Amelia
CheekyMonkey
A preamble: If after reading this threador parts of it, you want to lambaste me for being an idiot, please don't bother. You don't need to believe me. I just ask that you hear me out. I'll ask the mods to remove any threads that just blame Bush, only slam Obama, say it's a Zionist plot or are outright rude or contribute absolutely nothing to this thread. This is very serious. Our nations has NEVER faced darker days than the ones ahead of us.
Have you noticed what's going on right now that affects the US as a Nation, in addition to the angst of the economy?? Like:
Oil prices are suddenly dropping. This week
Our dollar value is dropping. Daily.
Gas prices are mysteriously dropping. This week
The price hikes in oil - everybody ended up blaming the speculators, because they couldn't figure out any other explanation. The truth of the matter is the plunging of our country into an economic crisis to Ahmadinijad is nothing but taking advantage of the Corptocracy's (and American's )greed that let the derivatives pyramid scheme happen in the first place.
Ahmedinijad is bleeding us before the kill.
These things have all been manipulated by Iran's Ahmedinijad, and is part of a cunningly devised plan to show the US that we no longer control our own destiny.
The recent attacks in Iraq that they're looking into the intelligence reports for? My money is on that being a preview of what might happen to the rest of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if we don't comply with the new package. I'll discuss that later.
Ahmadinijad anticipates there will be no problems after Obama is elected. That is because Obama has bought 100% into the false front that Iran is putting up. I don't know if he's a traitor or gullible. I and others now know he's not the man we want as president. But this isn't about whether or no Obama gets elected. In the immediacy of other events, we'll worry about that later.
You'll find the information that verifies everything in this ALERT post here on the board. I cannot possibly summarize all well or comprehensively all the information in that single thread. The interweavings and segways are far too complicated, and there are far too many issues.
Heliobas Disciple started a thread entitled "Success in Iraq" on July 7, 2008. Today it is Thursday, July 17, 2008 Only ten days old, and things are coming down the pike incredibly fast. The thread has over 213 post and probably hundreds of links. It's a phenomenal work by some dedicated people to try to find meaning in the world's sudden and potentially catastrophic changes. I invite you all to peruse even the last three pages of the thread. Use the thread search feature and look for key words of your choosing. I think that thread is important enough that I changed my signature. I joined in 2001, and hardly posted anything until now. The people that have contributed to that thread are some of the best read folks we have on the board on international affairs. We are, if you wil, many of the "remnant" of the original board, and the ones that came later to the board were lurkers in the Board's early days. might as well have been here at the beginning.
PLEASE NOTE. THE "SUCCESS IN IRAN' thread is a serious analysis of the nature of our national defense and those who would abrogate those defenses. Please do not post unless you contribute something substantial to that thread.
Dozdoats just started an economic thread "MUST READ: The Achilles Heel Of The USA Is The Dollar (Richard Russell) That's a great thread, and will be an excellent counterpart to Heliobas' thread.
And UncurledA, you are absolutely right. WE'VE GOT TO GET THOSE TRIVIAL THREADS OFF THE BOARD. We were a prep board, and everyone wanted to know ahead of time when things will happen. They wanted an alert.
Well, these two threads are your alerts, folks.
The question is, do you want to stick your head in the sand, be lazy and not bother to read DOCUMENTED INFORMATION, or do you just want to be left alone while you interfere with the rest of us who take our country's future seriously? If you doubt, and have a specific question, as it, but please don't comment if you want to dismiss all this out of hand.
I real all the time about how the MSM is controlled by the administration, or it's propaganda, etc. This is your chance to plow through some real investigative journaling. Are you up to the challenge?
Those of us who have worked hard on this thread will largely follow and help you understand if you post your confusion on any points you post, but please do your own homework as much as possible.
OK, let us start:
Tomorrow Ahmadinijad will present a package to world leaders at the United Nations. It will NOT be what they are anticipating. He has his own plan; he's already said that US hegemony is at an end and that the UN is irrelevant. He has also said that things will be much better after the new president - who he is CERTAIN WILL BE OBAMA.
While we held the G-8 summit in Japan the first week of July, 2008, the "Eight Developing Nations " -All of the 8 countries are of majority muslim nations. Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey . Ahmedinijad is the motivating force.
