Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I got the impression he is or was a shooter. Was in 'Nam. Maybe even a sniper at some point?

Never scored below expert with the service rifle (ah, the pistol was usually a different sad 'pizza box' matter for me ), but nope, I was not designated as a sniper. That's not to say I didn't do what was necessary to avoid closer encounters.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The issue that gun control advocates want to bring to court is whether a manufacturer or dealer has been complicit in certain specific crimes (e.g., mass killings) carried out by certain specific people (e.g., minors, mentally ill) with certain weapons (e.g., guns lacking basic safety features, high capacity weapons and high velocity rounds) by willful and irresponsible marketing of those weapons to those people. They are not seeking to take away the general right to gun ownership, they are going after business models that put certain weapons into the hands of the wrong people that use them in the worst way.

Obviously, you disagree with whether gun manufacturers should be subject to such lawsuits, but you can't use the 2nd Amendment as your basis because that is not what is at stake. What is at stake are business models, gun safety features, and perhaps eventually your often discussed historic determination that had the ironic result of putting semi-machine guns in the hands of civilians.

So long as you are pushing a legal theory where you hold one person or company accountable for the actions of someone else entirely, I don’t see my comments as straw man. Your basic theory is really really bogus. Your nose ought to be rubbed in it.

I do see the 2nd as relevant to this discussion. In particular, the litmus test coming out of US v Miller says the government can regulate civilian weapons, but not military weapons. Your desire to regulate features common to military weapons thus fly in the face of both existing Supreme Court precedent and the plain text ‘shall not be infringed.’ Mind you, US v Miller used a collective rights theory to justify the above stand, thus isn’t on firm ground given the recent individual rights precedents. But still, what you want to do is very much wrapped up in the standard model. While you might daydream about the Constitution not being relevant, that isn’t so.

I’m assuming the shield law you are concerned with is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? I can confirm that PLCAA’s intent is to block holding someone responsible for the acts of another, not to prevent suits for a flawed or faulty product.

There is one pertinent case challenging PLCAA that gets mentioned by the main stream press from time to time. Some of the Newton victims are going after Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the AR 15 used in the shootings. I’ll go into that a little bit. If this isn’t what you consider a relevant case illustrating your position, feel free to come up with another case. I suspect it is a relevant case as you mention ‘irresponsible marketing’.

It seems the central legal point in the case is focused on the advertising for the weapon. Bushmaster put out adds that glorify their product. The plaintiffs argue that the Bushmaster advertising contributed towards the mental disturbances of the shooter, thus Bushmaster’s advertising department is in part responsible for the murders. If one can establish that the shooter saw the adds, and that these adds are significantly more responsible for his mental instability than other factors, there is a plausible argument. At any rate, the lawyers are going after the advertisements rather than the weapon as this is a new not tried before approach to not getting their case tossed immediately by PLCAA.

Shifting to automobiles, if some teen age driver gets killed in a high speed crash on his way home from a James Bond movie, and the movie contained lots of high speed high risk auto chase scenes, can his parents sue the studio, the screenwriter and the estate of Ian Fleming? There is a plausible link there. Making this style of suit a routine part of the legal system would be a new thing. Lots of new precedents to work out. The result might be to force self censorship. Arms retailers and movie executives alike would have to become aware of how they glorify violence in their presentations to the public. This could result in a return to the violence censorship of the awakening era, where the writers of western TV shows found themselves with a quota of shots fired and people killed per episode.

As I understand there is a regulation saying you can’t show people drinking beer in beer commercials, this sort of thing isn’t entirely new. Still, that is a regulation, not an invitation to lawsuits. Some agency or another decided glorifying alcohol in this manner was harmful to the public, and enforced censorship. Are we looking for a new flavor of political correctness where one is not allowed to portray irresponsible actions? In the extreme, one cannot advertise any product that might be abused? One cannot distribute fiction that portrays dangerous actions?

I suspect freedoms of speech and press will be involved in this at some point.

But that’s the current theory on how to make gun companies responsible for the actions of owners of their products. It’s not the product, it’s the advertising. Not entirely without merit. A new approach. Opens cans of worms.

I’m dubious.

