I read the conversation version of the article. In that version the link associated with the comment:
"Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines"
Leads to a lancet article "Vaccine misinformation and social media".
However this does not detract from the the halflings point. The article is not "meticulous research" at all, it is basically an op ed piece, consisting of a string of opinions and lacking a single reference.
So the person that would lecture us all on misinformation, is either incompetent, does not understand the term, or is herself misinforming by attempting to paint evidence for her argument as far more impactful then it really is.
Later she makes the statement "Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms"
This statement links to a single study (not studies) and the study is...wait for it....a modelling study. It is a (terribly simplistic) model of social networks, riddles with questionable assumptions the output of which has absolutely no relevance to a real world situation. Sound familiar?
This is not science. It is computer coding 101. They use no data from real social media networks they simply make up a grossly simplified network and then draw a bunch of assumptions from it. it is terrible work. Cheap and easy to do however, far more so than actual research.
This is not real science. These are not serious people. The conversation is a left wing echo chamber riddled with junk science and midwit people who are unfortunately not quite smart enough to have the humility to acknowledge how little any of us knows.
This is why we don't trust them. Not because of insidious "misinformers".
Thanks Tim. Interesting that the Herald reprint links to a different source. Just goes to show how reliable they are.
Thanks too for your analysis. Pity more people don't read more closely. Perhaps these self-appointed mouthpieces will be a bit more careful about their assertions
Well said. True science opens itself up to challenge, the 'left wing echo chambers' to which you refer aim to do exactly the opposite. The 'science is settled' APGW claim is a perfect example. Sir Halfling used fluoride as an example, which is on RFK's agenda. Yet instead of hearing his argument, he is dismissed with the cancelling blanket of 'conspiracy nutter'. Yet one article I read found 8 or 9 out of 10 of his big-tick items were already present in other first world countries such as Germany (no fluoride). I have no set opinion on this, but honest science does not stack the books by using carefully selected 'studies' (or study!) and cancel all alternative views with cries of heresy.
"This is not real science . . . " - absolutely spot on. Small people, small minds in a small self-congratulatory bubble, who've painted themselves into such a corner that their self-images and egos will never risk any other position.
For years I have watched/read the Gospel according to Petousis-Harris and her henchman, Michael Baker and acolyte, Nikki Turner. As a once medical school research scientist I have yet to see any of their assertions about misinformation backed up by actual facts, and as Tim Hinchliff says in a rather different way, it's all smoke and mirrors, ably backed up by the mainstream media. They are all going to look both incompetent and stupid as the actual reality of all this "misinformation" continues to be exposed by reputable sources. I've stopped reading their tripe as it's not good for my blood pressure.
BTW, the "contrarians" views about fluoridation are hardly ever that no contaminants should be added to water. Most people agree that chlorine needs to be added to kill bacteria. The mains reason opposing fluoridation is that the evidence that fluoridation causes harm is now overwhelming.
Since 2017 there have been 10 consecutive studies funded by the US Government’s National Institutes of Health that have found that fluoride is neurotoxic. Six of these studies compared fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of Canada and the US where they fluoridate at a level lower than New Zealand.
In August the final version of the 8 year fluoride-iq review by the US National Toxicology Program was published. They evaluated 72 studies, with 64 showing fluoride was neurotoxic. 18 of the 19 high quality studies, some of which are from Canada, showed fluoride was neurotoxic. They stated “This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
In September, an Obama appointed US Federal Court judge concluded, “Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and ordered the EPA to “reduce or remove the risk”.
In November, the Surgeon General of Florida, advised all municipalities to stop fluoridation. He said that “to continue with all the evidence there is today is public health Malpractice”. When asked about oral health he said that “Adding a neurotoxin to the drinking water was not the way to treat dental health, and that we must do better than that”.
