The post in which I speak about EAs being uncomfortable about us publishing the article only talks about interactions with people who did not have any information about initial drafting with Torres. At that stage, the paper was completely different and a paper between Kemp and I. None of the critiques about it or the conversations about it involved concerns about Torres, co-authoring with Torres or arguments by Torres, except in so far as they might have taken Torres an example of the closing doors that can follow a critique. The paper was in such a totally different state and it would have been misplaced to call it a collaboration with Torres.
There was a very early draft of Torres and Kemp which I was invited to look at (in December 2020) and collaborate on. While the arguments seemed promising to me, I thought it needed major re-writing of both tone and content. No one instructed me (maybe someone instructed Luke?) that one could not co-author with Torres. I also don’t recall that we were forced to take Torres off the collaboration (I’m not sure who know about the conversations about collaborations we had): we decided to part because we wanted to move the content and tone in a very different direction, because Torres had (to our surprise) unilaterally published major parts of the initial draft as a mini-book already and because we thought that this collaboration was going to be very difficult. I recall video calls in which we discussed the matter with Torres, decided to take out sections that were initially supplied by Torres and cite Torres’ mini-book whereever we deemed it necessary to refer to it. The degree to which the Democratising Risk paper is influenced by Torres is seen in our in-text citations: we don’t hide the fact that we find some of the arguments noteworthy! Torres agreed with those plans.
At the time it seemed to me that I and Torres were trying to achieve fundamentally different goals: I wanted to start a critical discussion within EA and Torres was ready by that stage to incoculate others against EA and longtermism. It was clear to me that the tone and style of argumentation of initial drafts had little chance of being taken seriously in EA. My own opinion is that many arguments made by Torres are not rigorous enough to sway me, but that they often contain an initial source of contention that is worth spending time developping further to see whether it has substance. Torres and I agree in so far as we surely both think there are several worthy critiques of EA and longtermism that should be considered, but I think we differ greatly in our credences in the plausibility of different critiques, how we wanted to treat and present critiques and who we wanted to discuss them with.
The emotional contexual embedding of an argument matters greatly to its perception. I thought EAs, like most people, were not protected from assessing arguments emotionally and while I don’t follow EA dramas closely (someone also kindly alerted me to this one unfolding), by early 2021 I had gotten the memo that Torres had become an emotional signal for EAs to discount much of what the name was attached to. At the time I thought it would not do the arguments justice to let them be discounted because of an associated name that many in EA seem to have an emotional reaction against and the question of reception did become one factor for why we thought it best not to consider the co-authorship with Torres. One can of course manage perception of a paper via co-authorship and we considered collaborating with respected EAs to give it more credibility but we decided both against name-dropping those people who invested via long conversations and commentary in the piece to boost it as much as we decided not to advertise that there are obvious overlaps with some of Torres’ critiques. There is nothing to hide in my view: one can read Torres’ work and Democratising Risk (and in fact many other peoples’ critiques) and see similarities—this should probably strengthen one’s belief that there’s something in that ballpark of arguments that many people feel we should take seriously?
Apart from the fact that it really is an entirely different paper (what you saw is version 26 or something and I think about 30 people have commented on it. I’m not sure it’s meaningful to speak about V1 and V20 as being the same paper. And what you see is all there is: all the citations of Torres are indeed pointing to writing by Torres, but they are easily found and you’ll see that it is not a disproportionate influence), we did indeed hope to avoid the exact scenario we find ourselves in now! The paper is at risk of being evaluated in light of any connection to Torres rather than on it’s own terms, and my trustworthiness in reporting on EAs treatment of critiques is being questioned because I cared about the presentation and reception of the arguments in this paper? A huge amount of work went into adjusting the tone of the paper to EAs (irrespective of Torres, this was a point of contention between Luke and I too), to ensure the arguments would get a fair hearing and we had to balance this against non-EA outsiders who thought we were not forceful enough.
