CSNbbs

(03-07-2021 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:In this instance, the law appears to be forcing a private citizen (see: social media company) to speak (see: host speech).

Does the government disallowing a private company from basically having a terms and condition about any kind of speech violate their 1st Amendment rights? I’m not sure it does - is the forcing of speech abridging one’s speech?

Hosting other's speech is 'speech'? Kind of stretch.

As to your last question, ask the Colorado baker who keeps getting sued upside the head for refusing to make specialty cakes that promote specific messages. At least in that case, you have an active act (making a cake) instead of a passive activity (allowing other's words to flow through your system).

If we were going to put the context correct, then if we are going to use your exemplar as 'speech', then the act of UPS shipping a parcel of political magazines is 'speech'. That really doesnt fly.

Only when you mangle the word 'speak' to an excess does it fly, mind you.

So does that perspective means the government could force a university to host a speaker? The government could force a sports team to play the national anthem before a game? In both instances the organizations are t the ones speaking, but they’re being forced to host speech.

If a private person/company’s hosting of language isn’t free speech, is there a difference between a social media company and any of the groups above?

And to the shipping company, should UPS be forced to ship Nazi pamphlets if they don’t want to?

We’re not talking about restricting services to protected classes (see the baker), we’re talking about forcing citizens/companies to provide a platform for certain speech.

Quote:And to the shipping company, should UPS be forced to ship Nazi pamphlets if they don’t want to?

Seems to me equal access laws already do that.

Quote:We’re not talking about restricting services to protected classes (see the baker), we’re talking about forcing citizens/companies to provide a platform for certain speech.

For 14th amendment equal protection purposes, gays are not a 'protected class'. But please mix and match concepts. Title VII is not the 14th Amendment.

(03-07-2021 08:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:And to the shipping company, should UPS be forced to ship Nazi pamphlets if they don’t want to?

Seems to me equal access laws already do that.

Quote:We’re not talking about restricting services to protected classes (see the baker), we’re talking about forcing citizens/companies to provide a platform for certain speech.

For 14th amendment equal protection purposes, gays are not a 'protected class'. But please mix and match concepts. Title VII is not the 14th Amendment.

I've got no dog in this fight (your response's tone seems to think otherwise). I'm trying to better understand the issue and discuss it, as I said to George previously. I read the initial article and thought it was an odd bill, and wondered if there was a 1st Amendment connection. The issue doesn't seem nearly as black and white as you're making it seem (or that the word speech was as mangled as you said it was).

Your response about equal access laws was vague to me. Are you saying private shipping companies are required to ship any and all materials because of these laws or something different? I know there are safety restrictions that allow them to refuse to ship certain goods - but they can't turn down businesses for X, Y, or Z? (I will say that this clearly gets into the mangling of the word "speech," but hosting speech doesn't seem quite to clearly mangled)

What about the other items you didn't respond to - what are your takes on those? Not 1st Amendment issues?

Quote:Are you saying private shipping companies are required to ship any and all materials

Where did I say 'any and all materials', lad? Obviously there *are* valid restrictions, i.e. nuclear bombs, nerve gas, gasoline, yada, yada, yada.

The concept is one of common carrier. And no, a sports team isnt a 'common carrier'. And, a common carrier cannot discriminate on items transported nor on what is being transported -- that is aside from the very safety related issues you talk of. And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is pretty much a brick in that framework that exists right now -- it says that if you act in the way of a common carrier, you gain exemptions from liability for what is put out their over your common carrier. If you act as a publisher, where you moderate, edit, and alter content -- then you lose the protection of Section 230.

So, no, a common carrier has zero ability to refuse a shipment of Nazi pamphlets, nor can they refuse a shipment of *any* political based communication. That is *not* 'any and all materials' as you rapidly expand the void around what I actually said. And not being able to refuse to transmit those publications is *not* compelled speech.

I think the common carrier analogy is a good one in the discussion of social media. In fact, it was your side that crowed night and day about how they *should* be classified as such under the proposed Net Neutrality thingies.

I have zero idea how you brought to the forefront a sports team, whose main purpose in life is *not* the transmission of information as a bright shining example. In your example of a sports team, my initial position is that a government edict to sing the national anthem would be direct government compelled speech. It doesnt come close to the neutral carrying provisions that I denote. So the sports thingy *is* a 1st amendment issue, but one that is kind of stupid given the example I noted.

(03-07-2021 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Are you saying private shipping companies are required to ship any and all materials

Where did I say 'any and all materials', lad? Obviously there *are* valid restrictions, i.e. nuclear bombs, nerve gas, gasoline, yada, yada, yada.

