Another angle I heard on it claimed that if the Republicans were more focused on national security rather than Clintons BJ in office, it may have played out with Clinton getting Bin Laden before 9/11 ever happened.. That would be a legitamate liberal point of veiw of this story..
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie
- Thread starter Cityboy
- Start date
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that no matter what you want to believe, and no matter how silly Michael Moore appears, and no matter how O'Reilly lied about it, that what that movie said was actually true?HGM said:
I've heard lots of people make claims about "spew his typical liberal spin", but I haven't heard any factual rebuttal. Typical conservative spin, make fun of it and hope it goes away.
Well, it may work for the choir -- they can fool themselves. But, approval ratings are telling an entirely different story. Oh, wait, they have been faked by liberal pollsters...
That's entirely possible. One of the reasons why I claim Republicans tend to shoot themselves in the foot is their mass hysteria over the entire Watergate fantasy, which us what led to the Lewinsky Inqusition. The right came out looking like fools while letting the real business of government go to hell.HGM said:
Don, ABC said they did not show it to the Democrats, the Democrats said they did not see it. Opposing sides agree. Therefore they are facts.OkeeDon said:
Yes Don, but if you look at the chronology, you will see that I said there were 44 minutes per TV hour, and then later on in the thread I posted that it would be commerical free (in fact that point did not appear until the next day) and I did include it as a point of full disclosure.OkeeDon said:
Your tactic of pulling events out of sequence, or claiming facts to not be facts is another trick used to take the subject off target and focus on minutia so that the real issue is obfuscated. Won't work with me. Never has. Much as I enjoy our debates, I'll point these little tricks you use out to everyone because they are simple tricks and have no real basis in the relevant issues.
This is pure sensationalizing speculation. It is not based on any known fact.OkeeDon said:
Interesting that the Republicans have stated that they expect that Republicans will not be portrayed in good light. I fully expect that Bush (perhaps both of them) will have some tarnish added to their reputations. My undies are not in a wad over it.OkeeDon said:
OkeeDon said:I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that no matter what you want to believe, and no matter how silly Michael Moore appears, and no matter how O'Reilly lied about it, that what that movie said was actually true?
I've heard lots of people make claims about "spew his typical liberal spin", but I haven't heard any factual rebuttal. Typical conservative spin, make fun of it and hope it goes away.
Well, it may work for the choir -- they can fool themselves. But, approval ratings are telling an entirely different story. Oh, wait, they have been faked by liberal pollsters...
Don, with all due respect, thats where that phrase about assholes and opinions comes from.... Everyone has an opinion on any given subject, from Bible interpretations, to movies, whatever.... Although I never saw the movie(I absoloutly refuse to give that man any of my money, as much for the marketing of the movie as the content), I understand that there are many lies protrayed in it... The link bc just supplied, I am anticipating a commned about its concservative link, shows many of the lies... Again, an opinion....
Junkman
Extra Super Moderator
OkeeDon said:
For you to make this statement, you must have already seen the movie, or are you relying on the statements of all the other people that are trying to stop the viewing of this event that have yet to see it????? I would like to be able to
your posts, but this is making your credibility fall apart... Junk
Hat tip to The Drudge Report for dredging up this old article.
It looks like the old saying: "what goes around comes around" is applicable here.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA334711.html?display=Top+of+the+Week
It looks like the old saying: "what goes around comes around" is applicable here.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA334711.html?display=Top+of+the+Week
CBS Slammed For Prez Veto
By Bill McConnell -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/10/2003
Susan Lyne knew it was a bad idea. That's why the ABC Entertainment president passed on what morphed into The Reagans, CBS's now infamous—and now scrubbed—miniseries. "Either you were going to get something very soft, and you weren't going to get an audience for it," she said. "Or you did something where you played up whatever elements you could and ended up having a bad reaction."
Lyne was surprised that CBS would produce a program critical of a popular former president afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. "A lot of people look at him as a god," she said during a meeting with investors last Thursday in Los Angeles. "To take him on at this moment seems a little silly."
