 So I decided to run out and get barbecue for yourself from the other night. Can you even get good brisket around here? Why are you talking about brisket? Obviously, I'm talking about pulled pork. Ooh, look at the sauce! Sauce? Absolutely not there. There has to be sauce! Alright, alright. Let's get started. Good evening and welcome to For Your Reference. Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood librarians from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. I'm Robin Beatenbow, and I'm from South Carolina. And seem to have lost Paris and Sarah. Hey, I'm Paris Leland, and I am from Texas. And I'm Sarah Johnson, and I'm from Tennessee. And we had some opinions about barbecue. Very strong ones, actually. Some are more right than others, shade intended. I just really want some sauce, okay? You definitely get sauce in the Carolina style, which is what I grew up with. And that encompasses both North and South Carolina. You do get three distinct sauces. South Carolina brings the mustard based in vinegar based in Eastern North Carolina. And it's like a ketchup based, tomato based thing in Western North Carolina, which is just way too sweet. If you get invited to a barbecue in either state though, what you can expect is to rock up to a whole slow roasted pig and be invited to pick directly from its carcass. I am with the slow roasted pig. That sounds so good. I'm not gonna lie, but you know what? I can really get behind. When it comes to barbecue, definitely a couple of slices of moist brisket. Get out of here with that lean-ish. We're not with it. I don't want to have that lovely outer bark on it. And you pair it with a nice sweet tea. It is too dye poor. And all that other stuff is great as well. But there's nothing better than walking into a smoky barbecue spot and getting that smell in your hair and your clothes. It's a whole experience. And let's be honest, if y'all put sauce on your meat, it's because you messed it up. And I said what I said. Oh, man, you went there. Oh. So in Tennessee, Memphis has definitely got the most distinguished place in the barbecue realm. But I've definitely heard of some oh-so-good barbecue here in Knoxville. That pig's burger from Brother Jack's back in the day, which is where Brother Jack would cut off the meat from the spare ribs, grind it, and then grill it like a hamburger. Yes, please, give me some of that. But Memphis, you've got both. You've got the dry ribs and you've got the wet ribs. And you've got the wet ones are like my jam, because they put the sauce in the process while it's smoking. And then they give you more sauce to put on top. I mean, who doesn't want that? Someone from South Carolina, maybe. Someone from Texas. But isn't there a style of barbecue we're missing? No. There are places outside the South where you can get invited to a barbecue and all they're doing is just cooking a bunch of stuff on the grill. That's where I definitely wrong. I think we're agreed. So we can all agree that you should never invite someone to a party in the South and call it a barbecue if your main course is veggie burgers. And while it is interesting how many of us construct parts of our identity around meat and how it ought to be prepared, we have got some very special guests tonight to take a much deeper look into identity and research around it. This is reviewer two. I would like to send a warm welcome to our first guest tonight, Dr. Justin Rudnick, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Minnesota State University in Mankato. Hello, hello. Some hot takes on barbecue today. Indeed. So tell us a little bit about you and your work and your feelings on barbecue if you have a second. Sure. I am definitely of the Midwest strain of barbecue. We call a barbecue when I'm just cooking stuff on the grill and it can include chicken. So I'm sorry, I will gladly be in the wrong about it. I am Midwest born and raised. I was a Wisconsin native. Did a little detour in Minnesota and Ohio and I'm back in Minnesota. I've been here at Minnesota State Mankato since 2016. This is almost the end of my sixth year. And I've just been doing the gig. All right, sounds good. Well, we have another very special guest playing the role of reviewer two tonight, Dr. Stevie Munn, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Utah Valley University. Welcome. Hi, thank you so much. Justin and I go way back to the dark times of PhD. I don't look semi-okay. So talk about trauma bonding. Lost and jolly ranchers co-read Mountain Dew and jalapenos. There you go. That's how you get through. So Stevie, tell us a little bit about your work. Okay. So like I said, Justin and I went to PhD together and graduated in 2016. While he went back to the Midwest, I took a venture out to Utah, which is a giant rock, but it's a really beautiful rock. So if you haven't been out here, you should definitely come visit. I teach primarily ethnography, oral history, qualitative research methods. I'm also our basic course director in public speaking. So I dabble in that as well. And it's a lot of fun. I'm really interested in identity. And so everything for me comes back to that question of how identity is political and social and cultural. And then how is that communicated? And that's really how Justin and I have stayed tightly bonded. All right. Well, without further ado, let's get into our topic for tonight. The question you two will be talking about this evening is, what does it mean to research alongside marginalized communities? So before you, before I go, a reminder to our audience on Facebook and YouTube, if you have questions for our guests, drop them in the comment section and we'll bring them up during the Q&A. For now, I will leave you to it. I'll be back in a bit. Okay. All right. So Justin, what do you think? What does it mean? I mean, it's funny when we came up with this question, I was like, oh, that sounds good. And then in thinking about it, I was like, that's such a big question. And I think for me, it's always come down to being prepared as much as you can for people's