The concept is one of common carrier. And no, a sports team isnt a 'common carrier'. And, a common carrier cannot discriminate on items transported nor on what is being transported -- that is aside from the very safety related issues you talk of. And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is pretty much a brick in that framework that exists right now -- it says that if you act in the way of a common carrier, you gain exemptions from liability for what is put out their over your common carrier. If you act as a publisher, where you moderate, edit, and alter content -- then you lose the protection of Section 230.

So, no, a common carrier has zero ability to refuse a shipment of Nazi pamphlets, nor can they refuse a shipment of *any* political based communication. That is *not* 'any and all materials' as you rapidly expand the void around what I actually said. And not being able to refuse to transmit those publications is *not* compelled speech.

I think the common carrier analogy is a good one in the discussion of social media. In fact, it was your side that crowed night and day about how they *should* be classified as such under the proposed Net Neutrality thingies.

I have zero idea how you brought to the forefront a sports team, whose main purpose in life is *not* the transmission of information as a bright shining example. In your example of a sports team, my initial position is that a government edict to sing the national anthem would be direct government compelled speech. It doesnt come close to the neutral carrying provisions that I denote. So the sports thingy *is* a 1st amendment issue, but one that is kind of stupid given the example I noted.

You’ve got a really hard time not being rude, huh? But moving on...

That’s an interesting perspective, the argument that social media companies are common carriers, a la ISPs. But are they clearly a common carrier? Don’t they have algorithms and other ways of near editorializing content that one sees? It’s not like they’re a spigot of information that you turn on or off, they are actively pushing or pulling content based on perceptions of what one wants to see. ISPs don’t engage in the same kind of editorializing (well, at least we assume they don’t).

Your explanation of how you view social media companies as common carriers was really beneficial in understanding why you would view their actions very differently than a private institution like a university or a sports team - appreciate that.

To common carriers, is that a status that is given based on how a courtier service acts? So couldn't FedEx decide to start filtering/sorting mail based on content, but they would then be open to the legal ramifications of said decisions? Or am I off the mark on how common carrier status is conferred?

(03-08-2021 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2021 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Are you saying private shipping companies are required to ship any and all materials

Where did I say 'any and all materials', lad? Obviously there *are* valid restrictions, i.e. nuclear bombs, nerve gas, gasoline, yada, yada, yada.

The concept is one of common carrier. And no, a sports team isnt a 'common carrier'. And, a common carrier cannot discriminate on items transported nor on what is being transported -- that is aside from the very safety related issues you talk of. And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is pretty much a brick in that framework that exists right now -- it says that if you act in the way of a common carrier, you gain exemptions from liability for what is put out their over your common carrier. If you act as a publisher, where you moderate, edit, and alter content -- then you lose the protection of Section 230.

So, no, a common carrier has zero ability to refuse a shipment of Nazi pamphlets, nor can they refuse a shipment of *any* political based communication. That is *not* 'any and all materials' as you rapidly expand the void around what I actually said. And not being able to refuse to transmit those publications is *not* compelled speech.

I think the common carrier analogy is a good one in the discussion of social media. In fact, it was your side that crowed night and day about how they *should* be classified as such under the proposed Net Neutrality thingies.

I have zero idea how you brought to the forefront a sports team, whose main purpose in life is *not* the transmission of information as a bright shining example. In your example of a sports team, my initial position is that a government edict to sing the national anthem would be direct government compelled speech. It doesnt come close to the neutral carrying provisions that I denote. So the sports thingy *is* a 1st amendment issue, but one that is kind of stupid given the example I noted.

You’ve got a really hard time not being rude, huh? But moving on...

That’s an interesting perspective, the argument that social media companies are common carriers, a la ISPs. But are they clearly a common carrier? Don’t they have algorithms and other ways of near editorializing content that one sees? It’s not like they’re a spigot of information that you turn on or off, they are actively pushing or pulling content based on perceptions of what one wants to see. ISPs don’t engage in the same kind of editorializing (well, at least we assume they don’t).

Your explanation of how you view social media companies as common carriers was really beneficial in understanding why you would view their actions very differently than a private institution like a university or a sports team - appreciate that.

To common carriers, is that a status that is given based on how a courtier service acts? So couldn't FedEx decide to start filtering/sorting mail based on content, but they would then be open to the legal ramifications of said decisions? Or am I off the mark on how common carrier status is conferred?

