 So, for example, when Andy says to Mike, “my pants are on fire”, Andy believes (for example) the interesting de se proposition corresponding to the property, having burning pants. Mike, when he accepts Andy’s assertion, doesn’t come to believe what Andy believes. Mike instead comes to believe a “re-centered” relative of what Andy believes—the interesting de se proposition corresponding to the property of (for example), being addressed by someone with burning pants. Andy says what he says because he is in the “my pants are on fire” doxastic state, and wants to make it the case that Mike is in an appropriately matching state. The appropriately matching state that Mike, as a credulous addressee, comes to be in is not the very same state Andy is in, but something else—for example, the “the guy who just addressed me’s pants are on fire” doxastic state.