Well, thank you, Laura, for introducing this session and providing important background information. Let me start by issuing a thank you and that thank you goes to the NHGRI staff to start with. We've had extensive internal discussion about how we are organized and how we might seek to reorganize and change is always difficult and challenging and I've been very appreciative of the constructive conversations we've had internal at the institute about this proposed reorganization and I think it's a real testimony to the spirit of the institute of looking forward and recognizing that to carry out our mission in the future we might need to modify some of the ways that we do business. I also want to thank the council for their willingness to take a time out of their busy meeting to have this serve as the second public meeting. Many of you have been important contributors to some of the ideas that are now going to be presented as part of this reorganization and your wise counsel along the way has been extremely helpful and I'm very appreciative that your willingness to listen to this plan in its final proposed form and have this be part of the council's proceedings today. And really what I aim to do today is simply to clarify what this proposal is detailed on our website and also to hear any remaining thoughts people in the public or members of our advisory group have about our plans and in doing so I'm really just going to cover three things here. I'm going to give a background on NHGRI especially people who may not be as familiar with our history and our current structure. I'm going to discuss our proposed reorganization and then I'm going to just in the very end just sort of review the process for implementation. So let me start with the background on the institute which some of you are very familiar with and perhaps some people watching this for the first time are less familiar with and I do think historic context is very important. Just as a reminder we originally started as an organization as an office for human genome research prior to the launch of the human genome project in fact we were established for planning the NIH's contribution to the human genome project. By the time the project began in 1990 we had already been promoted if you will to a status of a center, the National Center for Human Genome Research and then sure enough in 1997 we made the progression from being a center at NIH to being a full-fledged institute and so we now have roughly 15 years of experience being an NIH institute. On the surface we actually have a relatively simple organization and in fact an organization that has not changed essentially since the beginning of our center status or certainly over the last 15 years is institute status. We have the office of the director which is where I work and my immediate staff work and then we have two major divisions. We have division of extramural research which this council is of course very familiar with which is the side of the institute responsible for giving out grants and contracts to our extramural world. Then of course we have the on campus quote unquote division of intramural research that oversees our intramural research program. Also relevant to this reorganization are some of the sub-components of the office of the director of which there are three that are relevant the office of administrative management which is responsible for all the administrative management aspects of the institute. You just heard from Laura Rodriguez who heads up our office of policy communications and education the name of which is obvious what its mission is. And then also within the office of director is the office of population genomics something that Terry Minolia founded a number of years ago and has certainly grown in complexity and scope and mission over the years and we'll come back to the fate of that office as part of this reorganization. In terms of the broad division of resources across these different areas it's worth also noting that the bulk of the people reside on the intramural research program not surprisingly because it's an on campus research program but the dollars flow exactly the opposite with 75% of the institute dollars going out in grants and contracts through our extramural research division and about 20% of our dollars being associated with the intramural research program and remaining 5% of the office of the director. Now there are a couple of additional background features I think that would be important to recognize and appreciate with respect to when we're focusing on changes that we are contemplating for the institute. First thing I can tell you is that the organizational structure of the extramural research program has essentially been unchanged since the Human Genome Project 1990. It's largely a flat non-hierctical structure we have a single director and basically everything pretty much descends from the director with very little substructure at least no you know carefully crafted named substructure. Second thing to recognize is that the office of the director which I showed you earlier slide had three major components really has grown in mission complexity and scale in recent years not surprising it's commensurate with the institute's expanding research portfolio especially on the extramural side but actually even on the intramural side and so that's important to recognize that by and large especially in the extramural side things have not changed in a very long time and yet in so many ways the world has changed so much since the beginning of the Human Genome Project and certainly the field of genomics has changed and I think as a result our institute has changed let me just remind you if you think about take a walk down memory lane with me about the different eras of the institute especially for those who have been involved in the field for a long time the genome project was sort of our origins in many ways it was guided by three strategic plans that were critical to a very focused accomplished a very focused set of goals as part of the Human Genome Project. The genome project ended of course we put out a new strategic vision which has guided us well from 2003 to 2010 and it had an expanding scope of complexity associated especially with our extramural research program but I would contend that the planning process that we just wrapped up a year ago and resulted in this publication in nature really set out a course for an even more substantial diversification and increase in complexity associated with our extramural research program and in fact just about a year ago was when this paper came out that our council here is certainly very familiar with and formally endorsed this strategic plan and was heavily involved in creating it and for anybody viewing this this talk if you want to get to this strategic plan you of course download it very conveniently from our website at this this particular URL and of course this new vision which gets talked about constantly at the institute and at various gatherings certainly at gatherings like this is all about charting a course from going from our origins of the Human Genome Project to more clinical applications and eventually the realization of genomic medicine and the way we iconically articulated in this new strategic plan is this five domain progression starting at very basic exploration of genomes and eventually through a series of research domains hopefully leading to a research agenda that will demonstrate how you can improve the effectiveness of health care through genomic advances and of course in the strategic plan itself we actually describe this in a figure that sort of shows through one of these density plots if you will the progression over historic intervals starting with the genome project in the last seven eight years and then in particular what I think a lot about and what I think in many ways is driving this proposal to reorganize the extramural program in particular in the institute more broadly is a view that the world will be changing over the next decade with respect to genomic opportunities and whereas maybe the last eight or nine years it was just the first couple of domains on the left far left were the most relevant ones we believe the continued progression right word with a particular emphasis on the second and third domain over the next decade and then the decade beyond even seeing major advances in accomplishments and opportunities in the more clinical domains the fourth and fifth ones towards the right so that's an important backdrop to think about how our mission has changed and how we believe it will continue to change that would one might believe there might be other ways of organizing the institute to accomplish those goals but before I introduce I want to just leave you with one more image because I also think it's consistent with what you're seeing here and it's very real when you think about programmatically what we are trying to accomplish if I simply say if you what does our extramural research program look like back then circa then well genome project back back in 1990 this is what we were this is all we were this was the extramural research program embedded within it was an LC research program and so forth and various other sub components but fundamentally there was one named major effort and it was a genome project how is how things changed since 1990 well circa now it's a very different world if you just look at the named major programs of our extramural research program there's something like 17 of them on those of the ones shown here and more coming in