stories and to be taken on a journey with those stories that you maybe didn't anticipate. I don't know if you remember talking about this in that conference room at the Schoonover Center for Communication. They'll bring me back. So for those of you watching my dissertation research was about everyday performances of queer identity. How do LGBTQ folks kind of project their sexual identities in kind of more nonverbal or performative ways instead of just disclosing that information. And when I was using like you do, Stevie, ethnographic methods, interviews, observations, I got taken on a lot of journeys by my research participants. And I ended up with the whole chapter in my dissertation that I titled Wayward Stories. Because there were things that my participants wanted to talk about that were not necessarily things I was asking about, but were so crucial to those experiences. And that has kind of just been my experience researching identity and particularly among marginalized populations ever since then. It's like as soon as you open the door to give folks an opportunity to share about the kinds of experiences that oppress them, you kind of got to be ready to go on a journey. And it's not always the time that you think you're on. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that does definitely take me back to that conference room. And yeah, I think you're, I think you're totally right. I like agree with you so much. I mean, we've also worked a lot together on research and have also, I think, grown together intellectually and worked through a lot of ideas that we've tuned on or have been interested in. But I think this idea is really underestimated. Like there is a certain complexity with and a responsibility if you're going to go on this journey. And I think that a lot of times it's sort of treated a little bit slightly and there's harm that could be done because you're already working in a community that's been potentially violently marginalized, violently oppressed. And now you could be redoing those things. And so it is something I, like, I know you and I have had a lot of conversations about and thought a lot about. But there's like also a beauty to it. You don't know where that door is going to open to and what story they're going to take you down. And then it's, for me, like as an oral historian, what becomes interesting is sort of trying to trace that, connection historically and politically and culturally and trying to kind of figure out what is the context that they're coming to, the little fragments that they're interested in. But it is definitely not a linear path. It is not a linear path. So, yeah, the question we posed was like, I think, a very large sort of theoretical question. But I think it's one that has been hanging over us since we started on this like intellectual journey, probably in the conference room. Well, and I also think that you talk a lot about violence targeted towards marginalized communities. And that just immediately takes me back to conversations you and I have had about like the violence that theory can inflict. Oh, yeah. The stories that we're trying to tell. Ever since you first posed that idea to me, I've been wrestling with this in my head. And I think you and I have kind of danced this dance with the reviewers and the work that we've tried to publish together. Yeah. I was digging back over some of my, some of my reviewer two comments from submissions over the last few years. And it was interesting, I'll leave the journal nameless, but I had tried, I remember a couple of years ago, I tried publishing a piece somewhere. And essentially what I was told is that the, the research findings as I presented them were not interesting or insightful from a theoretical perspective. Classic. Right. Right. And I just remember, I don't know that you've run into this also, but it's been so, I'll use the Minnesota interesting to experience these kinds of comments because on the one hand, like when I talk about my research findings with other LGBTQ folks, they're always fascinated by it because I think your data back to the communities, they're like, Oh, you captured our experiences pretty well. Like I hadn't thought about it like that, but it makes so much sense. But when you try to position those themes absent of any kind of like overly complex theoretical framework, academics just don't want anything to do with it. No, I, and you and I have talked a lot about this because we've run into this a lot with the infamous reviewer too. And related to this concern that you've gone for me reviewer too. I know that I have also like feverishly keyboard smash to you about a particular reviewer too that for one of the pieces that I did eventually get published, but went through a really wild ride with it about farmer's wives. The critique was that there was nothing interesting about the stories because the stories were every day. And that is such a like impossible that it's an impossible task for scholars like you and I to address when the perception of what should be published is something like high levels theoretical or something that's almost like unachievable. So this every day experience, whether it's in the queer community or indigenous women, it is not, it's not important. And it just gets washed out of this of the research. Well, and I think that that also speaks to the methods that we use and the kinds of stories that we try to focus on. So I know you and I over the years have developed this really intense interest in experiences of the everyday kinds of mundane moments that as you experience it, don't seem to be very profound, but actually have a lingering effect on us when we labor through those moments. And it's interesting to me to just reflect a little bit on how much research we see get published, particularly when it's research about vulnerable or marginalized communities where the stories that get featured end up being so traumatic or so emotional. And it's almost like we're seeking out those really intense moments of exploitation almost or like deliberate