Glenn beck is right! PETA and Glenn beck on al gore/climate

[Greed and Death]

that's it I am increasing meat consumption 10 fold.

[Saint Jade IV]

I don't see how Al Gore is a hypocrite any more than your average person. At least he did something to raise awareness of the problem.

Using comments by a nutjob like Glenn Beck to bolster sad attempts to make people change their diets just shows how little the vegan cause really has going for them. They have to misrepresent the positions of people they should hate in attempts to have someone support their cause.

[Natapoc]

I don't see how Al Gore is a hypocrite any more than your average person. At least he did something to raise awareness of the problem.

Using comments by a nutjob like Glenn Beck to bolster sad attempts to make people change their diets just shows how little the vegan cause really has going for them. They have to misrepresent the positions of people they should hate in attempts to have someone support their cause.

Not really. I said that I don't agree with beck on anything except this point and that he would probably have me executed even because he so hates my policies. Pretending that I'm saying I support anything else that beck says is dishonest of you.

I personally think it is really funny that beck and peta agree on something. Although it is only on what someone else should do.

As I've shown previously the single greatest thing you can do as an individual to reduce your environmental impact is to not eat animal products. This is amazingly good news because it does not require complex credit schemes or anything like that. Just taking personal responsibility for your diet and it's effects on others.

[Saint Jade IV]

I don't see how Al Gore is a hypocrite any more than your average person. At least he did something to raise awareness of the problem.

Using comments by a nutjob like Glenn Beck to bolster sad attempts to make people change their diets just shows how little the vegan cause really has going for them. They have to misrepresent the positions of people they should hate in attempts to have someone support their cause.

Not really. I said that I don't agree with beck on anything except this point and that he would probably have me executed even because he so hates my policies. Pretending that I'm saying I support anything else that beck says is dishonest of you.

I personally think it is really funny that beck and peta agree on something. Although it is only on what someone else should do.

As I've shown previously the single greatest thing you can do as an individual to reduce your environmental impact is to not eat animal products. This is amazingly good news because it does not require complex credit schemes or anything like that. Just taking personal responsibility for your diet and it's effects on others.

For me, changing my diet to veganism would most certainly increase my environmental impact. The milk, eggs, vegetables and meat I buy are all locally produced. I live in a town which does not offer vegan protein and calcium sources without having them trucked in from out of state. So actually, by living an omnivorous lifestyle, my carbon impact is reduced.

Furthermore, for myself personally, it would be easier for me to live without electricity than without meat, eggs, cheese, milk and fish. If you are serious about reducing your carbon footprint, then it's quite easy to give up electricity.

I also have more respect for the station owners and the huge number of jobs and economies that are supported through animal agriculture out here than to simply eliminate them with no viable alternatives. I like people more than animals.

[Skeptikosia]

Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:

Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?

What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?

I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.

Sorry to hear it is a confusion. It sounds like you mean libertarian in the way that the US libertarian party uses it.

There was a discussion on it a couple days ago. I suggest you have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23141

The OP could really use some comments on his side since the majority seems to feel that left-libertarianism is valid.

This thread is not about my politics though so I don't really want to waste space on it. I was simply mentioning it in the OP to contrast mine to Glenn becks as a way of reiterating that I don't actually agree with him on most things.

See what I mean? I'm sorry for your headache. They hurt

Edit: I am starting to think this is what Skeptikosia was trying to say above expecting me to know that is why he had a problem with me. Skeptikosia, if that is the case please let me know. And read the link above for the discussion on the topic.

My initial disagreement was indeed based on dissonance between our uses of the word libertarian.

That being said, after reading the discussion at the link above, I still think the idea is a pile of steaming crap.

I'm reminded of why I gave up academic life. I got tired of watching people masturbate in public.

[Non Aligned States]

I did not. I linked you to farm sanctuaries that care for "farm animals" even now without a profit motive.

No you did not. You did not link me to anything. You may or may not have put up such a link in this board, but you did NOT link me anything.

The animals are "in the way of profit" the sanctuaries could be turned into profitable farmland but they are not because people care about them.

Charity cases, which these most assuredly are, at best can only preserve a small fraction of the total global livestock population. Unless these so called sanctuaries are willing to buy up the vast quantity of land all livestock raising farms are using, they cannot physically store the animals. This is in addition to the cost of feeding them, housing them in non-battery farm conditions, and staff to manage them. It takes huge amounts of money to do this, for no gain whatsoever. That sort of money for non profit veganism does not exist.

Once again, you fail to consider the consequences of your idealisms, vastly exaggerating the scale of what pitiful alternatives there are while downplaying the bloody mess it would create.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or a catastrophic failure at economic understanding.

