don't know if I could stomach it if they did not clear up this moral issue.

I find it very distasteful that John takes Mary back when she shows no will to atone for her sins while his relationship with Sherlock is shattered enough to be shaky at best. Sherlock had to work through their issues on his own (as he should) while Mary is handed everything on a silver platter by John. She doesn't have to change, she doesn't have to compromise. I sometimes wonder who forgave whom. The way she acts up at Christmas, it's more like Mary accepted John back after he dared to question her actions.

 

Wow. We interpret that Christmas scene totally differently, don't we. I don't see Mary "acting up", I see her trying to maintain a bit of dignity at first, maybe in an attempt not to let herself be hurt, maybe bracing herself for the breakup she fears might be coming. (Just like her husband, I guess she tends to get a bit hostile when actually hurt, afraid, sad or helpless). Then, when John makes his "noble" speech, she tears up and falls into his arms. Poor woman, it's terribly humiliating in my eyes, but I guess she had little choice. I'd have acted up a lot more if I were her and the afternoon would have ended in total disaster.

 

She doesn't have to change? I'd rather say, she's not allowed to change back. John wants her just as she was "supposed" to be, the Mrs Mary Watson he (thought he) married, and anything else is apparently unwelcome. So she'd better see to it that she continues to fulfill that role, which, lucky for her, she at least chose for herself and seems to like quite well, so I guess they're happy.

 

Of course there are obvious differences between the way Sherlock deceived John with his fake death and the way Mary did, but I think if John could forgive his friend for making him watch as he hurled himself off a building and attend his funeral, it makes sense that he can also find it in his heart to forgive Mary for marrying him under an assumed name and keeping a few weighty secrets from him. As for morality, what Sherlock did to John was terribly wrong as well, and so on moral grounds, if that means you're not supposed to love people who do bad things and hurt people, he maybe shouldn't have gotten over that, either. But he did, thank goodness.

 

Is Mary sorry? Hard to tell. It's even hard to tell whether she really has anything to be sorry for. If we only knew some of the stuff that John chose to ignore. If only... She did say she was truly sorry when she shot Sherlock, and the way she cries when John makes it clear he still loves her, I guess she regrets having hurt him as well. As for her former victims, if they were all like Magnussen, I don't think she has much to regret...

[Caya]

Well, we don't know too much about what she did before, but I'd say that killing Sherlock is definitely something to be sorry for.

 

And Sherlock apologized to John in the train before John forgives him. Granted, that apology left a lot to be desired, but still, he did. Mary never so much as apologizes, let alone tries to make up for anything.

[Arcadia]

Ooops, as usual it took me so long to compose my thoughts that the conversation has moved on! This is in response to Carol's remark, above, not to the two after it.

 

----

 

I would agree (the explanation of "the Fall" left all of TRF feeling rather manipulative, for example) except that there seems to be a very wide range of reactions to the end of Season 3!

 

Definitely the story was intended to invoke a response (which is why I love this kind of show) but I'm not convinced it was intended to invoke a particular response. I felt it was intending to stimulate debate (even if it's just an internal debate), similar to the one y'all are having above... e.g., when is it okay to kill? Who gets to decide that? Is there anything that cannot be forgiven? Etc.

 

John accepting Mary (note I don't say "forgiving") ... that just made him more lovable in my eyes, but I get why others have had the opposite reaction. Sherlock becoming judge, jury and executioner, on the other hand -- some people cheered, but it doesn't sit well with me AT ALL. But I don't think it was meant to...I think it was meant to provoke. Or I hope so, anyway. I hate to think I'm reading too much into it, I want to believe the creators think their audience is sophisticated enuff to enjoy this kind of thing! :-)

[Arcadia]

I don't see Mary "acting up", I see her trying to maintain a bit of dignity at first, maybe in an attempt not to let herself be hurt, maybe bracing herself for the breakup she fears might be coming...

 

That's how I read this scene too (and the scene at Baker St as well). She assumes her world is going to shatter, and is trying to protect herself. Maybe not the most noble response but certainly a very human one. And one insanely noble, self-sacrificing person (Sherlock :-) may be as much as I can handle.

