[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I never spanked my kid. He’s presently acing his first year in college, and recently signed an indie label record deal.
Just sayin’. [/quote]
Yea but your awesome
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
TORONTO (Reuters) - “Spanking children can cause long-term developmental damage and may even lower a child’s IQ”
I must be mentally retarded then. Who knows what I could have made of my life if I was not spanked so much as a child.[/quote]
Well, for starters, you probably wouldn’t employ fallacious logic to pseudo-rebut a study you don’t agree with. And, you’d probably have picked up on the fact that scientists now say there is no “controversy” over the subject any longer (from a medical/scientific standpoint) and not one study supports it. You’d also probably have surmised that such outcomes are not always certain, and behavioral displays and such are complex and difficult to measure, but as a parent would you want to risk it when you know that perhaps there is a better way?
See? Your parents fucked you royally. Call them now. Thank them. [/quote]
My sarcasm aside, I am not a huge supporter of spanking as a form of discipline and I agree there are most often better forms of discipline. I admit I have spanked my children in the past, but I can count on one hand how many times I have done so. And when I have chosen to incorporate spanking out of my toolbox of discipline techniques, it has been for situations that required an immediate change in a behavior that was extremely dangerous to my child or someone else.
As a child I swam across the Grand River and back towing my brother on an inner-tube (approx. 100 yards across). I was eight years old and he was five and could not swim a lick. Neither of us were wearing life jackets. My neighbor observed the incident and snitched me out to my old man. One of the worst â??beatingsâ?? I ever received. Can’t say that after receiving that â??beatingâ?? I was ever tempted to try it again. Don’t think that the other forms of discipline would have gotten my attention.
As for the statement made in the article about spanking lowering a child’s IQ, this is a ridiculous statement. I would like to see the study that proves this. I would have to believe that the data that was collected in this study is very subjective in order to support their claim.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
TORONTO (Reuters) - “Spanking children can cause long-term developmental damage and may even lower a child’s IQ”
I must be mentally retarded then. Who knows what I could have made of my life if I was not spanked so much as a child.[/quote]
Well, for starters, you probably wouldn’t employ fallacious logic to pseudo-rebut a study you don’t agree with. And, you’d probably have picked up on the fact that scientists now say there is no “controversy” over the subject any longer (from a medical/scientific standpoint) and not one study supports it. You’d also probably have surmised that such outcomes are not always certain, and behavioral displays and such are complex and difficult to measure, but as a parent would you want to risk it when you know that perhaps there is a better way?
See? Your parents fucked you royally. Call them now. Thank them. [/quote]
BG … you’re smarter than you look
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I never spanked my kid. He’s presently acing his first year in college, and recently signed an indie label record deal.
Just sayin’. [/quote]
Yea but your awesome
[/quote]
It’s true ID, you’re awesome…but not as awesome as you were with longer hair … it was so golden and voluminous
[quote]clinton131 wrote:
As for the statement made in the article about spanking lowering a child’s IQ, this is a ridiculous statement. I would like to see the study that proves this. I would have to believe that the data that was collected in this study is very subjective in order to support their claim.
[/quote]
Well, it’s settled then. I see you reviewed the study. Please post your Curriculum Vitae so that we may all “peer review” your qualifications.
By the way; by the time you’re old enough to swim 10 yards while towing your little brother, you’re old enough to understand a heartfelt lecture about how you and your brother could have died and risk death if the feat was attempted again in the future. You could probably then understand the risks of swimming unsupervised, etc.
Of course, if you were spanked frequently prior, all the above might not be the case and I’ll concede a 5 alarm ass whipping was justified.
On a serious note, we can all equivocate all we want but a spanking, and all permutations thereof, are an EXPRESSION OF VIOLENCE. As a father who has employed spanking on a limited basis in the past (under the same justification you expressed) in the past, I’m not comfortable with that. I’ve struggled with this now for the last few years and I’m done with it. I’ll find a better way.
And the first parent that raises their hand and states they spank their children without any anger whatsoever, I believe is in denial.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
The studies are showing correlation, not causation.
