-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
DOCTOR REFUSES PAPERWORK
- Thread starter b36rjm
- Start date
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
b36rjm wrote:
Please don't take that approach. IMHO,your question dealt more with your right to expect a doctor's assistance toexercise a privilege rather than strictly CC.
Mark won a substantial court victory when he was prosecuted for OC, and he is a firm, pure believer in exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. At a number of levels, Iagree with him - but neither he, nor I, nor LA Carry, or anyone else represents the totality of OCDO.
OC is a choice made by few - some hardcore, some middle of the road, and some who just support other's rights in the matter.
As you might know if you post elsewhere, posting aninternet "conversation" can be more rough and tumble than conversing in person.
b36rjm wrote:
Please don't take that approach. IMHO,your question dealt more with your right to expect a doctor's assistance toexercise a privilege rather than strictly CC.
Mark won a substantial court victory when he was prosecuted for OC, and he is a firm, pure believer in exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. At a number of levels, Iagree with him - but neither he, nor I, nor LA Carry, or anyone else represents the totality of OCDO.
OC is a choice made by few - some hardcore, some middle of the road, and some who just support other's rights in the matter.
As you might know if you post elsewhere, posting aninternet "conversation" can be more rough and tumble than conversing in person.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
b36rjm wrote:
Do with it what you may, but myadvice is not to waste your posts by repeatedly hurling or responding to insults - you only diminish yourself.
And that applies to Mark too.
b36rjm wrote:
Do with it what you may, but myadvice is not to waste your posts by repeatedly hurling or responding to insults - you only diminish yourself.
And that applies to Mark too.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
I can't nor would I waste my time/efforts trying to get you to read (for the first time?) the restrictions attached to your permit.
Since I don't have nor care to have a permit, I can only go by what some of your fellow slaves have told me. If stopped by one of your "law enforcement heroes," you are required to announce the fact you are armed. Anyone OC'ing isn't. Now who's the free man and who's the slave?
Confrontation is the ONLY way to regain our many lost rights. Dictators and tyrants very rarely give up power voluntarily. The only thing they understand if a force greater than themselves.
Patriotism isn't waving a flag, proclaiming blind loyalty to whoever sits in power, drinking beer on the fourth of July.
The fact you "take exception" to what I say just proves you are what I say you are.
No further input on my part needed.
See you at the next American revolution. Just one last question: who's side will you be on?
I can't nor would I waste my time/efforts trying to get you to read (for the first time?) the restrictions attached to your permit.
Since I don't have nor care to have a permit, I can only go by what some of your fellow slaves have told me. If stopped by one of your "law enforcement heroes," you are required to announce the fact you are armed. Anyone OC'ing isn't. Now who's the free man and who's the slave?
Confrontation is the ONLY way to regain our many lost rights. Dictators and tyrants very rarely give up power voluntarily. The only thing they understand if a force greater than themselves.
Patriotism isn't waving a flag, proclaiming blind loyalty to whoever sits in power, drinking beer on the fourth of July.
The fact you "take exception" to what I say just proves you are what I say you are.
No further input on my part needed.
See you at the next American revolution. Just one last question: who's side will you be on?
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
BB62 wrote:
No he didn't, he wussed out and took a little money and ran, and agreed to keep the amount secret. From his words on here, one would certainly expect him to have "accepted no compromise" and made no "deal with the devil." His battle cry was not "LET THEIR ACTIONS BE BROUGHT INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY IN OPEN COURT!! LET US STRENGTHEN THE CASE LAW ON THE BOOKS SHOWING LA PUNISHES CROOKS LIKE THIS!"
His battle cry was "Oh, a little secret money? Good enough for me, that's what I wanted in the first place."
ETA: I am not saying that taking a settlement was absolutely the wrong thing to do. What I am saying is that MEM's words as opposed to his actions make him out to be the hypocrite he accuses others of being.