harm. And that's what we base our research findings on. And one of the things that I think you and I have both kind of struggled with and trying to publish our work is convincing people that it's the small moments that stick with people. And especially when you're thinking about like marginalized or vulnerable communities, a lot of times it's of course those big moments of discrimination like you're going to affect you and we can recall those pretty easily. But what ends up coloring so many of our experiences as we move through the world is the accumulation of those small moments, the little cuts and stings that just kind of pile up over time that really affect how we interact with each other. Yeah. Yeah. It's a real challenge because the perception I think also in the methodological space that we tend to occupy sometimes privileges the moments that are more violent, that are more harrowing or traumatic. And I do worry about sort of the re-violencing that happens when that occurs and that and then the story is about an everyday discrimination or an everyday prejudice moment or an everyday moment of othering or brushing up against someone just gets treated as not important. And this is something that is a big struggle. I think in our reviewer 2 pool, I think with the reviewer 2 is because they're looking for something that we're not going to give them. That is the endeavor that we're pursuing. But we're almost up against like this battle because they're still seeking this deep theoretical contribution. And the idea of what the theoretical contribution is also at the onset really problematic because the contribution has to then couch itself at some point back into another experience that's already been written about. So then that leaves us with no space to even put forward the mundane everyday ordinary event of discrimination or of something that's just interesting, right? Just a tweak in social experience. There's just no space for that. So then those things just get treated as not worthy of being published, right? And that's the end of the story. And I can't help but think too if that's just one other mechanism in what prevents vulnerable communities from seeing themselves in the research. So here's where my brain went with this. It's one thing for an academic, for a reviewer to read our work and say, this doesn't seem interesting. You wouldn't need a research article to make these kinds of claims. But then the flip side of that coin is that there are no research articles that make those kinds of claims. So what kinds of knowledge is being generated about these communities in the first place? Who is generating it? And what are these gatekeeping systems look like? Because maybe to those of us with, as my diplomas are hanging in the background, most of us with all these advanced degrees could read a paper and say, yeah, yeah, yeah. This is so close to lived experience. You don't need a research paper to say this. But if there are no research papers saying this, then what kinds of knowledge claims are we making? And where are they, right? Yeah, yeah. Be every day is unimportant is the kind of key takeaway. It becomes just something that we're not concerned about. And then I think, I mean, I've watched too, just in reviewing that I've done through the years. I think that sometimes there are areas of study that the stories are getting more violent almost. It seems like the bar is needing to go further in order for it to be quote interesting. And that I think is concerning also because I worry about the ethics of representation there because just like you're saying the flip side of what you're saying really is we also have these areas of research in our area, right, that depict particular populations in one way. And then that's the only way that people know them as. And that's also really problematic and really troubling. And there's a powerful system behind that too. And a powerful kind of gatekeeping that's happening too. Yeah. Yeah. It's a bit disheartening when you start thinking about it because you're kind of. The every day is what we all experience. It is. It's the small brushes of moments from morning to night. But those moments while in my experience, the reviewers actually are like this is so interesting and also so relatable. So they'll say this relates to my life in this way or I heard similar stories or oh yes, I can absolutely sort of quote validate this. But then it's not worthy because it's not interesting enough. And yeah, I don't know what to say about that. That's just such an issue with our our couching of what's interesting then and what's worthy of being published because then it has to be this theoretical thing driven by an outside theoretical perspective. The story itself can't be theory. The story itself isn't worthy of standing on its own. It requires this extra thing and reviewer two says no. Right. Well, and I think that's a really interesting. So you and I are yet again trying to publish. Yeah. We've been working on for it's got to be almost a decade now at this point. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And the comments. I mean, I'll say that like we can leave the journal nameless. The comments that were pretty kind this time compared to how they were in the past. Yeah. Yeah. This ongoing discussion of like what's the right theory to use to explain experiences keep coming up. And I can't help but wonder like at what point will academic research be comfortable with entertaining the idea that these you know these thematic representations of people's experiences can stand on their own without a theory to prop them up. Yeah. I think we should delve into this essay situation a little bit because this was a really interesting moment of reflection. I think for us as a friendship too because we collected the data. We had something interesting right. It was supported by our graduate advisor and by the advisor for the seminar and then we sent it off and the reviewer and editor for a journal wrote back and sort of I want to say verbatim but not verbatim said that folks