CNBC On Why They Pulled Debate Poll

[Ottawa911]

Wow...

So Ron Paul supporters are the only ones who can use the Internet?
This poll wasn't 'single IP'?


but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll.

Anyone have a 'legit' poll to show this guy?  What exactly is 'legit' by his standards? One that has Rudy at the top? Check up 'most rehearsed answer' if you want that

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages.

So I guess this was all 1 hacker writing a 'flood' of e-mail messages?  Guess we'll have to switch to telephone calls then...  Anyone have Allen Wastler's work number?

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum

Could it be that the 'show of hands' was actually an 'honest' representation of what 'the people' wanted?

The guy's winning straw-poll after straw-poll and you're still trying to pretend he's a fringe candidate.  He's raised more than McCain and that doesn't make him a 'top tier' candidate. Well then by default, that makes McCain no longer a 'top tier' candidate

Sorry pal.  I for one am not buying it and I'll be calling you this afternoon to let you know...

[chris jones]

The only politician who defended our constitution was R.P., the only human being not filled with rhetoric was R.P., he outshined the debate. And- he showed the others for what they are, mindless, consciencless,  money grubbing puppets.
CJ

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

[mpgion]

Now this obviously takes some effort to mislead oneself as Allen Wastler did, by stating he hasnt seen Ron Paul poll this high before. Dr. Paul raised 5.1 million last quater, the majority of wich was due to online support. Now of course there were some people that voted twice, but that is still an insufficent reason to pull the poll unless theyr tracking ips, wich would at least validate the claim. He also mentioned online polls can be hacked, well is he saying the polls were hacked, or not. If so what kind of safeguards were violated on the CNBC site? Exactly the verdict , Mr. Allen Wastler is a shit bag. His case is weak like baby farts.

[Freefalling]

I wish people were that on top of it when the elite hack their way into our vote casting system and place in the candidates they desire.

[mpgion]

Its not as far away as think, we're getn stronger everyday man.

[strgzr]

Any thinking person, with their eyes open, can see, and hear the difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates. If there is a shred of honesty left in american elections, Ron Paul will win the republican nomination. Then go on to take the White House back for the American people.

[Rosencrance]

if someone was going to hire a hacker guilliani or romney would do it not Dr.Paul, on top of that why do the other candidates have such crappy number turnout with or without RP there were 22k that voted and 7k went to RP those numbers don't seem to out of line. we are the most informed supporters in the race we watched the debate and voted for our man.  Romney and guillianis' supporters were all picking their nose and watching survivor or what ever show was on in that time slot, i was at work and tivoed it to come home to when i get off of work at 3am after 10 hour days. I'm just sick of people not taking notice and saying what ever they want, if you use any of the facts Dr.Paul is on the fast track for success and if he could get the media to wipe the grease off their palm and support the man they might have the chance to be real journalists again instead of teleprompter jockeys.



Dr.Ron Paul '08

[trixi1]

Keep in mind, "They" think that since they have been successful in 'shaping the past', they can 'shape the present', so it leaves 'the future for them to shape'.

Remember, when you have a fine, God believing, God following, God convicted man standing up for what's right, morally driven, no matter who that person is, we are naturally inclined to want to support and follow that path. God's will is for all to follow him. Even for the ones who don't believe in him, it doesn't change this fact. This life we are living is only temporary, for some, it's extremely short, some a little longer, but ultimately, probably no more than about 70 - 90 years.

If you don't get right with God, don't expect a free pass to Heaven because Jesus Christ died on the cross for everyone. Even though He did, we are still accountable for our actions here in this lifetime. Get with the program, get on track and follow the only God there is in Heaven.

Ron Paul lives this life, knows that your founders believed this, and does everything he can to prove this.

Praying for Ron Paul to be your next President and praying for his ultimate protection in all things for him and his family so nothing detrimental happens to their well-being in any possible earthly way.

P.S. As well, Ron Paul being President will improve ALL WORLDLY AFFAIRS for all countries on this globe because of his God living lifestyle.