Their alliances have formed into a type of "barter diplomacy" and they have focused on inter trading to solidify the financial alliance. These alliances have been leveraged to the point that we are rapidly losing countries with whom we've had alliances, our Financial Markets have crashed, we are going broke paying for oil and our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan are in critical danger.
What the press is now hailing as a "change" in Iran is no such thing. Heads of state in the West are all buying into this political slight of hand, or they know the West has been had..
Ahmedinijad has a proposal for the G-8 countries to be delivered in Geneva on Friday, but it isn't going to be what the US expects. Iran will keep their nuke program. We WILL back down, because they've got us by the short hairs. We've already started to back down, and our press, echoing our idiot politicians, attributes Iran's "willingness to meet" as a "softening" in Iran's hard-line stance.
They have artificially manipulated funds to push us into a state of near-economic collapse.
OPEC sets oil prices. Who's OPEC? Opec is Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela and Ecuador. Who controls oil prices? OPEC.
Two of the member states, Iran and Venezuela share an overriding interest in common: The destruction of the United States. Hugo Chavez has allowed Hizbollah to establish itself in Venezuela, and Chavez has been helping Cuba restore a long-unused oil refinery on Cuban soil.
What does this mean to you?
It means that Iran's missles are NOT half a world away. Bay of Pigs, anyone?? Iran may well have missles currently place in Cuba, aimed at our major cities. It is not unlikely this is so. Hizbollah is now vested in chemical weapons. It is possible that they may also have bioweapons.
In the last two months, Ahmedinijad has been ramping up his language, and it's basically in Orwellian Doublespeak. The deeper meaning is available if you can look very closely at the choice of wording in what comes out. It's a difference in what is said and what is meant.
This is probably the most important point of all. Let me make it by example. Iraq's Maliki used the same type of linguistic deception when he was talking about troop withdrawal. I've lifted sections of Heliobas Disciple's thread to show you what I mean:
From an HD post, regarding Maliki's (I think) latest Official speech regarding our troops :
FAIR USE
Iraq faces dilemma over US troops
"US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline.
The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
Mixed messages
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".
Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.
.......
With me so far? HD's commentary, which preceeded the above quote in his post:
"THIS IS A MUST - READ. MALIKI DIDN'T SAY "WITHDRAW" IN HIS SPEECH IN THE UAE, IT WAS ADDED LATER.
This is becoming more layered. Another story handed out then retracted, then not retracted. This has to be symptomatic of something (?).
As to the withdrawl/presence change - he did say 'their evacuation' in the first sentence, which is the same thing as their withdrawal, so was still talking withdrawal - the flip/flopping around though is a big deal. He was willing to negotiate their presence on Monday while in the UAE, by the time he got home, apparently he wasn't.
Come to think of it - it's redundant the way the press released the statement - what's the difference between a memorandum or evacuation and memorandum of withdrawal - it's the same thing.
Why didn't Maliki want the statement to show he considered a memorandum for the conditions for them staying by the time he got home? What happened in those 24 hours?" [again, Heliobas' commentary]
.........
I deconstructed the phrasing. Looking closely at PRECISELY what words mean reveals a lot. Any English teachers among you? I am reposting part of a PM from me to HD. It's long, but please, please bear with me.
Remember, this is the original speech Maliki delivered to the UAE, NOT the written copy Obama read from.
"The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement
/This is probably what they've called the it last how many years/
to regulate the US troop presence from next year,
/This is what WAS planned /
"the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation,
/Under what conditions does one "evacuate"?/
or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
/Under what conditions might one "withdraw" ?/
A thesaurus would help here. The English language is HIGHLY nuanced. ...I said that it goes back to "what the meaning of "is" is?
Leaving. Being removed by another agency in alliance with one's own. Being removed by other agency NOT of one's own, for the sake of preservation of one's well-being, so as not to get caught in something.
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad. If he wanted to be neutral, he could have said "departing".
"...It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama."
[I]/Yup. Never Quote a Liar. /[/I]
"There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
Mixed messages
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation,
/evacuation in this case will be what they do if they get out of Iraq BEFORE war breaks out/
or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
/PROGRAMMING: Got a question fer ya. Do you think the guys lives in Gitmo is just a come-what-may, or do you think it follows... kind of a... PROGRAM? (she said in her best Church Lady voice.)/
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".