fact and it even gets more complicated than that for us as an extramural research organization because indeed we are overachievers from with respect to taking on responsibilities for the NIH Common Fund where we are more than any other Institute at NIH take on more responsibility for overseeing common fund project than any other Institute and if you name them as of today and it's even going to grow we even know that we are responsible for seven common fund initiatives so we're once upon a time we basically were responsible for one project we are now responsible for 24 name projects and lots of other research activities so what is now all about it's about a very different mission and programs it's a very it's a different director I've been here for two years and two months and I just think as a result when you put all that together we have different organizational needs so that is the reason why through a very deliberative process of internally planning and talking to lots of knowledgeable people including our advisors we have put together a plan for reorganizing the Institute the current organizational structure shown here which I showed you earlier the reorganization will essentially have major changes coming to the division of extramural research and some minor changes to the office of the director it will leave the division of intramural research unchanged we have no changes plan for that in fact that division which I spent eight years directing myself has a fairly substantial substructure associated with it which I think suits its needs extremely well and I part of this reorganization there's no plans to implement any changes there what is the proposal for reorganizing while the proposal is moving from two divisions to seven divisions and let me tell you what each of these divisions would be we would create a division of management and we would also create a division of policy communications and education really there's no creation going on here these are just basically being renamed from office status office administrative management office of policy communications education to division status basically these are the two major parts of the office the director in the future and they would just simply be named as divisions and on equal footing with all the other divisions there will continue to be the division of intramural research as there is now no change there and then there would be four new divisions created from what currently exists as a division of extramural research those four divisions would include the division of genome sciences which would be responsible for more basic genome science activities that have traditionally been sort of the core activities at the institute and have probably the deepest and richest history at the institute's extramural program there would be a new division of genomic medicine more clinically oriented genomic research that would be created there would be a division of genomics and society which would incorporate the ethical legal and social implications research program and of those of you who are watching any of our council proceedings learned about the ideas for some of this from Karen Rothenberg this morning but it would also include other components that we see as a growing opportunities and of research and other endeavors under the rubric of genomics and society and then there would be an operations division a division of extramural operations which would include review activities and grants management activities I would also point out that the office of population genomics which currently exists within the office of director would be almost completely absorbed within in fact would be completely absorbed within the division of genomic medicine so that office would go away would move out of the office of director and would rightfully sit within the extramural research program within the division of genomic medicine I would also point out to you that with time there will be seven division directors that will be responsible for these seven divisions and each of those individuals will directly report to me as the NHGRI director. Now thinking a little bit about how this sort of plays out when we know that the goal here is to support the maturation of the field through research activities in these five domains and first thing I will tell you is that we are not going to hardwire and compartmentalize things too much we imagine the best way these divisions should work especially the extramural programmatic divisions the three is to have them be quite porous as our entire extramural program is quite interactive and highly porous we want to maintain that but by and large if you go across sort of the far left two domains of activity would very much be the responsibility of the division of genome sciences with respect to intellectual leadership and the right two domains would certainly fall much more within division of genomic medicine and where they meet and share responsibility most likely would be in the in that middle domain understanding the biology of disease. In fact I would certainly argue that the biology disease activities of the next decade are going to be some of the most important and compelling opportunities for our institute in fact I think it's going to be all hands on deck if you will of having everybody involved in components of those endeavors. And of course one of the cross cutting elements we described in our strategic plan is genomics and society which you heard about earlier today and in fact that of course will be the responsibility of this new division of genomics and society. Well one thing we heard from in the first public meeting the webinar were some valid questions that we actually have talked about extensively internally but that I didn't articulate in much detail in the slides that I presented then and I just want to sort of address those questions now and giving a little bit more detail and those really relate to how are we going to superimpose the more specifically these research activities to these programmatic divisions of the extramural program and particularly when you start thinking about individual projects that are so important and so much sort of the known entities at NHGRI and number two how do you start assigning dollars and do you sort of assign dollars to divisions or how are we going to do this. And one thing I will tell you is what we are not aiming for is a perfect neat package where everything just sort of cleanly fits in. We're going to leave a lot of flexibility of what this is actually going to look like but we do have some very general ideas of how we want to execute this in a fashion that preserves a very cooperative, highly collegial environment the way our extramural staff interact and strategize and work through problems but at the same time give the kind of structure that I think is going to be necessary for this expanding research agenda. And so the way we are thinking about this to address some of the questions that came up in that first public meeting is that we envision these three programmatic divisions, I'm leaving out the operations division since they're not going to be responsible for program in genome sciences and genomic medicine and genomics in society. But then when it comes to actual scientific initiatives we envision and both and the dollars associated with them is not putting them in one of these and keeping them in one of these divisions but rather it's going to be its way it's always been. It's going to involve the cooperative and integrative work of people across all the parts of the extramural program. So for example, let's take our signature genome sequencing program. Well that's going to draw on expertise and involvement of people from every one of these divisions and without question, if you look at what we are doing it would require expertise in each of these three major areas. Similarly, computational biology and bioinformatics which we heard about on the first public meeting we believe this is going to be critically important. We describe it as one of our cross cutting elements in our strategic plan. It will draw on expertise actually in all these areas and are going to be important for all of these areas. Similarly, we know that biology of disease is a priority research area for us over the next decade and in fact will become increasingly important as we apply genomic sequencing technologies for being able to better understand the molecular basis disease. We don't envision this just sitting in one area we believe it's going to draw on expertise across all of these areas. And similarly, as we come up with current projects that we could name or certainly future programs and projects we are going to organize the execution of them by drawing on expertise from individuals in each of these divisions. I will also tell you that the way we envision this working from a budget point of view is that we will do it exactly the way we do now. We will assign budgetary amounts to the programs which is why I drew them in green as opposed to necessarily the divisions. So we will decide the priority areas and the priority programs and those will get budget associated with them and then they'll be executed by drawing on expertise from the individual divisions. With time I believe after we've implemented this I think two other things will happen. We will probably have more named programs like we have a named genome sequencing program. We will probably come up with more organized ways of doing computational biology or maybe specific programs around biology disease and other