Last week, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, a board-certified toxicologist and former director of the National Toxicology Program, from 2009 to 2019, said that the National Toxicology Program is now running a comprehensive meta-analysis that will likely show the linked drop in IQ rate is occurring at rates well below the 1.5 ppm. In fact, she said “ it’s quite clear that there may be really no safe level of fluoride just like there’s no safe level for lead,”.
Bruce Lanphear, an expert in lead toxicity whose work the EPA bases their lead standards on said “Fluoride exposure during early brain development diminishes the intellectual abilities in young children.”
Phillipe Grandjean, world expert in developmental toxicity, whose ground-breaking work on mercury set the basis the EPA’s 2021 standards said “The IQ losses associated with community water fluoridation are substantial and of significant public health concern.”
The editor of JAMA Pediatrics, the top paediatric journal in the world, said “The effect size [on IQ loss] is on par with lead. ... I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant.”
Communities in the USA are stopping fluoridation now, and it is highly likely that it will end throughout the whole of the US next year. This action is being taken not because of politics, not because of money, but because the scientific evidence is now overwhelming that fluoridation is harmful to health.
With respect you mistake my point. I was trying, clearly unsuccessfully, to point out that what may pass as "misinformation" is a validly held point of view. It was neither advocacy for or against flouride. I could have used another example but a commentator had mentioned fluoride so I ran with it. And as far as mainstream health is concerned it is a contrarian position although from your comment the pro-fluoride people may be contrarians.
Well, another good write. I certainly appreciate your balance in you articles for the problem with screening mis- & dis- information is that one's own bias all to frequently helps 'determine' whether the message is acceptable or not. Our country is neck deep in the perversion of truth, much of it led from the very top and simply reinforced by complicit MSM converts. The old adage of 'give me the child and I will give you the man' is of course critical here, for much of our official "information" is a deliberately twisted and biased narrative and intended to create a new platform of acceptance in the near future (the 'social cohesion' you rightly rejected). Read any formal teaching or Government info on matters Maori, or be brave enough to review our education syllabus, and you will find history being massively re-shaped. Good on the likes of Gary Judd for trying to halt this creep at university level, but unless we make some serious and urgent changes (are you listening Luxflakes?), then the battle is lost.
Back on topic, sorry for the rant, I can see only one true way to manage mis/disinformation and that is to follow the advice of John Stuart Mill. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... "
So any reporting or spreading of information should welcome further investigation. The synagogue type 'devil's advocacy' if you like. Discuss and compare until you reach some degree of truth. If your truth is sound, then be open to query. This is of course quite removed from 'only trust the pulpit of truth' from Jabcinda. That alone should have rung alarm bells for all.
Thanks for that close analysis. When I read Petousis-Harris's column, I was struck by the fact she never mentioned once the contradictory and plainly false messages that came from the govt and scientists like her about the vax's efficacy, transmission etc. These of course rightly fuelled criticism and scepticism.
My main conclusion was that she had learned nothing from the Covid experience and is still claiming the authorities always know best and critics should keep quiet.
Thanks for the comment Graham. Other comments have read the piece closely and have pointed to issues in the piece. Good critical analysis before accepting assertions as truth.
“The consequences of disinformation campaigns are not abstract or random. It is crucial to recognise that such campaigns are meticulously designed and executed with specific goals in mind…These campaigns leverage sophisticated strategies and technologies to manipulate public perception.”
What is she talking about? Where are some examples? This is fever-dream stuff. The only instance of this I can think of is the campaign to get us all to believe Covid was deadly and that the only solution was for everyone to take these so-called vaccines. Could Petoussis-Harris be what she fears most - a conspiracy theorist?
In the early days of the Pfizer Covid vaccine’s introduction into NZ, Petoussis-Harris claimed that it stayed in the shoulder and broke down rapidly. But the reality was that the modified mRNA vaccines were designed specifically to not break down quickly, and also to travel beyond the shoulder to the lymph nodes. The ‘modified’ aspect of the mRNA vaccines refers to the replacement of uridine with pseudouridine which enhances RNA stability. In addition, the mRNA was encased in lipid nanoparticles which both protected the mRNA and also enabled its wider distribution (including to the ovaries).