[Femacamper]

They pulled it because Ron Paul is gonna win the next election...

[postman]

Here is my e mail to Mr. John Harwood -

Mr. Harwood –

Your ideas regarding the “spamming” of your online poll are baseless and your view is skewed.  The same old one-liners about the Ron Paul camp don’t work like they used to, John.  Your baseless pleading is reminiscent of Fox News claiming that Paul supporters “spammed” their text message poll when he won by yet ANOTHER landslide.  Guess what John, their text poll only allowed one vote per cell phone.  Where’s the foul? 

The Fox poll has proven that the excuse of corporate controlled media regarding the “spamming” of their polls should have been thrown out of the window.  Well it wasn’t.  They still claimed it was the job of spammers even though the poll accepted only one vote per cell phone.  Their ninnying was baseless, and now so is yours.  Go and cry to someone else.

But to answer your obvious concern of why Ron Paul is winning these polls and barely makes a blip on what you would like to call an “official poll”  I would recommend that you look into who it is doing the “official” polling and the demographics of the little old ladies that the pollsters pray on.  On the other hand, consider the fact that an online poll is strictly action oriented, it doesn’t require a telemarketer blowing up your phone line – it only requires action.  Maybe it’s the fact that the Ron Paul supporters are the most politically active of any other candidate.  Maybe it’s the fact that the supporters of Ron Paul care more than others.

It’s high time that you and the rest of the corporate controlled mainstream media recognize the lies that you propagate; for the corporate controlled mainstream whores that you would like to call Presidential candidates.

Good Day -

Gabe Elton

[card51short]

Jonas Martin
Old Tired Media
October 11th, 2007

Ron Paul's MySpace page, which has more friends and hits than any other candidate in the running, are all made up of what scientists are now referring to as "artificial people". 

Political research scientists John P. Hack and Terri Whiner have seemingly uncovered a vast conspiracy by the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters.  "It seems they are actually inventing people, complete with profiles, pictures and videos Ron Paul himself obviously made up in attempt to make his campaign look legitimate."

As we all know, nobody knows who Ron Paul is.  Never mind the fact that he was a congressman for 20 plus years and has been one of the most staunch defenders of the Constitution (So much so, that he was given the name "Dr. No" in reference to his usual voting stance), he is not one of the "top tier" candidates according to us at the Old Tired Media headquarters.

After two months of dedicated research, Hack and Whiner were able to catch on to this fraud and were alarmed by how deep the conspiracy actually goes.  "It seems that Ron Paul, if that is his real name, even went as far as to register emails of the made up Myspace users and install a series of complex macros that actually reply in a human-like manner." explained Whiner after writing short messages to around 100 of the members in an attempt to verify their identify as real and not "artificial".  Hack added: "It seems Dr. Paul is not only a skilled politician, but also a super hacker and computer expert.  He's accomplishing what top tier candidates cannot by blatantly cheating at every opportunity he gets."

When pressed to elaborate on further evidence on Ron Paul cheating, Hack detailed all of the congressman's plans which included: raising $5,000,000 in artificial money ("We're at odds on deciding whether Ron Paul simply counterfeited the cash himself or robbed a series of banks in the greater Austin area."), creating life-like androids to plaster his signs and banners all around the country then show up to his speeches ("One of these androids even short circuited and fell to the ground in an apparent electro-shock after a friendly officer attempted to help him out of the debate area and into a secure holding cell for his own safety by tazering him repeatedly." adds Whiner with a chuckle), sneaking in artificial applause soundtracks during debates ("So obvious." both scientists concur in unison) and kidnapping honest republicans and performing crude lobotomies upon them, transforming them into drooling Ronbots. 

The pair of scientists has even begun to speculate that Paul himself could in fact be a cyborg constructed by Al Qaeda to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  "While there is no evidence that suggests it, it is a perfectly logical explanation when someone besides Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani start winning polls." explains Whiner.

