neiviele

[neiviele]

It's weird how some people will be like "I'm going to spread targeted disinformation about somebody and I'll block anyone who tries to correct me!"

Look, if you don't like the fact that I'm going to spread practices that cause people to hallucinate and dissociate on my blog, that's fine. I don't care. Because there's literally nothing you can possibly do to stop me.

But for the love of the Plural Holy Trinity, stop lying and trying to convince people I'm trying to traumatize children! I'm a tulpa! A created headmate in a created system! I sometimes share guides and give advice about tulpamancy to help others interested in creating headmates. The limited studies that have been conducted into tulpamancy have shown the practice to generally be healthy to practitioners.

I refuse to believe that anyone is actually stupid enough to honestly believe that when I talk about causing more people to be systems, I'm meaning through traumatizing children. Surely, surely, people are just pretending to be that stupid, right? They're just playing dumb? Right???

[neiviele]

"no mentally stable person is going to fake a suicide attempt"

Yes they would!

This is actually a deeply ableist talking point.

You don't need to be mentally "unstable" to do horrible, emotionally manipulative and abusive things!

You can fake a suicide because you are angry and think it would be an effective way to hurt people who wronged you in some ways. In a relationship, you can fake a suicide to emotionally manipulate a partner into staying with you. If it's over a computer screen while interacting with strangers online, you may not even consider the harm faking a suicide can cause to be that bad because text can make it harder to see the people on the other side of the screen as people.

There are lots of reasons otherwise mentally healthy neurotypical people can have for doing something as terrible as faking a suicide that don't rely on them being mentally ill or "unstable" in any way!

Stop attributing every problematic behavior someone can have to mental illness!!!

You are both stigmatizing mental illness AND giving a pass to abusers at the same time!

[neiviele]

it doesn't say anything different than the current DSM. They both state that a diagnosis should not be given if the individual is experiencing a cultural or religious or world belief.

That's what we're saying. There's a subset of endogenics that wouldn't qualify for any DID/OSDD diagnosis based on this criteria. Additionally, most endogenics don't qualify for DID/OSDD for the same reasons mediums don't - it's not experienced as adversive and not associated with impairment in functioning.

One thing I've always wondered about is why some people seem to point to the ICD and say that it validates endogenic or non traumatic plurality. it doesn't say anything different than the current DSM. They both state that a diagnosis should not be given if the individual is experiencing a cultural or religious or world belief.

If we use the example in the ICD then you would equally be claiming that mediums and super natural powers are proven. Saying "ya some people believe this" isn't the same as saying "yep it's real'

ICD11 - DID

DSM5 TR - DID

This directly about those who reference these texts as "proof"

[neiviele]

Remaking a few polls that I can’t reblog that frustrated me. The two other polls will be in reblogs.

Poll 1/3

[neiviele]

Evidence for plurality outside of DID is NOT hard to come across.

The existence of multiple selves in normality, spirtuality and also in other disorders that arent just DID are pretty well studied. Here are a few sources that I found just today and im sure by reading these texts yourself and by following up on the references cited within them, you can find even more evidence. btw, definitely do not use z-library or sci-hub to access these sources if they are paywalled.. thatd be just awful...

On Multiple Selves, By David Lester This book is fantastic for talking about plurality not just in DID but in many different situations. It mentions the theories of dozens of psychologists which include the experience plurality-- not just in DID or pathology --showing that this subject IS well studied. A lot of these experiences and theories are remarkably similar to what endogenic systems commonly purport online as I will show in screenshots below. Even though there are screenshots i implore you to access this resource yourself, it's great and has so many different viewpoints on this subject.

Handbook of psychiatric measures (2nd edition., pages 587–599). by American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Description: This resource is specifically on psychiatric measurement tools and diagnostic tools, but mentions DID and non pathological forms of plurality briefly. note "e.g." means EXAMPLE not the only possible experience of non-pathological dissociation.

Moreira-Almeida A, Neto FL, Cardeña E. Comparison of brazilian spiritist mediumship and dissociative identity disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008 Description: Studies about mediumship and a comparsion to those with DID, note that mediumship is being studied as a psychological dissociative phenomenon here and not particularly as a solely religious one, they are considering psychological explainations & factors. It is stated literally "there is empirical evidence that nonpathologic dissociative and mediumistic states have occured throughout history and in most societies". Though mediumship is often a spiritual experience I think the underlying psychological causes can be studied and equated to non-pathological/non-traumagenic plurality.