Did Petoussis-Harris know, or did she not know, that her statements concerning the stability and distribution of the Pfizer product were, to use her own words, ‘unmitigated misinformation’? Either way, it’s not a good look. According to Petoussis-Harris herself, she is guilty of disseminating either misinformation (inaccurate information spread without harmful intent, often due to a misunderstanding or mistake), or disinformation (deliberately deceptive and crafted to manipulate public sentiment or promote discord).
Many of the references she includes rest on the unquestioned assumption that Covid vaccines are safe and effective. Therefore, anyone challenging this assumption is spreading misinformation and disinformation. But if the vaccines are not safe and effective (and there is now very good evidence that they are not) then everything that is being argued falls apart. The references she provides are, without exception, mediocre and unimpressive, and it does not reflect well on Petoussis-Harris that she relies on these to support her arguments.
More recently, on X, she was challenged about a claim she made that there has been no increase in cancer, and that, anyway, there are no mechanisms by which the Covid vaccines can cause cancer: https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1852894752053887004
Shamefully, she did not enter into a robust debate and defend herself. Instead, she deleted her tweet. This is unbecoming of an academic. To be fair though, the graph she produced that used modelled, rather than actual, data, was indefensible. It was in fact a perfect example of both ‘deliberately deceptive disinformation crafted to manipulate public sentiment’ and ‘cherry-picking which is the practice of selecting data that support a particular argument while ignoring data that contradict it’.
Petoussis-Harris does not come right out and say it, but what she is more than hinting at (and this is echoed in her references), is that the solution is censorship. She thinks there hasn’t been enough of it. She is indeed advocating “a communitarian, collectivist approach to society that overrides the interests of the individual”. She does not want “a society that celebrates a diversity of views and an environment that favours the expression of those views”. She wants the opposite. It is curious that she does not express her opinion more directly and it seems that leaving the reader unclear about what she really means may be a deliberate strategy. With a subtle dishonesty, she masks her intent by utilising repetitive, banal and sanitised language, making it difficult to grasp what she is really getting at. Her article lacks a solid, substantive core. It has no soul. At heart, she is a Lysenkoist, and she is quietly, without hysteria and hyperbole, and in an apparently measured and rational manner, advocating tyranny.
One of the fallacies the author of the article did not mention is that of validation by assertion which I imagine is the way that she got to public health being a human right. Cannot find it in the Human Rights Act
"Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible." - hmmm, rather like, having vaccine passes so the fully vaccinated can have reassurance that they are safe from dangerous unvaccinated people when they go to a bar... because the vaccine is supposed to keep them safe...
"Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.”
- but, of course, messaging that emanates from governments would never do that, would it?? ("if you get vaccinated you will not die"..."it's pandemic of the unvaccinated"...etc)
“Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).”
Translation: governments, global organisations (that would include the WHO), and tech companies must censor information and promote desired messages(that is, messages desired by government)
Hmmm... what happens, if, as sometimes has been known to happen, governments are peddling mis-information??
My overarching instinct when covid erupted was 'can we all have all voices in the tent please?"...as far as the govt response was concerned. Then voices were sidelined or worse...emeritus prof Des Gorman became sidelined for one. The govt wanted a close-knit band of loyalists, some of whose quals weren't necessarily up to scratch....or that was my impression. Perhaps they thought it had to be this way. My personal response craved a 'catholic mixture'. This is my instinct for everything I have no expertise in..public health no exception.
Sumption, Gorman, The Great Barrington Dec team kept me sane.
I read the conversation version of the article. In that version the link associated with the comment:
"Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines"
Leads to a lancet article "Vaccine misinformation and social media".
However this does not detract from the the halflings point. The article is not "meticulous research" at all, it is basically an op ed piece, consisting of a string of opinions and lacking a single reference.
