"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FaGEh.8680$tA1.4235@trndny02...
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
> >>>>> right.
> >>>>
> >>>>'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
> >>>
> >>> I'd never support killing all the children.
> >>>
> >>You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
> >
> > Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
> >
> > What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
> >
> > There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
> > someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
> > business in the first place.
> >
>
> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.

Who said that?

Curt

On Feb 26, 6:52 pm, "Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote:
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:FaGEh.8680$tA1.4235@trndny02...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > > <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> > >>> <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
> > >>>>> right.
>
> > >>>>'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
>
> > >>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>
> > >>You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>
> > > Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>
> > > What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
>
> > > There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
> > > someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
> > > business in the first place.
>
> > Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>
> Who said that?

Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, Peter Singer.

In article <1hu5eh8.19hen3114ojdvfN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu40cu.pat1kmt77ir0N%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > > > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <1hu3zjs.wwuz2817fx7iN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're
> > > > > > > arguing
> > > > > > > - either for or against!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > >
> > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > >
> > > > Look in a mirror.
> > >
> > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> > > with the word 'leftard?'
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because I asked nicely.


You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do you need to
know?

In article <1hu5ee3.m3bvr8cgmsukN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu40ay.bgh7i71f4rzojN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1hu3zfc.1fbyi1wrhov99N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
> > > > usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <Xns98E2D101EF9FEta2eene2@216.196.97.131>, Mitchell
> > > > > > Holman
> > > > > > <NoemailPlease@comcast.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > > > > > > news:45E21CC0.C384BC9C@yahoo.co.uk:
> > > > > [.]
> > > > > > > > Society has laws that protect the weakest people, or at least
> > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > to.
> > > > > > > > That's why they went after OJ. Just because a foetus can't make
> > > > > > > > decisions for itself isn't reason for it to have no rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Show us what rights a fetus has.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You miss the point. Here's a hint - Show us what rights a black
> > > > > > had in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're trying to argue that the anti-abortion movement is a civil
> > > > > rights movement, then go ahead.
> > > >
> > > > You keep missing the point. I'm not surprised. Keep trying.
> > >
> > > How, exactly, did I miss the point?
> >
> > By not getting it. Hint: look at some of my others posts in this
> > thread when I comment to someone that HE got it. Then see what HE wrote
> > and MAYBE you'll be able to figure it out.......but I doubt it.
>
> I don't know why you have such a problem saying what you mean, Harold.


I don't know why you have such a problem understanding what I mean,
since I spelled out to you how to figure it out.

In article <12u76hupe18e606@corp.supernews.com>,
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45E1FDEC.84CB7520@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Fetuses don't make choices.
> > >
> > > Neither to babies.
> > >
> > Yet they are protected by law.
>
> Because they're people.


Who determines "people". Why aren't fetuses "people"? Just asking.

Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "kompressor" <merc@des.benz> wrote in message
> news:uKlEh.13056$ff2.8048@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>
> > > So what you are trying to say is that educated people tend to be
> > > liberal
> >
> > No what I'm saying is that liberal educators have used tenure to enforce
> > the solidity of their hold on academia.
>
> You've got it backwards. They're thinkers, they're fairly smart, they tend
> to read a lot and know a lot of things, and as a result they become liberal.
>
> The smart ones that become conservative do so for tax reasons -- they've
> inherited trust funds and the like, and they don't like to pay taxes on
> them.

At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say things
that piss off 'conservatives.' And also at this point in history, to be
'conservative,' is to be wilfully ignorant, xenophobic, fearful, and
devoid of self-perception.

So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter. By this
point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter' when
applied by a 'conservative.'

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

In article <12u6qtdi1i1ipef@corp.supernews.com>,
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-D5A04B.16560726022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> >> Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> >> with the word 'leftard?'
> >
> >
> > Why?
>
> At least folks could get a picture of what you mean when you use the term.

Lefards' inability to figure things out is not my problem, but I'm glad
to note that you're too stupid too figure it out. Leftards' stupidity
is probably far too deep seated for anyone to solve, Thanks for
confirming that.

 
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're
arguing
> > > > > - either for or against!
> > > >
> > > > He's a leftard?
> > >
> > > What's a 'leftard,'
> >
> > Look in a mirror.
>
> Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> with the word 'leftard?'