programs that we will name. And so this will get more structure with time. Similarly, I expect each of these divisions when they get division directors they will get more structure within it as those division directors figure out how to best organize their staff to appropriately make sure the work is done and a professional development occurs for the staff as well. So I believe with time we'll develop later substructure. But this is a great place we believe to start this reorganizational process and it's sort of the level of detail we think appropriate to be able to implement now. Within the institute, this is actually the way I'm looking at it. I have seven divisions that I think are gonna be highly cooperative almost in a circular way feeding into a central mission and feeding in interactions with me and my office. And I just think we wanna do everything we can to enhance these interactions. And so my view of this is not thinking as a seven different independent things but one big circle that together make up the whole. So that's the proposed reorganization. The process for implementation has been partially described by Laura. We are following the NIH reform after 2006 which calls for a very open process of deliberative input and careful thought before making any substantial organizational change. And so that has included a number of things including posting the information about this and these meetings and the federal register. That's all been done. And then of course having these public meetings. One of which already took place. The other of which is happening right now. After we complete this public meeting and take the input that we receive, we will, we have a package of material that we will submit that has to go through various levels of approval including to the Department of Health and Human Services. And if approved, we will then pursue the next steps of appointing division directors and implementing the new organizational structure as soon as that becomes feasible. Let me just close by just telling you what I think the anticipated benefits of reorganizing are. It's sort of what I hinted at earlier. I strongly believe that an organizational structure really needs to effectively align with our research portfolio. I think our structure needs to match our function. I think for a long time the structure was really appropriate. I think our function now is much more complicated and more nuanced and a different structure was the optimal way to be able to meet the challenges that we articulate in our strategic plan. I think the new divisions and I anticipate substructure within them will improve succession planning and senior leadership. I think we wanna have an institute that has a future of many, many decades of productive work and constantly taking on new challenges and constantly seeing new leadership coming up and being given opportunities to take on responsibilities and one way to achieve that I believe is the kind of structure that we put into place. And finally, I have to be honest with you and tell you that I think the structure that I'm laying out is commiserate with my vision for how to do organizational management at NHGRI in particular. I've been at this institute since 1994. I had opportunities to have major leadership positions on the intramural side of the institute as a branch chief for 13 years, as director of a sequencing center for 12 years, as the scientific director for eight years. And I've learned a lot about what works well at NIH, what works well within the culture of NHGRI and to be honest with you, what works well for me. And I would say the two years I've been the director, I've carefully looked at how we are organized and think about what I think we should look like over the next 10 years. And so I think I bring that experience and thinking about what's the optimal architecture for what NHGRI, how NHGRI is put together and thinking about how that's gonna match the strategic vision we have for our research future. So I will stop there and just leave this slide up to remind you that if you wanna read more about this, all this material is up on our reorg page and then there are these email accounts that you can mail comments. And I will stop there and turn this back over to Laura who's gonna moderate the question answer period.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jaspyscasebreak.com. We have a little random number block for the jaspys NFL Kickoff mixer that's just sold out as you can see we're ready on number five number three and four sold out So we're doing the randomizer for number three and I believe three and four at the time before we sold these out We're giving away two free full spots or not two free full spots, but yeah two free full spots So What we're gonna do is we're gonna use this dice roller here to randomize the eight customer names Top two get free full spots in this R&B. So we'll paste your names here And then we use the same dodge word around my customer names and numbers So here we go. Let's roll it. We got ourselves a one out of four or five times top two get free R&B spots here one two three four and five and Boom One of four or five times Orin and Matthew Congratulations. So you guys got free extra R&B spots here. So let's give you a little character sign there And now same art same dice roll here one four five one two three four five There's five so orange at the top down to the free spot right at the bottom We're gonna go five times here on the number zero one two three four five six seven eight nine one two three four five Boom five times Six down to two So or and you have about six and spot one. So whichever team gets assigned Whatever R&B three name gets assigned to whatever team is obviously those hits if there is any gets distributed by R&B style So obviously or in any one-on-ones for that team that gets assigned to R&B three will be yours Sean with five or with eight Greg with seven Hans was seven or four. Sorry Matthew with nine or and you have any in our redemptions Matthew with three and Orin free spot two So there you go guys now I'm gonna run this right back and do number four in a separate video And then like I said number five is on the website Jatsby's case breaks calm guys. Thanks


Okay. So let's record this video. What do you say? Since it's recording, let's record it. Okay. So we're going to do that same problem that we just did the hard way. Okay? So how many moles of oxygen are in 12.23 grams of water? Well, the first thing we need to do is figure out the molecular weight of water. We did that earlier, so I didn't erase it, so I would have to do it again. But you can see there. Pause the video if you want. Okay. Now what we need to do is convert gram, our AMUs, to grams. Okay? So to figure out the mass of water that we have, the mass of one water molecule. How do we do that? We take 18.02 AMU and multiply that by our conversion factor that we recall just a second ago. 1.661 times 10 to the negative 24th grams equals 1 AMU. It's a very small number. Okay? So we just take that conversion factor, put AMU on the bottom, right? And we get the amount of AMUs to cancel out. 1.661 times 10 to the negative 24th grams. AMUs cancel. And we get the mass in grams of one water molecule. I got 2.9912 times 10 to the negative 23rd grams. That's how much one water molecule weighs. Okay? So now we've got to figure out, so this is how many grams we can even write per water molecule. We could, and we could say here, 18.02 AMU per one water molecule. And that's where that unit would have come from. It'll make it easier in a second. This is why I'm doing this. So let's now figure out the mass of one mole of water molecules. Okay? So how do we do that? So the mass of a mole of water. We know how much it is for one water molecule. How many grams? So 2.99312 times 10 to the negative 23rd grams for one water molecule. Avogadro's number, right? 6.022 times 10 to the 23rd water molecule. That equals one mole, right? So we can divide that by one mole. How is this confusing? How many things is a mole? How many items? How many units? 6.022 times 10 to the 23rd, right? Okay? So we've got now, we can cancel out this water molecule with that, right? And that gives us grams per mole, right? And that was something we got just by looking at this earlier. So let's do all this calculation, okay? So let's get that number and see if it's 18.02. Okay? So multiply that by 6.02223. What do we get? 18.02. Oh, two. Oh, four, five or whatever. Grants of water. That's amazing, huh? How does that work? All we've got to do is do all the other calculations that we did before, okay? So we're going to have to erase all this business because I don't have enough room. So can I erase? Is everybody cool with me erasing? How many moles of oxygen are in each mole of water? How many moles of oxygen per mole of water? One. One to one, right? One mole of oxygen to one mole of water. So, we also know that we've got 12.33 grams of water. So the number of moles of water that we're going to have is going to be 12.33, our 12.23 grams of water, divided by 0.245 grams. So we're going to give us mole of water, right? So 12.23 divided by 6.7852. Sorry, moles of water. And then we need to figure out the moles of oxygen. And so we're just going to take that number, 0.7852 moles of water. So this conversion factor, one mole of water, one mole of oxygen, moles of water canceled out. And we get 0.67, we've got to take this to two significant figures, I mean four significant figures, 0.6785 moles. And that should be the same number as we got before, right? Is it?