Lewis-Fernández, R. (1998). A cultural critique of the DSM-IV dissociative disorders section. Transcultural Psychiatry, 35(3), 387–400. Description: Addresses concerns that the DSM-IV criteria for DID does not properly address non-pathological dissociation considered a part of normality in many cultures. Here it mentions that in some cultures dissociation in rituals and practices is normal and not pathological. I believe that this same view could also be applied to types of western endogenic plurality, as these also could be influenced by cultural factors as a form of dissociation that is not pathological. I would like to see more research specifically into western endogenic plurality!

If you want papers directly stating "Endogenic plurality is real & DID isnt the only way to experience it" there just probably isnt any. I dont think many of these researcher even know of online communities and our terms, but there is LOTS of research into plurality outside of DID & pathology, you just have to look for it and fit it to your use-case. A lot of these are talking about spiritual and cultural experiences, this doesnt mean they arent real or arent based on underlying actual psychological experience, and most these studies/articles are specifically focusing on the psychological aspect. Mediumship is a common example of non-pathological dissociative experience, mainly because its more known and well studied, but I believe studies on western endogenic plurality would likely have similar studies. Nonetheless it does confirm that non-pathological & non-traumagenic dissociative experiences have led to plurality-like experiences, at least in some cultures around the world.

[neiviele]

I think the water concern is because with climate change water is likely to become a scarce commodity, and wasting it on things we don't need (like generative AI) may exacerbate the issue.

(Not to say that we need Netflix, or any other technologies, but generative AI isn't really filling a need that couldn't be done by other people.)

I find it odd how people suddenly care so much about water consumption in the context of AI. Shouldn't electricity be a way bigger concern, or am I missing something?

I find both odd because AI doesn't seem to make up that significant of an impact in either area. At least relative to other industries.

At least, the numbers people have given me in the past for AI electricity usage that were meant to convince me how terrible it was for the environment did the opposite and put into perspective how little it actually contributes to electricity usage compared to other industries.

[neiviele]

Let’s try this (a THIRD time ffs) during my 30 minute lunch:

Responding to this post, not linking because clearly this user didn’t wanna interact lol.

My response is going to be much briefer and less informative this time because I have spent way too long trying to write this, so let’s just bullet point it:

The terms CDD systems use (I’m assuming you mean parts, system, and alter) have been shared for over 40 years at this point. In reference to plurality, the Natural Multiplicity Movement (as flawed as it was) came from the CDD community. They were one and the same before the mass divide of non-disordered plurality breaking off. I’m not saying it was without its problems, obviously, but the terms have always been shared.

Moreover, these terms have been shared with IFS since its inception. Yet I don’t see anyone making a fuss about singlets calling themselves parts or systems. The terminology was taken directly from the idea of parts working together, just like the modern usage of system.

The original usage of the term “system” wasn’t even community based; from what I saw, it was more so focused on the neurological aspect of neural pathways working together. If you want to be salty about people misusing terms, the entire community is using system in a non-medical way at this point.

Endogenic systems did create their own terminology. CDD systems co-opted the language. Collective, plural, fictive, factive, and headmate, just off the top of my head, were all coined by pro/endo systems, and many of them coined explicitly to avoid more medicalized language. Then CDD systems began using it, and anti-endo systems even yelled at endogenic systems for then using their own terminology, such as plural and fictive. If we want to be upset about terminology being “stolen,” then be upset at anti-endos as well.

Using the same terminology does not mean someone is saying they’re exactly the same. An individual who says they experience intrusive thoughts is not saying they’re OCD. An individual saying they’re hyperfixated does not mean they’re saying they have autism. An individual saying they’re a system does not mean they’re saying they have a CDD. They can make a comparison — “my system is similar to a CDD system” even — without implying they’re one-to-one.

To connect to the previous point — I see myself as similar to my singlet partner. I see myself as similar to my endogenic friends. I use the same terminology I’ve seen used for those with ADHD. I am not a singlet, endogenic, or a pwADHD. Yet I can relate to those experiences to some degree! When did people start getting mad that humans can relate to each other? /genq

Lastly; I’m pretty sure I’m working with a different definition of gaslighting here. Gaslighting, afaik, is when a person in a position of (real or perceived) power over another convinces their victim that the factual truth of an event is false, causing them to question their perception of things. Endogenic systems do not hold any power over me? Them using system terminology isn’t them challenging my perception? Genuinely so confused how this would be considered gaslighting.