The authors of this also seem to be in the grips of some hardcore confirmation bias. There is a clear agenda here, and they found exactly what they were hoping to find.[/quote]
out of some 80 or more some such studies, not one as found to be positive.
why don’t you find a study that suggests positive outcomes?
i know, it’s a conspiracy of left leaning, hippy, vw van driving scientists, trying to trick us parents into not spanking our kids.
fucking mad scientists. [/quote]
I seem to remember a time when numerous experts recommended low-fat high-carb diets because numerous studies “showed” fat caused heart disease. Rational people now know there are “good” lipids and “not so good” ones. Until these actual studies are revealed I would bet they show correlation. I find it incredibly hard to believe not one study found any benefit to corporal punishment. A report about studies isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on unless the studies methodologies are revealed.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I definitely think they are equating spanking with beating. Sadly, most people don’t differentiate. I don’t see what’s wrong with spanking. You inflict minor pain on the child to reduce the chance of them hurting/killing themselves. In my mind, a 4 year old kid running across the parking lot away from you merits a spanking; him/her associating running in parking lots away from parents with physical pain could save their life. You can’t reason with a kid that young.
They don’t UNDERSTAND what getting hit by a car really means. They don’t GET IT. So you do what is necessary to protect them, and develop good habits in them. As they get older, and they develop logical thinking abilities to a higher level, you rely less and less on physical punishment, and more on punishments that don’t physically hurt, like grounding, time-out, go to bed without supper/dessert, etc.
Geez people, what is so complicated about this?[/quote]
I get your point, I really do, but in your example everything happens from when the kid takes off to seconds after he/she is spanked. The issue, and I think parents often overlook this, is why does the kid think it is okay to run in the parking lot, i.e what have the parents dome to say that it is okay.
An example: at my gym there are a handcap door with a button to open it. I see parents making a game out of pushing the button (in most cases it seems they are too lazy to open the door themselves). There should be no surprise when the 4 yr old runs up to the button, excited about pushing it, and bolts out the door into the parking lot. It happens with enough regularity other parents seem to be watching for it. And here is the thing, yes it is dangerous and the kid needs to be stopped and disciplined in some way - but the event is the fault of the parent. Why should the parent then spank the kid when it is mostly the parent’s fault?
The best parenting involves forethought, not just discipline after the fact. I think it might be somewhere in there, the parenting style, that effects the grey matter, not the act of spanking.
In threads on this topic before I think the case for the occasional and selective spanking has been made.
I also think kids are smarter than people think. There is no other time in a persons life that they do more complicated reasoning than as a young child.[/quote]
My perspective is that it’s human nature to see how much we can push the limits, how much we can get away with. So yes, forethought and preventative measures are essential, but not the whole picture.
Using your gym example…so are you saying in every case the adults pressing the handicap button (who aren’t handicapped) saw someone else do it, and that’s why THEY did it? Thing is, SOMEONE (more like many someones) started that trend, meaning they didn’t get that behavior from somebody else. They just wanted to do it. Maybe because they were wondering what it did, because they thought it was funny to say “fuck the man”, etc. But in the case of children (specifically young ones, ages 6ish and below), sometimes the only thing that will work is physical pain. I know the argument will come up “but what about when they know nobody is looking?”, and that’s a good point…which is why as soon as they’re capable of understanding such things, you try to keep them from doing dumb shit by explaining the consequences. Until then, another motivator for not doing something will have to do. Hey, it’s not a perfect world we live in.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
The studies are showing correlation, not causation.
The authors of this also seem to be in the grips of some hardcore confirmation bias. There is a clear agenda here, and they found exactly what they were hoping to find.[/quote]
out of some 80 or more some such studies, not one as found to be positive.
why don’t you find a study that suggests positive outcomes?
i know, it’s a conspiracy of left leaning, hippy, vw van driving scientists, trying to trick us parents into not spanking our kids.
fucking mad scientists. [/quote]
I seem to remember a time when numerous experts recommended low-fat high-carb diets because numerous studies “showed” fat caused heart disease. Rational people now know there are “good” lipids and “not so good” ones. Until these actual studies are revealed I would bet they show correlation. I find it incredibly hard to believe not one study found any benefit to corporal punishment. A report about studies isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on unless the studies methodologies are revealed.
