>Did anyone else get the impression that this guy sees the net >as a big video game set up for his personal entertainment, and >that he doesn't particularly care whether or not there are real >people at the other end?
Seems appropriate, since there clearly aren't any real people at his end.
> Hmmmmmm. There is a strong correlation between incidence of depression > and female sex too. Why? Well, come to find out, when the definition > of clinical depression used to make the diagnosis was developed, it > included feelings commonly expressed by women in certain situations > likely to promote depression, and excluded feelings commonly expressed > by men in the same situations (I can pull up a source if desired, not > with me) Therefore, depression is defined in a way which biases the > diagnosis towards including more women.
[snip, snip]
Jumping totally off the subject....
That's a very good and important point, but I think the corrected numbers still show a higher incidence of major depressive episodes among women. [Digging through notes] An instructor of mine cited a 1994 study that reported 13% of women having a major depressive episode in the last 12 months, while only 8% for men. Lifetime rates were near 21% for women and 13% for men. Still about double.
Of course, no study is without it's faults. The last speculations that I heard on the differences revolved around: women's roles in society, the fact that women dwell on problems and ruminate about them, and changes due to hormonal levels.
Lurk, lurk
Now, where did that asbestos labcoat get to????
Bill -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Gundlach bgund...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu University of Toledo - Chemistry Department (Sr. Undergrad Lab Rat) "You were bred for humanity, but sold to society..." JT ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stef Jones <s...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Yes, but in the vast majority of cases, something like 90%, people who diet >>and exercise to lose weight gain the weight back within five years. >Those that gain the (fat) weight back, do so b/c they quit the diet and >exercise plan. This can happen for any number of reasons, but topping >the list are:
> 1) they did not enjoy their chosen exercise plan > 2) they did not enjoy (or could not abide by) their chosen > diet plan
[long explanation deleted]
If there were simple explanations like this, then a greater percentage of weight-loss dieters would be successful in keeping their weight off. We're talking 90% failure rate after five years, and this includes sensible diet/exercise plans. I would look for other explanations besides weakness of will - physiological explanations.
-- Stef rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty s...@netcom.com It's like looking for a camel in a haystack. --Mixed metaphor hall of fame
>As I stated above, given the athlectic womans relationship potential, >any psychological problems she may have, may well be worth accepting >and dealing with.
speaking of somebody who has obvious psychological problems...
the plonks are gallopping closer and closer. they're lowering their horned heads.
Keith Warren Rickert <rick...@cco.caltech.edu> writes:
>Some people have metabolisms so convinced that their owner is >in danger of starvation, that they operate at remarkable levels >of efficiency, and these people can gain large amounts of weight >at even smaller portions than most people eat.
when l. and i were living together, we ran an experiment for 2 months. we designed an eating regimen according to nutritionally sound advice. we both tried to do pretty much the same things; except for work (which we both did mostly from behind a desk) we did most things together. we ate together; ate the same things. we both got almost the identical amount of exercise. after 2 months l. had lost 8 pounds while i had gained 1. that pretty much con- vinced l. that people can have quite different metabolisms. it had always bugged me that l. didn't move anywhere as much as i, ate huge amounts of food compared to what i ate, and yet was skinny as a stick (while l. thought i _must_ be eating secretly). it was quite a satisfactory exper- ience for me and it shut l. up for good. :-)
[we. the people, recognize the kiss of death when we feel a chilly draft.]
>My name is Sydney. Please do not truncate or amputate my name. And >I will chill when I've conveyed my point to you, or demonstrated beyond >a reasonable doubt to the people scoring at home that you, David Sandelands, >probably wouldn't recognize or acknowledge a valid point if it jumped >onto your coffee table in a strapless dress and did the can-can for your >viewing pleasure. [all the serious stuff deleted.]
uhm, sydney? i have it on good authority that the people scoring at home feel you have indeed demonstrated it beyond a reasonable doubt. in fact the valid point stripped and wiggled its nekkid butt in david sandelands' face and he still did not recognize it. (it tried sparkling some and showing more cleavage, but that was not enough.)
we, the people, feel david has a promising career ahead of him as chicken feed.
>Seeking job in New Brunswick area doing tarot card readings. E-mail for >sample prediction.
sorry, but there is a surplus of tarot card readers in the new brunswick area. however, since it's a college town, you might want to consider doing "nice guy" make-overs. :-)
>>I am (slightly) interested in knowing why someone would deliberately choose >>an unhealthy lifestyle. Particularly one that limits ones ability to engage >>in strenuous activity and generally limits ones ability to fully enjoy life.