But yet Facebook maintains a Section 230 exemption all the while doing such editorializing behavior.

And note, I didnt say they were common carriers. You are making up words in your quest. I said my view is that they should be viewed in the manner of a common carrier. Since you are so exacting in words in other frames, I would appreciate that same level here as a matter of course. Funny that.

(03-08-2021 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But yet Facebook maintains a Section 230 exemption all the while doing such editorializing behavior.

Are you saying that a politically-connected tech giant is able to enjoy the benefits of a legal regime without having to shoulder its burdens?

In the immortal words of Captain Renault: I am shocked, shocked...

(03-08-2021 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2021 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2021 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Are you saying private shipping companies are required to ship any and all materials

Where did I say 'any and all materials', lad? Obviously there *are* valid restrictions, i.e. nuclear bombs, nerve gas, gasoline, yada, yada, yada.

The concept is one of common carrier. And no, a sports team isnt a 'common carrier'. And, a common carrier cannot discriminate on items transported nor on what is being transported -- that is aside from the very safety related issues you talk of. And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is pretty much a brick in that framework that exists right now -- it says that if you act in the way of a common carrier, you gain exemptions from liability for what is put out their over your common carrier. If you act as a publisher, where you moderate, edit, and alter content -- then you lose the protection of Section 230.

So, no, a common carrier has zero ability to refuse a shipment of Nazi pamphlets, nor can they refuse a shipment of *any* political based communication. That is *not* 'any and all materials' as you rapidly expand the void around what I actually said. And not being able to refuse to transmit those publications is *not* compelled speech.

I think the common carrier analogy is a good one in the discussion of social media. In fact, it was your side that crowed night and day about how they *should* be classified as such under the proposed Net Neutrality thingies.

I have zero idea how you brought to the forefront a sports team, whose main purpose in life is *not* the transmission of information as a bright shining example. In your example of a sports team, my initial position is that a government edict to sing the national anthem would be direct government compelled speech. It doesnt come close to the neutral carrying provisions that I denote. So the sports thingy *is* a 1st amendment issue, but one that is kind of stupid given the example I noted.

You’ve got a really hard time not being rude, huh? But moving on...

That’s an interesting perspective, the argument that social media companies are common carriers, a la ISPs. But are they clearly a common carrier? Don’t they have algorithms and other ways of near editorializing content that one sees? It’s not like they’re a spigot of information that you turn on or off, they are actively pushing or pulling content based on perceptions of what one wants to see. ISPs don’t engage in the same kind of editorializing (well, at least we assume they don’t).

Your explanation of how you view social media companies as common carriers was really beneficial in understanding why you would view their actions very differently than a private institution like a university or a sports team - appreciate that.

To common carriers, is that a status that is given based on how a courtier service acts? So couldn't FedEx decide to start filtering/sorting mail based on content, but they would then be open to the legal ramifications of said decisions? Or am I off the mark on how common carrier status is conferred?

But yet Facebook maintains a Section 230 exemption all the while doing such editorializing behavior.

And note, I didnt say they were common carriers. You are making up words in your quest. I said my view is that they should be viewed in the manner of a common carrier. Since you are so exacting in words in other frames, I would appreciate that same level here as a matter of course. Funny that.

You’ve got a really hard time not being rude, huh? But moving on...

What do you think my quest is?

I'm sorry if I extrapolated too far based on your comment "And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism." - the prism being the "concept of a common carrier." I didn't think there was a functional difference betweenviewing them in a manner of common carriers and them being common carriers - my mistake.

Does 230 hinge on social media companies being neutral towards editorializing what content is shown to users? The law seems to allow for editorializing:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Getting back to the original thread, which was about a law keeping social media from being able to censor posts. Maybe Abbott just hasn't extrapolated enough about what "prohibiting social media companies from censoring viewpoints."

Frankly, I think the tech companies are under-regulated, as their influence is vast and significant. I don't know what the right answer is to try and address issues such as political bias, misinformation, etc.

(03-08-2021 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2021 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But yet Facebook maintains a Section 230 exemption all the while doing such editorializing behavior.

And note, I didnt say they were common carriers. You are making up words in your quest. I said my view is that they should be viewed in the manner of a common carrier. Since you are so exacting in words in other frames, I would appreciate that same level here as a matter of course. Funny that.

I'm sorry if I extrapolated too far based on your comment "And, I am becoming firmly of the opinion that some social media outlets should be viewed under that prism." - the prism being the "concept of a common carrier." I didn't think there was a functional difference betweenviewing them in a manner of common carriers and them being common carriers - my mistake.