[/quote]
horrendous analogy.
there has always been conflict over fats, lipids and heart disease. it’s been a moving target for quite some time.
in the corporal punishment area, according to the article there is not a SINGLE study that supports it.
And by the way, until YOU review the studies and evaluate the methodologies (assuming you’re qualified), your statement amounts to grasping at imaginary straws. at least come here and make your case for such a statement. i think according to the article, you’ll have 80+ studies to review and cull through. have fun.
anyway, i’m not here to win an argument or debate. i’m reformed. i just came to put some information into a thread. do with it what you will. i know how i’ll proceed as a parent. as for you or anyone else, i don’t care much what you do with your dog, or your child - as long as it doesn’t affect me and mine.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
On a serious note, we can all equivocate all we want but a spanking, and all permutations thereof, are an EXPRESSION OF VIOLENCE. As a father who has employed spanking on a limited basis in the past (under the same justification you expressed) in the past, I’m not comfortable with that. I’ve struggled with this now for the last few years and I’m done with it. I’ll find a better way.
And the first parent that raises their hand and states they spank their children without any anger whatsoever, I believe is in denial. [/quote]
I should clarify, just in advance…I don’t think that a parent who doesn’t spank is an inherently “bad parent”. Spanking is just a tool. Like time-outs, groundings, taking away toys, all that happy horseshit. It’s not the be-all end-all of parenting. Spanking, used properly, is a method to punish, by means of PAIN, not an act of violence. Unless, as you mentioned, the parent is doing it while still pissed off. When I was getting a spanking, and my parents were royally pissed at me, they would give themselves a bit to cool down, until they were calm, then they’d go ahead.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I definitely think they are equating spanking with beating. Sadly, most people don’t differentiate. I don’t see what’s wrong with spanking. You inflict minor pain on the child to reduce the chance of them hurting/killing themselves. In my mind, a 4 year old kid running across the parking lot away from you merits a spanking; him/her associating running in parking lots away from parents with physical pain could save their life. You can’t reason with a kid that young.
They don’t UNDERSTAND what getting hit by a car really means. They don’t GET IT. So you do what is necessary to protect them, and develop good habits in them. As they get older, and they develop logical thinking abilities to a higher level, you rely less and less on physical punishment, and more on punishments that don’t physically hurt, like grounding, time-out, go to bed without supper/dessert, etc.
Geez people, what is so complicated about this?[/quote]
I get your point, I really do, but in your example everything happens from when the kid takes off to seconds after he/she is spanked. The issue, and I think parents often overlook this, is why does the kid think it is okay to run in the parking lot, i.e what have the parents dome to say that it is okay.
An example: at my gym there are a handcap door with a button to open it. I see parents making a game out of pushing the button (in most cases it seems they are too lazy to open the door themselves). There should be no surprise when the 4 yr old runs up to the button, excited about pushing it, and bolts out the door into the parking lot. It happens with enough regularity other parents seem to be watching for it. And here is the thing, yes it is dangerous and the kid needs to be stopped and disciplined in some way - but the event is the fault of the parent. Why should the parent then spank the kid when it is mostly the parent’s fault?
The best parenting involves forethought, not just discipline after the fact. I think it might be somewhere in there, the parenting style, that effects the grey matter, not the act of spanking.
In threads on this topic before I think the case for the occasional and selective spanking has been made.
I also think kids are smarter than people think. There is no other time in a persons life that they do more complicated reasoning than as a young child.[/quote]
My perspective is that it’s human nature to see how much we can push the limits, how much we can get away with. So yes, forethought and preventative measures are essential, but not the whole picture.
