JBP Reacts to Court Decision

Despite my proclivity to feel guilt, which is quite substantive, and despite my temperamental unwillingness to engage in conflict, not only do I not see what I did wrong, I think what I've done on the public communication front is my responsibility as a clinician to tell the truth about what I see. So we'll make it public.

“Dad, nice to see you.”

“Hey Mick, how you doing?”

“I'm not doing too bad, how are you?”

“Good, actually. All things considered, I'm in Milwaukee looking forward to the presidential debate tonight.”

“That's fun. Um, you know, I'm perplexed, I would say, about the situation in Canada. I've been thinking about it this morning. As you know, the court that we appealed the College of Psychologists' decision to decided that the college has, it's within the college's purview to stop me from having any political opinions. As far as I can tell, the decision, which I posted on Twitter and will post in the description of this video, starts out by making a case for the fundamental reality of freedom of speech for Canadians in Canada and then says, ‘but,’ and that's always a bad start when you're talking about freedom of speech. But apparently, the college has the right to decide that I can be re-educated forcibly with the risk of my license essentially, because I made political statements that the members of the college don't agree with.

Those opinions involve two criticisms of Justin Trudeau, one criticism of his chief of staff, one criticism of an Ottawa city counselor, and then my objection on Joe Rogan to the climate apocalyptic fear-mongering that idiot tyrants are foisting on the general population. Now, apparently that makes me unprofessional and a disgrace to the profession such that I am now going to be required, the college can go ahead with this, to put me into a re-education program with their so-called social media experts, and that's also, by the way, a profession that does not exist until I learn my lesson, whatever that is, regardless of how much time that takes by their judgment, or they can take my license away.

So the court says, ‘Well, of course you have freedom of speech Dr. Peterson, but because you're a professional, you're bound by your professional organization.’ And apparently, they're not bound, even though they're a government organization fundamentally, apparently they're not bound by that fundamental constitutional axiom. And so that shows you all you Canadians who are listening and everyone outside of the country who might be the least bit interested in Canada; that shows you exactly what our bloody Constitution is worth. And if Canadians are so daft that they don't think that that's a problem, well, they're going to figure it out over the next 15 years because there's absolutely no excuse for this.

So that's what I'm thinking. Now, there's part of me that's thinking, ‘Well look, Peterson, the College of Psychologists is after you. You've taken it to court. Now the judges have decided that you're wrong, maybe you're wrong.’ And I think, ‘Well, I expressed political sentiment and I'm actually informed,’ and so for the life of me, I can't see how I'm wrong. I think I have a responsibility to say what I think, and I think many people agree with that. And I think the fundamental consequence of that around the world has been massively beneficial to people. So I think, number one, what the hell? And number two, bring it on and see what happens because I will make absolutely every bit of public in a way that the college and the courts can hardly even imagine. So away we go.

So that's how I'm doing.

“That's how you're doing?”

“Okay, but good.”

“Yeah, but good. You know, I mean, I didn't. Look, the court decision was worse than I thought it would be. I was already pessimistic. I figured the court would take the coward’s way out and basically upgrade the college for procedural inadequacy. Because one of the things the college did, which is just beyond comprehension as far as I'm concerned, is pursue these complaints that were put forward by people distributed all over the world who then claimed in writing falsely to be my clients when in fact they were never my clients.

And not only were they not my clients, they had nothing to do with anyone who was ever a client of mine. And so I figured at least the court would say, ‘Well you know, of course you have the right to police professionals because you're a professional governing body.’ But they didn't even do that. They just basically said, ‘Well, of course you have the right to freedom of speech except when it comes to, let's say, political opinions.’ So you know, then what right do you have at all? And you know, it's terrible, Michaela, because I know perfectly well from talking to many physicians, physicians in particular but also lawyers and psychologists, that no one in Canada... arguably, and this is also extremely strange. It's surreal. There's no one in Canada except me that's actually in a position to fight this because it's hyper-expensive. And I don't know if my insurance will cover it.