/All righty then. Let's read it again from the beginning. Remember, this is the what is in the speech./
"The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
What does that statement say -what intent does it portend?
..................
From the written release of the speech: "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal"./
/timetable implies order, evenness, reason, expectation amenable to both parties./
/withdrawl - combined with the word timetable, you get something like " a well-choreographed and orderly return of the troops from Iraq."/
This is the written version. The terms we expect in the context in which we expected to receive it.
See why it was so freaking complicated to explain?
/AND EVEN HARDER TO CATCH. THIS IS NOT A BAD TRANSLATION, LIKE THEY'RE PUTTING SO MUCH OTHER STUFF DOWN TO. THESE GUYS SPEAK ENGLISH BETTER THAN MOST OF US./
He can say one thing and you only THINK you know what they're saying . You have to PAY ATTENTION ALL THE TIME.
Those particular posts you read will look altogether different now. Also watch for things that seem to be slid in, castoffs, overly formal. Precision in English has a "feel" to it. These guys were WELL taught.
The speechwriter who wrote that really has English down. I suspect this was such a momentous document that Amdjd actually wrote it himself. I'll even go farther and bet that he's HAD it written for Malike for a long time.
Probably up on his DreamBoard so he could visualize watching Maliki say it and manifest it into being, lol!
His office changed it, so he'd got a really sharp aid, who probably saw exactly the same thing you and I see in it." [A to HD in PM]
We've covered the language that all our supposed leaders are completely missing. Go back and read anything posted by Ahmedinijad and apply this "exact meanings of words" and the "but its NOT what you think" rules. You'll be surprised.
OK. I've said the most I can for now. You're either in or you're out.
But about now, I'd love to see a Thread Timbo mentioned he hadn't seen (on another thread). One where Ahmadinijad is compared to the AntiChrist. You start the thread, I will come.
Please feel free to resume your normal programming.
Amelia
Oh, and Heliobas has given me permission to deal the the "public" nature of this information, although he "owns" the thread. I'll ask him to post publicly to that effect on the Success thread.
I hereby give Heliobas Disciple, Wardogs, and Night Driver permission to act as my agents in this thread, as well, if it should come to that. Just to make it official.
Have you noticed what's going on right now that affects the US as a Nation, in addition to the angst of the economy?? Like:
Oil prices are suddenly dropping. This week
Our dollar value is dropping. Daily.
Gas prices are mysteriously dropping. This week
The price hikes in oil - everybody ended up blaming the speculators, because they couldn't figure out any other explanation. The truth of the matter is the plunging of our country into an economic crisis to Ahmadinijad is nothing but taking advantage of the Corptocracy's (and American's )greed that let the derivatives pyramid scheme happen in the first place.
Ahmedinijad is bleeding us before the kill.
These things have all been manipulated by Iran's Ahmedinijad, and is part of a cunningly devised plan to show the US that we no longer control our own destiny.
The recent attacks in Iraq that they're looking into the intelligence reports for? My money is on that being a preview of what might happen to the rest of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if we don't comply with the new package. I'll discuss that later.
Ahmadinijad anticipates there will be no problems after Obama is elected. That is because Obama has bought 100% into the false front that Iran is putting up. I don't know if he's a traitor or gullible. I and others now know he's not the man we want as president. But this isn't about whether or no Obama gets elected. In the immediacy of other events, we'll worry about that later.
You'll find the information that verifies everything in this ALERT post here on the board. I cannot possibly summarize all well or comprehensively all the information in that single thread. The interweavings and segways are far too complicated, and there are far too many issues.
Heliobas Disciple started a thread entitled "Success in Iraq" on July 7, 2008. Today it is Thursday, July 17, 2008 Only ten days old, and things are coming down the pike incredibly fast. The thread has over 213 post and probably hundreds of links. It's a phenomenal work by some dedicated people to try to find meaning in the world's sudden and potentially catastrophic changes. I invite you all to peruse even the last three pages of the thread. Use the thread search feature and look for key words of your choosing. I think that thread is important enough that I changed my signature. I joined in 2001, and hardly posted anything until now. The people that have contributed to that thread are some of the best read folks we have on the board on international affairs. We are, if you wil, many of the "remnant" of the original board, and the ones that came later to the board were lurkers in the Board's early days. might as well have been here at the beginning.