Berning question of the day-- will NY get Berned? We'll find out

Originally Posted by B Butler

So long as you are pushing a legal theory where you hold one person or company accountable for the actions of someone else entirely, I don’t see my comments as straw man. Your basic theory is really really bogus. Your nose ought to be rubbed in it.

I do see the 2nd as relevant to this discussion. In particular, the litmus test coming out of US v Miller says the government can regulate civilian weapons, but not military weapons. Your desire to regulate features common to military weapons thus fly in the face of both existing Supreme Court precedent and the plain text ‘shall not be infringed.’ Mind you, US v Miller used a collective rights theory to justify the above stand, thus isn’t on firm ground given the recent individual rights precedents. But still, what you want to do is very much wrapped up in the standard model. While you might daydream about the Constitution not being relevant, that isn’t so.

I’m assuming the shield law you are concerned with is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? I can confirm that PLCAA’s intent is to block holding someone responsible for the acts of another, not to prevent suits for a flawed or faulty product.

There is one pertinent case challenging PLCAA that gets mentioned by the main stream press from time to time. Some of the Newton victims are going after Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the AR 15 used in the shootings. I’ll go into that a little bit. If this isn’t what you consider a relevant case illustrating your position, feel free to come up with another case. I suspect it is a relevant case as you mention ‘irresponsible marketing’.

It seems the central legal point in the case is focused on the advertising for the weapon. Bushmaster put out adds that glorify their product. The plaintiffs argue that the Bushmaster advertising contributed towards the mental disturbances of the shooter, thus Bushmaster’s advertising department is in part responsible for the murders. If one can establish that the shooter saw the adds, and that these adds are significantly more responsible for his mental instability than other factors, there is a plausible argument. At any rate, the lawyers are going after the advertisements rather than the weapon as this is a new not tried before approach to not getting their case tossed immediately by PLCAA.

Shifting to automobiles, if some teen age driver gets killed in a high speed crash on his way home from a James Bond movie, and the movie contained lots of high speed high risk auto chase scenes, can his parents sue the studio, the screenwriter and the estate of Ian Fleming? There is a plausible link there. Making this style of suit a routine part of the legal system would be a new thing. Lots of new precedents to work out. The result might be to force self censorship. Arms retailers and movie executives alike would have to become aware of how they glorify violence in their presentations to the public. This could result in a return to the violence censorship of the awakening era, where the writers of western TV shows found themselves with a quota of shots fired and people killed per episode.

As I understand there is a regulation saying you can’t show people drinking beer in beer commercials, this sort of thing isn’t entirely new. Still, that is a regulation, not an invitation to lawsuits. Some agency or another decided glorifying alcohol in this manner was harmful to the public, and enforced censorship. Are we looking for a new flavor of political correctness where one is not allowed to portray irresponsible actions? In the extreme, one cannot advertise any product that might be abused? One cannot distribute fiction that portrays dangerous actions?

I suspect freedoms of speech and press will be involved in this at some point.

But that’s the current theory on how to make gun companies responsible for the actions of owners of their products. It’s not the product, it’s the advertising. Not entirely without merit. A new approach. Opens cans of worms.

I’m dubious.

I'm fully aware of your viewpoint on Miller - you've only presented it here about a hundred times. It is a good historical review of the argument

The problem is you keep skipping over the fundamental issue of allowing someone their day in court. You spend your post time just jumping to either your own drawn silly strawmen or analogies that you can easily knockdown of what would be presented in court or going to your certitude as a SCOTUS wannabe that the outcome would simply be a waste of time.

You're afraid of such court cases, and your fear is exactly why those court cases should not be precluded by the legislative body. It may take a decade, but it will be one of the first things overthrown with the inevitable GOP loss of the Congress. If we're still around, we'll come back to your strawmen, analogies and certitude... and have a good laugh.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Berning question of the day-- will NY get Berned? We'll find out

With the expected results, I think they're planning a party for The Bern this weekend -

Originally Posted by marypoza

Berning question of the day-- will NY get Berned? We'll find out

That Sanders FIRE SIGN Moon and Mars in Aries is heating up, sparked by revolutionary-planet and saeculum-turning planet Uranus now passing over them in Aries too. Very timely. It's a real firesign theater.