We are going to be talking about another module of principles and parameters framework of linguistic theory which is independently called binding theory. Now, just a small note on this terminology, the whole approach of principles and parameters in natural language is also known as the approach called government and binding theory. These are the different names for similar types of, similar types of explanatory tools of natural language. So, if someone asks you the differences between principles and parameters approach of looking at natural language and that of government and binding, the answer is none, they are the same thing. However, these terms independently mean different things, principles mean something else, parameters mean something else, government means something else and binding means something else that I am going to show you today. So, while looking at linguistic theory, we have been looking at several things. We know, first we looked at empirical facts of language in terms of its structure at the level of sounds, words and sentences, we started looking at that and then we started looking at what is it that we call principles of language, parameters of language and what is it that the whole approach called principles and parameters in natural language that does in terms of explaining abstract phenomena underlying language. In other words, abstract rules underlying language and finally, how does it really work? What do we mean when we say human mind has a great role to play in learning of language? It is a unique phenomena, we do not know how we end up speaking so much that we speak, we do not know how everybody speaks the same way in one language, within a language or beyond boundaries of languages. So, we looked at several things, we barely touched a couple of issues while talking about differences between i-languages and e-languages about e-language. Because larger chunk of what we ought to discuss in this course, within the framework of this course was related to i-languages, therefore we are still sticking with how i-language works and what is it that a particular linguistic theory provides us with to understand natural language and continuation of that we are going to be looking at binding theory. What is it that we call a binding theory? Like I have been telling you all the time names are names, names mean anything only in the context like we have discussed about words too that they are arbitrary, they acquire meaning when we provide the meaning, they do not mean anything by themselves. There is no reason why something should be called that thing. So, same thing applies here, however let us look at what we mean by binding theory. We begin with looking at some examples, even before we look at example just a sentence about binding theory, it is about interpretation of noun phrases. In a sentence that is within a sentence and the reason why we are saying within a sentence is because the minimum unit of discussion, the minimum unit for evaluation of anything or explanation of any sort of syntactic type is coming from a sentence. That is a sentence is a minimal unit of a study for understanding i-language, for understanding structure of language, therefore when we say interpretation of noun phrases, we mean interpretation of noun phrases within a sentence. So, we are going to look at them and now before we look at more of that in details, let us look at some of these sentences. Stars in the beginning of these sentences represent their ungrammaticality. That means the starred sentences are not grammatical according to the intuitive judgments of native speakers or for that matter this much intuition even we have as a non native speakers of English that these sentences are not good. So what are these sentences and I have also put some of the things with colors for us to see so that we can understand the things that we are referring to in the sense that what are the things that we are talking about when we say interpretation of noun phrases. So we have a first sentence John saw himself. In this sentence there are two parts, one is John the other is himself assuming that we know about the grammatical relations where one is the subject the other is the object. If we look at the grammatical category that is the category of a lexical item John is a noun phrase and so is himself. By the way we are talking about this kind of a phrase for the first time in this class what is the meaning of himself and if it is a noun phrase we are giving it a broader term which is called noun phrase. But what type of thing is this it is somewhere very close to a pronoun because we have seen something similar of that sort which is let us look at the next sentence John saw him. So do you see any similarity between him and himself similarity between them there is some sort of similarity between them however there is a difference too and the difference between the two leads the second sentence to ungrammaticality however independently the second sentence is not ungrammatical you see the point independently the second sentence is not ungrammatical and these things have meanings in terms of grammaticality of or ungrammaticality of a sentence given the interpretations of noun phrases. So let us move little bit slow in order to understand this thing not that we are trying to understand the sentence we are trying to understand a phenomena so there is a similarity between him and himself him is a pronoun therefore we can say himself is also something like a pronoun therefore it is qualifies to be a noun phrase however him is a canonical true pronoun and we are not that sure about himself it looks like a pronoun element but not that sure about sure about it now a word about ungrammaticality of the second sentence I said and you agree with that that independently the sentence is not ungrammatical right but this sentence is marked ungrammatical here can you tell me little bit why the sentence under which circumstances this sentence sounds ungrammatical and under which circumstances this is alright we know this thing right so can somebody quickly tell me in two sentences the sentence John saw him right is ungrammatical if we mean John by him right if him stands for someone else in the discourse then it is alright okay this sounds trivial but hang on we will come back to that it has something to talk about the interpretations of noun phrases that is to say in the first sentence there is a relationship between John and himself in the second sentence there may be or may not be if we try to establish relationship between John and him then the sentence is bad and if we leave them independent then there is nothing wrong with the sentence right so that's that's the part we need to keep in mind third one John thinks that Mary likes him right sentence is good right now it has independent noun phrases like John Mary and then it has a pronoun him who does this pronoun him refer to clearly John right clearly and now comparing with the first sentence sorry sorry I don't have numbers here but I am sure you can follow comparing with the previous sentence that is John saw him the third sentence is good in the second sentence him could not be associated with John therefore the sentence is ungrammatical but in the third sentence it's okay to associate him with John this is the point and the sentence is completely alright so this must have some there must be something going on here right alright we come back to that story in a moment in the next sentence John thinks that Mary likes himself is bad right this is this sentence is not grammatical not just because of Mary and himself okay not just because of that however that is true if we say John thinks that Mary likes herself then the sentence is good but keep in mind keep in mind even if we put let's say we put Peter in place of Mary in that sentence the sentence is good right John thinks that Peter likes himself now in that case I don't have that sentence here therefore I am just telling you in that case however himself has something to do with Peter not with John see this thing in that context my point is in look at the previous sentence again he can refer back to John in the previous sentence but himself cannot refer back to John in the in the sentence that we are talking about get get my point alright then last two sentences John thinks that he is a genius sentence is good right now who does he refer to in this sentence it could be John could it be anyone else also can be anyone else also right so comfortably we can say this sentence could be ambiguous could have at least two different meanings right very nice now how does two different meaning come from we we don't want to go into the details of semantics but just as a note here how does the ambiguity pop up ambiguity comes in by the interpretation of the pronoun he right if we interpret it independently then it has a different meaning that then the sentence has any has a different meaning if we interpret this pronoun with reference to John then it has a different meaning right get it alright finally John thinks that himself is a genius is not a good sentence right which is to say that himself in order to refer to John there seems to be some problem now look at the first sentence John saw himself is perfectly alright but when we say John thinks that himself is genius is not a good sentence in other words there is no problem establishing some sort of relationship between John and himself in the first sentence however in the last sentence it is not really possible to establish that connection between John and himself these are very simple sentences I hope I have given you in simple terms the interpretation of these these elements in color which you know as noun phrases and pronouns and nouns and stuff like them right and the ambiguity that comes out of them the reasons why these the sentences that are marked with the stars may be n grammatical right we however what we need to understand what we mean by interpretation of noun phrases in syntactic terms is the following what what allows reference between John and himself in sentence one and what stops reference between himself and John in the last sentence right what is the problem if the pronoun him refers to John in the second sentence right these are the the the the theoretical points that we need to discuss with the apparatus that we have seen so far which are at least phrases I am sorry x bar is key right and then we will see does existing apparatus give us explanation