One thing is for certain: this man (or machine) should be stopped immediately and the American people should be given a fair choice between Giuliani and Clinton for the next president of the United States.  Let's make it happen!


(Jonas Martin is a regular contributor to Old Tired Media.  He has whined about several issues in his 17 years as a journalist and continues to whine around the world today.  His weekly commentaries 'I lost?! They cheated!' can be read in Seattle's Crybabies Weekly magazine.)

 

[EchelonMonitor]

Basically they're saying their IT staff is incapable of setting up a poll which allows only 1 vote per ip. 

They should either fire all their IT staff or admit that they're lying.

[EchelonMonitor]

Dutch writer has good take on it:

The conclusion: if Paul supporters don’t want internet polls to be taken down, they shouldn’t ‘hijack’ it.

Sadly, there is one problem. Paul supporters are, probably, just very active online. Once supporters of one candidate or another see a poll, they’ll vote. They won’t think: “if I vote, am I misrepresenting the nation-wide support for my candidate?”

CNBC to Ron Paul Supporters: Knock.It.Off.
Oct 12th, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën

CNBC’s Managing Editor, Allen Wastler, has written an open letter to supporters of Congressman Ron Paul. In it, he expresses his frustration with the online behavior of some of Paul’s supporters: CNBC put an online poll up shortly after the Republican debate sponsored by the network had finished. Within a couple of hours, more than 7,000 people had voted, with 75% of the votes going to Ron Paul. Since Paul doesn’t poll quite so well in ‘legit’ polls, CNBC decided to do a little research and they saw that most Paul-voters came directly from Ron Paul message boards. Since they, in the opinion of Allen Wastler, hijacked the polls, he decided to take it down.

“You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that. But you also ruined the purpose of the poll,” he writes. He explains that “t was no longer an honest ’show of hands’ — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn’t our intention and certainly doesn’t serve our readers … at least those who aren’t already in the Ron Paul camp.”

The conclusion: if Paul supporters don’t want internet polls to be taken down, they shouldn’t ‘hijack’ it.

Sadly, there is one problem. Paul supporters are, probably, just very active online. Once supporters of one candidate or another see a poll, they’ll vote. They won’t think: “if I vote, am I misrepresenting the nation-wide support for my candidate?” Once they start thinking like that, the numbers will be scewed as well, simply because they fear that if they vote the poll may be taken down.

Of course I understand the frustration of those who put up Internet polls, but you can’t ask people not to vote. As long as they don’t literally hijack the poll (sending bugs, one person finding a way to vote 100 times, etc.), it’s a bit silly to ask them not to vote. Considering that Paul’s supporters are incredibly active on the Internet, it’s quite logical that Internet polls give a distorted picture of reality. If you want a ‘real’ poll, a qualitatively good poll, you shouldn’t organize it online. Do it the old fashioned way.

And that’s the real lesson from all the online polls: they can be freely ignored. We all knew that already, but certain networks and newspapers seem to have lived in a different universe during the last couple of years. Internet polls are nice, they’re a good way to get one’s readers a bit more involved, but that’s it.

[card51short]

if we lose than Ron Paul has no support if he wins then he cheated.
*sigh* pathetic...

[EchelonMonitor]

Here's a link to Wastler's letter and the text.  

"Dear folks" -- he's talking down to us like we're a bunch of kids in his lecture class or cnbc interns.  

Wastler is the smartass punk here, but I guess he's surrounded himself with ass kissers and thinks he's hot shit.

"Tip his hat" to us?  "Email basket"?  The guy is so lame, old fashioned, and out of date he should retire.

------------------------------------------

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.


Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com


Questions?  Comments?  Write to politicalcapital@cnbc.com

[Susan Graham]

Just substitute "national election" for "online poll" to see where this so-called argument is going.  

[mpgion]

DAMN, the empire is on the run!?!

[EchelonMonitor]

Found this response--it's right on:

My letter to CNBC
Submitted by Jim Dwyer on Fri, 10/12/2007 - 10:47.
To whom it may concern:

In "An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful", Allen Wastler stated:

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried."