 

Over in the "what would you like to see in Season 4" thread I opined that I'd like to see some fall out from the actions in Season 3 -- that is, I hope they don't move on from there as if none of it changed anything.

 

At the moment I'm reserving judgement on Mary, cuz I simply don't have enough information about her. For all I know she's the female version of Jason Bourne, who was definitely intended to be a sympathetic character. Lethal, but sympathetic.

 

I would also say that just because she thinks John wouldn't "love her anymore" if he knew her secrets, that doesn't mean she's right. After all, she thought John learning about her deception would "break him" and she would "lose him" -- but it didn't, and she didn't. So she has a lot to learn. Really, the creators have left the door open on her ... I just hope they go thru it, and not pretend everything about her has been resolved.

[Slithytove]

I am surprised that some people feel John hasn't changed. Yes, the poor man has had a rotten time, I grant you. However, I am guessing he has had bad times before. He was a soldier and a doctor in a war zone. He was wounded, lost his job and was apparently on the verge of suicide. Until he met Sherlock, he seemed to have no-one to give moral support and purpose to his life. Yet, despite this, he stayed loyal, compassionate and brave, both physically and morally.

 

And now? He doesn't have the courage to face the truth about his wife's past. He would rather bury his head in the sand and pretend it's all fine. He knows and accepts that she tried to murder his best friend. He's just "pissed off" with her. He knows she shows no remorse at any time but still he forgives her. He isn't even capable of offering Sherlock any comfort when facing exile and death for a crime committed for his sake.

 

I find it particularly hard to believe John wouldn't challenge Sherlock's "surgery" excuse for the shooting. He was an army doctor on active service. Doesn't the veteran of Kandahar and Helmand Province know anything about the massive trauma done by a bullet fired into the lower chest/upper abdomen? Even Sherlock, after the shooting, knows he is dying - "balance of probability", as his inner Mycroft says. John must know it was a miracle Sherlock survived. He saw him dying in the ambulance. If he chooses to believe, despite his own medical knowledge, that the shot was not meant to kill, it can only be because it suits him to do so. This is not, in my opinion, the John we used to know.

 

I do feel the writing is manipulative, pushing us towards the emotions the creators want us to feel, but you can never be sure with this particular team. We all, I think, had the same emotional response, more or less, to the Fall but S3 distorted that response by giving us a very different explanation of what we had seen - a man carrying out an long planned, elaborately worked out scheme, not one bidding goodbye to a friend he was gambling to protect. It may be that the moral issue which sticks in the throats of some of us - that the attempted murder of an innocent man cannot and should not be forgiven - will disappear in S4 as they will give us an entirely different explanation of everything that happened.

 

Anything is possible.

[Arcadia]

I am surprised that some people feel John hasn't changed.

Or maybe it's just that different people, for many reasons, interpret what they see differently. The stories are obviously written in such a way as to promote many interpretations. So much is deliberately ambiguous.

 

Case in point:

 

He doesn't have the courage to face the truth about his wife's past.

See, I thought tossing the thumb drive into the fire WAS his act of courage. John's been portrayed up til now as accepting and forgiving, even at his own expense, and I took this to be another example of that. Do I agree with his actions? Not really. But without much data to go on, I decided this scene was meant to illustrate his steadfast heart, not a sudden lack of nerve. Could be wrong; everything was very open-ended.

 

... she tried to murder his best friend.

Here, I just took Sherlock's word as gospel; that is, she was trying NOT to kill him. (This doesn't mean I approve her actions; I thought she made a horrible decision.) I interpreted his forgiveness of her as a way of showing greatness on his part. Which sounds really corny when I write it, but I found it rather moving at the time. Again, I could be way off base, time will tell. I hope.

 

Anything is possible.

Truer words were never spoken!

 

I can't watch most tv, where everything is tied up with a neat bow at the end. ("Boring!") I guess I like being kept on the hook! And now I suddenly have a yen to go and watch a few reruns of Lost....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think changing and growing are two different things. The John of the first two season is still there, but he suffered a lot when he thought Sherlock committed suicide, of course he did. He and Sherlock had become closer then just friends, they were brothers in arms. London their battlefield.  Then Sherlock comes back. Suddenly John's whole life is in a turmoil. The adrenalin rush is back and in spades.