to these things and are those explanations convincing enough all right so that is the that is the purpose and that is how we look at binding theory so the terms like himself herself itself are called these are reflexes these terms are called reflexes they are called reflexes or reflexive pronouns because they reflect back to something in a sentence for these kinds of pronominal elements to appear like himself herself itself themselves right they need to co-refer to some other elements in the sentence okay they need to co-refer to something else in the sentence in other words they need to depend on something else for their interpretations therefore these are called reflexes or reflexive pronouns okay now here I have put the term enough first okay enough first is a theoretical term in government and binding in principles and parameters which means reflexives and reciprocals together do you understand when I say the term reciprocals sorry that is that is right reciprocals back to itself is reflexive reciprocals are terms like each other okay if we say something John and Mary like each other the term each other is called a reciprocal term which refers back to John and Mary when we say John and Mary like like itself the sentence is now good because itself is a reflexive right and it needs something called like a reciprocal so that the elements like reflexives and reciprocals both together are called enough first okay however like always I give you this freedom that these terms are not that important what is important is phenomenon okay he she her his it these are simple pronouns there is a typo his is not italics has got no meaning okay it's it's just a typo okay the the terms like John Mary computer classroom students that these terms which are which are like nouns they are called are expressions we can still call them nouns we are not changing anything that I only want you to know they are called our expressions because they are our expressions mean referential expressions okay they also receive their interpretations in sentences when we use a sentence when we use noun phrases like these okay they receive a particular meaning in a sentence and bear with me I will tell you what we mean by that the the reference of an reflexive is dependent on something in the sentence however the reference of a referential expression like John is not dependent on anything in the sentence rather it is dependent on something in the entire world okay which is the following with one one more sentence about it do you know how many johns are there in this world no right nobody knows but if if we end up talking right and I ask you did you know what happened to John yesterday right this conversation between us and this small a extraction of this sentence has a reference to John out of all the infinite johns in the world the speaker and hearer knows about the reference of the john in this sentence right we we say we infinite johns in the world we know who we are talking about okay this is why it is called our expressions in other words it receives its reference from rest of the world in a given discourse which for which it does not have to depend on any other component of a sentence making sense it is not it is not a very complicated thing that I am discussing it is a very simple idea it simply means these terms have their independent references they are not dependent on anything else clear all nouns are our expressions that is right no one no noun is a pronoun no noun is a reflexive yes true absolutely right so their computer is computer is not an r it is it is our expression it refers to all the computers of the world no definitely not the being a specific and providing a specific reference I the example that I gave you was definitely of specific reference and the reason I was giving that example is because I I wanted you are right I should have said that also whether we want to go all the way down to one out of infinite or we want to put all infinite together everything is possible with our expression this that will be the feature of an of of an our expression so when we say computers are smart are we leaving any computers out of this thing this with that sentence the reference of the word computers is to definitely all the computers of the world right it is true absolutely right now now look just just look at the specificity and breadth of the references that it is providing and that we are capable of providing any sentence right and still it is independent for its reference right all right clear reflexives pronouns and nouns now I have already told you about this thing I I wanted to talk about this little later but it is it is important to at least refer to this part that a particular module of this this theory which regulates noun phrase interpretations is called binding theory okay and this when we when we go again in details and see this theory has three three parts and each part is called is given a name like principle a principle b and principle c should not be very difficult for you to guess by now that a b and c rough would would finally end up referring to the three sets that I have shown you that principle a will be talking about reflexives principle b will be talking about pronouns and principle c will be talking about our expressions what is it that they have to talk is also very simple I will show you that but still the internal mathematics not not really in the sense of mathematics but the internal structure the the each one of these principles depends on how we look at structure and that that we are going to show you that that I will show you clear this thing so the again I repeat this thing that the the when when we try to regulate the interpretation of a of noun phrase in a sentence this is the part which is called binding theory and we are we are going to be talking about the governing governing distributions of noun phrases in a sentence are they related are they not related this is part of binding theory so now let us look at them independently again before we look at these principles and x bar theory okay so a reflexive or an or an enuffer now does not get its meaning from the open world unlike our expression that I just gave you it depends on something within the sentence and I I want to draw your attention in particular when we say within the sentence we do not mean it in a light sense we mean in the sense of strict definition of a sentence see my see my point strict definition of a sentence we we do not mean it lightly that anything could be a sentence and now who knows it better than you what a sentence means right sentence is not an ordinary looking thing in a in in the grammar of natural language sentence has it's a specific meaning right okay so John saw himself in the mirror the term himself is a reflexive and John is an R expression or forget about R expression right now John is a noun so himself needs to depend on John in this sentence and not on anything else in the entire world this is why it is called reflexive Mary bought herself a sandwich okay the interpretation of the term herself a reflexive and enuffer has to depend on Mary whoever that Mary is in the entire world given the two sentences the grammaticality of the two sentences tells you that the referential referential part is taken care of right this is what is the meaning of a reflexive or an enuffer now when we talk about pronouns we have we have talked about it very briefly and we have talked about its description in a in in a in any grammar whether we are looking at English grammar or a Hindi grammar what what have we been told about pronouns it's a term which stands for a noun at I am not saying that what we what you have been told or what we know about it is wrong that's that's fine but we need to look at it in little bit more details okay in in the following sense this is not this is not complete description of pronoun but this is at least good enough to begin with which is a pronoun is it is really little bit fishy okay it's it's not exactly like reflexives which which is reflexives strictly depend on its interpretation within the sentence okay we were looking at our expressions and I am going to to show you that also I'm coming back to pronoun when we look at our expressions there is nothing fishy about it it the the n-pays like John Mary or student professor a pretty girl or computers anything in a as a noun phrase okay may or may not have a reference outside the sentence but within a sentence it receives its interpretation from the whole sets available anywhere in the world get the get the point another significant point is it cannot be without a reference in a sentence that is a noun phrase must have a reference to something in a sentence clear okay I don't mean to say more than what I am saying right now but I do want you to understand that the the the things that I am saying some of them may sound pretty obvious but they have meaning for theoretical explanation the the explanatory capacity of the theory depends on these premises even though they sound intuitive okay for example I gave you a description of an NFL or a reflexive that it needs to depend on something you may say it's a trivial point yeah we see that John likes himself the interpretation of himself depends on John right you can say it's pretty simple point but that's that is the point the the simplicity of that point lies in the fact that one needs to depend on the other and no matter how obvious it is it has meaning for the explanatory capacity of the theory see understand understand my point okay so please bear with this and it's good that these things are these things may look simple to you and not too complicated all right okay yeah go ahead I'm going to that no John still has your reference think about it John see John thinks he's genius right in this sentence you're saying there are two possibilities one where John and he are related that is there that is when we are talking about the same person in that case he he gets interpretation from John right stop talking about he for a moment and talk about John John is still gets independent reference from the world that is to say the interpretation of one prime or one a in the interpretation of one a the reference of he depends on John not the other way around in one be the reference of he comes from somewhere else not from John still the reference of John is not dependent on he get the point the common thing between one a and one b is in both the cases John is independent of he