Does this mean that CNBC will soon be doing more stories about the unjust and undue influence that the banking, corporate and Zionist lobbies exert in Washington?

Just kidding. I know that you all would be out of business if you actually told the truth.

best,
Jim Dwyer

[Susan Graham]

My reply:

No, Mr.Wastler.  We aren't "good" or even "real good."  We are simply real.  Why don't you get real, too?

Truly yours,

SG

[antiantichrist]

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again. "

    Using Mr. Wastlerstein's logic, I'm guessing we need to 'take down' our current government.   Enter Ron Paul, stage left! 

[dicktater]

"When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again. "

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
~~ Second Amendment

Today, arms should be thought to include the tools and weapons to effectively wage and win a successful information war.

CNBC is nothing more than a pack of lying scumbuckets.  They will never release their server logs to prove their bogus claim.  They will never identify other polls that they claim were gamed in the same way.  Nothing but hearsay.

[Femacamper]

NBC, eh? Don't you mean Neocon Broadcasting Corporation?

[DougPlumb]

OK. I understand your frustration CNBC. Really. I feel bad.

It was me. Don't laugh. I'm a real fast typist.

Sorry. I won't do it again and Ron Paul will be forgotten about before the next episode of 24.

[EchelonMonitor]

John Harwood tries to placate Ron Paul supporters by saying he disagrees with his boss, but (and they always have to throw in the but or risk losing their jobs) he still has to belittle the Ron Paul campaign.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546



My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) | Print Media | Politics & Government | White House

I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.

I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.

My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.

To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.

He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.

The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.

--John Harwood

Questions?  Comments?  Write to politicalcapital@cnbc.com.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

BILL HICKS
1961- 1994
"I believe that everyone has a voice of reason inside. I believe that it is quelled by the shrieking idiocy of mainstream media that we hear and it has added to our hopelessness on the planet because mainstream doesn't offer answers, they only continue the problems. And I believe the voice of reason inside of us has the answers if we'd only calm down and listen to it."

[dustinternationally]

What they mean by legit poll, is a poll that has a system to ensure that the relatively small number of people participating in the poll offer an accurate picture of the nation as a whole.  In other words a legit poll can be used to gauge how people all over the spectrum feel.  A poll that is considered biased would be gathering information from disproportionate group.  An example would be only polling those with a certain income, ethnicity, age, education or whose views lean a particular way for another reason.

Some would argue that there is no such thing as a legit or truly scientific poll that introduces no bias whatsoever.  Scientific polls will have a margin of error also to try to compensate for bias.  But bias is impossible to remove unless all people are polled.  And even then bias can be introduced by the questions in the poll and the way they are written or the people doing the asking and probably many other ways that I have not mentioned. 

I would argue that this poll was biased.  Many of the alternative news sites that I frequent had links to the poll.  In fact, I voted in this particular poll for Ron Paul because I support him.  I, however, did not even see the debate.

That's right, I voted in the CNBC poll in favor of Ron Paul without even seeing the debate that the poll was supposed to be about!
I did not really consider that I was biasing a poll.  I think that Ron Paul has a disproportionate number of supporters who read a lot of alternative online news sources.  Also, I think that Ron Paul supporters are passionate enough to vote for him more than once if they could.

I did not vote twice but certainly can see how a bias was introduced.

While I too have a general distrust for the mainstream media, I don't think a biased poll is going to help Ron Paul all that much.  I guess all of the efforts of his supporters are going to draw attention to him which is good, but a lot of his supporters are starting to sound like fanatics and that is going to give fuel to the people who are against him.

The end result is polls are going to become more meaningless than they already are.  I think the internet is going to render small polls useless.  In order for polls to continue to be used they will have to be more controlled, longer term, and include more people.

Ron Paul supporter here trying to be the voice of reason.     

[strgzr]

Ron Paul supporter here trying to be the voice of reason. 