in the LGBTQ population are no longer minorities. And so we don't have to quote worry about these extreme experiences that are happening in your paper. And this was like you know for you a personal identity moment and for me as an ally and as a friend was also this moment of like what is going on right. We had this like total it was like eruption. How do you support that idea. Yeah. How do you support that idea. I think it was verbatim what we both were like what is going on here. But I think that that statement was couched in also a theoretical moment too because it came our submission for that essay came when gay marriage was legalized. And I think that the reviewer and I think that the editor was kind of like oh this policy quote theory was passed everything is okay. Yeah it's good now. It's good now. And it was a washing of those every day harms that happen to vulnerable people. And that was like a I think a big turning point for you and I and thinking about the complexity of what we were about to do that not everybody was going to see these everyday things as important. They were going to treat them like they were solved because there was a law or there was a regulation or there was a policy that people weren't allowed to do that. And it's tricky because I think if I'm remembering correctly where that comment came from is so the research we're trying to publish is about these discussion panels that are like staffed by LGBTQ students. Instructors bring them into the classroom and they're going to share and tell to increase empathy and understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ persons. And I think the comments were like well okay if these students are invited in then are they truly marginalized if basically if they've been given a foot in the door. And it's like the fact that you've got to be given that space and it's kind of like a show and tell except maybe like a share and tell to you've got to be given that space in the first place should be illustration enough. Never mind the conversations that I think we tried to engage in in the paper about the issues you run with this kind of like tokenism like when you select people on a stage and subject them to scrutiny by the dominant group. That's not a politically neutral ever. No and not in the context of our study too. I think it's worthy of saying that the professor was facilitating and negotiating various interactions that were happening with students who were saying inappropriate or disrespectful in the very least harmful things kind of under their breath or to each other while the panelists were speaking. And so then for the reviewer to make this comment and then for the editor to not only back up the reviewer but then to levy their own comment that was similar to the reviewer's comment or reviewer too's comment was rather shocking I think to say the least. Yeah in a really gross way in a very gross way. Yeah it was a real whiplash moment of like wait what is happening but it goes back to this issue of theory. It goes back to our I think tenuous relationship with theory and the moment that I think you say you're a scholar that is a nonrepresentational scholar or you're a scholar that doesn't use quote theory then I think your work is also looked at as less than and then I think the stories that are in your essay are also put in that category reviewer too. Which is just tough then because I think so much of the research that's generated about vulnerable communities wrestles with those kinds of things and so the research when it finally makes its way out there and the articles and the essays that I find that I resonate the most with are never in the mainstream journals. Not in our field. In our discipline if you attempt to be a theoretical good luck. In those like the quote unquote top tier journal and it's just like that just keeps perpetuating the issues where like research about marginalized communities is marginalized in the discipline and it's just this never ending game of being about. Hi I'm back. I hate to cut you off that was a very interesting very interesting conversation and it's fascinating to me. I'm going to start us off with questions here. It's going to sound for a minute like I'm doing the whole I got a question that's really more of a comment but my research tends to focus around scholarly publishing sort of broadly speaking and like how it's just broken from top to bottom. Part of this issue is what you guys were touching on is you know this whole idea of like impact factor and sort of you know how people are judged based your judgment whether you're productive based on how many articles you produced and what's the impact factor of your of the journal where you published and like how do you because as a librarian you know currently working on an open access communication plan and one thing we want to do is start talking to I think you two would be an easy sell but faculty like the reviewer twos of the world who've been doing this for a million years and they're sort of like in this theoretical quagmire and they can't get out because they're like oh this is the only way I learned how to do things and therefore if people aren't doing them this way they must be wrong like how do we begin to do that do you think it's interesting because I think and I think Stevie and I have a very similar response to this and that so from the very beginning our academic trajectories look so similar we were advised by the same person our methodologies are very similar like there's just a lot of overlap in the way that we think about the world and I think part of that included an exposure to quote-unquote non-dominant ways of doing the work so it's like the when if you're somebody who like you just did what your advisor did and you're just like the next iteration of this long line this like academic lineage it's hard to break out of that mold and so you start getting exposed to different ways of thinking different ways of doing different ways of representing that work so I think like we talked about the the issues of how our