[neiviele]

I'm sorry but this is what it feels like whenever anti-endos say that endogenic systems and traumagenic systems have nothing in common and should never be together

[neiviele]

One is rooted in science, and as such has credible backing that says that yes, these experiences are very possible, whereas the other is rooted in religion and folklore, something with little to no backing whatsoever. Sure, it can't be guaranteed, but one is much more verifiable than the other is.

That depends on the spirituality and religion. Some spiritualities are fairly abstract and don't have much to do with the physical world, while others are more grounded. And some spiritualities also have science proving or disproving their claims - for example the experiences mediums have are known to be psychologically possible, meditation has been shown to have health benefits, kundalini actually does affect the body, etc. so it's not neccesarily true that there's no backing to these experiences. It may not be as literal as their doctrines always state, but it is there.

There's also the issue of what could happen if spiritual beliefs and psychological experiences; it can lead to people writing off very real, verifiable psychological issues as non-existent due to the constant combining of spaces, and on the other end, treating spirituality as absolute fact with no evidence.

That already happens on a systemic level even without merging the two. For example, some fundamentalist Christians will treat their spirituality as facts that everyone should obey, and some people will use mainstream spirituality to deny their problems (like how some people identify as empaths when they might have a personality disorder instead) so this seems more like an issue with society or certain types of people, and not necessarily plurals merging spirituality with psychology.

Not to mention, spirituality and psychology, while connected in some ways, are still very different things that function very differently, and as such, should be treated differently. They aren't nearly as similar as you might think they are.

Yes, some people may have some vaguely similar experiences to those with a disorder they don't have, but that doesn't by any means make their experiences equal. They present and function very differently, and one is just simply more severe than the other, to the point that acting as though they should be put in the same category is very very damaging.

Hmm... I get the feeling we're thinking about two slightly different areas of psychology when you say that. When it comes to endogenics, we're more likely to be talking about mainstream or general psychology, not neccesarily the psychology related to disorders.

That being said, if people are examining them as if they are similar, its usually because the disorder and the non-disorder have a lot in common, enough to where they can be compared in psychological studies.

And the same can be said here, those who claim to have experiences with being plural outside of CDDs may have some similarities in some ways, but is still very different in function, presentation, and severity, because they do not have the disorder, and treating them as equal experiences to the point that those without CDDs are kept in the same spaces and treated just the same as those with CDDs, it can be very harmful for all involved, having people with these issues belittle their own issues and not get the proper help, and cause those without them to overestimate theirs, and attempt to get treatment or support they don't need, which can harm them in the long run. These experiences are not at all to the same degree, and they should be separated as such, and should use different terms to reflect that.

Yes, they are different, but they still share enough to where many with DID/OSDD and many without have decided they could get along in a (plural) community together. Historically endogenic and traumagenic systems have shared the same spaces, and they wouldn't have found each other if they didn't share more similarities than differences.

I know that may seem farfetched but it can and does happen. People watering down the meaning of terms used for certain disabilities/disorders. (eg. people misusing the terms hyperfixation and special interest, resulting in many non-autistic/ADHD to falsely equate their own experiences to autistic/ADHD people, and harming both themselves and others in the process. The madness of the 2010s was sure something huh)

I agree that is a problem, though would it be the same kind of issue with endogenics? When endogenics use terms like system (I think system is one of the only terms shared between the two communities) even if non-traumagenic, we're still referring to a group of identities. It's still being used in relatively appropriate ways, and I'm not sure if singlets could distort it like they could for other medical terms. But also, system is used in internal family systems therapy, so that train may have already left the station.

Endos constantly treating spiritual experiences and psychological experiences as the same thing, or even just throwing them into the same category is not only misinformation, but an actively dangerous idea to promote.

Spirituality should NOT be treated the same as psychology, and they do that all the damn time.

-Xero

[neiviele]

I'm talking about the internal, subjective experiences. Sorry, that wasn't too clear, but I'm talking about the things a person experiences psychologically, inside.