I don't believe it. If you were really a Ron Paul supporter you would likely have a little more "root for the underdog" feel to your post. What I feel from your post has more of a "stay in your place and trust to the experts" ring to it.
Party loyalists say "if you vote for a third party you're throwing away your vote". So Ron Paul runs as a republican, and they do everything they can to ignore him. Well it looks as though he and his supporters aren't going to take being ignored laying down. So now portray him as fringe and his supporters as fanatics. Well if he is fringe much of America is as well. And if Ron Paul people are fanatics, maybe we need a little more fanaticism when it comes to the constitution, and what America should, and used to, stand for.

[dustinternationally]

Believe it.

I have no problems voting for the underdog.  My vote in the primary is going to Ron Paul.
For the general election my vote is going to either Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich.
Which ever one wins the primary for their party has my vote.

If none of them win the primary, well, I will probably vote for the Democrat.
I live in a swing state (Wisconsin) and would be more afraid of the mainstream Republican than Obama or Hillary.

Last two presidential elections I voted for Ralph Nader.  At the time I lived in Oregon(2000) and California(2004) so thanks to the electoral college those states are a relatively uncontested win for the Democrats.  At least for president.

Listen I am certainly not the just one to "trust the experts" but they are all just people too.
They want the truth just like you.  Maybe they more are blinded by their beliefs, education, or trust in the system, but not everyone on the inside of the mainstream media is working against positive change. 

What really needs to change is the way elections are run.  I think campaign finance reform would be a good start.  Strictly public financing would help even the field and allow for more views and choices.   Perhaps abolishing the electoral college system would be good step. 

One worry I have is that a man with good ideas is unwittingly being undermined by his own supporters.  I think the internet is doing great things to shine light on the truth but again the effort may be undermined by those that are so convinced they are right, they are unwilling to consider the possibility that they are wrong.

Again supporter of new ideas and change in general, trying to be a voice of reason.

[strgzr]

Listen I am certainly not the just one to "trust the experts" but they are all just people too.
They want the truth just like you.

I think they are more interested in shaping the truth than reporting it, and there's something sinister about that.
I commend you for voting for Ralph Nader. I voted for him last election myself. He's the only other possible candidate that would give Ron Paul a run for my vote. As for voting for a democrat if Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich don't get nominated, not in a million years could I vote for any except Dennis.
I can't see how Paul is being undermined by his supporters. Their enthusiasm for him is inspiring. Right or wrong? I don't know, but seeing how I voted for Bush his first term, I may not be in a position to judge. People make mistakes.

[37]

I wonder how many e-mails Harwood really got after Wastler's snide little letter?  He admits that he got "dozens and dozens" he also admits that he doesn't believe the poll was hacked.  Harwood's letter is more ridiculous than Wastler's, in that he admits that Paul has an active and substantial following.  What he basically says is that Paul can't win because:
1)"Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in."
                    -Isn't this the same party that proved itself to be out of step with the American Voter last November?
2)"Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections."
                    -What constitutes a minority when only around 65% of the population bothers to vote.
                    -Romney and Giuliani supporters are more likely to show up for elections than they are to vote in an online poll?
3)"To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent."
                     -1988 Poppy Bush won that year...clearly, people didn't have their heads screwed on straight that year. Irrelevant.
                     -When he discusses polls I am reminded of Karl Rove's faith in "polls" last November:
                                                                                                                        http://www.pollster.com/blogs/karl_roves_math.php

Rove claimed to be looking at 68 polls a day.  The truth of the CNBC poll and all of the others that we have flooded, is that we are active and we will vote for our candidate.  There are people out there who donate to the party and don't ever vote.  Don't forget that he admits that an active minority can influence an election.  These clowns have no idea that Ron Paul's views aren't just "respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held" they are also wildly popular with just about everyone who comes into contact with them.  Dr. Paul has cured a lot of people's apathy.  And I don't think any of us will accept the previous status quo ever again...I know I won't.