Markand Dustin are some self-righteous, judgmental pieces of work. You two are the anti-gunners' ally. It is kooks that give them the ammo they need to pass their bills. Both of y'all have come to me asking things, just like thousands of other LA gun owners. I take time and money out of my own life to answer these people and do what I can to help them. The difference between me and you two is not that I am an anti-gunner, but that the sum total of my actions is positive. I have seen y'all do little actual good, but you have no problem inflicting harm by being asses to anyone who isn't as "enlightened as you."
You can both kiss my ass.
BB62 wrote:
No he didn't, he wussed out and took a little money and ran, and agreed to keep the amount secret. From his words on here, one would certainly expect him to have "accepted no compromise" and made no "deal with the devil." His battle cry was not "LET THEIR ACTIONS BE BROUGHT INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY IN OPEN COURT!! LET US STRENGTHEN THE CASE LAW ON THE BOOKS SHOWING LA PUNISHES CROOKS LIKE THIS!"
His battle cry was "Oh, a little secret money? Good enough for me, that's what I wanted in the first place."
ETA: I am not saying that taking a settlement was absolutely the wrong thing to do. What I am saying is that MEM's words as opposed to his actions make him out to be the hypocrite he accuses others of being.
Markand Dustin are some self-righteous, judgmental pieces of work. You two are the anti-gunners' ally. It is kooks that give them the ammo they need to pass their bills. Both of y'all have come to me asking things, just like thousands of other LA gun owners. I take time and money out of my own life to answer these people and do what I can to help them. The difference between me and you two is not that I am an anti-gunner, but that the sum total of my actions is positive. I have seen y'all do little actual good, but you have no problem inflicting harm by being asses to anyone who isn't as "enlightened as you."
You can both kiss my ass.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Louisiana Carry wrote:
Me? A Louisiana gun owner? I asked you for help? Not I!
btw - who's Dustin?
Louisiana Carry wrote:
Me? A Louisiana gun owner? I asked you for help? Not I!
btw - who's Dustin?
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
BB62 wrote:
By you, I was meaning Mark. I was expecting him to be the one reading my words at that point. Sorry for the confusion.
BB62 wrote:
By you, I was meaning Mark. I was expecting him to be the one reading my words at that point. Sorry for the confusion.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Louisiana Carry wrote:
Louisiana Carry wrote:
I appreciate it - but who's Dustin?
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
BB62 wrote:
BB62 wrote:
A guyin this thread who has taken up my time on the phone and on this board asking me about LA Law and then turns around and calls me an anti-gunner now that he has become Mark's little fan boy. Talk about a lack of respect.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
When I first got out of the parish prison, my original intent was to drag these thugs, kicking and screaming if need be, into CRIMINAL court. I spent a HUGE amount of time and effort trying to make that happen. I left NO stone unturned in my pursuit. Don't take my word for it, call anyone entrusted with enforcing the criminal laws in Louisiana. ALL of them "wussed out" and refused to honor their oaths of office.
A CIVIL action was the only recourse left. After Ashton backed out ( a blessing in disguise) I found John Delgado. John made it abundantly clear: this matter would not go to trial, at least not with him involved. The ONLY offer he made was to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. Even then, he never even hinted at any non-disclosure clause. It wasn't until AFTER he negotiated a settlement the concept of a non-disclosure clause surfaced. There wasn't much left to do. Again, this wasn't my choice of options. It wasn't about money in the first place. If I had MY way, this matter would have been resolved in CRIMINAL court, no money involved.
The last thing anti-gunners want are informed, FREE men who not only KNOW their rights, but EXERCISE their rights. When I was being transported out of court one time, the guys transporting me back to confinement commented "Mark, they (government officials in court) are afraid of you. You know more about the law then they do." People who beg and scrape for permits, allow the state to run their lives, THOSE are people the anti's love.
When I first got out of the parish prison, my original intent was to drag these thugs, kicking and screaming if need be, into CRIMINAL court. I spent a HUGE amount of time and effort trying to make that happen. I left NO stone unturned in my pursuit. Don't take my word for it, call anyone entrusted with enforcing the criminal laws in Louisiana. ALL of them "wussed out" and refused to honor their oaths of office.