[URL="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/bc.rbius/;sz=300x250;ord=1157731177?"]http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/bc.rbius/;sz=300x250;ord=1157731177?[/URL]For CBS, its decision to green-light the two-parter on the Reagan presidency this month was far more than "a little silly." It was a serious miscalculation that is now costing the network money and prestige. The controversy culminated just days after CBS celebrated its 75th anniversary with a televised pat on the back that touted its history of leadership.
Amid a maelstrom of criticism from Republicans, conservative commentators and Ronald Reagan's family, CBS last week canceled the Nov. 16 and 18 broadcasts and sold the show to Showtime, a pay-TV network that is, like CBS, owned by Viacom.
CBS President Leslie Moonves, who accepted responsibility for the cancellation, said it was based solely on the merits—actually, the lack of merit—of the miniseries, in which, conservatives complained, Reagan was wrongly portrayed as a doddering gay-basher whose wife, Nancy, pulled all the strings.
'We Have to be fair'
"As a broadcast network, we feel [CBS is] a public trust," the New Haven Register reported Moonves telling Yale students last Wednesday. "We have a news division. We have to be fair in what we show, and a pay-cable network can be a little more biased in what they show. It can be an opinion piece. We can't do that."
Moonves's assertions didn't stop grumbling that CBS caved to political pressure at a time when it has major business pending in Washington.
The attacks from political leaders, including Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, caused many to question whether CBS faced an implied threat of government retribution unless it axed the show. If so, such a cave-in carries troubling implications for programmers hoping to air controversial takes on highly charged political issues.
"The kind of pressure exerted here goes on all the time," said First Amendment lawyer John Crigler. "It's insidious."
Moonves's no-go decision comes as CBS and its parent Viacom are fighting congressional legislation that would reverse newly relaxed FCC limits on national TV ownership. If CBS loses, the company would be forced to sell a couple of TV stations it very much wants to keep. The company also owes no small amount of gratitude to the FCC for last week's approval of a DTV antipiracy measure.
On Capitol Hill, the complaints against the miniseries were led largely by a single member: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who crowed that CBS's decision to cancel "reminds us all that the American people have a strong voice in deciding what is fair and appropriate."
But the Republican National Committee represents the party that controls both houses of Congress and the White House and names the FCC commissioners. "Even if it didn't rise to the level of state action," Crigler said, "I think, when pressure is effective, it is usually invisible. And this time it was clearly effective."
Hot topics off limits?
The Reagans debacle could lead broadcasters to shy away from similarly hot political targets, says Ronald Collins, a scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center. "What happens when a network wants to air a program on gun violence in America? Does pressure from the National Rifle Association mean that's off limits?"
Said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and an opponent of Viacom on the issue of media-ownership limits, "Viacom has caved in to political pressure because the stakes are so high. With the administration's support, it stands to reap billions of dollars, a greater return certainly then even a sweeps-drive TV movie can generate."
Actress/singer and liberal activist Barbra Streisand, whose husband James Brolin portrays Reagan in the miniseries, said CBS "caved" to "an organized Republican spin machine." Indeed, Fox News Channel top talk host, conservative Bill O'Reilly, gave heavy coverage to the controversy, but it was The New York Times that first tipped readers to the tone of the docudrama.
CBS officials, however, reject assertions that political considerations played any role in the decision to chuck the series. "This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script," said their prepared statement. "It does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS."
CBS officials say they received virtually no inquiries from government officials about the program. FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican appointed by President Bush, said contacting the net over the show is "absolutely not" something he would have considered. "All I did was listen to the argument."
Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps said he "would be surprised" if any commissioners contacted the network over the controversy.
Democrats 'concerned'
Some Democrats on the Hill did weigh in, however. Rep. John Dingell who knocked heads with the Reagan White House in the 1980s, couldn't resist tweaking outraged Republicans and sent Moonves a letter expressing his own "concern" prior to the cancellation announcement. The final cut, Dingell, said should include "$640 Pentagon toilet seats, ketchup as a vegetable, trading arms for hostages" and other scandals that plagued the Reagan administration.
Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle later called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio.
Programming executives say canceling a program after it has been produced is unusual. TV historian Tim Brooks, Lifetime Television's head of research, says canceling any program so close to launch is highly unusual. Had CBS stuck with The Reagans, he noted, the controversy "would have produced a large audience."