So the person that would lecture us all on misinformation, is either incompetent, does not understand the term, or is herself misinforming by attempting to paint evidence for her argument as far more impactful then it really is.
Later she makes the statement "Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms"
This statement links to a single study (not studies) and the study is...wait for it....a modelling study. It is a (terribly simplistic) model of social networks, riddles with questionable assumptions the output of which has absolutely no relevance to a real world situation. Sound familiar?
This is not science. It is computer coding 101. They use no data from real social media networks they simply make up a grossly simplified network and then draw a bunch of assumptions from it. it is terrible work. Cheap and easy to do however, far more so than actual research.
This is not real science. These are not serious people. The conversation is a left wing echo chamber riddled with junk science and midwit people who are unfortunately not quite smart enough to have the humility to acknowledge how little any of us knows.
This is why we don't trust them. Not because of insidious "misinformers".
Thanks Tim. Interesting that the Herald reprint links to a different source. Just goes to show how reliable they are.
Thanks too for your analysis. Pity more people don't read more closely. Perhaps these self-appointed mouthpieces will be a bit more careful about their assertions
Well said. True science opens itself up to challenge, the 'left wing echo chambers' to which you refer aim to do exactly the opposite. The 'science is settled' APGW claim is a perfect example. Sir Halfling used fluoride as an example, which is on RFK's agenda. Yet instead of hearing his argument, he is dismissed with the cancelling blanket of 'conspiracy nutter'. Yet one article I read found 8 or 9 out of 10 of his big-tick items were already present in other first world countries such as Germany (no fluoride). I have no set opinion on this, but honest science does not stack the books by using carefully selected 'studies' (or study!) and cancel all alternative views with cries of heresy.
"This is not real science . . . " - absolutely spot on. Small people, small minds in a small self-congratulatory bubble, who've painted themselves into such a corner that their self-images and egos will never risk any other position.
For years I have watched/read the Gospel according to Petousis-Harris and her henchman, Michael Baker and acolyte, Nikki Turner. As a once medical school research scientist I have yet to see any of their assertions about misinformation backed up by actual facts, and as Tim Hinchliff says in a rather different way, it's all smoke and mirrors, ably backed up by the mainstream media. They are all going to look both incompetent and stupid as the actual reality of all this "misinformation" continues to be exposed by reputable sources. I've stopped reading their tripe as it's not good for my blood pressure.
BTW, the "contrarians" views about fluoridation are hardly ever that no contaminants should be added to water. Most people agree that chlorine needs to be added to kill bacteria. The mains reason opposing fluoridation is that the evidence that fluoridation causes harm is now overwhelming.
Since 2017 there have been 10 consecutive studies funded by the US Government’s National Institutes of Health that have found that fluoride is neurotoxic. Six of these studies compared fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of Canada and the US where they fluoridate at a level lower than New Zealand.
In August the final version of the 8 year fluoride-iq review by the US National Toxicology Program was published. They evaluated 72 studies, with 64 showing fluoride was neurotoxic. 18 of the 19 high quality studies, some of which are from Canada, showed fluoride was neurotoxic. They stated “This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
In September, an Obama appointed US Federal Court judge concluded, “Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and ordered the EPA to “reduce or remove the risk”.
In November, the Surgeon General of Florida, advised all municipalities to stop fluoridation. He said that “to continue with all the evidence there is today is public health Malpractice”. When asked about oral health he said that “Adding a neurotoxin to the drinking water was not the way to treat dental health, and that we must do better than that”.
Last week, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, a board-certified toxicologist and former director of the National Toxicology Program, from 2009 to 2019, said that the National Toxicology Program is now running a comprehensive meta-analysis that will likely show the linked drop in IQ rate is occurring at rates well below the 1.5 ppm. In fact, she said “ it’s quite clear that there may be really no safe level of fluoride just like there’s no safe level for lead,”.
Bruce Lanphear, an expert in lead toxicity whose work the EPA bases their lead standards on said “Fluoride exposure during early brain development diminishes the intellectual abilities in young children.”