Using your gym example…so are you saying in every case the adults pressing the handicap button (who aren’t handicapped) saw someone else do it, and that’s why THEY did it? Thing is, SOMEONE (more like many someones) started that trend, meaning they didn’t get that behavior from somebody else. They just wanted to do it. Maybe because they were wondering what it did, because they thought it was funny to say “fuck the man”, etc. But in the case of children (specifically young ones, ages 6ish and below), sometimes the only thing that will work is physical pain. I know the argument will come up “but what about when they know nobody is looking?”, and that’s a good point…which is why as soon as they’re capable of understanding such things, you try to keep them from doing dumb shit by explaining the consequences. Until then, another motivator for not doing something will have to do. Hey, it’s not a perfect world we live in. [/quote]
I am not looking to argue, I even agreed there might be cases where spanking may be justified. But I was giving an example I have seen over and over at my gym, parents telling their kids to press the button, kids running to press the Hutton, kids crying because someone else pressed the button, and perfectly mobile people going to the handicapped door and pressing the button. I am sure kids and adults alike have seen others do this. My point was encouraging kids to press the button has consequences. My daughter has asked about the button. I have explained to her that it is for people who have trouble getting through doors. She asked to press the button , I said no and explained why. We have talked about it several times. Just the other day a kid pressed the button and charged put the door into the parking lot. A mother coming in caught the kid (there are four doors to my gym, the handicap door is on the right going out, momwas going for that door and not the far right on for her). My daughter said that the boy should not have done that after pressing the button. She understands. She is also a young 3.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
On a serious note, we can all equivocate all we want but a spanking, and all permutations thereof, are an EXPRESSION OF VIOLENCE. As a father who has employed spanking on a limited basis in the past (under the same justification you expressed) in the past, I’m not comfortable with that. I’ve struggled with this now for the last few years and I’m done with it. I’ll find a better way.
And the first parent that raises their hand and states they spank their children without any anger whatsoever, I believe is in denial. [/quote]
I should clarify, just in advance…I don’t think that a parent who doesn’t spank is an inherently “bad parent”. Spanking is just a tool. Like time-outs, groundings, taking away toys, all that happy horseshit. It’s not the be-all end-all of parenting. Spanking, used properly, is a method to punish, by means of PAIN, not an act of violence. Unless, as you mentioned, the parent is doing it while still pissed off. When I was getting a spanking, and my parents were royally pissed at me, they would give themselves a bit to cool down, until they were calm, then they’d go ahead. [/quote]
I disagree with you.
And I’m not sure which I find more disturbing; acting upon a violent impulse perpetrated toward your child in the heat of the moment or, perpetrating a violent act with the benefit of an “adult time-out”.
Like you, Tex, not looking to argue and get my panties in a bunch. I understand your points, but I must ask this…what if your daughter pressed the button anyways? What would you do then? My own child, a 5 year old, would perfectly understand that I don’t want her to touch the button, and why I don’t want her to. But knowing her, she would do everything in her power to press it, just ONCE, because that’s just how she is. She always wants to try everything, and see what happens, insanely curious kid, to the point of disobedience. Having said all that, spankings do not happen often.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
The studies are showing correlation, not causation.
The authors of this also seem to be in the grips of some hardcore confirmation bias. There is a clear agenda here, and they found exactly what they were hoping to find.[/quote]
out of some 80 or more some such studies, not one as found to be positive.
why don’t you find a study that suggests positive outcomes?
i know, it’s a conspiracy of left leaning, hippy, vw van driving scientists, trying to trick us parents into not spanking our kids.
fucking mad scientists. [/quote]
I seem to remember a time when numerous experts recommended low-fat high-carb diets because numerous studies “showed” fat caused heart disease. Rational people now know there are “good” lipids and “not so good” ones. Until these actual studies are revealed I would bet they show correlation. I find it incredibly hard to believe not one study found any benefit to corporal punishment. A report about studies isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on unless the studies methodologies are revealed.
[/quote]
horrendous analogy.
there has always been conflict over fats, lipids and heart disease. it’s been a moving target for quite some time.
in the corporal punishment area, according to the article there is not a SINGLE study that supports it.