It's hyper-expensive, it's stressful, it's complex, it's time-consuming, it could involve the suspension of my license. And there's not really anything that can be done to me that's a threat. I'm not serving as a clinician, I don't have a practice anymore because that became impossible, even though I love doing it, and I'm also not very happy about that. So I'm like the person who can do this, and Canadians have no idea to what degree professionals in Canada are now required not to say what they think or to lie outright. So for example, therapists are required by law to lie about, let's say, the gender identity of minors. And so for me especially on the therapy side, if you're required by law and by your professional organization to lie cowardly, you're done as a therapist because the only thing you've got as a therapist is honesty. That's it. Honesty is what's curative.

So you know, it's just part of how surreal the world is, and particularly how surreal Canada is. It's hard to fathom. It is hard to fathom. Can I read just a couple of sentences from the decision so people have an idea of what's in here? It's linked below. People can read the entire thing, but there's parts like this: ‘When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression.’ That's just one sentence after another. That's how it starts.”

“Yeah, yeah, perfect. That it's a great thing to highlight. You know, it's like, well, you have this fundamental right, but... well, what rules? There's what? There's a rule A? There's a rule? Is that right that the College of Psychologists has that I can't criticize Justin Trudeau on Twitter? That's a rule, is it? And if someone anywhere in the world complains about the fact that I've criticized Justin Trudeau, let's say that all of a sudden that's a rule, even though it wasn't a rule. And of course, I get to criticize Justin Trudeau not only because he richly deserves it in every way you can possibly imagine, but because that's actually what freedom of speech means. So I have no idea what the court means by, you know, abiding by the rules.

So the rules are whatever the bloody College of Psychologists determines constitutes a rule after the fact, given their complete freedom to make manifest any rules they want. Yeah, it's beyond comprehension, and yeah, but I have freedom of speech. It's like, do I now? What do I get to talk about? Apparently, I can't even talk about the weather. You know, here's another fact, this is literally the truth. People can submit complaints to the College of Psychologists from anywhere in the world. And so someone in the States submitted a complaint about the conversation I had with Joe Rogan where I expressed my doubts about the validity of economic predictions based on climate science.

The complainant submitted the entire transcript, right? A three-hour conversation as evidence of my unprofessional behavior, and the college, which did not have to pursue that complaint, went forward with it. So like, okay, I talked to Joe for three hours; apparently everything I said in that three hours was unprofessional and a disgrace to the profession. So like, well, what am I supposed to do about that? The answer is, well, we're going to appeal the decision. I will take this to the Supreme Court. I don't think that any judges will have either the wisdom or the courage to rule about this properly except at the Supreme Court level, and I'm not particularly optimistic about that either.

I don't see how you can win this without overturning colleges in general, and I don't like... that's not a good look for the colleges to lose this. So won't the Supreme Court? I know they're not supposed to be pressured, but won't they? What's the benefit for them for ruling in your favor other than they support?

“Well, they would support the most fundamental principle of a free society, right? It's like, why do you have the right to freedom of speech? Well, the answer is, it's because there's no difference between free speech and thinking, no difference between free speech and dialogue, and no difference between free speech and problem-solving. So therefore, peace. If you eliminate that, people can no longer think, they can no longer adapt, they can no longer negotiate, they no longer even know how to orient themselves in the world. And so, in principle, the advantage for the Supreme Court is that they rule in favor of the most fundamental principle upon which civil democracy itself is predicated.

Now, I don't think we have the right to free speech in Canada. I think this decision today demonstrates that obviously. I saw the same thing with the Law Society in Canada; partly was why I'm not surprised at this ruling. I've been through this before, and I see that Canada's walked down that idiot path for at least 30 years. So our country is in... well, this is where I start to get doubtful. It's like, either I'm wrong or the country is in trouble. Now, to tell you the truth, I would rather be wrong. But I've thought it through. It's like, okay, what did I do exactly?

None of my clients complained; that has nothing to do with this. And I express my political opinions, which I have a right to do, which I believe were correct. I think that, and Canadians agree with this. Now, the last poll indicated that Canadians believe that Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister we've ever had. Well, that was sort of my point a year ago, you know? And so if I can't say that and yet a majority of Canadians believe it to be true, and believe me, a lot more of them are going to believe that, a lot more are going to believe that in the relatively near future, in what sense do I have anything even approximating freedom of speech?

And if I can't have that opinion, and therefore in principle no one can, then what do we do when we're stuck with a prime minister, let's say, who everyone has decided is the worst prime minister the country's ever had? Well, move. Run if you can. Well, this is another reason, you know, why I'm in a position that I can fight this, because the worst thing that could happen is the college can take away my license. Now, I already know that if my license gets taken away, there are other jurisdictions that will grant me a license the next day.