The words 'should be' are a clear clue.

Quote:Does 230 hinge on social media companies being neutral towards editorializing what content is shown to users? The law seems to allow for editorializing:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Sometimes the raw law itself isnt sufficient. Section 230 has been used as a tort shield well beyond the string of items above. Further caselaw has expanded its breadth tremendously.

An entire branch of tort law has emerged with respect to online subject matter, and the actions that will kick the protections of 230 out, and what 'editorial' functions let a platform fall into the distributor side of the analysis instead of the publisher side.

Social media, imo, has expanded that breadth of protection to pretty much obscene dimensions -- imo they are freely exercising broad powers as a general rule that would remove 230 protection. In short, social media is partaking of both sides of benefit -- broad editorializing power *and* almost blanket exemption.

For me, the curtailment of 230 to how it is being exercised is a first step; the second step is to view the platforms more in the model of a common carrier mode.

Quote:Getting back to the original thread, which was about a law keeping social media from being able to censor posts. Maybe Abbott just hasn't extrapolated enough about what "prohibiting social media companies from censoring viewpoints."

The first to the punch was Gov DeSantis. My opinion is that this issue will be better addressed through individual state action like that contemplated in Fla or, much later, in Texas.

And in the specific realm of whether a private actor can be subject to a 'carrier theory' that regulates or mandates speech, there really isnt much of a question. A 1980 decision, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the Supreme Court ruled that California could mandate that the Pruneyard must allow protesters to engage in political advocacy there, even though it was private property. The mall wasn't being ordered to host particular messages, but rather serve as a carrier of a type of communication, which was political petitioning in this case. Note that the type of activity being mandated requires no active effort nor any active participation (i.e. creation activity) by the entity being ordered.

Change that to 'force you to bake a cake with a message', the context changes dramatically. Per my previous construct, being a channel is not speech.

I think it's a pretty good argument that the platforms could be treated like the law treats shopping malls, or how common carrier framework works with other delivery channels.

As for 'misinformation' etc, one step would be for progressives to actually live and operate like their liberal predecessors with respect to the idea of censoring and stopping talk --- but that mantle has now been assumed by the conservatives for the greater part.

I, for one, don't want quasimonopolisitic corporations influencing elections in the sharp manner that they now do -- not just through their own speech, but through the blocking of speech.

(03-07-2021 05:17 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2021 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think many people think about the 1st Amendment only in relation to what limits the government can place on what someone can say.

Many people think about many things in ways that miss the mark!

One question George... Do you believe that the Constitution (especially the BOR) by its design sets limits on Federal governmental actions only?

I believe that fully. That its purpose was (as stated in the preamble) to give the states and the people greater confidence that the Federal government couldn't do certain specific things... couldn't infringe on numerous specific rights endowed in us by our creator.

Facebook and social media are private enterprises... but I am fairly certain that much like the mail, they use public 'airwaves'. As a result, they are subject to regulation by groups like the FCC.

So I can say what I want and believe what I want... but the moment I utilize the internet, I BELIEVE (I don't know the legal cases or whatever) that I should be regulated like the mail. Interstate commerce. I am sure there are some issues there like you can write anything you want in a letter... that's not commerce... but if you are monetizing it (and facebook is) then you are likely subject to regulation.

Its a very interesting conversation and nuances matter.... If facebook were unmoderated, they would be free from most regulation IMO... but if they moderate, they need to follow guidelines more similar to 'news' outlets. I think that's the purpose of these 'this information is unverified' sort of things, but I don't see how they can possibly keep up with all of the posts.

Another Cuomo in trouble


"CNN's Chris Cuomo has come under fire for saying he's "Black on the inside" during an exchange with his colleague Don Lemon on Friday."

Bill Clinton made a similar claim.

Quote:We’re not talking about restricting services to protected classes (see the baker), we’re talking about forcing citizens/companies to provide a platform for certain speech.

Important distinction...

They've already decided to provide a platform for independent speech that is not under their control. You post it, it appears. They may or may not come back later and edit it. We're talking about forcing citizens/companies who have ALREADY decided as part of their business model to provide an open forum for speech... to provide 'equal access' to their platform. Isn't that more like opening a store and then allowing Republicans but not Democrats into it? The comment above implies that you're being forced to open a store.