Bernie will need to beat the NY polling average of the last 2 days:

Clinton 53.7
Sanders 43.3

That's the top end of what he has been polling recently, so a further gain is possible today. He would beat my delegate projections I made earlier for NY too, even at this 10-point gap percentage. Then he'll need outright wins in PA, CT, RI and DE and a near-win in MD on April 26, and bern virtually all the other upcoming states, just to have a shot at tying Clinton in pledged delegates by June 14. And he really needs to pass him in total votes cast too, to get half the superdelegates to support him or switch to him.

But only Democrats can vote in NY (in the NY Democratic primary that is), and some progressives and youth will not have registered in time as Democrats. So, the disaffected might complain after today that the process is "rigged," sounding like a sore (T)rump.

Speaking of whom, the average of the last 2 days in NY looks like this on the Republicrap side:

Trump 55.3
Kasich 20.7
Cruz 19.7

Will the Scorpio/Piscean-Neptunian waters of Hillaryland douse the berning flames of Bernie?

(maybe in those waters behind Sanders in that picture above?)

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm fully aware of your viewpoint on Miller - you've only presented it here about a hundred times. It is a good historical review of the argument

Well, I'll keep reminding you of the law of the land and Supreme Court precedent every time you ignore them. If I've had to keep reprising Miller it's because you keep ignoring Miller.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The problem is you keep skipping over the fundamental issue of allowing someone their day in court. You spend your post time just jumping to either your own drawn silly strawmen or analogies that you can easily knockdown of what would be presented in court or going to your certitude as a SCOTUS wannabe that the outcome would simply be a waste of time.

You're afraid of such court cases, and your fear is exactly why those court cases should not be precluded by the legislative body. It may take a decade, but it will be one of the first things overthrown with the inevitable GOP loss of the Congress. If we're still around, we'll come back to your strawmen, analogies and certitude... and have a good laugh.

It isn't fear. It's an INTP's search for clarity. It's an instinct to find a clear overlaying structure that genuinely fits an inherently chaotic world. Your shotgun spraying of 'ammosexual' at everyone who disagrees with you was in poor taste. We've both explained our own motives in such a way to make the insults look shallow and silly. If you back off the cheap insulting pseudo psychology, I'll do the same. I'd rather dwell on the issues. At times, though, it seems all you've got is the cheap insults.

For me, the immediate fundamental question is whether someone can be held accountable for the actions of another. This is a really new and untraditional approach to legal theory. I don't like it.

Thus, I don't see my examples as straw men. What seems in your messed up mind to be a perfectly logical lawsuit when applied to guns is obviously wrong when the same theory is applied to automobiles, knives, movies or bars of soap. To me, this means the principle of one person being held accountable for the actions of another is just a lousy basis for a lawsuit. To me the principle of reassigning legal accountability to suit one's partisan political views is so bogus that I shouldn't have to give you examples to show how ridiculous your thinking is. Still, you are obsessed with it, can't see clearly.

The Bushmaster case is getting its days in court. It's already bounced back and forth between federal and state courts a bit. The question on whether PLCAA covers this particular form of blaming one person for another's action is still up in the air. Last I knew, all they've decided to date is that the state courts get first shot at it.

I can sympathize with the notion that our terribly violent media and entertainment can contribute to the mental problems of some lone nut shooters. You can't live in this culture without being bombarded with the glorification of violence. It just seems a stretch to blame any particular shooting on any particular drop in the sea of media violence.

There are limits to freedom of expression. One can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc... If speech leads to harm, censoring the speech is plausible. If it is to be done, however, I'd rather see it being done by the legislature rather than the courts. Bushmaster's ads are a very small part of our culture of violence. It doesn't seem square to attribute the shooter's state of mind to those particular ads. I doubt they can meet any sort of legal standard of proof that those particular adds were what caused him to snap.

It's said that Gore lost the presidency by a couple of rural states, and that his stand on gun policy might very well have been the difference in those tightly contested states. Since that time most Democratic politicians working at the national level haven't pushed the gun control issue. This trend is fading somewhat with the current Democratic presidential campaign. Gun control advocacy can get one blue votes in blue states, but the trade off is very dubious on a national level with the full electorate. I sort of expect the emphasis on the gun issue will fade again after the convention. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are dummies.