whereas in one he is dependent on John in b he is not dependent John making sense right and and is this is this part clear to everybody our expression and that is the going back to that point that is the precise thing for which I ended up saying there is no fault of these pronouns I ended up saying the story of pronoun seems little bit fishy right and that is the fishiness which gives us ambiguity for example in in in other words so a pronoun doesn't refer to something in the open world that's the first feature of a pronoun okay it doesn't refer to something in the open world that is it is it's strikingly different from our expressions right when we say John thinks he is he is intelligent right he in interpretation b may not depend on John right but for its interpretation it depends on something which the speaker and the hearer knows right it may depend on Peter it may depend on Bill it may depend on anybody but it depends on something that this speaker and hearer knows about therefore it is not independent in the world that it it's its reference is limited and known right even when it is not referring to the available NP in the sentence for its interpretation we don't have to go too far not the whole world that's that's the meaning of the first sentence alright however it may get its difference from somewhere else and does not need to depend on something within the sentence and that is the that is what your example was talking about and I gave you it may depend on something in the sentence it may not depend on something within the sentence and that is what creates little bit of fishiness and and and we don't mean it in a sarcastic or or a bad way when we say fishiness we simply say we simply mean that this flexibility gives us ambiguity ambiguity very loosely speaking is a strength of language ambiguity is never a problem and ambiguity is not only the strength of language ambiguity is allowed within the language never never lose the track that we are talking about human mind okay ambiguities are allowed in language because language is one of the finest product of human mind and the strength of human mind can still get get correct interpretation no matter how ambiguous a sentence is trying to be am I am I making sense and and like like I said and and that's the reason why I said right in upfront that we are talking about ambiguity in a very very non-technical sense because the whole technical description of ambiguity comes in the branch of semantics it it can be mathematically coded or decoded it can be mathematically simulated the the ambiguities okay and it's a it's a very fascinating branch of a study of language on its own so since we have not been talking about semantics in great details and I have restricted myself to syntax and then I on the basis of that restrictive description I told you that now you know what a sentence means and you have seen how long hours we have spent discussing a sentence right we haven't discussed meaning in that sense therefore I'm talking about meaning in meaning in semantics in loose sense however given the given the fact that language is product of human mind and human mind the the and the capacity of human mind ambiguity no matter how difficult is a very simple phenomena of human mind it it does not I mean we need to figure out ambiguity but our our mind doesn't it it figures out very categorically look at that sentence also John thinks he is intelligent right we are talking about this as a sample as an example right when someone says this kind of sentence in the context does that person even need to say anything that this time I mean he by he I don't mean John we don't need to say these things we know very clearly whether it it's interpretation a or interpretation b without even getting oblique reference to anyone of these things okay just allow me one more small point it's not just about the interpretation of sentences the the capacity of human mind is fascinating which you already know I am only referring to them is is fascinating in the sense that with sentences okay with sentences it reads things that we don't even say have you must have heard things like sometimes people say something they mean something else have you heard this thing and it happens in day-to-day life in other words such a phenomena is a very normal pattern in society or within people among people human mind has got absolutely no problem figuring those things out you you look at political discourse or political context as an example or a very ordinary context of our day-to-day conversations right I may say many things without saying anything of that sort and then you understand exactly what I say that's the fascinating capacity and relationship between meaning language and human mind of which we haven't discussed much and when I say we haven't discussed much I mean not in a technical sense to simulate how the underlying mathematics of that sort works I conclude by saying that part that we haven't discussed here but people have worked on that to a great deal it's a it's a time of computer you're free to google and look at look at some of the things that branch is called semantics and there is another related branch which is called mathematical linguistics and there there are books after books written where you look at a book of mathematical linguistics it looks like geometry or algebra it will probably not even give you a single sentence like these that you see here on the screen and it talks with the mathematical notations in the entire paper or in the entire book talking about meanings and the interpretation of in that context we are talking about a very small fraction of interpretation all right give me another couple of minutes before we stop so I'm glad that you had already asked this question which I have here John told Mary that he likes pizza he is sometimes dependent on John sometimes independent of John Mary wondered if she agreed in this case the story is a little bit different and what is the difference of the in the story she as the pronoun is categorically someone else given the nature of the word wonder right the interpretation of she is not dependent on on Mary therefore this sentence is not ambiguous clear okay same thing is clear from the last sentence Mohan concluded that he was crazy right I mean we don't if if if if he refers to Mohan then he need he doesn't need to conclude that right in other words nobody needs to conclude that that person himself is crazy rather even if you try very hard you won't be able to conclude that right because nobody concludes that that nobody reaches that kind of conclusion and anyway I understand I hope you understand what I mean we have looked at referential expressions so what's the what's the problem in fact we have been talking about the problem all along I haven't waited for the problems to give you as part as in in one place so there are ways a very specific configuration in configurations in a sentence or beyond the sentence in which NFS pronouns and R expressions can or must be used you understand the meaning of configurations specific configurations right which is the the meaning of a specific configuration is very simple did did you did you read something that is in the red please please read that and then you will understand what I mean by a specific configuration all right now if we if if a specific configuration is not clear here it is the the use of himself must be within the sentence okay if you use this thing across sentences then it's not going to work this is why and again I am sorry that I don't have numbers but we can find things this is why the look at the last sentence last sentence is not good because himself is not part of the same IP now I now I start talking about sentences in terms of IP even though if if we say last sentence has one IP 1 and IP 2 even though they are related IP 2 is the complement of V of IP 1 clear IP 2 in the last sentence is the complement of V of the IP 1 am I am I speaking to you right without the structure that that's that should be clear right so even that is true even if that is true himself is part of IP 2 right and that is from IP 2 the the reflexive in IP 2 and it's it's the the other thing that it refers back to that's called antecedent okay that technically called antecedent so reflexives in IP 2 and antecedent in IP 1 is not allowed that is what we mean by a specific configuration specific the specific about this configuration is must be within the same IP two of them must be within the same IP their interpretations across IPs are not not allowed all right there is another problem related to the last sentence which and you can see and you can guess and then then I stop there and we will we will discuss this further tomorrow himself if you if you look at IP in terms of IP 1 and IP 2 you can see it can never be allowed in the specifier position of an IP the second in the second IP it's in the spec of IP that is a specifier position of the IP 2 what is that position for what is that position for spec of IP subject it can an expression of that sort can never be part of subject can never be subject as part of a sentence and and it's it's no big big big discovery it simply means if something depends on interpretation for its antecedent then its antecedent the antecedent by definition means something that precedes it right and the moment it becomes the first element in the sentence where is the antecedent in the sentence right therefore if there is one position where it can never occur is the spec IP in ordinary sentence also somewhere I just gave you that enough first reflexives must be within the same sentence right antecedent and reflexive must be within the same sentence someone can say himself likes John both of them are within the same sentence are they okay no the only reason for that is spec of IP is not for reflexives because it needs an antecedent clear more and more about it tomorrow thank you


It's easy to assume that intellectual humility is an intellectual virtue. But what is an intellectual virtue? In this lecture, Professor John Greco will be helping us answer that big question. Professor Greco is the Leonard and Elizabeth Estlick Chair in Philosophy at St. Louis University. He received his PhD from Brown University and his bachelor's from Georgetown. He's a leading expert in virtue epistemology and has published widely in virtue epistemology, epistemic normativity, skepticism, and Thomas Reid. He's also the editor of American Philosophical Quarterly.