We can do brain scans, MRIs, surveys and more, but we can't peek under the hood and see conclusively what's going on. No one can take a test that goes "yes, you have 4 headmates, one fictive, and he identifies as a pokemon" or a test that says "yes, you're of psychological origin". Especially when studies on endogenic systems are in their infancy - a headmate who says they're a fictive because of psychological processes is not too different from a headmate who says they're a fictive because of spiritual reasons.

Additionally, when it comes to what a person believes about themselves, it's not always set firmly in one camp or another. Some people start off believing their headmates are spiritual and then go off into the psychological camp. Some start out thinking they're psychological and then realize they're spiritual. In some of these cases the experience didn't change significantly, only the way they explain it. And some use both to explain how they function, and don't see any conflict between them.

Lastly, it's just hard to separate the two without deeming one as more real or valid than the other. A lot of the time when people are separating them (for reasons other than the space not being set up for spirituality or psychology) it's because they view one as more real than the other. Since a lot of experiences are shared between the two groups, there just isn't a need to separate them too deeply.

Endos constantly treating spiritual experiences and psychological experiences as the same thing, or even just throwing them into the same category is not only misinformation, but an actively dangerous idea to promote.

Spirituality should NOT be treated the same as psychology, and they do that all the damn time.

-Xero

[neiviele]

"why do endos act so scared of anti endos it's not like we're oppressing you"

have you perhaps considered the fact that harrassment people face for being open about themselves, makes people scared? and seeing harrassment of other people who share their identity, also makes them scared?

if you're anti endo, then it's quite likely that you're not familiar enough with nontraumagenic spaces to see that harrassment. it happens on various platforms, and it does indeed make people scared. it makes people want to unite against anti endos.

people also don't always publicly show that they are being harassed. sometimes the only people who know are people they trust. and if you go around saying that no anti endo harasses people, then why would a nontraumagenic person trust you enough to tell you that they are being harassed?

also, i am NOT saying that is an anti endo exclusive issue. unfortunately, harrassment is very common within the system community for a variety of reasons.

i just implore people to consider: if you don't know anyone who would harrass people, then it is very likely that either you just aren't friends with someone who would harrass someone else. or, that they know that you would disapprove of such a thing and hide what they do from you.

however, you don't personally know everyone who shares a syscourse label with you. and there are various reasons why a victim of harrassment would not be public about it, or share that information with you specifically. please stop doubting victims of harrassment.

(and just to clarify: for the last two paragraphs, i am aiming it towards every syscourse side. including pro endos, explicitly)

[neiviele]

Spirituality isn't the exact same, but they're similar enough to be lumped into the same category because both have to do with subjective experiences. We can't prove someone's spirituality just as we can't prove their psychological experiences.

Endos constantly treating spiritual experiences and psychological experiences as the same thing, or even just throwing them into the same category is not only misinformation, but an actively dangerous idea to promote.

Spirituality should NOT be treated the same as psychology, and they do that all the damn time.

-Xero

[neiviele]

Please don't. Suicide isn't a solution, at least not one you can retract if you regret it. Even if life is painful and terrible now, it can get better. And even if it doesn't, live for the little moments that bring you joy and happiness, and the hope that things can always change for the better. Nothing sucks forever.

There are plenty of reasons to live, and even if life sucks a majority of the time the little moments are what make it worth it. But you can't experience any of it if you're gone.

this is the end of dia, guys. tbh it wasn’t all that fun in life

at around 9pm i’m gonna delete my account. my family is not going to be home tonight

bye y’all. been fun. too bad people have been saying “aughhhh faking suicide grrrr” so this probably won’t even be taken seriously by anyone, but tbh i don’t care really

*x’s forms in my eyes with my tongue out*

[neiviele]

i feel like i missed stuff. what's going on with this fraud stuff? is this about that bracket poll? (i *did* use my four blogs to vote for you uh oh)

Yup, it was the brackets!

Basically, Dia made 70+ accounts to vote against me and make sure I'd lose the bracket. Then was publicly attacking me and accusing me of cheating because apparently someone else made even more accounts and voted for me.

That someone else, if the last anon is to be believed, did it because they hated me and thought it would be funny for me to be accused of cheating. So you had two people who hated me stuck in a voter fraud war, one voting for me and one voting against me.