One industry source estimated that Viacom could take a loss from the switch to Showtime.
CBS paid an estimated $10 million for the show and turned it over to subscription-only Showtime for $7 million, meaning Viacom will take a $3 million hit that can't be recouped by ad sales aired by the replacements in the time slots.
Additional reporting by Paige Albiniak, Allison Romano and John M. Higgins
That was Fahrenheit 911.jakki said:...What was the title of the Michael Moore movie all Reps went ape-sh!t about????
But I don't recall the top national Republican politicians sending letters to the theaters (it was released on film) asking to have it removed from theaters until they could help edit it.
That is a big difference.
The Republicans basically, and loudly, criticized it, but did not demand to hold up its release until they got to help correct some of the inaccuracies.
I honestly don't recall anything of that sort. I do know that a lot of Repubs were upset about it, but I can't recall any organized or even semi-organized ban. There were some scattered local protests, etc. And Limbaugh and his ilk had their undies all knotted up for a while. But a ban? I don't think so.jakki said:
Makes me want to watch it.
ddrane2115
Charter Member
And Don has seen the film, just like all the other dems have..........really makes them look so bad, and so terrible.
Hey, JUNK, how is this one for
Hey, JUNK, how is this one for
Dick Morris ...former Clinton aide .......... confirmed it and admitted Clinton never took terrorism serious! Your arrogance is fogging your good sense. Besides I can take being a jerk once, I don't make it a habit!OkeeDon said:
BTW...He also said that Clinton practiced little presidency during the Lewinsky years because he was eat up with the scandal. Can't remember the bombing in Saudi that killed 19 troops and injured >200 but afterwards they actually allowed the troops to return to the building subjecting them to the possibility of another bombing.
I'm sure all the following is dribble ......................
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba.html
Cityboy
Banned
Here is Boortz's take on it and I agree 100%. The democrats are trying to censor the media. This, to me is tampering with the first amendment and is one of the reasons I have vowed to never cast a vote for any democrat politician. This ought to scare the crap out of everybody. 
Friday, September 8, 2006
IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE
What drama!
ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11." The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ... and especially in the Clinton camp.
The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem. There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action. Permission denied. The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem. The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?" The aide responds "You don't."
You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism. Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program. After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders.
And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole? This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Clinton was the Commander in Chief. The response? At best, lob a few cruise missiles. That's it. Nothing more.
So ... now the battle is joined. ABC has this miniseries ready to run. The producers say that it's largely based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as interviews with the people involved. Apparently the miniseries shows Clinton to be relatively unconcerned about terrorism, and not dedicated to the cause of bringing in bin Laden.
Will the Democrat pressure work? My guess is that it will, at least in part. ABC is already issuing statements to the effect that "The editing process is not yet complete." The Los Angeles Times is reporting that changes were made in the program this week after the Clintonistas started howling. Specifically targeted, according to the Times, was the scene where Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declines to give an order to kill bin Laden.
By the way ... this really makes you wonder just what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, doesn't it?
Democrats sent a letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC. That letter contained this interesting paragraph:
Friday, September 8, 2006
IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVEWhat drama!ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11." The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ... and especially in the Clinton camp.
The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem. There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action. Permission denied. The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem. The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?" The aide responds "You don't."
You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism. Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program. After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders.
And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole? This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Clinton was the Commander in Chief. The response? At best, lob a few cruise missiles. That's it. Nothing more.
So ... now the battle is joined. ABC has this miniseries ready to run. The producers say that it's largely based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as interviews with the people involved. Apparently the miniseries shows Clinton to be relatively unconcerned about terrorism, and not dedicated to the cause of bringing in bin Laden.
Will the Democrat pressure work? My guess is that it will, at least in part. ABC is already issuing statements to the effect that "The editing process is not yet complete." The Los Angeles Times is reporting that changes were made in the program this week after the Clintonistas started howling. Specifically targeted, according to the Times, was the scene where Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declines to give an order to kill bin Laden.
By the way ... this really makes you wonder just what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, doesn't it?
Democrats sent a letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC. That letter contained this interesting paragraph:
"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."