Yn ymddi'r unrhyw o'r ffordd yma, a'r ffordd yma, yn y ffordd yma yn y blynyddiadu, ac mae'n cyfnodol yn ymddiadu'r ymddiadu, dwi'n gweithio'r ddoddiadu'r cyfnodol, rydyn fod o'n ei cleif edrych iddynt yn digwydd. The initiatives I want to explore here with you, there are a pairs in particular, first thought emerging from case law and in particular civic litigation, and the second type from the legislator. Looking at human rights due diligence and civic litigation to begin with, Here I'm going to talk about, focus on two cases only given the time constraints, which is a Dutch case and an English case, and these cases involve the liability of the power and company for the acts and emissions of their subsidiaries. So, starting with the UK, so I'm going to talk about the Vedanta case, which is a very recent case, concerning proceedings that were brought in England by Zambian residents against an English company, so against both the English power and company and the Zambian subsidiary for the damage that they had suffered as a result of the environmental pollution caused by discharges from a copper mine that was owned and operated by the subsidiary. In particular, the claimants were as sustaining that the pollution of the waterways had affected their livelihoods because they relied on these waterways as their primary source of clean water for bathing, for cooking, for cleaning, for irrigation of the crops, for finding fresh fish, etc. One of the preliminary issues that arose in that case was the one of jurisdiction. Now, in particular, the claim against the power and company was brought on the basis of the recast process regulation, which provides an article for that person, don't miss our member state, shall be sued in that member state. The claims against the Zambian subsidiary, on the other hand, were brought on the basis of English law, and in particular paragraph 3.1 of the practice direction 6B, which basically allows claims to be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where there is between the claimants and the definite a real issue to be tried, and where the claimant wishes to serve the claim against another person who is a necessary or proper party to that claim. So, in other words, what that disposition entails is basically it potentially enables claims against non-EU domiciled definite to be brought and to be tried in England together with claims against EU domiciled definite when these two conditions are fulfilled. So, the defendants were arguing that, in fact, the claimants were by relying on this legislation were abusing procedural law because, in fact, the claim against the power and company just didn't have any chance of being successful. The High Court held that the claimants could bring their case in the UK. The definite appeal on the ground that the entire focus of the case was in Zambia, so this is where the Alex Taught was committed, the damage occurred, this is where the claimants reside, this is where the subsidiary is domiciled and the Zambian law was a little applicable. And so, therefore, the defendants were submitting that Zambia would be a more appropriate forum to hear the claim. They also said that the claim against the power and company was just an illegitimate hook being used to permit the claims to be brought in the UK, which would otherwise have nothing to do with the UK. The claimants, on the other hand, sustained that there was a real issue between themselves and the power and company and also that access to justice issues in Zambia would, in any case, suggest that the case should be tried in the UK. So, in order to decide on these issues, the judge had to decide on the likelihood that the duty of care would be owed by the power and company to the claimants for the acts of its subsidiary. In order to demonstrate the existence of a duty of care, the claimants used various elements and one of them were the various public statements that the power and company had made regarding its commitment to address environmental risks and the technical shortcomings of the subsidiary mining operation in Zambia. When analysing the well-established case law on establishing the duty of care of the power and company, Lord Justice Simon, who was the judge in the Court of Appeal, found that the claim against the power and company was arguable. So, he looked at all the free-fall test established in the Capharic case, he looked at the indicia from the Chandler case and the various case law, and obviously this was just a preliminary issue, so he didn't give an answer on the substantial facts of the case, but simply said that there was a serious question to be tried which should not be disposed of similarly. Now moving on to, I'll come back to that case in a little bit, moving on to the Netherlands. Here we'd like to talk about the Shell case in the Netherlands. This case concerns disputes that arose out of old spills which resulted in environmental damage that affected wide areas of lands and water as was the health and livelihood of the local communities in the dieted Niger Delta, as a result of which four Nigerian fishermen and farmers brought a claim in the Netherlands for compensation against Shell. Again, similarly, issues of jurisdiction arose, the claim against the power and company was just as in the Vedanta case based on, well this one, the Brussels one regulation, the old one, and the claim against a Nigerian subsidiary was based on Dutch law, Dutch national law in particular Article 7 of the Dutch Court of Civil Procedure which allows connected claim to be heard by the same forum. So, not dissimilar to the one to the English law that I mentioned earlier. Again, here Shell was sustaining that the claimants were abusing procedural law and that their strategy of bringing the claim against a power and company was actually just a device that was used cynically to bring claims that would otherwise have just no connection whatsoever with the European territory. And they were arguing about the claims against a power and company were bound to fail. So again, the judge had to decide on the likelihood that a claim against a power and company could be awarded. The claimants sustained in particular, in support of their claim, but the power and company exercised a high degree of control and direction of a Nigerian subsidiary, but it owed them a duty of care and that he had breached that duty of care by failing to ensure that the old licks were effectively cleaned up and by failing to take appropriate measures to address what they considered was a well-known systemic problem of its operation in Nigeria. Now, in first instance, the Dutch forum rejected the claims of cancer power and company on the grounds that under Nigerian law there was no general duty of care and power and companies to prevent vestibularies for inflicting damage on others through their business operations. But in a very interesting decision of the Court of Appeal of the Egg on the 18th of December 2015, the court reversed that decision and said that it couldn't be ruled out in advance but a power and company made certain circumstances be liable for damages resulting from acts and omissions of its subsidiary. The Court of Appeal said that considering the foreseeable serious consequences of the old spills to the local environment from a potential spills source, it couldn't be ruled out that the power and company would be expected to take an interest in preventing the spills. But I think that's the most interesting point of the decision here it added. The more so if the company has made the prevention of environmental damage by the activities of group companies as spare head and is to a certain degree actively involved in and managing the business operations of the companies. So here it's particularly interesting to see how the voluntary commitments adopted by Shell is used against them and the power and company's duty of diligence is somewhat enhanced by these corporate social responsibility commitments voluntarily adopted by the power and company. The Court of Appeal then went on to ask a number of questions that should be taken into consideration in the substantive, when deciding on the substantive case, looking at the standards that are expected from the power and company in the monitoring of the activities of the subsidiary. And what we see in this different test is a very high threshold that is expected from the power and company. And the Court to conclude that it couldn't be ruled out that the power and company couldn't be liable for damages resulting from the conduct of its subsidiary and that the claims against the power and company and the subsidiary were closely connected and therefore should be heard together. So here we see a very different, sorry, quite a similar decision that the one that was taken in the Vedentech is in the UK. It is however in sharp contrast with the English case on Shells on the same facts, but this is a case brought by over 42,000 Nigerian citizens against Shell. For the environmental damage caused by the oil spill, as I was brought in the UK. Now in that case, in the UK case, the High Court had considered that the power and company did not owe a duty of care to claimants. In particular, Justice Fraser found that the freefall test that was set out in the Caparo case in particular with regards to foreseeability, proximity and reasonableness was just not satisfied. That the relationship between the ultimate, what they call the ultimate holding company and the claimants was just not a close one. The power and company was not better placed than the subsidiary in respect of the harm and therefore it was unfair to unfair but because of that future the subsidiary would rely upon the power and company to avoid the harm. So on the 14th of February 2018, so very recently the Court of Appeal rejected the claimants appeal in that case in the UK with a majority opinion stating that the claim against the power and company were bound to fail and that it was just not arguable that the power and company owed them a duty of care. So same reasoning that the one, the same conclusion that the one that Justice Fraser had reached but through a different reasoning here, which Amnist International warned that was potentially setting a very potentially dangerous precedence inviting UK based corporations to have free reign to abusive and rights of the seas. It also completely denied the economic reality of the unity of the various entities of multinational corporations by just focusing and strictly adhering to the separation of the legal personality principles and in my opinion perhaps even more importantly it negates the regulatory functions of European courts as home states forum. Now I'm running out of time so I will just briefly mention because earlier I mentioned there are two initiatives, the case law initiatives and the legislative initiatives to reinforce to make human rights de-deligious mandatory and this is just I wanted to briefly mention the French law on the duty of de-leges which requires large French multinational corporations to put in place, make public and implement a vigilance plan in order to identify risks and prevent serious harms to human rights and environment. And this is very interesting law because it imposes this duty of de-leges responsibilities on power and company not only in relation to their subsidiaries but also in relation to their suppliers and they must in order to make sure that they are there to responsible business standards wherever they operate. So what we've been seeing through that, this case law that I've presented and through this legislation, I just mentioned the French one but there is a similar Swiss initiative going on at the moment, is a shift from soft law to hard law in order to make human rights de-deligious more meaningful and improve corporate accountability. Thank you very much.