Interestingly, I had an argument about this almost 20 years ago with my aunt, who was at the time a Washington liberal insider working on K Street on environmental issues. I told her 20 years ago that I thought people had the right to be 'wrong' about things... and she disagreed. WHen I told her that in the 1950's, it was considered 'wrong' to consider whites and blacks to be equal.. and in the 1970's it was considered 'wrong' to believe that the earth was warming... and I'd add now that in the 1990's or so, it was considered 'wrong' to believe in climate change rather than global warming.

I can't tell you what we just KNOW is a fact today and in the future we will KNOW was 100% 'wrong'.... but I know with certainty that there are and will continue to be such things... and it is this ability to challenge what we all 'know' that advances us. More to the specific argument of those who support 'cancel culture', you don't in ANY way change anyone's mind by telling them their opinions are not allowed. All you do is push them further away from 'the light' of learning and into the shadows where their opinions are not only tolerated (even with correction) but CELEBRATED and FOSTERED.

This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being distributed, let alone being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is a bunch of Nazis.

(03-08-2021 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:We’re not talking about restricting services to protected classes (see the baker), we’re talking about forcing citizens/companies to provide a platform for certain speech.

Important distinction...

They've already decided to provide a platform for independent speech that is not under their control. You post it, it appears. They may or may not come back later and edit it. We're talking about forcing citizens/companies who have ALREADY decided as part of their business model to provide an open forum for speech... to provide 'equal access' to their platform. Isn't that more like opening a store and then allowing Republicans but not Democrats into it? The comment above implies that you're being forced to open a store.

Interestingly, I had an argument about this almost 20 years ago with my aunt, who was at the time a Washington liberal insider working on K Street on environmental issues. I told her 20 years ago that I thought people had the right to be 'wrong' about things... and she disagreed. WHen I told her that in the 1950's, it was considered 'wrong' to consider whites and blacks to be equal.. and in the 1970's it was considered 'wrong' to believe that the earth was warming... and I'd add now that in the 1990's or so, it was considered 'wrong' to believe in climate change rather than global warming.

I can't tell you what we just KNOW is a fact today and in the future we will KNOW was 100% 'wrong'.... but I know with certainty that there are and will continue to be such things... and it is this ability to challenge what we all 'know' that advances us. More to the specific argument of those who support 'cancel culture', you don't in ANY way change anyone's mind by telling them their opinions are not allowed. All you do is push them further away from 'the light' of learning and into the shadows where their opinions are not only tolerated (even with correction) but CELEBRATED and FOSTERED.

Another important distinction is that 'gay' (nor transexual, nor whatever alphabet letter or pronoun one ascribes) is not truly a protected class in the manner that the poster opines so studiously above.

(03-09-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is Nazis.

Vegetarians waddle?

(03-09-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being distributed, let alone being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is a bunch of Nazis.

Who exactly is "working tirelessly to remove books from being distributed"? Is that a thing? If so... who is doing it?

(03-09-2021 12:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being distributed, let alone being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is a bunch of Nazis.

Who exactly is "working tirelessly to remove books from being distributed"? Is that a thing? If so... who is doing it?

Don't feed the disingenuous troll comment.

(03-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 12:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being distributed, let alone being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is a bunch of Nazis.

Who exactly is "working tirelessly to remove books from being distributed"? Is that a thing? If so... who is doing it?

Don't feed the disingenuous troll comment.

Good point.

I should add to my comment above... to make it more specific to the baker discussion...

Forced to open a store or sell specific products.

Facebook is like someone opening a commercial kitchen where anyone can come in and cook whatever they like and serve it to anyone who wants to eat it... deciding that they won't allow Halal food to be cooked in their kitchens. I see the baker situation more like telling a baker that he has to offer gluten free baked goods if he's going to be open, otherwise he's discriminating against those with gluten intolerance or just a preference for gluten-free.

(03-09-2021 12:20 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 12:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 12:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-09-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This really has to be the only country where no one scratches their head at a group of people who tirelessly work to remove books from being distributed, let alone being looked at, then the same group waddles home at night and screeches that the other side is a bunch of Nazis.

Who exactly is "working tirelessly to remove books from being distributed"? Is that a thing? If so... who is doing it?

Don't feed the disingenuous troll comment.

Good point.

Funny thing is if you open your eyes, it is all over your side of the map, My Friend. I mean, you all have replaced and supplanted the Moral Majority as the screaming fanatics of what should and should not be discussed, or printed, or even said.

Running from that sad fact with cute, pithy comments seems to be your path. Fun, fun, fun. (Apologies in advance for the cute, pithy, last sentence there, but it kind of highlights the issue, does it not?)