And you know, there's a real comical element to that because I could lose my license in Ontario and instantly be licensed in at least three other jurisdictions. And so that's not going to look very good with regard to the Ontario College of Psychologists. ‘Well, they got rid of you.’ Well, and fair enough, and if that's what they want. I mean, the other problem that the college is going to face is that, and I don't know exactly what they're going to make of this, but all the people who are involved in this prosecution are going to find very soon that this will eat their lives.

So, you know, from a media perspective, I've offered... yeah, well, I've offered to the college to negotiate. I actually have a solution in mind, and I've heard the odd comment indicating that maybe that's a possibility. I reached out a month ago with an idea; they haven't got back to me. I think they were waiting for this decision, to tell you the truth, and of course, they're going to be entirely emboldened by this. I know the solution which... I'm not going to discuss in this podcast; you know I have to talk to them first. I have a reasonable solution, but I also know, or think I know... you know, you might ask, well, why is the college doing this?

And my suspicions are because I've... this is... we've been through this before. You know, when Cambridge University canceled the seminar I was going to conduct there on Exodus, I found out eventually that it was basically one person who was behind all of that. There were two more that were associated with that person who were pushing the college to go after me for whatever the hell their reasons are. You know, maybe they disagree with my political opinions, particularly on the trans front. And that was the tweet I think that really probably initiated all this, right? I tweeted about Elliot Page.

And so I'm perfectly happy that I tweeted that particular tweet, and I also think in five years nobody will admit that they were ever in favor of any of this. Right, this is far worse than the lobotomies of the 1930s; this is inexcusable. You know, I read one poor kid today on Twitter, a detransitioner, was decrying his castration. Fancy that! And pointing out, for example, that, you know, he's a young guy; he has no sexual drive whatsoever. And he said, ‘Well, you know what? What am I going to do? What have I lost? I can't believe I was so stupid as to have gone through with this.’ It's like, you know, fair enough kid; you probably should have woken up, but the people who facilitated that transformation, your therapists and your surgeons, what happened to ‘do no harm’?

Yeah, right. I should also point out, just so everyone is aware of this, surgeons are much more likely to be psychopathic than people in the typical profession. That's a well-documented phenomenon in the psychological literature. Now, it's not only surgeons; obviously, you see it in other professions as well, but if you happen to be sadistic and psychopathic, a profession that allows you to cut people up, that's... and you think, ‘Well, there are no people like that.’ It's like, well, I think they just arrested some nurse in the UK for killing a bunch of babies in her psychopathic and sadistic manner. And so if you don't think there are people like that, you're naive beyond belief, and you better bloody well pray that you never meet anyone like that, because they're looking for someone just as naive as you to have their way with.

There are countries now that have outlawed surgery for minors, transgender surgeries for minors, like I believe Sweden has. They didn't exactly outlaw it; they... I got corrected on that claim by community notes on Twitter. Well, what happened was they've restricted surgery to minors to clinical trials, which is, you know, it's a detail they backtracked. There's no doubt Denmark, France, Sweden, the UK, Holland, the Netherlands, which is particularly relevant because that's where this gender-affirming surgical idiocy first made itself manifest, the Europeans have woken up to the fact that, well, you know what? Turns out that there's no evidence that sterilizing young people and cutting off their breasts makes them happier. Isn't that a shock? Yep, I think this is going to... this is an argument that has to be had right now.

And it's going to... there's going to be such pushback from people who have gone through these surgeries starting now.

“Yeah, yeah, you had some more things to read from the decision?”

“Well, there are a couple of other... I don't know if they're funny, but there are a couple of other parts just to clarify what's going on. It says this decision that they've come to ordered Dr. Peterson, as a registered member of the college, to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program, a SCIRP regarding professionalism in public statements. The order is not disciplinary, clarifies that here, and does not prevent.”

“That was... that’s good, right? It’s not a punishment. You just have to pay for things you don't want to do.”

“Yeah, right. I have to pay for things I don't want to do. It's also not specified, so that what's specified is that I have to be retrained. What's specified in this specification is that I have to be retrained regardless of how long that takes until the people who are responsible for the retraining have decided that I've learned my lesson. Right? So don't tell me that's specified, and don't bloody well lie you pikers and tell me that that's not disciplinary. How pathetic can you get?