It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard" that the
moveon.org types were throwing around. It was mildly humorous, being
somewhat of a play on the word "retard" and all. Mildly.

The weenies had to come up with a "back at ya" kind of term, and they came
up with "leftard". It's of course, not a play on anything, and as a result
it's hardly even clever, but it's the best their lot can do.

Curt

In article <12u77u93tehug08@corp.supernews.com>,
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu56zm.136vqbdbmta9sN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're
> arguing
> > > > > > - either for or against!
> > > > >
> > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > >
> > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > >
> > > Look in a mirror.
> >
> > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came up
> > with the word 'leftard?'
>
> It's a sort of "cheap seats" version of the term "rightard"

Well you're a little smarter than Paul, not that that's difficult to be.

hehehehehe.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:39:19 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:31:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>>>>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fetuses don't make choices. That's an adult responsibility and
>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>> 'First thing we do, we kill all the children. We are the adults'
>>>>>>> I'd never support killing all the children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just claimed that adults get to do the choosing.
>>>>> Adults get to choose many things. Children do not.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you want is for Some adults to do the choosing for Other adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason for your choice to be taken as superior to that of
>>>>> someone else, especially for matters that are simply None of your
>>>>> business in the first place.
>>>> Bottom line, you're OK with adults killing their children.
>>> Which children are you talking about, Lobby? The ones that aren't
>>> children yet?
>> There we go, potential humans....fuck em all!
>
> How do you reconcile your objection with your obvious endorsement of
> masturbation?
>

Chuckle, same way women do with each period that passes....

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>>>>>>> But not in reality.
>>>>>> Because you don't define it as "murder".
>>>>> No, I don't. So?
>>>> That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that a
>>>> living thing isn't being killed either way.
>>> But it's still not murder, regardless.
>> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?
>
> Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.
>
Oh I dunno....try it some time and see how your soul feels....

In article <1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:


> At this point in history, to be 'liberal' means to know and say things
> that piss off 'conservatives.


Much like to be "conservative" means to know and say things that piss
off libruls. Funny how that works out.....and you didn't figure it out.
About what we expected from you.

Ockham's Razor wrote:
> In article <f0MEh.24785$s72.5475@fe12.news.easynews.com>,
> f650 <fo@rd.dually> wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>>> In article <IfudnSwBge9c2X7YnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bill Shatzer <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -snip-
>>>>
>>>>> Show the me the evidence that the smartest people are in academia.
>>>> Well, they're clearly not in the White House.
>>> Dumb Shits in Academia do not last
>> Yes they do, it's called TENURE!
>
> You know nothing about Tenure.

Wrong.

> It is awarded after about 20 or so years
> of high level productivity.

Translation: lieberal ASS KISSING!

> The dumb shits like bush are weeded out
> long before that.

Right, NO conservatives allowe, thank you!

In article <12u790khs688m28@corp.supernews.com>,
"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-C7093B.21591126022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <12u76hupe18e606@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:45E1FDEC.84CB7520@yahoo.co.uk...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fetuses don't make choices.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither to babies.
> > > > >
> > > > Yet they are protected by law.
> > >
> > > Because they're people.
> >
> >
> > Who determines "people". Why aren't fetuses "people"? Just asking.
>
> Because they aren't born. People are born.


And who decided that? Try again, Curt, you're not doing very well.
heheheheheheh.

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter'

Is that why lieberals favor junk science?

Curt wrote:
>
> The weenies had to come up with a "back at ya" kind of term,

Because the lieberals were always classless, labeling jack-offs.

 
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1hu5nrg.o0bkmu11t6akN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
> > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But not in reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because you don't define it as "murder".
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't. So?
> > > >
> > > > That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that
a
> > > > living thing isn't being killed either way.
> > >
> > > But it's still not murder, regardless.
> >
> > Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?
>
> Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.

Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use in the
case of abortion. You're not "killing" a living being, in the normal sense
of the word. You're removing a fetus that doesn't have any self awareness
and doesn't have the ability to live on its own, in the vast majority of
cases. (Yeah, I know, late term abortions, blah blah)

Curt

 
"f650" <fo@rd.dually> wrote in message
news:ZMMEh.46432$M42.31263@fe11.news.easynews.com...
> Curt wrote:
> > "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> >>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
> >> Only if you believe that any fetus is a Person as defined.
> >>
> >> Any is not.
> >>
> >> Murder is a legalistic term. Abortion is not Murder as defined.
> >>
> >>> That makes my original comment spot on. And it asks why in the world
> > should that be
> >>> the law?
> >> Why ought it not? Your original comment is Wrong in Fact and Wrong in
> >> Law.
> >>
> >> It may be Correct in Belief, but that's a whole different kettle of
> >> fish, and idiosyncratic altogether.
> >
> > It's certainly not a biblically based belief, however. There's nothing
in
> > the bible that even suggests that God frowns on abortion.
>
> sigh....
>
>
> Go away for a long long time.

Why? Because I know what's in the Bible and you don't?

Curt

 
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1hu5ohz.1fqiu4e1l0sfd9N%usenet@mile23.c0m...


> So don't worry about trying to argue that liberals are smarter. By this
> point, everyone knows that 'liberal' is synonymous with 'smarter' when
> applied by a 'conservative.'

Good point.

Curt

 
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-C7093B.21591126022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <12u76hupe18e606@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bill Bonde" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:45E1FDEC.84CB7520@yahoo.co.uk...
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fetuses don't make choices.
> > > >
> > > > Neither to babies.
> > > >
> > > Yet they are protected by law.
> >
> > Because they're people.
>
>
> Who determines "people". Why aren't fetuses "people"? Just asking.

Because they aren't born. People are born.

Curt

Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:

[.]
> If murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human being, scientists
> are better equipped than politicians and clergy to determine what a human
> is.

First of all, that doesn't follow.

But second of all.... Are you nuts?

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hu5eh8.19hen3114ojdvfN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
[.]
> > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're
> > > > > > > > arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > >
> > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came
> > > > up with the word 'leftard?'
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because I asked nicely.
>
> You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do you need to
> know?

That's not the same question.

I am asking for you to explain to me what you mean by 'leftard.' If you
could please explain the term's origins, that would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance.

--
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them. -- Adlai E. Stevenson

 
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-B3D344.22132626022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> Lefards'

Who?

> I'm glad to note that you're too stupid too figure it out.

What you're asking doesn't require intelligence - it requires clarifoyance.

--
____________________


George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________


JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
The New Face of the Republican Party
http://tinyurl.com/y2j2yr

Curt wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1hu5nrg.o0bkmu11t6akN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>> Curt <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
>>> news:1hu3zb5.11102ev11gq1ziN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The foetus is the person being murdered in the analogy.
>>>>>>>> But not in reality.
>>>>>>> Because you don't define it as "murder".
>>>>>> No, I don't. So?
>>>>> That's the difference, you don't define it as murder. It isn't that
> a
>>>>> living thing isn't being killed either way.
>>>> But it's still not murder, regardless.
>>> Can you really "kill" something if it's unable to live on its own?
>> Sure. It's just that abortion isn't murder.
>
> Dunno. "Kill" seems to be a word with connotations I wouldn't use in the
> case of abortion. You're not "killing" a living being, in the normal sense
> of the word. You're removing a fetus that doesn't have any self awareness

Is that why mothers sing to them, play classical music on their bellies
with portable speakers and let their husbands stroke their stomachs and
kiss their unborn children?

You are so callously inhumane and definably unevolved I am ashamed to
know you are also human.

Damn your soul to HELL!

In article <1hu5ozs.jdyc08nr2babN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hu5eh8.19hen3114ojdvfN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, usenet@mile23.c0m
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> [.]
> > > > > > > > > Well, there's your problem. You don't know what point you're
> > > > > > > > > arguing - either for or against!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He's a leftard?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's a 'leftard,'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look in a mirror.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please offer some sort of explanation as to how you came
> > > > > up with the word 'leftard?'
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because I asked nicely.
> >
> > You misunderstood my question, so I'll ask it again. Why do you need to
> > know?


> That's not the same question.


> I am asking for you to explain to me what you mean by 'leftard.'


And I'm asking you why do you need to know? Why are you so fixated on
that? Just asking. heheheheheeheh.