A CIVIL action was the only recourse left. After Ashton backed out ( a blessing in disguise) I found John Delgado. John made it abundantly clear: this matter would not go to trial, at least not with him involved. The ONLY offer he made was to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. Even then, he never even hinted at any non-disclosure clause. It wasn't until AFTER he negotiated a settlement the concept of a non-disclosure clause surfaced. There wasn't much left to do. Again, this wasn't my choice of options. It wasn't about money in the first place. If I had MY way, this matter would have been resolved in CRIMINAL court, no money involved.
The last thing anti-gunners want are informed, FREE men who not only KNOW their rights, but EXERCISE their rights. When I was being transported out of court one time, the guys transporting me back to confinement commented "Mark, they (government officials in court) are afraid of you. You know more about the law then they do." People who beg and scrape for permits, allow the state to run their lives, THOSE are people the anti's love.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
b36rjm wrote:
b36rjm wrote:
Ask him again and also ask him how complaints against drs. are handled in your state.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Dustin wrote:
We both understand the reality of the $$ and license. We do not agree that OC is the only exercise of the Right. I do not agree with licensing of CC, and do not agree with the interpretation by the states or the US that CC is not an expression of the 2nd amendment Right. I have expressed this clearly, rationally, and without attempting to force others to agree with me.
You and MeM are attempting to force you way of looking at it upon others.
Dustin wrote:
Funny, b6 is actually showing clear thinking. MeM is the emotional one.
We both understand the reality of the $$ and license. We do not agree that OC is the only exercise of the Right. I do not agree with licensing of CC, and do not agree with the interpretation by the states or the US that CC is not an expression of the 2nd amendment Right. I have expressed this clearly, rationally, and without attempting to force others to agree with me.
You and MeM are attempting to force you way of looking at it upon others.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
I'm at a lost for words here. I'm simply trying to express my own belief's. EXACTLY the same thing you guys are doing everytime you reply. I'm defending what I believe, EXACLTY the same thingyour doing everytime you reply.If you think that's cramming it down your throat, then you got your own issue's.
I've simply (NICELY) stated my opinion. NOT ONCE, has ANYONE even attempted to explain the opposite. You guys just start the name calling ?
How about start with some logical discussion, and explain how paying for a permit to carry, is indeed helping the 2A.
That's all I'm asking. I'm seriously a little pissed that both of you have resulted to name calling. I stated that what I THOUGHT, as in IMHO, paying for permit was anti. Then you result to what you said ?
Your acting like kids that got caught and proved wrong, and so you result to ignorant name calling and deface of character until you find a way to weasel out of the conversation.
I still can't believe what you just said LA Carry. I'm stunned ....
:uhoh:Are you serious ?
I'm at a lost for words here. I'm simply trying to express my own belief's. EXACTLY the same thing you guys are doing everytime you reply. I'm defending what I believe, EXACLTY the same thingyour doing everytime you reply.If you think that's cramming it down your throat, then you got your own issue's.
I've simply (NICELY) stated my opinion. NOT ONCE, has ANYONE even attempted to explain the opposite. You guys just start the name calling ?
How about start with some logical discussion, and explain how paying for a permit to carry, is indeed helping the 2A.
That's all I'm asking. I'm seriously a little pissed that both of you have resulted to name calling. I stated that what I THOUGHT, as in IMHO, paying for permit was anti. Then you result to what you said ?
Your acting like kids that got caught and proved wrong, and so you result to ignorant name calling and deface of character until you find a way to weasel out of the conversation.
I still can't believe what you just said LA Carry. I'm stunned ....