It's like if you're going to come after me, why don't you bloody well admit that you're disciplining me, which is absolutely 100% obvious, especially because you're also claiming that I deserve to be disciplined? You know, it's like claiming you're in charge in favor of freedom of speech and then telling me that, well, except that you know you're a professional, and of course we wouldn't want professionals to be able to, you know, tell the truth or say what they think because everyone wants their professionals to lie to them, because that's how you get the best advice and guidance obviously.”

“Yeah, I think what shocks me about this is you are basically being brought to task over The Joe Rogan podcast, one, The Joe Rogan podcast, which is insane, um, and over political tweets. Like it says right here, a tweet on February 19th in which Dr. Peterson commented that an Ottawa city counselor was an appalling self-righteous moralizing thing.”

“An appalling self-righteous moralizing thing.”

“Yeah, well, I used ‘thing’ because I didn't want to get in trouble on the pronoun front.”

“Oh well, I don't think that panned out well.”

“Well, we'll see. And so far, it's caused a certain amount of trouble. Okay, so there was the Ottawa city counselor.”

“Yeah, what other?”

“So, a tweet on January 2nd in which Dr. Peterson responded to an individual who expressed concern over overpopulation. That's how it's worded. And your response was, ‘You're free to leave at any point.’ The person actually said, just so we get this right, that there were too many people on the planet. Now, I'm not very happy with that statement at all because I listen to people; I listen to what people say. And when people say, ‘Well, there should only be 500 million people on the planet because that's what the planet can sustain.’ I think, ‘What do you plan to do with the other 7 billion? 500 million? They're inconvenient, are they? What do you think, they should be dispensed with? Just exactly what the hell are you saying? And if you think that there are too many people, well, what makes you so sure that you're not one of them, especially if you're the one that's concerned about it? You know, if the lifeboat is too crowded to float, maybe the morally appropriate thing to do is jump off, right, to save everybody else. Not to pretend that, well, who is it? Is it the Africans who don't get to have fossil fuels, for example? Is it people all over the world, the poor people who are multiplying so rapidly, they're devouring the planet's resources? Should they all... and so I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about calling someone out on it, especially when I'm doing it obviously ironically.

Now they actually said the bloody College said the complaint was I was counseling to suicide. Okay, now really who is stupid enough to think that? Well, obviously the Canadian College of Psychologists and the Canadian courts. So there's another one, there's another one that kind of goes along with that where you're clear joking, and this is what they say, so this is from The Joe Rogan podcast speaking about air pollution and child deaths. Dr. Peterson said, ‘It's just poor children and the world has too many people on it anyways,’ which is clearly sarcasm. That's in there though.”

“Yeah, yeah, well that's... and those are the... so just so everybody's watching and listening knows, you know, someone can take out a complaint by filling out a form at the Ontario College of Psychologists website. So if anybody out there is inclined to complain some more, just go ahead and do it. But the college doesn't have to pursue those complaints because they can define them as vexatious and just troublemaking, right? So it isn't even only that members of the public, the millions of people that I'm communicating with, let's say, are prone to complain, but that the college itself decided that that was sufficient grounds to threaten my license and to force me into re-education. Of course they're not doing it for disciplinary reasons. It's like, what the hell? I don't even understand what that means. If you're not doing it for disciplinary reasons, it's like why is it forced and why am I being updated? That's like the definition of disciplinary. So that just shows you how mendacious the decision is.”

“Yeah, yeah, and then it does go to outline that it's directed Dr. Peterson to enter a coaching program with either one or two individuals identified, [inaudible] by the panel to review, reflect on, and ameliorate his professionalism in public statements. The coaching program was to begin within three months and to be completed within 12. Costs associated with the coaching are borne by you. It also outlines that coaching doesn't end until you've successfully ameliorated your professionalism and learned something.”