And the end result of this is that Dia had a meltdown at my supposed cheating, the brackets that were meant to be fun are going on indefinite hiatus because it's taken a toll on their mental health, several sycoursers were triggered by Dia's posts, the anon who made all the blogs that voted for me feels guilty over everything that happened because of what they did... and I'm sitting here making memes about it. 🤷‍♀️

After all of that, the one person that both Dia and the anon intended to hurt with their voting fraud war ended up being the least affected by it. The whole situation is just so comically ridiculous that I was having a laugh over it.

This was my initial reaction to Dia's original post. I decided not to post it to Dia with their mental state the way it was yesterday, so it just sat in my drafts. But I'll post a screenshot here so everyone can see my first thoughts to learning the news:

So yeah, everyone else ended up hurt or upset by all of this drama, while I'm unscathed. I'm fine, and think the incident is hilarious. Not the mental breakdowns or people getting triggered...

But the hypocrisy of someone committing fraud to make me lose and complaining about people committing fraud to make me win... only for it turn out that the person who committed the fraud in favor of me was doing it to stir up drama and make me get blamed for cheating... and both of these people who hated me fought with and tried to outfraud the other, each making it harder for the other person to get the result they wanted, forcing them to make even more accounts...

You couldn't write this stuff! 🤣

[neiviele]

at this point its far beyond whether or not i "shouldve" made a post about dia. dia has said terrible things to me and accused me of things that are not my fucking fault. you wanna show empathy for the mentally ill? im feeling pretty fucking mentally ill after being intentionally triggered by dia, show some fucking empathy for that instead of hand-holding a grown person who cant take respond to criticism without blaming everyone else and waxing poetic about how zain-syscourse saying "death wishes are bad" is the reason they bashed their head in. fuck's sake. does it make sense yet why im upset now?? im also fucking triggered, but only dia matters! my bad!

see how much dia improves when you keep excusing this type of shit. ive been told this is a pattern, right? why is it still being fucking excused? did i miss the syscourse memo where the world revolves around dia? again, my bad! apparantly it takes having a public breakdown to get a shred of understanding in this hellhole, so here! im triggered! i fucking hate this whole situation, i hate the way youve all handled it, i hate the lack of accountability for POOR DIA, and i hate that IM being blamed by dia for the stupid shit theyre doing to themself. since when was i the one in control of their free will?

this is fucking baffling. fucking BAFFLING to me. how can all of you be so fucking blind to the wider impact of the situation. dia's actions (specifically towards ME) have greatly outweighed anyone else's mistakes in this mess COMBINED. like fuck.

"oh zain dont trigger dia!" meanwhile dia is doing their absolute oscar worthy best to trigger me. in extremely graphic and dark ways. "i hope you see me on the news after i get killed over syscourse" is a real quote dia said to me. but no, im the one who should tiptoe and not trigger dia. god forbid i be triggered by something like that being said to me. god for fucking bid.

[neiviele]

You're not in the wrong. Dia does this every once in a while and usually people block it or ignore it, but it's not fair to people who aren't aware, are new to the tag, or just aren't prepared for threats and bait.

At the same time it is having a mental health issue, and I don't know if it can change its behavior in it's current state. I also don't know if there's anything we can do from where we are, other than maybe flagging offending posts and blocking it?

But after the episode, it should at the very least apologize for its actions.

Again, your feelings towards the situation are completely valid. You're definitely not in the wrong for being triggered by the whole situation- what Dia's doing isn't right, but I don't know if there's anything we can do from here.

at this point its far beyond whether or not i "shouldve" made a post about dia. dia has said terrible things to me and accused me of things that are not my fucking fault. you wanna show empathy for the mentally ill? im feeling pretty fucking mentally ill after being intentionally triggered by dia, show some fucking empathy for that instead of hand-holding a grown person who cant take respond to criticism without blaming everyone else and waxing poetic about how zain-syscourse saying "death wishes are bad" is the reason they bashed their head in. fuck's sake. does it make sense yet why im upset now?? im also fucking triggered, but only dia matters! my bad!

see how much dia improves when you keep excusing this type of shit. ive been told this is a pattern, right? why is it still being fucking excused? did i miss the syscourse memo where the world revolves around dia? again, my bad! apparantly it takes having a public breakdown to get a shred of understanding in this hellhole, so here! im triggered! i fucking hate this whole situation, i hate the way youve all handled it, i hate the lack of accountability for POOR DIA, and i hate that IM being blamed by dia for the stupid shit theyre doing to themself. since when was i the one in control of their free will?

this is fucking baffling. fucking BAFFLING to me. how can all of you be so fucking blind to the wider impact of the situation. dia's actions (specifically towards ME) have greatly outweighed anyone else's mistakes in this mess COMBINED. like fuck.