Phillipe Grandjean, world expert in developmental toxicity, whose ground-breaking work on mercury set the basis the EPA’s 2021 standards said “The IQ losses associated with community water fluoridation are substantial and of significant public health concern.”
The editor of JAMA Pediatrics, the top paediatric journal in the world, said “The effect size [on IQ loss] is on par with lead. ... I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water if she were pregnant.”
Communities in the USA are stopping fluoridation now, and it is highly likely that it will end throughout the whole of the US next year. This action is being taken not because of politics, not because of money, but because the scientific evidence is now overwhelming that fluoridation is harmful to health.
See fluoridefree.org.nz for references.
With respect you mistake my point. I was trying, clearly unsuccessfully, to point out that what may pass as "misinformation" is a validly held point of view. It was neither advocacy for or against flouride. I could have used another example but a commentator had mentioned fluoride so I ran with it. And as far as mainstream health is concerned it is a contrarian position although from your comment the pro-fluoride people may be contrarians.
Well, another good write. I certainly appreciate your balance in you articles for the problem with screening mis- & dis- information is that one's own bias all to frequently helps 'determine' whether the message is acceptable or not. Our country is neck deep in the perversion of truth, much of it led from the very top and simply reinforced by complicit MSM converts. The old adage of 'give me the child and I will give you the man' is of course critical here, for much of our official "information" is a deliberately twisted and biased narrative and intended to create a new platform of acceptance in the near future (the 'social cohesion' you rightly rejected). Read any formal teaching or Government info on matters Maori, or be brave enough to review our education syllabus, and you will find history being massively re-shaped. Good on the likes of Gary Judd for trying to halt this creep at university level, but unless we make some serious and urgent changes (are you listening Luxflakes?), then the battle is lost.
Back on topic, sorry for the rant, I can see only one true way to manage mis/disinformation and that is to follow the advice of John Stuart Mill. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... "
So any reporting or spreading of information should welcome further investigation. The synagogue type 'devil's advocacy' if you like. Discuss and compare until you reach some degree of truth. If your truth is sound, then be open to query. This is of course quite removed from 'only trust the pulpit of truth' from Jabcinda. That alone should have rung alarm bells for all.
Thanks for that close analysis. When I read Petousis-Harris's column, I was struck by the fact she never mentioned once the contradictory and plainly false messages that came from the govt and scientists like her about the vax's efficacy, transmission etc. These of course rightly fuelled criticism and scepticism.
My main conclusion was that she had learned nothing from the Covid experience and is still claiming the authorities always know best and critics should keep quiet.
Thanks for the comment Graham. Other comments have read the piece closely and have pointed to issues in the piece. Good critical analysis before accepting assertions as truth.
Petoussis-Harris states:
“The consequences of disinformation campaigns are not abstract or random. It is crucial to recognise that such campaigns are meticulously designed and executed with specific goals in mind…These campaigns leverage sophisticated strategies and technologies to manipulate public perception.”
What is she talking about? Where are some examples? This is fever-dream stuff. The only instance of this I can think of is the campaign to get us all to believe Covid was deadly and that the only solution was for everyone to take these so-called vaccines. Could Petoussis-Harris be what she fears most - a conspiracy theorist?
In the early days of the Pfizer Covid vaccine’s introduction into NZ, Petoussis-Harris claimed that it stayed in the shoulder and broke down rapidly. But the reality was that the modified mRNA vaccines were designed specifically to not break down quickly, and also to travel beyond the shoulder to the lymph nodes. The ‘modified’ aspect of the mRNA vaccines refers to the replacement of uridine with pseudouridine which enhances RNA stability. In addition, the mRNA was encased in lipid nanoparticles which both protected the mRNA and also enabled its wider distribution (including to the ovaries).