In the longer term, the Red coalition is tearing itself apart while the Blue establishment seems to be clinging to power a bit longer. I'm hoping something new will come out of it, as are a lot of folks. It is tempting to anticipate that the new common sense consensus will match well with one's own world views and values. For me, this implies a healthy mix of progress and tradition while extremists who antagonize get left out in the cold. From others with more extreme values, one hears sincere proclamations about Trump being the answer, or how the irresistible Blue Tide is unstoppable.

But history has to happen in its own time. My crystal ball is still hazy. Pardon if I'm dubious about yours.

This is some shit:

http://usuncut.com/politics/new-york-primary-disaster/

Go Bernie!
http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-bash...ed-ny-primary/


Looks like Bullhorn Bill's @ it again:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/vid...polling-place/

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, I'll keep reminding you of the law of the land and Supreme Court precedent every time you ignore them. If I've had to keep reprising Miller it's because you keep ignoring Miller.



It isn't fear. It's an INTP's search for clarity. It's an instinct to find a clear overlaying structure that genuinely fits an inherently chaotic world. Your shotgun spraying of 'ammosexual' at everyone who disagrees with you was in poor taste. We've both explained our own motives in such a way to make the insults look shallow and silly. If you back off the cheap insulting pseudo psychology, I'll do the same. I'd rather dwell on the issues. At times, though, it seems all you've got is the cheap insults.

For me, the immediate fundamental question is whether someone can be held accountable for the actions of another. This is a really new and untraditional approach to legal theory. I don't like it.

Thus, I don't see my examples as straw men. What seems in your messed up mind to be a perfectly logical lawsuit when applied to guns is obviously wrong when the same theory is applied to automobiles, knives, movies or bars of soap. To me, this means the principle of one person being held accountable for the actions of another is just a lousy basis for a lawsuit. To me the principle of reassigning legal accountability to suit one's partisan political views is so bogus that I shouldn't have to give you examples to show how ridiculous your thinking is. Still, you are obsessed with it, can't see clearly.

The Bushmaster case is getting its days in court. It's already bounced back and forth between federal and state courts a bit. The question on whether PLCAA covers this particular form of blaming one person for another's action is still up in the air. Last I knew, all they've decided to date is that the state courts get first shot at it.

I can sympathize with the notion that our terribly violent media and entertainment can contribute to the mental problems of some lone nut shooters. You can't live in this culture without being bombarded with the glorification of violence. It just seems a stretch to blame any particular shooting on any particular drop in the sea of media violence.

There are limits to freedom of expression. One can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc... If speech leads to harm, censoring the speech is plausible. If it is to be done, however, I'd rather see it being done by the legislature rather than the courts. Bushmaster's ads are a very small part of our culture of violence. It doesn't seem square to attribute the shooter's state of mind to those particular ads. I doubt they can meet any sort of legal standard of proof that those particular adds were what caused him to snap.

It's said that Gore lost the presidency by a couple of rural states, and that his stand on gun policy might very well have been the difference in those tightly contested states. Since that time most Democratic politicians working at the national level haven't pushed the gun control issue. This trend is fading somewhat with the current Democratic presidential campaign. Gun control advocacy can get one blue votes in blue states, but the trade off is very dubious on a national level with the full electorate. I sort of expect the emphasis on the gun issue will fade again after the convention. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are dummies.

In the longer term, the Red coalition is tearing itself apart while the Blue establishment seems to be clinging to power a bit longer. I'm hoping something new will come out of it, as are a lot of folks. It is tempting to anticipate that the new common sense consensus will match well with one's own world views and values. For me, this implies a healthy mix of progress and tradition while extremists who antagonize get left out in the cold. From others with more extreme values, one hears sincere proclamations about Trump being the answer, or how the irresistible Blue Tide is unstoppable.

But history has to happen in its own time. My crystal ball is still hazy. Pardon if I'm dubious about yours.

And pardon me if I'm dubious about your certitude of Miller.