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
wrightme wrote:
When you go off topic with name calling, your no longer clearly thinking.
wrightme wrote:
wrightme wrote:
When you go off topic with name calling, your no longer clearly thinking.
wrightme wrote:
Wrong again. Just like your boy just said, defending what I believe DOES NOT have anything to do with forcing you to do the same. That's just an attempt to escape the real issue of the topic.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Confrontation is not the only way to regain our many lost rights. It does appear to be your only way of attempting to do so. Your method is not for everyone, and the methods others employ is not for you. That does not equate to your way being the ONLY way. When you close your mind to the other methods of regaining our many lost rights, you deny the assistance of those who are not in lockstep with your thinking. Open your mind, and you will find more allies than you currently accept. Soften your communication, and more people will see you as an ally.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
You have a unique and self-serving world view, and you have strengthened my earlier point.
On one hand, it is you doing something (in this case, working as hard as you can to do the "right thing" and finding out your options are limited by "good ole boy law;" then settling for what you can get) it is perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, if it is someone else doing it (working tirelessly to see gun laws get repealed, but not being in a political clime that is conducive to that at them moment, so working to educate the public instead of alienate them; and in the mean time taking what they can get [a CHP for example in order to carry in GFSZ so that at least someone has a chance of defending themselves and others in that area]) they are an anti-gunner and of the devil.
You could be a real help to the LA 2A community, but right now you are a sight more harm than good, and you are getting more FOS as time goes on.
You hate the NRA? Cry me a river. You know what? The anti-gunners do, too. They neither know nor care who MEM is. Tara Mica-Reilly is who is in the mud with the LA legislature. The people who write bills turn to her to pressure other legislators, and they turn to me to get the word out to LA gun owners to pressure them from this end. You call your reps, and that is awesome, and I respect that, but you need to understand that there are people doing a much more involved job of what little you do on a year-in-year-out basis, and not be so quick to dismiss them because they are not "all or nothing" as you claim to be. Which, by the way, frequently results in nothing.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
You have a unique and self-serving world view, and you have strengthened my earlier point.
On one hand, it is you doing something (in this case, working as hard as you can to do the "right thing" and finding out your options are limited by "good ole boy law;" then settling for what you can get) it is perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, if it is someone else doing it (working tirelessly to see gun laws get repealed, but not being in a political clime that is conducive to that at them moment, so working to educate the public instead of alienate them; and in the mean time taking what they can get [a CHP for example in order to carry in GFSZ so that at least someone has a chance of defending themselves and others in that area]) they are an anti-gunner and of the devil.
You could be a real help to the LA 2A community, but right now you are a sight more harm than good, and you are getting more FOS as time goes on.
You hate the NRA? Cry me a river. You know what? The anti-gunners do, too. They neither know nor care who MEM is. Tara Mica-Reilly is who is in the mud with the LA legislature. The people who write bills turn to her to pressure other legislators, and they turn to me to get the word out to LA gun owners to pressure them from this end. You call your reps, and that is awesome, and I respect that, but you need to understand that there are people doing a much more involved job of what little you do on a year-in-year-out basis, and not be so quick to dismiss them because they are not "all or nothing" as you claim to be. Which, by the way, frequently results in nothing.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
Dustin wrote:
I certainly didn't like saying it. I like you. But you were not just stating your opinion, you were showing your butt. Rebut everything by calling it an ad hominem all you want, but I am surprised that you are surprised that I am pissed.
"This is why I say that by bowing down to the system, you are more of a proponent for the Anti's than for the Pro 2A guys."
I am as hardcore a 2A guy as you will meet. I don't believe in restrictions on felons, mentally ill, etc. from owning guns, I don't even believe in restrictions on people owning nukes. Most people would call me a total extremist. Then you are going to step up and say that because I am an adult with responsibilities (to my family first of all) and get a CHP to make sure that I can accomplish everything I need to accomplish to pay for my land and be a foster parent and go to college and everything else I need to do- while being able to defend myself- I am working for the anti-gunners?
It is not that I just can't wrap my mind around your point, it is that, like it or not, we do live in the real world. Someone true to a no compromise stance should go live on an uncharted island and eat mangoes if they really want to be righteous. Short of that, if you are in America, you either compromise or go to jail.
My position is that we learn what is right and work towards it, but to pretend that bucking the system on every little thingis really hurting anyone but ourself shows a lack of maturity.
Dustin wrote:
:uhoh:Are you serious ?