Now what is this paragraph really saying? Can you read between the lines? Here ... let me rewrite the paragraph by adding a few words. Perhaps it will be clearer to you.
"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. The licenses granted to the television stations you own and operate are not permanent. They are periodically subject to renewal. You may wish to remember this fact, and consider the probability that by the time those licenses come up for renewal the Democrats may be in control of both houses of Congress, and the wife of the man your miniseries defames may well be the President of the United States"
Get the message?
Junkman
Extra Super Moderator
Cityboy said:
Are you asserting that there is a strong possibility that the Republicans might loose the Presidency, and control of both the House and Senate eventually? So much for your belief that the bulk of the American public are in support of the policies of the Republican party. If I didn't know better, I would have for a moment thought that this was written by OkeeDon, our staunch token Democratic Representative......
Cityboy
Banned
Junkman said:Are you asserting that there is a strong possibility that the Republicans might loose the Presidency, and control of both the House and Senate eventually? So much for your belief that the bulk of the American public are in support of the policies of the Republican party. If I didn't know better, I would have for a moment thought that this was written by OkeeDon, our staunch token Democratic Representative......
Yup. Real possibility because the republicans are basically democrat light, with the exception being that the dems will cave in to the islamo-fascists like the french. Another reason I will never check the "D" on election day.
I think most Americans support what the repubs theoretically stand for, but their tax and spend mimicking of the dems has blurred the lines for many Americans. If the dems win, it will be because of voter apathy, not because of dem ideology. Americans know that the dems are weak on terrorism and that is the primary hope the repubs have of maintaining their majority. Maybe it will take a dem win to wake Americans up after the political left has a chance to make the U.S. look like france.
Cityboy
Banned
In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film
By Greg Sargent | bio
On Friday evening, Bill Clinton's lawyers sent a new letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that ABC yank "The Path to 9/11." We've obtained a copy of the letter, and it reads in part: "As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film." Full text of the letter after the jump.
The full text:
Dear Bob,
Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.
At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.
Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.
-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.
-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.
-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.
-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.
-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.
As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.
At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.
Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.
-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.
-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.
-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.
-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.
-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.
As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
There is no way I can counter all this piling on. Especially when the ones who are piling on are so convinced that nothing I say will make a difference.
My newspaper this morning had a detailed article in which the exact dialogue from actual scenes was quoted, yet no one is supposed to have seen this, yet. The article further reported that at least on eof the protested scenes has been changed. Why would they do this if the scene was accurate in the first place?
I'm just going to let it play out. We'll see what happens.
But, I will go on record now to say that certain of the members of this forum would not know logic if they fell over it.
My newspaper this morning had a detailed article in which the exact dialogue from actual scenes was quoted, yet no one is supposed to have seen this, yet. The article further reported that at least on eof the protested scenes has been changed. Why would they do this if the scene was accurate in the first place?
I'm just going to let it play out. We'll see what happens.
But, I will go on record now to say that certain of the members of this forum would not know logic if they fell over it.
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
Could it be that everyone here is a blithering idiot except for Don?
Perhaps we need enlightenment.Don seems to be saying that it is OK for the dems and the Clinton lawyers to demand censorship because it puts them in a bad light. Did I get that right Don?
From what I have read on some of the dem supporting message boards this weekend, the prevailing thought is that the great unwashed population of America does not have the inherent intelligence to separate fact from fiction, hence the democrat demands for ABC to pull the 9/11 mini-series is justified in this case. Michael Moore, however, requires no censorship because he is known to be completely honest and presents only facts in his documentaries. You see, guys, the dems only have our best interests at heart and want to protect us.
So, Don, did I get it right?
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
Although a lot of the time I don't agree with Don, and likely won't on this issue (sorry Don), I do have to say that I do like Don's feistiness. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just interpret it as Don being able to dish it out as well as take it. For some reason I don't see Don as really getting his blood pressure up for the most part, but enjoying throwing jabs back when he gets them. I always smile or laugh at his jabs, even when thrown at me, because I see Don being still mentally capable of going 10 rounds even if he physically may not be able to. Sorry that I'll still likely disagree on the issue, but am I correct in my take on your return barbs Don?