And by the way, until YOU review the studies and evaluate the methodologies (assuming you’re qualified), your statement amounts to grasping at imaginary straws. at least come here and make your case for such a statement. i think according to the article, you’ll have 80+ studies to review and cull through. have fun.
anyway, i’m not here to win an argument or debate. i’m reformed. i just came to put some information into a thread. do with it what you will. i know how i’ll proceed as a parent. as for you or anyone else, i don’t care much what you do with your dog, or your child - as long as it doesn’t affect me and mine. [/quote]
Please refer me to those studies and I will peruse them. The link I was directed to seems to have not provided any links or names of these studies. My analogy was quite fitting based on the causation/correlation argument.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Like you, Tex, not looking to argue and get my panties in a bunch. I understand your points, but I must ask this…what if your daughter pressed the button anyways? What would you do then? My own child, a 5 year old, would perfectly understand that I don’t want her to touch the button, and why I don’t want her to. But knowing her, she would do everything in her power to press it, just ONCE, because that’s just how she is. She always wants to try everything, and see what happens, insanely curious kid, to the point of disobedience. Having said all that, spankings do not happen often. [/quote]
Oh, she will probably give it a try. It’s what kids do. I will pick her up to remove her from the situation, set her down either in the car or outside and talk to her about it and tell her I will remove some of her stuff (art supplies, books, etc.). Taking away stuff has worked the best for us. I am sure I will nor be happy and I found that her seeing me upset is better conveying the seriousness of the moment than looking calm (as the books suggest). If it gets to the point that I think she is going to give it a try, I will yell her what the consequence will be then follow through when it happens.
This has worked for us so far, each kid and family is different.
I will admit I think out these types of scenarios way in advance, as in I skipped doing some typical teenage stuff so I would not have to lie to ky future unknown kids. I am even beginning to teach my kid about driving.
honestly, this whole causation/correlation argument is so nit-picky. Technically speaking, causation implies a population study while correlation implies a sample.
Since, in this case, a population study would consist of THE POPULATION, the numbers are just too damn large that no one has the resources (and I personally think the motivation) to collect such daunting numbers, that samples are pulled for the studies.
Now, you have to think, if they’re basing this article on 80 studies, that they’ve pulled enough data to get the sample as close to the population as anyone really wants to get it. Not to mention they’ve pretty much worked out most of the errors caused by biases within the data collection process in 80 studies.
Also, since they’re claiming what they’re claiming, I’m sure they’ve run countless (at least 80 amiright) hypothesis tests to which all (according to the article) have come out in favor of the hypothesis (i.e there is no data collected to render the hypothesis false).
I’m assuming these 80 studies they’re referring to aren’t done by the same 5 scientists and that the studies have been conducted by numerous reputable institutions by people who are more than well versed in processing data and running experiments. Hell, I’ll even go out on a limb and say a couple of these guys and gals might even have Ph.Ds!
We all know you’re not going to “peruse” 80 fucking studies. You’re certainly not going to pour over 80 studies worth of data (which would probably take you YEARS by the way … and let’s face it, this thread isn’t going to be in the top 10 pages of GAL, probably not even in the top 100 pages, by the time you’re done pouring over the data, running your own tests, only to report to us your findings). So, just admit that you really don’t have any logical reason to refute the findings that hundreds of people conducting 80 different studies and have all, more or less, come to same conclusion. You’re not going to find anything they missed. You’re not smarter than any number of doctors.
Just move on already.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
The studies are showing correlation, not causation.
The authors of this also seem to be in the grips of some hardcore confirmation bias. There is a clear agenda here, and they found exactly what they were hoping to find.[/quote]
out of some 80 or more some such studies, not one as found to be positive.
why don’t you find a study that suggests positive outcomes?
i know, it’s a conspiracy of left leaning, hippy, vw van driving scientists, trying to trick us parents into not spanking our kids.
fucking mad scientists. [/quote]
I seem to remember a time when numerous experts recommended low-fat high-carb diets because numerous studies “showed” fat caused heart disease. Rational people now know there are “good” lipids and “not so good” ones. Until these actual studies are revealed I would bet they show correlation. I find it incredibly hard to believe not one study found any benefit to corporal punishment. A report about studies isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on unless the studies methodologies are revealed.
[/quote]
horrendous analogy.
there has always been conflict over fats, lipids and heart disease. it’s been a moving target for quite some time.
in the corporal punishment area, according to the article there is not a SINGLE study that supports it.