research is never in these mainstream journals but it's also those it's those marginalized outlets that are doing the cool stuff and are really starting to break the mold of what this can look like I agree I think that at the heart of this conversation is like cross training it's exposure to different ways of doing and thinking and understanding and also exposure to thinking about how folks live in different ways and love in different ways and exist in different places and that goes a really long way I think to fostering that deep curiosity that is missing from reviewer 2 so I think it would take in some ways in our discipline a journal that truly believed in that that had you know if it was a quote flagship journal that had a board and had you know authors that believed in this way of thinking that there's different ways of knowing and representing and that it doesn't just end with this one training that you may have received okay well we are at 731 and Stevie that was beautifully stated enough that I I think I'm just going to cut us off so so thank you both so much for joining us tonight it was a fascinating discussion and now we're going to send everybody over to Paris Playland to check this out welcome back everyone here we are at the final check this out segment for this season and true to form we're going to explore the topic from the reviewer 2 segment so this evening we're going to look at the intersection between identities information literacy and go through a few resources that you can use in your own time to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship that other identities may have with the same information and discover the stories behind their perspectives alright so starting off just a little bit foundational around here I think we can all agree that not everyone's experiences are the same that we don't all have the same view so I'm not particularly harping on whether it's negative or positive but the cultural the environmental and the life experiences that we all have and that form who we are or mold us and make our values making us all individuals that's what I'm focusing on so that brings us to the question where can we go when we're trying to understand another's experience in context and in an authentic manner or where do you go when you have questions like what is the history or evidence that has led up to a moment from a specific perspective I think we've all had these questions and many of us don't know where to start right so fear not moving forward with that in mind I know y'all already now I'm sending y'all right over to UT libraries to get some support alright one thing really quickly though y'all may remember that we explored the history research guy last episode this is absolutely one access point for doing different perspectives and stories on this subject however because we already went over that and I spoke on it I just want to remind you that you can find these guides by sorting through the subjects and clicking on history and then you'll see a list of topics or stories or perspectives however you want to look at that now for this episode I want to direct you right on over to the primary source research guide okay this is a wonderful place to start and you can use the databases provided to search first-hand accounts from people with different viewpoints in a moment in history so think examples like diaries images and other documents that really tell a story about what's going on at a specific time so this is a great way to get insight into an event through those who live through the moment think about COVID and how some of us are recording our experiences this is something similar to that also in this image on the left hand side you can see that there are several topics for you to explore so maybe I'm curious about others identities with doctors and medical history well under the medical and disability tab there are several resources that cover an array of topics related to medical practices medical history and experiences of those involved so this is just one place to begin to understand how others experience that complicated relationship between medicine and community there's also the cultural competence and public health guide that I should mention in relation to this topic it's actually curated by our lovely public health librarians and it's also a wonderful array of information that can be applied to this topic so it's actually giving you all two ways to explore this perspective starting with general subjects like medicine now for those of you who feel a little intimidated by documentation and you don't really understand databases I've got something even easier for you I am a visual person and I like video streaming because I'm often times doing other things so UT Libraries has video streaming collections that contains documentaries, interviews news programs and so much more so you can really take your time and explore that collection by heading over to the video collection research guide and clicking on video streaming collections and then from here you have a list of different video databases with tons of video content just make sure to read the descriptions to find out which one works best for you so for instance I may choose academic video online search medicine and any as you see in this image and my result may yield some interesting videos with primary source details on this topic so if educational video and information be shared in this specific modality piques your interest take a look at what the library subscribes to and explore different perspectives okay you have no excuses so you all have three new sources to use when you're looking to an examine a topic from a different lens that may be different from yours okay you have a primary source guide and a video collections list that UT Libraries subscribe to and you can always contact your friendly UT Library and to get some help okay I hope that you take the time to visit these resources and check out some of the awesome content available to you this wraps up our last check this out