I think we succeeded in this balance, since both sides still to tell us we didn’t do quite enough (the tone still seems harsh to EAs and too timid to outsiders) but both EAs and outsiders do engage with the paper and the arguments and I do think it is true that there is a greater awareness about (self-) censorship risk and critiques being valuable. Having published , EAs have so far been kind towards me. This is great! I do hope it’ll stay this way. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not sexy to be seen as the critic. It doesn’t feel great to be told a paper will damage an institution, to have others insinuate that I plug my own papers under pseudonyms in forum comments or that I had malicious intentions in being open about the experience, and it’s annoying to be placed into boxes with other authors who you might strongly disagree with. While I understand that those who don’t know me must take any piece of evidence they can get to evaluate the trustworthiness of my claims, I find it a little concerning that anyone should be willing to infer and evaluate character from minor interactions. Shouldn’t we rather say: given that we can’t fully verify her experience, can we think about why such an experience would be bad for the project of EA and what safeguards we have in place such that those experiences don’t happen? My hope was that I can serve as a positive example to others who feel the need to voice whatever opinion (“see it’s not so bad!”), so I thank anyone on here who is trying to ease the exhaust that inevitably comes with navigating criticism in a community. The experience so far has made me think that EAs care very much that all arguments (including those they disagree with) are heard. Even if you don’t think I’m trustworthy and earnest in my concerns, do please continue to keep the benefit of doubt in mind towards your perceived critics, I think we all agree they are valuable to have among us and if you care about EA, do keep the process of assessing trustworthiness amicable, if not for me then for future critics who do a better job than I.
@throwaway151 I recommend editing this post to include a link to this comment in its body (and maybe change the title). At this point it seems like it’s Torres’ word against Cremer’s and I see no reason to default to Torres’ side/interpretation given this. For people who won’t read the comments that carefully this seems important, especially since this post looks quiet enough now that it’s unlikely this comment will be upvoted to the top comment above one that has karma in the triple digits.
At this point, this looks like it was a motivated attack on Cremer and Kemp because of a vendetta against Torres—which wasn’t obvious until the “anonymous” author decided to post a litany of his multi-year documentation of all the things he’s upset at Emile about.
So yes, I think that changing the post to include this new revelation—one which should have been investigated before posting—clearly and at the top of the post, is a minimal necessary step, and I think that the Moderation team should probably step in if it doesn’t happen.
ETA: Glad to see that this was done, albeit minimally and partially. It needs to be clearer, since it is fundamentally disputing the claims made, which the author admits he did not investigate before writing the post.
Given that people are sharing evidence on Torres, I thought I would chime in. I agree it would have been better for the OP to share with Zoe before posting, but I also think working with Torres is a mistake.
My relationship with Torres started after I criticised something he wrote about Steven Pinker on Facebook—my critique was about 3 sentences. My critique was supported by others in the community, including Will MacAskill. I think this was the start of Torres becoming disenchanted with EA.
From this point on, he published several now infamous pieces suggesting that I and others in EA support white supremacy. He also sent me numerous messages on Facebook after I had stopped responding. In this Facebook post, Torres inexplicably namechecks me while he is accusing some people of being rapists/paedophiles (their names are redacted)
My whole experience with Torres has been surreal—for one small piece of criticism, he went after me for years. I know he has done the same to others: some people he has gone after have needed counselling, and I think people should take that into account when they interact with Torres.
For people who are confused that Torres, who wrote a book defending the FHI-house view of x-risk in 2017 and endorsed that view until his review of Pinker in 2019, now thinks EA is so bad, it seems to be because he thinks he faced some rejection by the community.
“In this Facebook post, Torres inexplicably namechecks me while he is accusing some people of being rapists/paedophiles (their names are redacted)”
When was this post from—before or after he was banned from the forum over attacking you a bit over a year ago? Given that he’s repeatedly made malicious claims about you in the past couple years, this seems a bit inexplicable. Because if it’s actually referring to someone who was on Epstein’s jet, this seems mostly justifiable, other than the weird decision to name-check you. Or was this from before the vendetta started?
hi david, this was from before he was banned from the forum but after his beef with me started—this was while he was doing all the white supremacy articles about me, beckstead and others. he had a long-standing dispute with the people mentioned, and independently at the time he was especially annoyed at me for criticising him. I think that is what led him to namecheck me in his allegation.
I hadn’t heard of one of the people he was accusing at the time that he wrote the facebook post. I have no idea whether or not the allegations are true, I just don’t understand why he involved me in them.