And by the way, until YOU review the studies and evaluate the methodologies (assuming you’re qualified), your statement amounts to grasping at imaginary straws. at least come here and make your case for such a statement. i think according to the article, you’ll have 80+ studies to review and cull through. have fun.
anyway, i’m not here to win an argument or debate. i’m reformed. i just came to put some information into a thread. do with it what you will. i know how i’ll proceed as a parent. as for you or anyone else, i don’t care much what you do with your dog, or your child - as long as it doesn’t affect me and mine. [/quote]
Please refer me to those studies and I will peruse them. The link I was directed to seems to have not provided any links or names of these studies. My analogy was quite fitting based on the causation/correlation argument.
[/quote]
It is clear to me that you were beaten as a child.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
honestly, this whole causation/correlation argument is so nit-picky. Technically speaking, causation implies a population study while correlation implies a sample.
Since, in this case, a population study would consist of THE POPULATION, the numbers are just too damn large that no one has the resources (and I personally think the motivation) to collect such daunting numbers, that samples are pulled for the studies.
Now, you have to think, if they’re basing this article on 80 studies, that they’ve pulled enough data to get the sample as close to the population as anyone really wants to get it. Not to mention they’ve pretty much worked out most of the errors caused by biases within the data collection process in 80 studies.
Also, since they’re claiming what they’re claiming, I’m sure they’ve run countless (at least 80 amiright) hypothesis tests to which all (according to the article) have come out in favor of the hypothesis (i.e there is no data collected to render the hypothesis false).
I’m assuming these 80 studies they’re referring to aren’t done by the same 5 scientists and that the studies have been conducted by numerous reputable institutions by people who are more than well versed in processing data and running experiments. Hell, I’ll even go out on a limb and say a couple of these guys and gals might even have Ph.Ds!
We all know you’re not going to “peruse” 80 fucking studies. You’re certainly not going to pour over 80 studies worth of data (which would probably take you YEARS by the way … and let’s face it, this thread isn’t going to be in the top 10 pages of GAL, probably not even in the top 100 pages, by the time you’re done pouring over the data, running your own tests, only to report to us your findings). So, just admit that you really don’t have any logical reason to refute the findings that hundreds of people conducting 80 different studies and have all, more or less, come to same conclusion. You’re not going to find anything they missed. You’re not smarter than any number of doctors.
Just move on already.[/quote]
meanie
[quote]polo77j wrote:
honestly, this whole causation/correlation argument is so nit-picky. Technically speaking, causation implies a population study while correlation implies a sample.
Since, in this case, a population study would consist of THE POPULATION, the numbers are just too damn large that no one has the resources (and I personally think the motivation) to collect such daunting numbers, that samples are pulled for the studies.
Now, you have to think, if they’re basing this article on 80 studies, that they’ve pulled enough data to get the sample as close to the population as anyone really wants to get it. Not to mention they’ve pretty much worked out most of the errors caused by biases within the data collection process in 80 studies.
Also, since they’re claiming what they’re claiming, I’m sure they’ve run countless (at least 80 amiright) hypothesis tests to which all (according to the article) have come out in favor of the hypothesis (i.e there is no data collected to render the hypothesis false).
I’m assuming these 80 studies they’re referring to aren’t done by the same 5 scientists and that the studies have been conducted by numerous reputable institutions by people who are more than well versed in processing data and running experiments. Hell, I’ll even go out on a limb and say a couple of these guys and gals might even have Ph.Ds!
We all know you’re not going to “peruse” 80 fucking studies. You’re certainly not going to pour over 80 studies worth of data (which would probably take you YEARS by the way … and let’s face it, this thread isn’t going to be in the top 10 pages of GAL, probably not even in the top 100 pages, by the time you’re done pouring over the data, running your own tests, only to report to us your findings). So, just admit that you really don’t have any logical reason to refute the findings that hundreds of people conducting 80 different studies and have all, more or less, come to same conclusion. You’re not going to find anything they missed. You’re not smarter than any number of doctors.
Just move on already.[/quote]
meanie