segment for this season I'm looking forward to seeing you all in Season 3 some more information literally so let's head over to the stacks with Sarah Johnson Good evening everyone and welcome to stories from the stacks we're going to take a peek into two can I count two identity based collections within the libraries both of which are oral histories so not only do I get to introduce and share the collections but you can also listen to these people's stories yourself right now these are digital and can be accessed anywhere so let's go take a look the first collection we're going to talk about is the voices out loud oral history project so the voices out loud oral histories collects, preserves and shares East Tennessee's LGBTQ plus history and culture this collection of interviews offers firsthand accounts of LGBTQ plus people who live or have lived in East Tennessee Donna Brocke and Kat Brooks are co-directors of the project and I was able to connect with Kat to get the low down um so disappointed but not surprised by how little information was found in the LGBTQ plus history voices out loud was created the goal of this project is to record stories of queer people living and thriving in the South and ensuring that young queer people in East Tennessee have an accurate depiction of the queer community in the southern United States so with this in mind they were able to get started conducting interviews by contacting people Donna had already you know had previous connections with they you know used word of communication was really important they researched queer history and the newspapers reaching out to people they had read about hosting outreach and preservation events but most importantly they offered their support to the queer community they made it a point to build relationships and trust when trust was hard and is still hard to find among the community so these stories range from people's life experiences personal interests careers um their work advocating for the LGBTQ plus community the impact of living in Knoxville um and reactions to the defunding of the Pride Center at the University of Tennessee in 2016 so this project gives people the opportunity to learn and know about a piece of history that isn't talked about enough um so that's a little little piece into the first collection we're going to talk about so the second one is called Rising from the Ashes and its full name is Rising from the Ashes The Chimney Tops to Wildfires Oral History Project um so we're just going to keep it short and sweet uh but it documents the impact of the Wildfires um and on it was back in 2016 so on November 23rd 2016 an uncontained wildfire on the chimney tops in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park gained so much momentum that it exceeded the National Park boundaries um and descended upon the town of Gatlinburg uh and we later find out that this was the largest natural disaster or one of the largest natural disasters in Tennessee history and um the deadliest wildfire in the eastern United States in the 1940s so in partnership with the city of Gatlinburg and the Annaporte Public Library UT Libraries has collected nearly 140 140 audio and video interviews with individuals who were impacted by the wildfires um these interviews include individuals who lost homes and businesses first responders fire and forestry experts um government officials artists scientists educators uh recovery specialists from charitable and volunteer organizations uh the list like goes on for a really long time um so how is something like this accomplished like this sounds like a huge undertaking um well in short it takes everyone um the partners that I mentioned before they were really helpful in identifying people to interview um and again that word of mouth uh communication was crucial interviewees would mention others to speak to to you know capture a new perspective from the event um the collection team aims to be consistent uh by writing you know script questions basically to ask based on the narrator's role so like those um people that I mentioned before it was you know just specific to that group of people um and UT libraries was also able to hire a graduate student who spoke Spanish to encourage the Latinx community to share their story so and then as we've all experienced um navigating the COVID-19 pandemic also became part of the process um transitioning to online interviews was another step in documenting um people's experiences so the social, cultural, economic, political and natural impacts of this event are you know still being calculated even though it was back in 2016 so um but I was able to speak with Jennifer Fields who is the director of special collections and Laura Romans who is the UT libraries um manuscripts archivist who both played a very critical role um in documenting this project so both collections that I've mentioned voices out loud and rising from the ashes are both preserved in the UT libraries, Betsy B Creek, more special collections in university archives um but I'd like to take a minute as we wrap up and just um you know mention like these collections are really really important um giving a voice to those who haven't been given the opportunity to tell their story or connecting with those who have suffered so you know maybe they don't feel so alone and um each of us has our own story that shapes our identities and it's you know it's important that we share them with each other in the world um so I would just like to credit all of the information about these projects to the respective websites um and you know they were written and composed by the leaders of each project so that is it for stories from the stacks so I will catch you in season three on the flippity flip I did I muted myself sorry anyway streaming exactly so well we've reached the end of our show and the end of the season that's this wrap on season two uh thanks everybody for watching we'll be working over the summer to figure out what new shenanigans we'll be bringing to you in the fall good night and thanks for watching