So and on everyone, Sam here with Leighton Sports Guards. We are doing 2022 Petinia Maculet Baseball, hobby, photo, two box, number 10, random team style. Here is the look at your results. As always, you can find these on the website as well as the link in chat. Hollows Eve Blazer, that sounds pretty cool. All right guys, let's meet alive on TikTok and then we'll start with the hobby. Dude, we literally have not refreshed our feet on TikTok like in weeks and it's always the same video that's showing on TikTok, like the first one on top. We've probably given them like hundreds and hundreds of views just from that. What's going on, TikTok? We are live now ripping some Immaculate Baseball. Yeah, I got a pair of the Jordan 1 Sonics as well. They're like white and yellow, those are some of my most recent, but Oreos are gonna be my next one to buy. Probably this week, I'll probably pick up the pair of Oreos finally. Big Oreos fan. All right, see what we got in our hobby box, to start us off. We've got the Terrison Bader for the Cardinals. Triple, six out of 25. That is player one on the Bader. Yankee legend. We've got, that is a one-of-one printing play of Gil Hodges. That's sick. God, doesn't show a team here. Let me go look up on the checklist really quick on which one this Gil Hodges is gonna go to, but nice game use bat card on that one as well. Yeah, game worn on that, or game used, I should say, bat card. I'm gonna take a look here, 2022. One second here, everyone. See where Gil Hodges goes to. I know he's got a couple to, I know like the Mets, he's been on, Control F, Hall of Fame Materials, Jumbo Set, Legend Materials. Yeah, so he's going to the Dodgers. He's a Dodger in everything. So that'll go to the Dodgers. Nice one there. That's actually a really sick Hall of Fame pick up there. Um, Dodgers, Dodgers, Dodgers, Dodgers, Nicholas S, congrats, buddy. We've got, nice one here, going to the Diamondbacks. Luis Frias, that is 31 out of 65, three color for the Serpientes. Congrats, Diamondbacks. We've got, going to the Astros, three colored patch autograph of Corey Lee. 14 out of 25 on the Corey Lee. Nice one there for you, Astros. Got next up, going to the Yanks, that is 49 out of 99. Esteban Floriel, love his auto. He's got such a pretty auto in my opinion. Nice Floriel, going to, he's got the Yanks. Yigit D, congrats buddy, that's awesome. Then we've got the Maculet Signatures. That is 11 out of 25, Trey Mancini, going to the Orioles. Grat Baltimore, that's sick man. What do we got on the Orioles? That would be, Andy F, congrats Andy on the Mancini. Astro legend now, it sucks, it's so hard to be going to Trey Mancini. Yeah I know. Feels so bad. Here's your first off the line. Again, TikTok, there's the look. This is a two box mixer, first off the line. Again, if you guys are interested in trading card games or TCGs, we are going live over on Leighton Gaming Official. Caleb will be doing group breaks and personals all night. You guys are interested in grabbing a group break spot, make sure to put in the order notes that Sam sent you over. Sam sent you over, he's got a bounty for me. So again, as many people as possible over there. Again, Caleb is awesome at what he does as well.  We've got going to the A's, Tim Hudson, two out of 10. That's sick, dude. Game one on the hoodie. Congrats A's, that's a really sick patch. That's your first off the line exclusive. We've got nice, going to the Dodgers. That is 39 out of 49, Tommy Lasorda. Congrats Dodgers, dude, this next one is disgusting. Look at that thing. That's nasty, you could probably mag that one.  Congrats again, Dodgers. Couple of, all the fame hits there. We've got going to the Rockies. Who's got Colorado? That is Namql. Ryan Vallade on the first off the line exclusive. Look at the patch on that. The logo, you've got the Rocky Mountains. You've got part of the Rockies name, part of the Colorado. Everything going on in that one. Congrats Namql. Look at that guys, that is so sick. Three out of eight on the Vallade. That is nasty. Congrats again on that Namql, that's cool. We've got going to the, that is the Marlin. Six out of 10, it's Hasu Sanchez. On the patch, it looks like part of the sock there would be my guess. And this next one's sick, dude, it's a great box. Oh yeah, Bob, what'd you order? Excited for personals tonight? We've got 22 out of 25, big dumper. Cal Raleigh, going to the Mariners, Nicholas S. Dude, that's nasty. Dude, look at the patch on that thing too. Nasty-ness right there on the Cal Raleigh. Man, two really solid rookies we picked up in RPAs in this box. Got a great box at first off the line. And then how about 73 out of 77? Going to the Marlins again. That's going to be Brian De La Cruz. There you go, Marlins. Who's got the Miami Marlins? That's Nicholas S. Man, Nicholas having a great break here. For sure, nice De La Cruz. Got the three colored patch. Three auto jerseys in the last three Father's Day packs. Nice, congrats. I'm excited to rip that for you, Bob. That's going to be fun. So that'll do it for the break, right? They're going to do a quick recap here for you guys. We had Tomula Sorda for the Dodgers. That's Harrison Bader for the Cardinals. We've got Tim Hudson, Ace. Got one-on-one Gil Hodges going to the Dodgers. I had a handwriting not as bad as you said, I don't think. I don't know. Amy's bad there. Some people have a different thing. Some people have, let you know it's not great. We had Esteban Florial for the Yankees. Brian De La Cruz for the Marlins. That's Luis Frias going to the Diamondbacks. Trey Mancini for the Orioles. Corey Lee going to the Astros. We had Cal Raleigh going to the Mariners. Nasty patch on that thing. Congrats again, Nicholas. Jesus Sanchez going to the Marlins. Then we had this disgusting, first off the line exclusive, Ryan Belied, 3 out of 8, RPA for the Rockies. Absolutely insane patch on that thing. That'll do it for the break, guys. Thanks again. Next up, we've got a full case of Immaculate Baseball.