Did Petoussis-Harris know, or did she not know, that her statements concerning the stability and distribution of the Pfizer product were, to use her own words, ‘unmitigated misinformation’? Either way, it’s not a good look. According to Petoussis-Harris herself, she is guilty of disseminating either misinformation (inaccurate information spread without harmful intent, often due to a misunderstanding or mistake), or disinformation (deliberately deceptive and crafted to manipulate public sentiment or promote discord).
Many of the references she includes rest on the unquestioned assumption that Covid vaccines are safe and effective. Therefore, anyone challenging this assumption is spreading misinformation and disinformation. But if the vaccines are not safe and effective (and there is now very good evidence that they are not) then everything that is being argued falls apart. The references she provides are, without exception, mediocre and unimpressive, and it does not reflect well on Petoussis-Harris that she relies on these to support her arguments.
A complaint to the WHO in 2016 raised questions about Petoussis-Harris’s competence and credibility (it’s an interesting read if you’re technically inclined, especially the part about her PhD thesis): http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/Allegations-of-Scientific-Misconduct-by-GACVS.pdf
More recently, on X, she was challenged about a claim she made that there has been no increase in cancer, and that, anyway, there are no mechanisms by which the Covid vaccines can cause cancer: https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1852894752053887004
Shamefully, she did not enter into a robust debate and defend herself. Instead, she deleted her tweet. This is unbecoming of an academic. To be fair though, the graph she produced that used modelled, rather than actual, data, was indefensible. It was in fact a perfect example of both ‘deliberately deceptive disinformation crafted to manipulate public sentiment’ and ‘cherry-picking which is the practice of selecting data that support a particular argument while ignoring data that contradict it’.
Petoussis-Harris does not come right out and say it, but what she is more than hinting at (and this is echoed in her references), is that the solution is censorship. She thinks there hasn’t been enough of it. She is indeed advocating “a communitarian, collectivist approach to society that overrides the interests of the individual”. She does not want “a society that celebrates a diversity of views and an environment that favours the expression of those views”. She wants the opposite. It is curious that she does not express her opinion more directly and it seems that leaving the reader unclear about what she really means may be a deliberate strategy. With a subtle dishonesty, she masks her intent by utilising repetitive, banal and sanitised language, making it difficult to grasp what she is really getting at. Her article lacks a solid, substantive core. It has no soul. At heart, she is a Lysenkoist, and she is quietly, without hysteria and hyperbole, and in an apparently measured and rational manner, advocating tyranny.
Exactly
" a tightrope between freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights.”
Oh, I didn't notice when did 'protecting public health' become a human right?
(... and if it were, wouldn't that then involve ensuring hospital systems are not stretched past capacity)
My hypocrisy sensor is sending me alerts while reading extracts of her article...
Sally
Thanks for your comments on this piece.
One of the fallacies the author of the article did not mention is that of validation by assertion which I imagine is the way that she got to public health being a human right. Cannot find it in the Human Rights Act
"Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible." - hmmm, rather like, having vaccine passes so the fully vaccinated can have reassurance that they are safe from dangerous unvaccinated people when they go to a bar... because the vaccine is supposed to keep them safe...
"Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.”
- but, of course, messaging that emanates from governments would never do that, would it?? ("if you get vaccinated you will not die"..."it's pandemic of the unvaccinated"...etc)
“Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).”
Translation: governments, global organisations (that would include the WHO), and tech companies must censor information and promote desired messages(that is, messages desired by government)
Hmmm... what happens, if, as sometimes has been known to happen, governments are peddling mis-information??
Thanks David.
My overarching instinct when covid erupted was 'can we all have all voices in the tent please?"...as far as the govt response was concerned. Then voices were sidelined or worse...emeritus prof Des Gorman became sidelined for one. The govt wanted a close-knit band of loyalists, some of whose quals weren't necessarily up to scratch....or that was my impression. Perhaps they thought it had to be this way. My personal response craved a 'catholic mixture'. This is my instinct for everything I have no expertise in..public health no exception.
Sumption, Gorman, The Great Barrington Dec team kept me sane.
Enjoyed all the replies here.