PLEASE NOTE. THE "SUCCESS IN IRAN' thread is a serious analysis of the nature of our national defense and those who would abrogate those defenses. Please do not post unless you contribute something substantial to that thread.
Dozdoats just started an economic thread "MUST READ: The Achilles Heel Of The USA Is The Dollar (Richard Russell) That's a great thread, and will be an excellent counterpart to Heliobas' thread.
And UncurledA, you are absolutely right. WE'VE GOT TO GET THOSE TRIVIAL THREADS OFF THE BOARD. We were a prep board, and everyone wanted to know ahead of time when things will happen. They wanted an alert.
Well, these two threads are your alerts, folks.
The question is, do you want to stick your head in the sand, be lazy and not bother to read DOCUMENTED INFORMATION, or do you just want to be left alone while you interfere with the rest of us who take our country's future seriously? If you doubt, and have a specific question, as it, but please don't comment if you want to dismiss all this out of hand.
I real all the time about how the MSM is controlled by the administration, or it's propaganda, etc. This is your chance to plow through some real investigative journaling. Are you up to the challenge?
Those of us who have worked hard on this thread will largely follow and help you understand if you post your confusion on any points you post, but please do your own homework as much as possible.
OK, let us start:
Tomorrow Ahmadinijad will present a package to world leaders at the United Nations. It will NOT be what they are anticipating. He has his own plan; he's already said that US hegemony is at an end and that the UN is irrelevant. He has also said that things will be much better after the new president - who he is CERTAIN WILL BE OBAMA.
While we held the G-8 summit in Japan the first week of July, 2008, the "Eight Developing Nations " -All of the 8 countries are of majority muslim nations. Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey . Ahmedinijad is the motivating force.
Their alliances have formed into a type of "barter diplomacy" and they have focused on inter trading to solidify the financial alliance. These alliances have been leveraged to the point that we are rapidly losing countries with whom we've had alliances, our Financial Markets have crashed, we are going broke paying for oil and our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan are in critical danger.
What the press is now hailing as a "change" in Iran is no such thing. Heads of state in the West are all buying into this political slight of hand, or they know the West has been had..
Ahmedinijad has a proposal for the G-8 countries to be delivered in Geneva on Friday, but it isn't going to be what the US expects. Iran will keep their nuke program. We WILL back down, because they've got us by the short hairs. We've already started to back down, and our press, echoing our idiot politicians, attributes Iran's "willingness to meet" as a "softening" in Iran's hard-line stance.
They have artificially manipulated funds to push us into a state of near-economic collapse.
OPEC sets oil prices. Who's OPEC? Opec is Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela and Ecuador. Who controls oil prices? OPEC.
Two of the member states, Iran and Venezuela share an overriding interest in common: The destruction of the United States. Hugo Chavez has allowed Hizbollah to establish itself in Venezuela, and Chavez has been helping Cuba restore a long-unused oil refinery on Cuban soil.
What does this mean to you?
It means that Iran's missles are NOT half a world away. Bay of Pigs, anyone?? Iran may well have missles currently place in Cuba, aimed at our major cities. It is not unlikely this is so. Hizbollah is now vested in chemical weapons. It is possible that they may also have bioweapons.
In the last two months, Ahmedinijad has been ramping up his language, and it's basically in Orwellian Doublespeak. The deeper meaning is available if you can look very closely at the choice of wording in what comes out. It's a difference in what is said and what is meant.
This is probably the most important point of all. Let me make it by example. Iraq's Maliki used the same type of linguistic deception when he was talking about troop withdrawal. I've lifted sections of Heliobas Disciple's thread to show you what I mean:
From an HD post, regarding Maliki's (I think) latest Official speech regarding our troops :
FAIR USE
Iraq faces dilemma over US troops
"US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline.
The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
Mixed messages
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".
Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.
.......
With me so far? HD's commentary, which preceeded the above quote in his post:
"THIS IS A MUST - READ. MALIKI DIDN'T SAY "WITHDRAW" IN HIS SPEECH IN THE UAE, IT WAS ADDED LATER.