EA Forum moderators take note: I believe the individual above is the same who created these two Twitter accounts just a few days ago, both of which were used to harass me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1569401706999595009. I have screenshots of many of our exchanges if you’d like. Harassment on social media should warrant being banned from this website, especially when the harasser continues to conceal their identity. Please act.
(EDIT: Please note also that this “throwaway” account was created just this month. Are you, as a community, okay with people creating anonymous Twitter accounts and anonymous EA Forum accounts to share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone? If so, I’ll make a note of it.)
Please note also that this “throwaway” account was created just this month.
My prior is that the reason Throwaway151 posted under a new anonymous account is not that they want to harass you. Rather, it’s that there is public evidence that you yourself harass (evidence: your exchanges with Peter Boghossian) those who you perceive to be your enemies. Anonymity is not ideal but it’s understandable given your history, in my opinion, even if you’ve admitted to and apologized for some of this past conduct.
Again, it goes without saying that none of this would justify Throwaway151 harassing you in turn, but I see no evidence that that has happened.
If by “share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone” you are referring to the screenshots posted above, I disagree strongly with this characterization. From what I can tell, the screenshots are not misleading, and the additional context you provided doesn’t change what I take away from the screenshots: you have a history of online interactions with perceived enemies that are reasonably construed as menacing and upsetting.
In addition, the screenshot Halstead shared strongly adds to this impression.
My prior is that the reason Throwaway151 posted under a new anonymous account is not that they want to harass you.
Yeah, given the extensive documentation that the Throwaway151 account posted of years worth of Torres’ falsehoods, I think it’s absolutely clear that it’s someone who has far more than a passing interest, and that even if the post wasn’t malicious, it was at least negligently defamatory, given that they admitted that no effort went into verifying any of the original claim.
I think that anonymity encouraged/enabled the negligence and was for that reason and to that extent bad. That’s different from trying to harass Torres. Any malice or negligent defamation has been towards Cremer and Kemp.
I was just saying that a major reason Throwaway151 could reasonably desire anonymity is Torres’s verifiable track record (see other comments on this post) of harassment. So anonymity is less evidence of ill intent than it would otherwise be. Of course, if Throwaway151 has in fact harassed Torres on Twitter as Torres claims, that is terrible. (I maintain that nothing Throwaway151 has done on the Forum constitutes harassment of Torres.)
Related small point: I think you mean “years worth of Torres’s menacing behavior”, not “years worth of Torres’s falsehoods”. As far as I can tell there aren’t actually any lies in that thread, just unnerving behavior.
Are you, as a community, okay with people creating anonymous Twitter accounts and anonymous EA Forum accounts to share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone?
I am confident I speak for the community when I say: no, absolutely not. If you are being harassed on Twitter, by Throwaway151 or by anyone else, that is wrong and unacceptable. I’d be especially angry and concerned if Twitter harassment is coming from EAs, and I emphatically condemn any such behavior.
Harassment on social media should warrant being banned from this website, especially when the harasser continues to conceal their identity.
I agree, and I expect the moderation team to take action if they have sufficient compelling evidence that this is in fact what has happened.
(a) This is taken out of context. (b) My “prank” was intended to mimic precisely what these far-right trolls were doing. (c) I realized in retrospect that stooping to their level was no good. (d) I repeatedly, publicly, and honestly apologized for acting like them (in this one particular case; it was the only time I did anything like this). (e) I continue to apologies for the momentary lapse of judgment. I am sorry for it. I thought it would be funny to mimic them, but I think I was wrong. (f) Michael Shermer has been accused by many women of harassment, assault, and r*pe. I mentioned that in a Salon article, and he went ballistic. No one should trust what he says about me. This is not good epistemics.
(a) To be honest, I doubt that there could be a “context” that would make your email look anything other than menacing and stalkerish. But I would be happy to hear what that context is. That is a pretty serious charges and I don’t want to update on misleading or selective evidence.
Thank you for correcting the record, Zoe, and my apologies if I’d misremembered some of this. I am more than happy to update on the information provided. (Also consulting with a few others who were somewhat involved in this whole process, i.e., who knew what was going on from the inside, to see what they remember.)
To recall, what you tweeted was this: “We had already finished a penultimate draft of the paper. I was removed. Forcibly. So much for academic freedom”
Did you or did you not, at the time, have definite evidence of being “removed forcibly” after the penultimate draft? It strains credulity that you could have been “misremembering” that this happened.