 

 Then he's drugged and thrown into the heart of a bon fire. Sherlock is trying to act like the last two years never happened. John's wife to be actually likes Sherlock the way he is.

 

  But at the end of it all, John still trusts Sherlock at his every word. Even when he doesn't want to. He's still that lovely forgiving man. He forgives Sherlock for playing dead and never telling him. He forgives him for playing dumb on the train with a live bomb.

 

  But then we turn around and don't want him to be forgiving of the wife he chose. Has she redeemed herself on that? Many people say no.....I'm not sure, I haven't watched it since it played in January.

 

  Things change, of course they do. That is what life is all about. If a person becomes stuck in one place....in their head....or in the past....they can't grow. But every human has personality traits that are so inherent so much a part of the person to almost be genetic, that it can't change no matter how hard a person might want to or even try to.

 

 John Watson's courage and forgiving nature seems to be that deeply ingrained in him and it is still there at the end of Season Three.

 

  When he throws that memory stick into the fire, he is brave and trusting enough to take the gamble that Sherlock is right about this woman, that she isn't all bad. That somewhere in there under all the pain she has caused in lying to him and  shooting Sherlock that there must be something good that Sherlock saw and believes in and wants John to believe in it too.

 

 Sherlock isn't stupid, especially about people and neither is John. It has taken months for John to get over being so angry at her that he can actually speak to her at all and even then he tells her straight up that he has had to choose his words carefully. That he is still very ticked off at her and may be for a long time. It took months for him to come to this decision and it is not made lightly.  He is trusting Sherlock's intuition more then he is trusting Mary, I think.

 

 Then Sherlock goes and kills the one man who above all threatens Mary's life. Just so that the woman can be free of him. But it would also free Janine, Lady Smallwood, John and all of Magnussen's victims. Sherlock who John had never known to use that kind of violence against anyone. John knew that Sherlock could handle himself in a fight and sometimes carried a gun, but never before had John seen Sherlock use deadly force, ever and he had done it for John and Mary. John was clearly stunned and in shock by that display of sacrifice and love.

 

 And he had to courage to go to that air field to see Sherlock off. To say goodbye yet again to this man who had given so much and whom he may never see again.  That does take courage and John had it in spades.

 

 

[Slithytove]

Obviously, people interpret stories differently. That is the pleasure of fiction, that it allows us the luxury of considering other perspectives. In reality, very few people would give a killer the benefit of the doubt because they happened to be nice people in other ways. In real life, a man who knew his wife was a murderer but stayed with her and deliberately avoided all knowledge for her crimes - well, if such a person existed, he would be considered a fool at best, or even an accomplice. Such people would horrify us. However, this is fiction, where a rude, arrogant man like Sherlock is adorable and a villain like Moriarty is fascinating. In this world, Mary can be offered forgiveness and John can be seen as brave. It is not an interpretation I choose, because it jars too deeply with my value system, but evidently it works for a lot of people.

 

Frankly, I think Sherlock's "She saved my life" is ridiculous, and an insult to anyone's intelligence - particularly that of an army doctor with battlefield experience! It always seemed obvious that shooting someone in that part of the body would be certain to produce terrible, life-threatening injuries, and having read the meta by cookieswillcrumble ( I posted the link in an earlier comment), I have no doubt. The list of damage done by the gunshot goes on and on and it is very clear that very, very few people would survive. Certainly it would not be the predicted outcome.

 

Mary is an experienced assassin. She would know the damage she inflicted.

 

John was an army doctor in a war zone. He would have seen many injuries of this sort.

 

Sherlock is a detective. He sees the bodies of murder victims, hangs around in morgues and experiments on bits of corpses. He would know what a gunshot to the torso would do. He does know, in fact - he knows he has been murdered. "Balance of probability."

 

They all must know it is a lie. Sherlock invents it to give Mary a way out. Mary goes along with it because she doesn't want her husband to think she tried to kill his best friend. John presumably accepts it because he would rather live with a lie, however immoral, rather than lose his wife. I think his loyalty to the innocent victim should be greater than his commitment to a murderer, but maybe that is just me.

[Slithytove]

Well, if that is how you feel. Personally, I thought the moral issue was interesting. Evidently not.