I'm at a lost for words here. I'm simply trying to express my own belief's. EXACTLY the same thing you guys are doing everytime you reply. I'm defending what I believe, EXACLTY the same thingyour doing everytime you reply.If you think that's cramming it down your throat, then you got your own issue's.
I've simply (NICELY) stated my opinion. NOT ONCE, has ANYONE even attempted to explain the opposite. You guys just start the name calling ?
How about start with some logical discussion, and explain how paying for a permit to carry, is indeed helping the 2A.
That's all I'm asking. I'm seriously a little pissed that both of you have resulted to name calling. I stated that what I THOUGHT, as in IMHO, paying for permit was anti. Then you result to what you said ?
Your acting like kids that got caught and proved wrong, and so you result to ignorant name calling and deface of character until you find a way to weasel out of the conversation.
I still can't believe what you just said LA Carry. I'm stunned ....
I certainly didn't like saying it. I like you. But you were not just stating your opinion, you were showing your butt. Rebut everything by calling it an ad hominem all you want, but I am surprised that you are surprised that I am pissed.
"This is why I say that by bowing down to the system, you are more of a proponent for the Anti's than for the Pro 2A guys."
I am as hardcore a 2A guy as you will meet. I don't believe in restrictions on felons, mentally ill, etc. from owning guns, I don't even believe in restrictions on people owning nukes. Most people would call me a total extremist. Then you are going to step up and say that because I am an adult with responsibilities (to my family first of all) and get a CHP to make sure that I can accomplish everything I need to accomplish to pay for my land and be a foster parent and go to college and everything else I need to do- while being able to defend myself- I am working for the anti-gunners?
It is not that I just can't wrap my mind around your point, it is that, like it or not, we do live in the real world. Someone true to a no compromise stance should go live on an uncharted island and eat mangoes if they really want to be righteous. Short of that, if you are in America, you either compromise or go to jail.
My position is that we learn what is right and work towards it, but to pretend that bucking the system on every little thingis really hurting anyone but ourself shows a lack of maturity.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
Louisiana Carry wrote:
Ok, I agree with most of what your saying. That still doesn't help me. No one, including you have answered my questions. They are not rhetorical questions. :uhoh:
Should I list them again ? So far, no one has even attmepted to answer them. :?
Do you really believe that ? I find this to be disturbing. It sounds like an order from a COP. What if this were told to our founding fathers ? Would they have said, COMPROMISE ? I think not. Then again maybe compromise is the way of the future. Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
Louisiana Carry wrote:
Dustin wrote::uhoh:Are you serious ?
I'm at a lost for words here. I'm simply trying to express my own belief's. EXACTLY the same thing you guys are doing everytime you reply. I'm defending what I believe, EXACLTY the same thingyour doing everytime you reply.If you think that's cramming it down your throat, then you got your own issue's.
I've simply (NICELY) stated my opinion. NOT ONCE, has ANYONE even attempted to explain the opposite. You guys just start the name calling ?
How about start with some logical discussion, and explain how paying for a permit to carry, is indeed helping the 2A.
That's all I'm asking. I'm seriously a little pissed that both of you have resulted to name calling. I stated that what I THOUGHT, as in IMHO, paying for permit was anti. Then you result to what you said ?
Your acting like kids that got caught and proved wrong, and so you result to ignorant name calling and deface of character until you find a way to weasel out of the conversation.
I still can't believe what you just said LA Carry. I'm stunned ....
I certainly didn't like saying it. I like you. But you were not just stating your opinion, you were showing your butt. Rebut everything by calling it an ad hominem all you want, but I am surprised that you are surprised that I am pissed.
"This is why I say that by bowing down to the system, you are more of a proponent for the Anti's than for the Pro 2A guys."
I am as hardcore a 2A guy as you will meet. I don't believe in restrictions on felons, mentally ill, etc. from owning guns, I don't even believe in restrictions on people owning nukes. Most people would call me a total extremist. Then you are going to step up and say that because I am an adult with responsibilities (to my family first of all) and get a CHP to make sure that I can accomplish everything I need to accomplish to pay for my land and be a foster parent and go to college and everything else I need to do- while being able to defend myself- I am working for the anti-gunners?