The post in which I speak about EAs being uncomfortable about us publishing the article only talks about interactions with people who did not have any information about initial drafting with Torres. At that stage, the paper was completely different and a paper between Kemp and I. None of the critiques about it or the conversations about it involved concerns about Torres, co-authoring with Torres or arguments by Torres, except in so far as they might have taken Torres an example of the closing doors that can follow a critique. The paper was in such a totally different state and it would have been misplaced to call it a collaboration with Torres.
There was a very early draft of Torres and Kemp which I was invited to look at (in December 2020) and collaborate on. While the arguments seemed promising to me, I thought it needed major re-writing of both tone and content. No one instructed me (maybe someone instructed Luke?) that one could not co-author with Torres. I also don’t recall that we were forced to take Torres off the collaboration (I’m not sure who know about the conversations about collaborations we had): we decided to part because we wanted to move the content and tone in a very different direction, because Torres had (to our surprise) unilaterally published major parts of the initial draft as a mini-book already and because we thought that this collaboration was going to be very difficult. I recall video calls in which we discussed the matter with Torres, decided to take out sections that were initially supplied by Torres and cite Torres’ mini-book whereever we deemed it necessary to refer to it. The degree to which the Democratising Risk paper is influenced by Torres is seen in our in-text citations: we don’t hide the fact that we find some of the arguments noteworthy! Torres agreed with those plans.
At the time it seemed to me that I and Torres were trying to achieve fundamentally different goals: I wanted to start a critical discussion within EA and Torres was ready by that stage to incoculate others against EA and longtermism. It was clear to me that the tone and style of argumentation of initial drafts had little chance of being taken seriously in EA. My own opinion is that many arguments made by Torres are not rigorous enough to sway me, but that they often contain an initial source of contention that is worth spending time developping further to see whether it has substance. Torres and I agree in so far as we surely both think there are several worthy critiques of EA and longtermism that should be considered, but I think we differ greatly in our credences in the plausibility of different critiques, how we wanted to treat and present critiques and who we wanted to discuss them with.
The emotional contexual embedding of an argument matters greatly to its perception. I thought EAs, like most people, were not protected from assessing arguments emotionally and while I don’t follow EA dramas closely (someone also kindly alerted me to this one unfolding), by early 2021 I had gotten the memo that Torres had become an emotional signal for EAs to discount much of what the name was attached to. At the time I thought it would not do the arguments justice to let them be discounted because of an associated name that many in EA seem to have an emotional reaction against and the question of reception did become one factor for why we thought it best not to consider the co-authorship with Torres. One can of course manage perception of a paper via co-authorship and we considered collaborating with respected EAs to give it more credibility but we decided both against name-dropping those people who invested via long conversations and commentary in the piece to boost it as much as we decided not to advertise that there are obvious overlaps with some of Torres’ critiques. There is nothing to hide in my view: one can read Torres’ work and Democratising Risk (and in fact many other peoples’ critiques) and see similarities—this should probably strengthen one’s belief that there’s something in that ballpark of arguments that many people feel we should take seriously?
Apart from the fact that it really is an entirely different paper (what you saw is version 26 or something and I think about 30 people have commented on it. I’m not sure it’s meaningful to speak about V1 and V20 as being the same paper. And what you see is all there is: all the citations of Torres are indeed pointing to writing by Torres, but they are easily found and you’ll see that it is not a disproportionate influence), we did indeed hope to avoid the exact scenario we find ourselves in now! The paper is at risk of being evaluated in light of any connection to Torres rather than on it’s own terms, and my trustworthiness in reporting on EAs treatment of critiques is being questioned because I cared about the presentation and reception of the arguments in this paper? A huge amount of work went into adjusting the tone of the paper to EAs (irrespective of Torres, this was a point of contention between Luke and I too), to ensure the arguments would get a fair hearing and we had to balance this against non-EA outsiders who thought we were not forceful enough.