This is becoming more layered. Another story handed out then retracted, then not retracted. This has to be symptomatic of something (?).
As to the withdrawl/presence change - he did say 'their evacuation' in the first sentence, which is the same thing as their withdrawal, so was still talking withdrawal - the flip/flopping around though is a big deal. He was willing to negotiate their presence on Monday while in the UAE, by the time he got home, apparently he wasn't.
Come to think of it - it's redundant the way the press released the statement - what's the difference between a memorandum or evacuation and memorandum of withdrawal - it's the same thing.
Why didn't Maliki want the statement to show he considered a memorandum for the conditions for them staying by the time he got home? What happened in those 24 hours?" [again, Heliobas' commentary]
.........
I deconstructed the phrasing. Looking closely at PRECISELY what words mean reveals a lot. Any English teachers among you? I am reposting part of a PM from me to HD. It's long, but please, please bear with me.
Remember, this is the original speech Maliki delivered to the UAE, NOT the written copy Obama read from.
"The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement
/This is probably what they've called the it last how many years/
to regulate the US troop presence from next year,
/This is what WAS planned /
"the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation,
/Under what conditions does one "evacuate"?/
or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".
/Under what conditions might one "withdraw" ?/
A thesaurus would help here. The English language is HIGHLY nuanced. ...I said that it goes back to "what the meaning of "is" is?
Leaving. Being removed by another agency in alliance with one's own. Being removed by other agency NOT of one's own, for the sake of preservation of one's well-being, so as not to get caught in something.
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad. If he wanted to be neutral, he could have said "departing".
"...It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama."
[I]/Yup. Never Quote a Liar. /[/I]
"There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.
Mixed messages
In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation,
/evacuation in this case will be what they do if they get out of Iraq BEFORE war breaks out/
or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
/PROGRAMMING: Got a question fer ya. Do you think the guys lives in Gitmo is just a come-what-may, or do you think it follows... kind of a... PROGRAM? (she said in her best Church Lady voice.)/
Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".
/All righty then. Let's read it again from the beginning. Remember, this is the what is in the speech./
"The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
What does that statement say -what intent does it portend?
..................
From the written release of the speech: "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal"./
/timetable implies order, evenness, reason, expectation amenable to both parties./
/withdrawl - combined with the word timetable, you get something like " a well-choreographed and orderly return of the troops from Iraq."/
This is the written version. The terms we expect in the context in which we expected to receive it.
See why it was so freaking complicated to explain?
/AND EVEN HARDER TO CATCH. THIS IS NOT A BAD TRANSLATION, LIKE THEY'RE PUTTING SO MUCH OTHER STUFF DOWN TO. THESE GUYS SPEAK ENGLISH BETTER THAN MOST OF US./
He can say one thing and you only THINK you know what they're saying . You have to PAY ATTENTION ALL THE TIME.
Those particular posts you read will look altogether different now. Also watch for things that seem to be slid in, castoffs, overly formal. Precision in English has a "feel" to it. These guys were WELL taught.
The speechwriter who wrote that really has English down. I suspect this was such a momentous document that Amdjd actually wrote it himself. I'll even go farther and bet that he's HAD it written for Malike for a long time.
Probably up on his DreamBoard so he could visualize watching Maliki say it and manifest it into being, lol!
His office changed it, so he'd got a really sharp aid, who probably saw exactly the same thing you and I see in it." [A to HD in PM]
We've covered the language that all our supposed leaders are completely missing. Go back and read anything posted by Ahmedinijad and apply this "exact meanings of words" and the "but its NOT what you think" rules. You'll be surprised.
OK. I've said the most I can for now. You're either in or you're out.
But about now, I'd love to see a Thread Timbo mentioned he hadn't seen (on another thread). One where Ahmadinijad is compared to the AntiChrist. You start the thread, I will come.
Please feel free to resume your normal programming.
Amelia
Oh, and Heliobas has given me permission to deal the the "public" nature of this information, although he "owns" the thread. I'll ask him to post publicly to that effect on the Success thread.
I hereby give Heliobas Disciple, Wardogs, and Night Driver permission to act as my agents in this thread, as well, if it should come to that. Just to make it official.