"oh zain dont trigger dia!" meanwhile dia is doing their absolute oscar worthy best to trigger me. in extremely graphic and dark ways. "i hope you see me on the news after i get killed over syscourse" is a real quote dia said to me. but no, im the one who should tiptoe and not trigger dia. god forbid i be triggered by something like that being said to me. god for fucking bid.

[neiviele]

No matter how they acted, their suicide would still matter.

Nobody said it wouldn't?

Somebody's thoughts on how much other people matter is still a part of their mental health. If they didn't care about the blog or the people they were harassing, then they still had a horrible mental health.

No? You can not care about a group of people and be in great mental health. For example, some people don't care about racists and actively troll them. Some people despise child abusers and will harass and mock them. It's not a sign of poor health automatically, it just shows that you don't view the person or group of people as good, or as equal to you.

If they deleted their blog, I'd think that's a great way for them to get away from syscourse. I think that would be better for them.

I agree. Problem is, we now have a person who is mimicking them, if it's not system-facts themselves. Nobody would have even started speculating if these asks weren't persistent and coming from (what seems to be) the same person.

If it does not help them to talk to you, they do not need to. They are not required to make another account. They are not required to send any asks. They do not need to make a post. Because the only reason you want one is to satiate your curiosity.

They're not required to, you're right. But with the appearance of asks that seem to be coming from them, if not from them outright, I would think that if they're alive and anywhere near syscourse, they would want to clear their name.

And it's not really about curiosity, but safety. If hypothetically, a potentially dangerous person was hanging around the community (proven by their behavior) I would hope most people would be a little interested in what was going on. Especially since this person doesn't seem to be leaving.

Do they still deserve basic respect as a living person? Also yes. Talking shit about somebody clearly in a bad place isn't going to do them any favors.

I'm not talking shit, just stating the facts of what they did, some of which were dangerous things. Respect doesn't mean ignoring what they've done in the past, or how it was harmful.

They can't make a post apologizing if they're dead. And they'll never apologize if they never get proper help.

Again, there is evidence to suggest they're not dead, and that they're not changing their ways. And if they are dead, then there is someone arguably copying system-facts to spit on their grave and make other syscoursers antsy, which we can't allow either.

'Why does it matter if system-facts is dead or not?'

Because they're a dangerous person? Let's not forget they tried to pretend to be another system fully knowing that people might go after them for the takes they had, and pretended it was just their host being in denial. Let's not forget they also claimed they would pay people $1000 if they had proof of created systems, which is at best a time waster and at worst a scam. Why would they tell people they seemed to not care about at all that they were suicidal and killing themselves, especially knowing they weren't changing their commitment?

The only way I can even believe they did anything is if this was a mental health issue, and they suddenly realized what they did and couldn't live with themselves. But that seems unlikely, seeing as how the same anons in the same format and wording are going around. (After all, even if you held the same beliefs as system-facts, why would you sound/try to sound the exact same?)

This is the internet after all, where people can say and do anything. I wouldn't agree with speculating on any random syscourser, but system-facts came out of the blue and started spouting misinformation and creating confusion. I don't think its wrong to be suspicious about someone who was active for less than a week.

Also, I don't think it's bad to speculate if the person has a history of lying and may not be genuine. Do you remember the YouTube drama with Jaystation a while back? How his girlfriend died in a car crash? It would have made sense to let it go... but since he was already a shady person, people looked into it and realized he was lying. It's not wrong to be suspicious of someone, if they have a history of misleading others.

Nobody's speculating because they want to devalue suicide. They're speculating because 1). people deserve to know the truth and not feel guilty that simply disagreeing with system-facts pushed them to suicide, 2). so that if there is an anon fanatically trying to copy system-facts even after death we can tell them to cut that out and keep them away from our blogs and 3). people deserve to know so they can avoid them if possible and not deal with the stress this situation has caused.