It is not that I just can't wrap my mind around your point, it is that, like it or not, we do live in the real world. Someone true to a no compromise stance should go live on an uncharted island and eat mangoes if they really want to be righteous. Short of that, if you are in America, you either compromise or go to jail.
My position is that we learn what is right and work towards it, but to pretend that bucking the system on every little thingis really hurting anyone but ourself shows a lack of maturity.
Ok, I agree with most of what your saying. That still doesn't help me. No one, including you have answered my questions. They are not rhetorical questions. :uhoh:
Should I list them again ? So far, no one has even attmepted to answer them. :?
Do you really believe that ? I find this to be disturbing. It sounds like an order from a COP. What if this were told to our founding fathers ? Would they have said, COMPROMISE ? I think not. Then again maybe compromise is the way of the future. Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
I assume you are asking that because you really want an answer. I assume you know I am a history major, and that I built a 2000+ page web site about the American forefathers as it relates to liberty. http://americanrevival.org
The answer is yes, the FF did realize that there is a time and place for compromise, and a time and place for not compromising. You know that huge list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence? That did not happen overnight. There was decades, even a couple centuries (if you want to look at it like that) of compromise before the war for our independence took place. And you know what? They compromised or went to jail leading up to all that, just as I am still stating. It is a basic truth. We do not live in an anarchic society. They worked toward the society they wanted, but they only took up arms at a certain point. You know what that point was? When they HAD ENOUGH support to carry through with the decision. That is also one of my points. Alienating the very people who might otherwise be on our side is hurting the cause of uncompromised gun freedoms, not helping it. Neither Jefferson nor Henry nor any others accomplished their goals by simply saying "screw it and screw anyone who doesn't feel like me." They understood that they were in the midst of a complex situation, and when they did say things to that effect, it was in the proper time and place.
I want the same things you want. I just go about it in what I feel is a more effective manner. For you or Mark to sit back and pass judgment and accuse me of colluding with the enemy for doing things in the manner my experience has shown me is best is what I take issue with.
I suppose Heller could have told his lawyer to sit down and then jumped up on the bench and ripped of his suit to reveal a shirt that said "Shall Not Be Infringed" and screamed, "What now, Bitches!!!!" Or he could have accepted the best compromise leading to the most forward progress that he was realistically able to achieve, which is what he did. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from that.
I assume you are asking that because you really want an answer. I assume you know I am a history major, and that I built a 2000+ page web site about the American forefathers as it relates to liberty. http://americanrevival.org
The answer is yes, the FF did realize that there is a time and place for compromise, and a time and place for not compromising. You know that huge list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence? That did not happen overnight. There was decades, even a couple centuries (if you want to look at it like that) of compromise before the war for our independence took place. And you know what? They compromised or went to jail leading up to all that, just as I am still stating. It is a basic truth. We do not live in an anarchic society. They worked toward the society they wanted, but they only took up arms at a certain point. You know what that point was? When they HAD ENOUGH support to carry through with the decision. That is also one of my points. Alienating the very people who might otherwise be on our side is hurting the cause of uncompromised gun freedoms, not helping it. Neither Jefferson nor Henry nor any others accomplished their goals by simply saying "screw it and screw anyone who doesn't feel like me." They understood that they were in the midst of a complex situation, and when they did say things to that effect, it was in the proper time and place.
I want the same things you want. I just go about it in what I feel is a more effective manner. For you or Mark to sit back and pass judgment and accuse me of colluding with the enemy for doing things in the manner my experience has shown me is best is what I take issue with.
I suppose Heller could have told his lawyer to sit down and then jumped up on the bench and ripped of his suit to reveal a shirt that said "Shall Not Be Infringed" and screamed, "What now, Bitches!!!!" Or he could have accepted the best compromise leading to the most forward progress that he was realistically able to achieve, which is what he did. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from that.