The Inevitable Christopher Hitchens has Died Thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.

Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?

Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?

Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.

I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek.  It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you.  You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently.  Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any.  Other than, apparently, your own.

Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it.  I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.

Is it telling? Can you answer the questions asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.

You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it?   I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.

Actually, Nigel, I have to say, your comments towards EoC weren't attacking the comment. Maybe that was your intention, but your phrased it in such a way that it's a personal attack. "Are you so stupid..." =/= "That was a stupid thing to say".  And now you are being needlessly contentious about... er, everything.

To address your questions, no you are not wrong. And no, I cannot explain why. Personally, I am not celebrating any one's death. I mean, Hitchens was an asshat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a party over it. I mena, he was a human being, and honestly, no one should have to suffer through cancer.

However, I really think you are a reading more into some of the comments than is actually there.

My initial commentary on the subject was pretty mild, if you go back to the first page. Perhaps more strongly stated than it needed to be given the gentle nature of the poster, but still, pretty mild.

And the slightly obscuring tactic of phrasing my assaults on the criticism EoC leveled at me as questions... yes. I was deliberately walking the borderline of personal insult by using the question gambit, because of the earlier thread in which I posted examples of attacking the person vs. attacking the idea, and that was awfully close to bordering on "sociological experiment", and for that I apologize because it clearly got his goat and that wasn't my intention. I was hoping for a response in kind, but I failed to make that clear.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh, do you mean can I kindly respond do the series of questions that are specifically designed to talk down to me and insult my intelligence.  Yeah, I'll get right on that.  I'm so sorry that nobody is playing by the rules that you've made up.

I mean, my post has nothing to do with insulting the person or insulting the argument at all.  You're bringing that one in because it's apparently some burden that you're bringing into the conversation and you aren't able to converse without throwing it around.

And this

You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it?   I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.

sounds just plain delusional.  Note here that I'm saying that's what the argument seems like, and not to indicate that you might be.  The implication that a delusional person would say a delusional thing is not withstanding, as I'm sure it isn't in any of the many posts you've made to where you very specifically insult the argument just so that you can fall back on that safety net.

Did I even say there isn't one person who has it out for you?  I didn't.  I said you're finding people who have it out for you who DON'T.  There might be one, there might even be (gasp) two, but it doesn't mean that everyone is, and it certainly doesn't mean that I am.

Please, stop assuming everyone you're talking to is a fucking moron.

I'm sorry I pissed you off, that wasn't my intention.

[Eater of Clowns]

Believe it or not, I'm not pissed.  I do appreciate the sentiment though.

[Kai]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.

Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.

I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:

I heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.

In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.

Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.

Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.

Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.

I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:

I heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.

In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.

Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.

Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.

If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.

[Pæs]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.

Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.

I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:

I heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.

In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.

Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.

Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.

If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.

Who was "way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia." addressing?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.

Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook

It's very simple, really: They were sick of stupid people rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden, and stupid people feeling sorry that Hitchens died. Basically they fell for the "Reverse Stupidity" trap.

This. I am grateful that I am not alone in the sentiment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia.

Oh, but it's different when someone we hate dies. Ook, ook.

I think you are ignoring what I said three pages back, where I stated:

I heard about this first from ND Tyson on Twitter. And I sort of have a mix of feelings between "sad" and "indifferent". I'm not interested in gloating over the deceased, no matter who they are, and I do feel sad for family and close friends who feel that loss. But I really didn't know him at all, and I certainly didn't know him in person. I read one of his books, God is Not Great, in summer of 2007, and I mostly agreed with it. Most of the rest of what I "know" of him is hearsay or propaganda of some sort. I read in I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges that Hitchens advocated bombing the middle east out of existence, but I don't know if this is true or not.

In short, I don't care enough to feel strongly about it, but I do feel something. That Tyson would mention his death makes me think that I should investigate further before passing judgment.

Thus I investigated. This is the first thing I've come across that was neither heavy handed praise of his character nor a complete religious screed. And no, I'm not celebrating his death. I'm investigating his life, because as I stated before, some of the high profile scientists that I follow (and I daresay look up to) have been lauding him, while people here are talking about his racism. This may indicate that these scientists did not notice (which I highly doubt) or intentionally overlooked these racist agendas in favor of an atheist voice with charisma. These are things I want to know.