I think we succeeded in this balance, since both sides still to tell us we didn’t do quite enough (the tone still seems harsh to EAs and too timid to outsiders) but both EAs and outsiders do engage with the paper and the arguments and I do think it is true that there is a greater awareness about (self-) censorship risk and critiques being valuable. Having published , EAs have so far been kind towards me. This is great! I do hope it’ll stay this way. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not sexy to be seen as the critic. It doesn’t feel great to be told a paper will damage an institution, to have others insinuate that I plug my own papers under pseudonyms in forum comments or that I had malicious intentions in being open about the experience, and it’s annoying to be placed into boxes with other authors who you might strongly disagree with. While I understand that those who don’t know me must take any piece of evidence they can get to evaluate the trustworthiness of my claims, I find it a little concerning that anyone should be willing to infer and evaluate character from minor interactions. Shouldn’t we rather say: given that we can’t fully verify her experience, can we think about why such an experience would be bad for the project of EA and what safeguards we have in place such that those experiences don’t happen? My hope was that I can serve as a positive example to others who feel the need to voice whatever opinion (“see it’s not so bad!”), so I thank anyone on here who is trying to ease the exhaust that inevitably comes with navigating criticism in a community. The experience so far has made me think that EAs care very much that all arguments (including those they disagree with) are heard. Even if you don’t think I’m trustworthy and earnest in my concerns, do please continue to keep the benefit of doubt in mind towards your perceived critics, I think we all agree they are valuable to have among us and if you care about EA, do keep the process of assessing trustworthiness amicable, if not for me then for future critics who do a better job than I.
@throwaway151 I recommend editing this post to include a link to this comment in its body (and maybe change the title). At this point it seems like it’s Torres’ word against Cremer’s and I see no reason to default to Torres’ side/interpretation given this. For people who won’t read the comments that carefully this seems important,
especially since this post looks quiet enough now that it’s unlikely this comment will be upvoted to the top comment above one that has karma in the triple digits.On the last point, I stand corrected.
At this point, this looks like it was a motivated attack on Cremer and Kemp because of a vendetta against Torres—which wasn’t obvious until the “anonymous” author decided to post a litany of his multi-year documentation of all the things he’s upset at Emile about.
So yes, I think that changing the post to include this new revelation—one which should have been investigated before posting—clearly and at the top of the post, is a minimal necessary step, and I think that the Moderation team should probably step in if it doesn’t happen.
ETA: Glad to see that this was done, albeit minimally and partially. It needs to be clearer, since it is fundamentally disputing the claims made, which the author admits he did not investigate before writing the post.
Given that people are sharing evidence on Torres, I thought I would chime in. I agree it would have been better for the OP to share with Zoe before posting, but I also think working with Torres is a mistake.
My relationship with Torres started after I criticised something he wrote about Steven Pinker on Facebook—my critique was about 3 sentences. My critique was supported by others in the community, including Will MacAskill. I think this was the start of Torres becoming disenchanted with EA.
From this point on, he published several now infamous pieces suggesting that I and others in EA support white supremacy. He also sent me numerous messages on Facebook after I had stopped responding. In this Facebook post, Torres inexplicably namechecks me while he is accusing some people of being rapists/paedophiles (their names are redacted)
My whole experience with Torres has been surreal—for one small piece of criticism, he went after me for years. I know he has done the same to others: some people he has gone after have needed counselling, and I think people should take that into account when they interact with Torres.
For people who are confused that Torres, who wrote a book defending the FHI-house view of x-risk in 2017 and endorsed that view until his review of Pinker in 2019, now thinks EA is so bad, it seems to be because he thinks he faced some rejection by the community.
“In this Facebook post, Torres inexplicably namechecks me while he is accusing some people of being rapists/paedophiles (their names are redacted)”
When was this post from—before or after he was banned from the forum over attacking you a bit over a year ago? Given that he’s repeatedly made malicious claims about you in the past couple years, this seems a bit inexplicable. Because if it’s actually referring to someone who was on Epstein’s jet, this seems mostly justifiable, other than the weird decision to name-check you. Or was this from before the vendetta started?
hi david, this was from before he was banned from the forum but after his beef with me started—this was while he was doing all the white supremacy articles about me, beckstead and others. he had a long-standing dispute with the people mentioned, and independently at the time he was especially annoyed at me for criticising him. I think that is what led him to namecheck me in his allegation.
I hadn’t heard of one of the people he was accusing at the time that he wrote the facebook post. I have no idea whether or not the allegations are true, I just don’t understand why he involved me in them.
Thanks for clarifying!