“Yeah, and so what the hell is that supposed to mean precisely? I'd need a whole personality transplant apparently. But there's another problem too there, and here's the problem: I'm not wrong. So that's a big problem. And I swear I will do this; if I am required to undergo the retraining, I will undergo the retraining and I will tape it and I will broadcast it. And then everyone else can decide for themselves just exactly what the hell's going on and whether or not I've contemplated my words, whether or not I've thought through everything I say carefully, whether or not I have any grounds for my opinions. You know, I don't say things that I haven't thought about; I've thought about a lot. And so I agree with Canadians that Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister that the country has ever had, and I think he's actually far worse than people think. And I think that professionals in Canada no longer have the right to express their thoughts which makes... which invalidates them as useful professionals. And I think they're pushed into a corner so badly that even the brave professionals I know—and I do know some—are unwilling to fight this to even make public statements in support of me.

And if you think that is the hallmark of a free country, there is really something wrong with you. You bloody well better wake up. And if you think that if that's happening to professionals that it's not going to happen to you, well, you are exactly naive enough to deserve exactly what's coming down the pipeline for you.”

“I guess one of the problems I see is, okay, so you're in a good position to fight this, even though it's costing... it is seriously costing an arm and a leg. And it's time-consuming and it's stressful, but at least you're not reliant on your clinical practice for livelihood, right?”

“Yeah, as opposed to other people. What’s the average Canadian supposed to do when they're living in a society like this? Like, how do you fight? Because in my opinion, I don't know; I honestly don't know if you can win this. I think Canada is crooked and woke very, very deep down, so I don't necessarily see this going in a good direction for your clinical license, at least in Ontario. What are average people supposed to do to try and stop their society from going in this kind of direction? See, it feels like... like, I moved. I just ran away. I was like, goodbye to this country, I'm going to America.

It has its problems for sure, but at least there's freedom of speech built in there. Like, what's the average Canadian do to fight back against this?”

“Get involved in the political process at whatever level they can. Get involved in the school boards, get involved in the political parties, get involved in local elections, volunteer for elections. Start differentiating between the false government state-funded legacy news and actual news. If you can do that, even though that's impossible in Canada too because now Canadians can't get news. It's like, look, here's the rule, Mick: this is the rule. All responsibility on the political front abdicated by the average citizen will be taken up by tyrants and used against you. And so you either take responsibility for this, which means to get involved in the political process, or you suffer the consequences.

Now, you know a young person might be thinking, ‘Well, what could I do?’ and I would say, you know, that's actually not a good attitude. And I mean that practically because what you will find, if you're young, if you go volunteer for a political campaign, let's say, first of all, you're going to learn a lot. You're going to sharpen your political beliefs; you're going to learn how to put an argument forward. And then if you're competent and hardworking, you're going to find that avenues of opportunity open for you on the political front so quickly that you can hardly imagine it. And that's partly because most political organizations are chronically short of help and absolutely chronically short of competent help. And so if you stepped into the political arena, you'd learn to speak more fluently, you'd learn to put your arguments together, you'd learn to be more responsible, you'd take the responsibility onto yourself and strengthen yourself as a consequence. You'd keep the country on the straight and narrow and you'd keep it free and all sorts of opportunities would emerge for you. And so that's what you do now.

People don't do that, and it's partly also because they're taught, ‘Oh, you know the whole system is so corrupt that nothing can be done about it.’ It's like, well, if that's the case, you're in real trouble. And if it's not the case, take advantage of the opportunity, get out there, do something about it. You know, you're a citizen. It means you have some responsibility, and you're a citizen without responsibility. You're headed for slavery. Simple as that. That's how the world works. If you don't stand up for yourself, obviously the people who will exploit you will exploit you, obviously. So I don't think it is hopeless at all. I think that Canadians, I think that the fundamental bedrock of our institutions is still solidly enough in place, although it is threatened, that we don't have to walk down this increasingly authoritarian route.

And you know, there's some positive signs, one of them being, for example, that the bloom is off the Trudeau rose. You know, there's a man who couldn't even tell the truth about his marriage. What's the alternative? You know, you said for example you left. Well, there were business reasons for that too because it does turn out that the United States is a place, much more, it's much more straightforward to do business in the United States. And yeah, most people who are watching and listening will not know that Canadians now make 60% as much as Americans—make 60%—and the gap is growing. And that's a huge difference. We were at parity in the 1970s; it's a catastrophic difference. And Trudeau and his bloody minion Steven Gilbeau, prime among them, are doing... he said today, Gilbeau said today that the days of free and plentiful energy are over. Well, there's no difference between energy and wealth. And there's particularly no difference between energy and wealth for poor people. You want to make poor people poor, make energy expensive. Energy is work. You make work expensive, you demolish the poor obviously.