Now, perhaps it would have been more tasteful to put this in another thread, but seeing how it was likely to blow up in my face regardless, perhaps it was best it stayed in this one. "Perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like" does not apply to my reasons since I neither had an opinion of him nor did I celebrate. And I will not involve myself in this endless festival of finger pointing and drama flinging.

If you're not doing it, then my objections to it don't apply to you.

Who was "way to totally ignore the central point, alleged PD intelligentsia." addressing?

Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.

No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.  

Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.

[Pæs]

Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.

No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.  

Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.

The only reason I ask is that only Roger, EoC and Kai responded between that post and the one where you quote it and say that the alleged PD intelligentsia missed the point and EoC and Roger didn't really get involved with it, either posting tongue-in-cheek replies or comments more vaguely related to the post than Kai's comment which replied directly... so I also assumed you were referring to Kai.

Is the behaviour being criticised the tongue-in-cheek or less directly related responses?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Obviously, because I am terrified of calling out any one poster in particular, it was a sideways means of addressing you.

No, just kidding. It was a collective "you", meant to indicate that although I didn't remember the names of any specific individuals who had responded yet failed to address the central point of my objection, I was nonetheless aware that the objection had not actually been addressed in any of the rebuttals.  

Since I'm not addressing a specific person and am objecting to a behavior rather than a personality, in a thread with multiple posters, it gets hard to be specific, so I am trying to clarify (with Kai) that if you feel that my criticism doesn't apply to you, then it probably doesn't, as it is only meant to apply to people who are actually performing the behavior that is being criticized. If that makes sense.

The only reason I ask is that only Roger, EoC and Kai responded between that post and the one where you quote it and say that the alleged PD intelligentsia missed the point and EoC and Roger didn't really get involved with it, either posting tongue-in-cheek replies or comments more vaguely related to the post than Kai's comment which replied directly... so I also assumed you were referring to Kai.

Is the behaviour being criticised the tongue-in-cheek or less directly related responses?

Since everything is literally spelled out in the thread, can you go back and quote the portions you would like to have clarified?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.

Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.

[Pæs]

I did quote the parts I wanted clarified. The clarification failed to make it any clearer to me.

ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.

The criticism seemed to only apply to Kai but then you said it didn't.
Does it not apply to anyone, then?

Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.

People even earlier in the thread ignored a point that you made after they were involved in the thread?

This is all making very little sense to me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I did quote the parts I wanted clarified. The clarification failed to make it any clearer to me.

ALTERNATELY, since I failed to make note of which poster's words I objected to, if there are two for whom my criticism fails to fit, and one whom it does, then it probably applies to the one.

The criticism seemed to only apply to Kai but then you said it didn't.
Does it not apply to anyone, then?

I'm sorry. I am pretty sure that the person/people I was referring to weren't Kai, but it is late, I am tired, and unwilling to go back through the thread right now, so I am going to stick with "if you think my criticism doesn't apply to you it probably doesn't". Maybe you should quote and define what you think I am accusing who of. Other than the general "celebrating a person's death", which I think I have a decent argument for.

Or possibly, not at all improbably, that it applies to two or more people even earlier in the thread, because it is very very unlike me to address a single person as a collective if I have the opportunity of grabbing onto and rebutting a single post. That shit is tasty, general rebuttals are greasy and gross.

People even earlier in the thread ignored a point that you made after they were involved in the thread?

This is all making very little sense to me.

Clearly. I meant people who posted before Kai. Not sure what's confusing about that. I made my point (well, tried to and failed) in the second post.

[Pæs]

Maybe you should quote and define what you think I am accusing who of.

No, I don't have a specific assumed target of that post, other than the one you've already dismissed.

Clearly. I meant people who posted before Kai.

Oh, okay.

Mostly I'm trying to pin down and understand what seems to be a new approach from you.

The phrasing of your comments to EoC do not appear, to me, to be an isolated thing. Do you find that this approach (the personal attack vs. attacking an idea sociological experiment or whatever) is bleeding over to other replies? If so, is this intentional?