My crystal ball shows a very progressive, and cunning, SCOTUS that's going to make Miller irrelevant. Having more lower court cases taking a shot at Bushmasters and lack of better safety apparatus (e.g., fingerprint locks) will just hasten the day.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My crystal ball shows a very progressive, and cunning, SCOTUS that's going to make Miller irrelevant. Having more lower court cases taking a shot at Bushmasters and lack of better safety apparatus (e.g., fingerprint locks) will just hasten the day.

If you think they are going to get an award based on the Newtown weapon not having a fingerprint lock, you are more detached from reality than I thought.

Gun control is not going to happen. It's amazing that people believe that the right to bear arms is even more important than the right to contraception and abortion, to same-sex rights, to the use of pornography, to the right to be a member of an exotic religion, or even to travel. There's much paranoia about firearms being taken away as a basic right.

The Right knows how to attach itself to visceral fears, and when anyone even mentions the words gun and control in the same sentence the NRA scares such people as sport hunters (the people least likely to lose the right to bear arms) that the Feds are contemplating taking away all firearms. There's much money to be made by selling guns and ammunition to people stocking up for the apocalypse that begins when the zombie Vladimir Lenin comes back to destroy the American way of life.

Yes, the unreasoned fears are the most dangerous. Extremists know well how to exploit those. Of course the extremists are practically all on the Right. Think of all the fear that they exploited about homosexuality, and before that, race. Those fears are not gone. We can deride all those fears, but some people seem to have not gotten out of the mental stage in which they fear monsters lurking under the bed.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If you think they are going to get an award based on the Newtown weapon not having a fingerprint lock, you are more detached from reality than I thought.

The lock should have been on Ryan Lanza. Besides, his mother having guns -- well, she paid the ultimate price for that, did she not?

We need more effort to treat mental illness -- more aggressively but with less judgment. As it is, most treatment for mental illness is for pathological drinking, something excused after the fact so long as one quits boozing. We neglect mental illness, and many of the mentally ill do something horrible for which they die or end up incarcerated in the worst place possible for someone mentally ill -- a criminal prison.

This is not good:

http://huffingtonpost.com.co/the-fix...ed-to-hillary/

I don't know if Bernie's perfect 10-0 score on my horoscope scoring system will survive the revision I am doing on my horoscope scoring system, or if Trump's score will be as high. Stay tuned for the results of my new system. There could be a few major changes. I am trying to make it more thorough, up-to-date and accurate, but you never know to what extent reality jives with expectations.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Gun control is not going to happen.

Not this year. But the only block to it is a horrible congress that caters to the gun lobby. Some basic gun control measures had up to 90% public support. It is only the reactionary congress that stands in the way. That may shift in this year's election, or another soon upcoming election. I regard more gun control as inevitable. Might it be incendiary? Certainly. We have a lot of total gun nuts in this country.

The NRA is top of the list of gun nuts. (I guess I'll delete the rest of my rant....)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not this year. But the only block to it is a horrible congress that caters to the gun lobby. Some basic gun control measures had up to 90% public support. It is only the reactionary congress that stands in the way. That may shift in this year's election, or an soon upcoming election. I regard more gun control as inevitable. Might it be incendiary? Certainly. We have a lot of total gun nuts in this country.

The NRA is top of the list of gun nuts. Their behavior deserves no respect, and defense of their behavior deserves no respect either; and those who defend it should be ignored/put on ignore lists.

They are not nuts; they know exactly what they are doing.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If you think they are going to get an award based on the Newtown weapon not having a fingerprint lock, you are more detached from reality than I thought.

I think I'm getting a very good example of your "value lock" thesis. Your particular lock causing a loss of reading comprehension is pretty amazing. Let's hope its either temporary or just limited to this one issue; hate to lose you on the vast number of issues we agree on.

I never said Newtown suits were going after fingerprint locks; that would be news to me. They're after the Bushmaster and other ARs and the business model that lead to one winding up in the hands of an obvious mental case.

The fingerprint locks are going to happen; its just a matter of time.