[Seperates]

Oh I'm part of PETA!
Yup... I'm part of People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

In fact I think that Al Gore is helping the enviormental cause by eating meat.
Why?
Cause it gets rid of another farting animal!
He's not being a hypocrite at all !

[Free Soviets]

Oh I'm part of PETA!
Yup... I'm part of People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

wow, that's hilarious. did you think that up yourself?

[Rikker DAnconia]

Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
http://libcom.org/
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_communism
http://infoshop.org

Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?

What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?

I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.

Sorry to hear it is a confusion. It sounds like you mean libertarian in the way that the US libertarian party uses it.

There was a discussion on it a couple days ago. I suggest you have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23141

The OP could really use some comments on his side since the majority seems to feel that left-libertarianism is valid.

This thread is not about my politics though so I don't really want to waste space on it. I was simply mentioning it in the OP to contrast mine to Glenn becks as a way of reiterating that I don't actually agree with him on most things.

See what I mean? I'm sorry for your headache. They hurt

Edit: I am starting to think this is what Skeptikosia was trying to say above expecting me to know that is why he had a problem with me. Skeptikosia, if that is the case please let me know. And read the link above for the discussion on the topic.

No. As mentioned in the thread, you are actually supporting Anarcho-socialism/syndicalism, whatever you like to call it.
Also: part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal is a strong sense of individualism. This is impossible with any kind of communist/socialist society, by the very ideology behind it. If you need sources, google it, there are plenty of links out there.

Unless you can explain to me how a society that is collectivist by definition can be individualist.

Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.

Money does not "make" aggression.
'Night. ;P. I'll take it up with you in the morning if you would like to respond.

[Free Soviets]

part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal

even ignoring the illegitimately restrictive use of the word 'libertarian', these are not the same things. classical liberals were a big and diverse group, and regularly came up with ideas that right-libertarians now find abhorrent.

but more to the point, libertarianism covers a broad range of positions that are united by their professed love of liberty, and not individualism. that's why we have civil libertarians, for example, rather than civil individualists.

Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.

your use of libertarian is particularly weird and non-standard, since i can't see a reasonable way to claim that right-libertarians are the only legitimate libertarians and at the same time hold that anarcho-cappies are not libertarians.

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

[Skeptikosia]

part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal

even ignoring the illegitimately restrictive use of the word 'libertarian', these are not the same things. classical liberals were a big and diverse group, and regularly came up with ideas that right-libertarians now find abhorrent.

but more to the point, libertarianism covers a broad range of positions that are united by their professed love of liberty, and not individualism. that's why we have civil libertarians, for example, rather than civil individualists.

Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.

your use of libertarian is particularly weird and non-standard, since i can't see a reasonable way to claim that right-libertarians are the only legitimate libertarians and at the same time hold that anarcho-cappies are not libertarians.

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Please explain the differentiation between liberty and individualism in the context above.

[Free Soviets]

Please explain the differentiation between liberty and individualism in the context above.

individualism typically entails ideas of self-reliance and personal independence that are not so entailed by the idea of liberty. favoring protecting or expanding various liberties for individuals is in no way opposed to communal social arrangements, while advocating the anti-interdependence version of individualism probably is.

[Rikker DAnconia]

part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal

even ignoring the illegitimately restrictive use of the word 'libertarian', these are not the same things. classical liberals were a big and diverse group, and regularly came up with ideas that right-libertarians now find abhorrent.

but more to the point, libertarianism covers a broad range of positions that are united by their professed love of liberty, and not individualism. that's why we have civil libertarians, for example, rather than civil individualists.

Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.

your use of libertarian is particularly weird and non-standard, since i can't see a reasonable way to claim that right-libertarians are the only legitimate libertarians and at the same time hold that anarcho-cappies are not libertarians.

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?
Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft? How so?

Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...

I think we're missing the "initiation of use of force" part. Which, ya know, is a Libertarian thing... not at all incompatible with "forceful redistribution of resources"

[SaintB]

Typically I don't agree with glenn beck on anything much at all. If he was in charge I'd probably be executed for being a libertarian-communist promoter of earth, animal, and human liberation.

But a couple days ago glenn said something that was very true. Everyone who believes in human caused climate change has an obligation to become vegan today!

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of many of the top climatologists in the world, the meat industry causes more of the human caused climate change then anything else including ALL the worlds transportation put together (cars, trains, airplanes, private jets, ect.)

Glenn beck blasts al gore for not being a vegetarian:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTUu92JhgE

Peta joins in:
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEs-PtMRooY

Don't be a hypocrite like al gore. Do as glenn beck and peta says and be vegan today It is the most easy thing you can (not) do to reduce human caused climate change.