EA Forum moderators take note: I believe the individual above is the same who created these two Twitter accounts just a few days ago, both of which were used to harass me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1569401706999595009. I have screenshots of many of our exchanges if you’d like. Harassment on social media should warrant being banned from this website, especially when the harasser continues to conceal their identity. Please act.
(EDIT: Please note also that this “throwaway” account was created just this month. Are you, as a community, okay with people creating anonymous Twitter accounts and anonymous EA Forum accounts to share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone? If so, I’ll make a note of it.)
My prior is that the reason Throwaway151 posted under a new anonymous account is not that they want to harass you. Rather, it’s that there is public evidence that you yourself harass (evidence: your exchanges with Peter Boghossian) those who you perceive to be your enemies. Anonymity is not ideal but it’s understandable given your history, in my opinion, even if you’ve admitted to and apologized for some of this past conduct.
Again, it goes without saying that none of this would justify Throwaway151 harassing you in turn, but I see no evidence that that has happened.
If by “share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone” you are referring to the screenshots posted above, I disagree strongly with this characterization. From what I can tell, the screenshots are not misleading, and the additional context you provided doesn’t change what I take away from the screenshots: you have a history of online interactions with perceived enemies that are reasonably construed as menacing and upsetting.
In addition, the screenshot Halstead shared strongly adds to this impression.
Yeah, given the extensive documentation that the Throwaway151 account posted of years worth of Torres’ falsehoods, I think it’s absolutely clear that it’s someone who has far more than a passing interest, and that even if the post wasn’t malicious, it was at least negligently defamatory, given that they admitted that no effort went into verifying any of the original claim.
I think that anonymity encouraged/enabled the negligence and was for that reason and to that extent bad. That’s different from trying to harass Torres. Any malice or negligent defamation has been towards Cremer and Kemp.
I was just saying that a major reason Throwaway151 could reasonably desire anonymity is Torres’s verifiable track record (see other comments on this post) of harassment. So anonymity is less evidence of ill intent than it would otherwise be. Of course, if Throwaway151 has in fact harassed Torres on Twitter as Torres claims, that is terrible. (I maintain that nothing Throwaway151 has done on the Forum constitutes harassment of Torres.)
Related small point: I think you mean “years worth of Torres’s menacing behavior”, not “years worth of Torres’s falsehoods”. As far as I can tell there aren’t actually any lies in that thread, just unnerving behavior.
I am confident I speak for the community when I say: no, absolutely not. If you are being harassed on Twitter, by Throwaway151 or by anyone else, that is wrong and unacceptable. I’d be especially angry and concerned if Twitter harassment is coming from EAs, and I emphatically condemn any such behavior.
I agree, and I expect the moderation team to take action if they have sufficient compelling evidence that this is in fact what has happened.
The mentioned tweet seems to no longer be available. Could you provide screenshots?
It is available, there is just a typo such that there is a period included at the end of the hyperlink. Just take off the period.
(a) This is taken out of context. (b) My “prank” was intended to mimic precisely what these far-right trolls were doing. (c) I realized in retrospect that stooping to their level was no good. (d) I repeatedly, publicly, and honestly apologized for acting like them (in this one particular case; it was the only time I did anything like this). (e) I continue to apologies for the momentary lapse of judgment. I am sorry for it. I thought it would be funny to mimic them, but I think I was wrong. (f) Michael Shermer has been accused by many women of harassment, assault, and r*pe. I mentioned that in a Salon article, and he went ballistic. No one should trust what he says about me. This is not good epistemics.
(a) To be honest, I doubt that there could be a “context” that would make your email look anything other than menacing and stalkerish. But I would be happy to hear what that context is. That is a pretty serious charges and I don’t want to update on misleading or selective evidence.
Thank you for correcting the record, Zoe, and my apologies if I’d misremembered some of this. I am more than happy to update on the information provided. (Also consulting with a few others who were somewhat involved in this whole process, i.e., who knew what was going on from the inside, to see what they remember.)
To recall, what you tweeted was this: “We had already finished a penultimate draft of the paper. I was removed. Forcibly. So much for academic freedom”
Did you or did you not, at the time, have definite evidence of being “removed forcibly” after the penultimate draft? It strains credulity that you could have been “misremembering” that this happened.