This isn't going to be indisputable proof that you're being more confrontational than normal or anything like that, because I don't care to go digging for evidence (there are probably just a few posts that really gave me the impression) and I'm not really invested in making a point of that, so I'd appreciate it if this isn't responded to as an attack.

I'm just going ask if you're aware of approaching the board with a different attitude recently, and if so whether it's a defensiveness in response to the insults you felt levelled at you in the recent drama threads?

I'm just getting the feeling that you're in a bad mood and that's my primary suspect for a cause. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it so I can post in threads that are turning into arguments without accidentally falling onto one side or another of them.

[Phox]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead for this take down by Mr. Destructo. After reading it, I'm disturbed a bit by scientists who looked upon him so favorably.

Was I supposed to take that seriously? It was funny as an example of over-the-top ad-hominem in the spirit of TGRR, but I would actually rather read a serious critical analysis.

I sincerely hate that this board will step up and come to consensus that it's just as gross and inhuman as the actions of the people we despise to celebrate the deaths of, say, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Muommar Khaddafi, but perfectly acceptable/admirable to celebrate the death from cancer of a political commentator we don't like.

I'm sorry, but you people disgust me.

Today you encouraged BH to kill himself.

Are you actually so stupid that you're overlooking the obvious use of "over the top rhetoric"? Or so malicious that you've excused yourself from reading the statements (some here in this thread, I believe, or else one with a similar title) that explicitly state that it is meant to be over-the-top rhetoric, for those too dull to pick up on that fact independently?

Or perhaps so deluded that you don't care, and are hoping for some uncritical readers to jump on your fallacy so you can ride it all the way to "alpha"?

Maybe you can present an alternative explanation that doesn't make you sound pathetic.

I think it's very telling that you jumped to stupid, malicious, dull, deluded, and pathetic instead of me just saying something tongue in cheek.  It's like you're unwilling or unable to make the leap that other members of the board might not have it out for you.  You know, I recall you mentioning things about reality tunnels being challenged recently.  Maybe you should be examining your own to figure out why you're seeing ill will where there isn't any.  Other than, apparently, your own.

Anyway, I'm glad Roger got it.  I thought our subsequent joking might explain it a bit, but you seem awfully determined to be mad about something.

Is it telling? Can you answer the questions asked? Can you tell the difference between attacking your comment and attacking your person? I'm running those lines pretty close because I'm fucking sick of people confusing the two.

You really think there's no ill will from the ONE person I have accused of it?   I tend to imagine the best of people, so it pretty much takes someone saying shit flat-out for me to detect that they actually have it out for me.

Actually, Nigel, I have to say, your comments towards EoC weren't attacking the comment. Maybe that was your intention, but your phrased it in such a way that it's a personal attack. "Are you so stupid..." =/= "That was a stupid thing to say".  And now you are being needlessly contentious about... er, everything.

To address your questions, no you are not wrong. And no, I cannot explain why. Personally, I am not celebrating any one's death. I mean, Hitchens was an asshat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a party over it. I mena, he was a human being, and honestly, no one should have to suffer through cancer.

However, I really think you are a reading more into some of the comments than is actually there.

My initial commentary on the subject was pretty mild, if you go back to the first page. Perhaps more strongly stated than it needed to be given the gentle nature of the poster, but still, pretty mild.

And the slightly obscuring tactic of phrasing my assaults on the criticism EoC leveled at me as questions... yes. I was deliberately walking the borderline of personal insult by using the question gambit, because of the earlier thread in which I posted examples of attacking the person vs. attacking the idea, and that was awfully close to bordering on "sociological experiment", and for that I apologize because it clearly got his goat and that wasn't my intention. I was hoping for a response in kind, but I failed to make that clear.

I agree that you were being mild at the beginning of the thread, and that's why I only specifically referrd to the one post, as it's the only post itt that I felt was pushing the boundaries in any way. I, personally, would try to avoid trying to blur the lines in that particular manner, given the current debate about personal attacks, but I really don't care one way or the other.

And as I said, I agree with you that celebrating a death is stupid, and yes I see the evident Hippocrates in decrying those who celebrated the deaths of the named malevolent human beings vs. the relative innocuous journalist, but I don't think anyone here is organizing a Christmas Day cook out in honor of Christopher Hitchens' death.