FARM (not associated with peta or glenn beck or me) gives free vegetarian starter kits. You can order one here: http://www.vegkit.org/

What are your thoughts on this? I never thought I'd side with glenn beck on anything. Does it mean I'm turning into a conservative? Should I go read more ayn rand?

What does it mean that PETA and Glenn beck agree on something?

its okay man, 500 monkeys with 500 typewriters and all that.

[Dakini]

I would actually agree with PETA on this. Glenn Beck is just a douche who would have picked on Al Gore for anything, but PETA does raise a good point. One of the easy ways to have a significant impact on how much CO₂ you put in the atmosphere is by adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet.

This is likely still true if you tend to buy local meats... most of the environmental impact from food comes from growing the food and transportation is relatively low impact in general. For meat (especially red meat), it's going to be a huge impact because not only are you raising the cattle, you're also growing crops to feed the cattle (and shipping the cow food to the cows, shipping the cows to the slaughterhouse, shipping the dead cows to the butchers etc...).

So yes, Gore should probably be encouraging a diet that is low on or excludes meat. And if he's going to do this, he should probably lead by example because he is a public figure and he also has some sort of clout and influence. I mean, the man managed to market a powerpoint presentation as a movie.

[Free Soviets]

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?

unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.

Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?

no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.

Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...

abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.

[Rikker DAnconia]

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?

unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.

Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?

no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.

Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...

abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.

... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.

My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.

[Natapoc]

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?

unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.

Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?

no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.

Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...

abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.

... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.

My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.

Read this for why anarchists feel that property is theft: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html

[Rikker DAnconia]

in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?

Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?

unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.

Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?

no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.

Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...

abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.

... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.

My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.

Read this for why anarchists feel that property is theft: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html

You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

[Free Soviets]

... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.

My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.

which words were too big for you?

[Natapoc]

You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.

We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.

But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?

Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm

Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?

here is a good quote

"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?"

See libertarians don't agree with sovereigns or kings. We have this whole no masters idea where we don't want to have to slave away for you or anyone else.

[Free Soviets]

Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

depends on whether we are talking about the particular bundle of rights we call 'property' in western civilazation, or some more abstract entity. in any case, possession is just one part of the modern bundle. in many societies possession was not linked to any right to alienate things like land.

[Rikker DAnconia]

You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.

We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.

But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?

Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm

Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?

*facepalm* yes I read the article. However, it is very large and I may have missed something... but... I'm referring EXACTLY to those things like a watch, toothbrush, car, etc. Those things, theoretically, ALSO came (eventually) from something else that someone else does NOT own. How are they different, and how are your rights to them different? How can one claim to own a toothbrush?

The claim that it does not impede on anyone else's rights (and therefore is ok) is invalid unless it applies to all things, including toothbrush, etc. (well, actually it is invalid anyway, we should probably define rights from the ground up to put the semantics aside.)

[Natapoc]

You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.

We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.

But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?

Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm

Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?

*facepalm* yes I read the article. However, it is very large and I may have missed something... but... I'm referring EXACTLY to those things like a watch, toothbrush, car, etc. Those things, theoretically, ALSO came (eventually) from something else that someone else does NOT own. How are they different, and how are your rights to them different? How can one claim to own a toothbrush?

The claim that it does not impede on anyone else's rights (and therefore is ok) is invalid unless it applies to all things, including toothbrush, etc. (well, actually it is invalid anyway, we should probably define rights from the ground up to put the semantics aside.)

Are you claiming that my right to my toothbrush makes me like a sovereign or king over someone else or that it somehow causes hierarchy for me to use my toothbrush? Honestly I'd share it with you but I think the germs would be bad.

[Rikker DAnconia]

You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.

The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.

We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.

But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?

Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm

Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?

*facepalm* yes I read the article. However, it is very large and I may have missed something... but... I'm referring EXACTLY to those things like a watch, toothbrush, car, etc. Those things, theoretically, ALSO came (eventually) from something else that someone else does NOT own. How are they different, and how are your rights to them different? How can one claim to own a toothbrush?

The claim that it does not impede on anyone else's rights (and therefore is ok) is invalid unless it applies to all things, including toothbrush, etc. (well, actually it is invalid anyway, we should probably define rights from the ground up to put the semantics aside.)

Are you claiming that my right to my toothbrush makes me like a sovereign or king over someone else or that it somehow causes hierarchy for me to use my toothbrush? Honestly I'd share it with you but I think the germs would be bad.

Yes, by your logic that is exactly what I am claiming.
By saying you'd "share" implies that you STILL think you have a right to it. But not other property. Interesting.
Well, I shall leave you gents to it. Let me know how it works out, won't you?