Well, I object to that. That's why I object to the climate fear-mongering apocalyptic lies because it destroys the poor just so that the people who are screeching about the sky falling can feel momentarily moral about their role as planetary savior. It's like, no. To hell with you; seriously, you leave the poor alone. There's also definitely not one person who's screeching about the sky falling in terms of climate that's having problems affording energy. Not one of those people can't afford heat.”

“Yeah, well, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. It's um, the people who are struggling to put food on their table and to keep their air conditioners on, to keep their heaters on in the winter, they're not playing moralistic games on the planetary savior side of things. No, they're just trying to scrabble for forward with a certain degree of hope. It's appalling to see the left support this for example because in principle, the left is the voice of the underclass, let's say, and it's obvious that the progressives will sacrifice the poor to nature, right? To nature worship, to Gaia, this imaginary catastrophe that justifies degrowth for example. What the hell do you think degrowth means? If you don't think that means starving poor people, you're an idiot. And you might say, ‘Well, there's too many people on the planet anyways,’ in which case I would say, then leave.”

“Well, is there anything else you think we should get into, details about this, or does that give people a good idea about what's going on?”

“We can continue updating people, but this is the big story now. Hopefully, we can get this covered by insurance because, oof... Well, insurance for a practitioner is mandatory, and insurance for a practitioner is mandatory for these reasons. And so it would be quite the situation if it turned out that the insurance, which I was paying because that was mandatory, also fails to cover this sequence of events. So we'll see about that, but I'll take this, I will take this as far as necessary. So and like, if I tell you, Mick, I am very much inclined as you know to, if I'm accused of doing something, to rake myself over the coals and to try to find out if I did something wrong.

And I went through those allegations at Christmas in detail and it was very stressful because I thought, you know, well, yeah, maybe there's something here and that I went beyond the bounds of reasonable conduct. And I was very apprehensive. There were 13 charges at that point; they've dropped seven. God only knows why they dropped those seven; it's just arbitrary. But I went through all 13 in detail, hundreds of pages of allegations. And when I came out of that, I thought, well, first of all, I thought, how daft can you be to pursue allegations put forward by people who lied about the fact they were clients of mine?

Those should have been just taken off the table instantly, obviously. You can't start by trusting the word of someone who lies in writing about something fundamental, so that was kind of a relief in some sense, right? Because I thought, well, that sheds a pretty dim light on the procedures of the college. And then I went through each allegation in turn and I think the most damning, as I said, was the tweet in relationship to Elliot Page. That was certainly the one that caused the most public trouble; it's like I got to tell you, kiddo, that's looking pretty good now.

So despite my proclivity to feel guilt, which is quite substantive, and despite my temperamental unwillingness to engage in conflict, I don't see—not only do I not see what I did wrong, I think what I've done on the public communication front is my responsibility as a clinician to tell the truth about what I see. And so we'll make it public in every possible way, and I'll bring to bear every single bit of public pressure I can possibly muster on this particular topic.

And we will watch over the next three years because that's how long it'll take, exactly how this plays out. So, and I've, you know, we've cordoned off our life. I can deal with this without it having to interfere with everything else I'm doing. I've talked to Tammy, I've talked to you and Julian, my family's on my side, we're solidly committed to this. I have a good legal team, we have the money necessary to do this and we have the connections. So if the college wants to re-educate me, they're more than welcome to try, but if they think they're going to do it in secret, they've got another think coming.”

“Well, with that, it was nice talking to you. Have fun at the presidential debate tonight.”

“I like your suit.”

“Oh, thank you! Isn't it ridiculous?”

“Yeah, it’s good. You stand out. I like it.”

“Very so.”

“Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I thought I'd blend in with the crowd tonight, you know? You know the Americans, they're very theatrical, right? Everything Americans do is theatrical, and so this presidential debate, it's theater of the best sort, and I'm down here to have an adventure. You know? And it's what I should be concentrating on and my writing, you know? But in for a penny, in for a pound, that's for sure.”

“Yeah, okay, kiddo. Bye! I'll talk to you soon.”

“Bye-bye.”