 Well, here's a statement I'm sure comes as no surprise to you. You do not agree with permittities. Even if you think, even if you try to say, I agree with permittities, you have not disagreed with permittities, because you have saying there's at least two things, you and permittities. So now you don't agree with permittities. Now, here's the problem. At least, you know, as we've constructed, permittities conclusion is the product of a deductively valid argument. You've seen this before, but I'm reproducing in here. That means, as we've seen before, we can't just reject the conclusion and walk away. If it's a deductively valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. So if the conclusion is false, at least one of the premises must be false. So if you're going to reject permanentist conclusion, and that's fine, right, you can, that's no problem. You have to show which premise is false and why. Here are the premises upon which permittities argument relies. If you reject this conclusion, you're saying one of these propositions here, one of these premises here is false. But our work still isn't over. If you claim that a proposition is false, you are logically committed to its contradictory, and every proposition has a contradictory. So if you reject these premises, you are committed to one of these contradictory. So, which contradictory are you going to stick with and why?