The bigger deal, that will come later, is "smart ammo" and the end of manufacturing, importing, and legal ownership of "dumb ammo." Maybe a personal exemption for those wanting to risk blowing off a finger or two to make some personal dumb ammo in their garage - we can argue if the upper limit for possession will be 6 or 10 dumb ammo bullets.

The future is so bright, I need sunglasses!

Originally Posted by playwrite

The future is so bright, I need sunglasses!

You might want to take off the blindfold before choosing how dark the lenses need to be.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think I'm getting a very good example of your "value lock" thesis. Your particular lock causing a loss of reading comprehension is pretty amazing. Let's hope its either temporary or just limited to this one issue; hate to lose you on the vast number of issues we agree on.

I never said Newtown suits were going after fingerprint locks; that would be news to me. They're after the Bushmaster and other ARs and the business model that lead to one winding up in the hands of an obvious mental case.

The fingerprint locks are going to happen; its just a matter of time.

The bigger deal, that will come later, is "smart ammo" and the end of manufacturing, importing, and legal ownership of "dumb ammo." Maybe a personal exemption for those wanting to risk blowing off a finger or two to make some personal dumb ammo in their garage - we can argue if the upper limit for possession will be 6 or 10 dumb ammo bullets.

The future is so bright, I need sunglasses!

The technology already exists. Vehicle radios can be dedicated to one car so that someone who buys an expensive but stolen car radio cannot get it to work in another car. That deters some vehicle burglaries intended for taking one of the once-easily marketed car radios. A gun can be designed so that there is some biometric method of determining who an authorized user is and not fire except for an authorized user. Thus two of the worst nightmares that one can have with a firearm (that it is stolen and used in a crime, or even worse a crook takes the gun from an authorized user and then uses it against the owner or his family) can be negated. Such will add some expensive technology to a firearm, but what the heck? The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to use a stolen firearm. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that firearms cannot be taxed or regulated.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if Bernie's perfect 10-0 score on my horoscope scoring system will survive the revision I am doing on my horoscope scoring system, or if Trump's score will be as high.

Eric has to come up with a new system with a new revision. That's too much effort. Just blame any fail on the weather like economists do.

Stay tuned for the results of my new system. There could be a few major changes. I am trying to make it more thorough, up-to-date and accurate, but you never know to what extent reality jives with expectations.

Oh, in computeresee that means version 1.0 has bugs and the "extent reality jives with expectations" sounds just like the Fed.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/economy-m...r-labor-market

Like the Fed forgot about all of those robots. Perhaps the 2016 revised report will have that.

Eric's charts are fine the DNC is cheating. Plz note Bernie took all of NY except for NYC, where all the action went down, esp in Brooklyn. Gawd forbid Bernie should tske his home town

Originally Posted by marypoza

Eric's charts are fine the DNC is cheating. Plz note Bernie took all of NY except for NYC, where all the action went down, esp in Brooklyn. Gawd forbid Bernie should take his home town

You can't blame Hillary's win on cheating.

btw Trump carried every congressional district except his own too.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Eric has to come up with a new system with a new revision. That's too much effort. Just blame any fail on the weather like economists do.

It's too much effort, yes. But it's fun, and it often works, so....... I trudge on.........

I make mistakes though; today I discovered I failed to count a Saturn-Neptune trine for a president; Mr Wilson in fact. Won two elections; that boosts my count for that aspect back up. So at least one of Bernie's advantageous aspects is safe (that one he also has)

Oh, in computeresee that means version 1.0 has bugs and the "extent reality jives with expectations" sounds just like the Fed.

https://www.frbatlanta.org/economy-m...r-labor-market

Like the Fed forgot about all of those robots. Perhaps the 2016 revised report will have that.

Now that's a stretch, comparing my work to the Fed. Not quite as silly as calling Obama a Muslim, or Trump an orangutan. But yes, revisions are happening all over the place; that's life. Hard to keep up.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

They are not nuts; they know exactly what they are doing.

Yes I suppose so; defending their financial interest for one thing. But yes, they are still nuts. And not edible or delicious.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The future is so bright, I need sunglasses!

Our future is so bright, we'll get sick of having such a bright future!

We'll build schools to re-educate conservatives, and we'll make them pay for it (that should be easy for them).