> Shitforbrains, this is the real world; why, it's perfectly >possible that you might actually encounter one of us on the street.
Though he might want to hope he doesn't encounter some of us in a dark alley.....
Though I could always use the insanity plea, since, by using Mr. Sandelands own definition, I am _obviously_ "psychologically disturbed." <chortle>
> In article "piranha" <p00...@psilink.com> writes: > when l. and i were living together, we ran an experiment > for 2 months. we designed an eating regimen according to > nutritionally sound advice. we both tried to do pretty > much the same things; except for work (which we both did > mostly from behind a desk) we did most things together. > we ate together; ate the same things. we both got almost > the identical amount of exercise. after 2 months l. had > lost 8 pounds while i had gained 1. that pretty much con- > vinced l. that people can have quite different metabolisms. > it had always bugged me that l. didn't move anywhere as > much as i, ate huge amounts of food compared to what i ate, > and yet was skinny as a stick (while l. thought i _must_ > be eating secretly). it was quite a satisfactory exper- > ience for me and it shut l. up for good. :-)
Something very similar happened to me a few years back. My best friend and I started eating the same things - basically, she ate what I usually eat. We had very similar lifestyles. At the end of about two weeks, she had lost ten (!) pounds and I was the same weight as when we started. She called it the "Mary Reiter diet" and now, whenever she wants to lose weight, she eats like me.
> I've got a headhunter calling *every* *day* trying to get me > into a DBA job there, and using the most *amusing* threats (yes, up > to and including "You'll never work in this town again!") to try to > convince me to take it. It's *buckets* O fun, particularly since > this headhunter is also trying to sabotage other job offers so that > I can become an overworked minion of Hollywood.
Sheesh. Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit.
Now, if I were the sinister type, I'd advise you to tap your own phone, to have on recorded media his threats to keep you from work so you can play them back for your listening enjoyment, like perhaps in the presence of his lawyer and a DA in a discovery meeting under the heading "extortion". I remember bugging someone else's phone being of dubious legality, but your own is most probably fair game. Then again, I'm just an innocent Canadian, completely devoid of malice and guile. I wouldn't *dream* of using someone else's words against him.
Francois.
"But that would be WRONG." Richard Milhous Nixon, 1912-1994
>>Mary <mrei...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes: >>Seeking job in New Brunswick area doing tarot card readings. E-mail for >>sample prediction. > In article "piranha" <p00...@psilink.com> writes: > sorry, but there is a surplus of tarot card readers in the > new brunswick area. however, since it's a college town, you > might want to consider doing "nice guy" make-overs. :-)
And make them over into jerks? I think the ex would be better at that. :-)
In article <2phdvb$...@lynx.unm.edu>, David Sandelands <sande...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote: >James Anthony Mayhar (jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu) wrote: >: In article <9404211816.AA20...@bcserv.wustl.edu>, >: Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@bcserv.wustl.edu> wrote: >: >04202318.AA18...@bcserv.wustl.edu> <2p625i$...@acsc.com> >: >fmay...@acsc.com (Frank Mayhar) writes: >: >>In article <9404202318.AA18...@bcserv.wustl.edu>, syd...@bcserv.wustl.edu >: >>(Sydney D. Hoeltzli) writes: >: >>|> _WHISTLE_ *whooop!!!* (waves) Jeem! Francois! Frank! Over here! >: >>|> TELL Mr. Sandebrains what he might win! >: >>What? Huh? Who? Oh, him. Sydney, I plonked him so hard and so quickly >: >>that he never had a chance to react. >: > >: >*heh* >: >I was referring more to the sentiment I understood him to express, >: >to whit, that "one must question" and speculate about the psychological >: >problems of fat people (even though he acknowledges that they might >: >not be such as to prevent said fat person from being a staunch friend) >: >because fat people don't interest him romantically, but that "any >: >psychological problems" Ms. Slim Hardbody might possess don't elicit >: >similar questioning and "may be worth accepting" for the sake of >: >the romantic potential. I thought you might have some useful commentary >: >on the concept that "any psychological problems" may be worth accepting >: >from an object of romantic interest. Brevity and succinctness preferred :) >: > >: >*nasty chuckle* >: >Sydney's Evil Twin > >: IME, psychological problems don't become apparent until much later, in >: a developing relationship, than the initial "damn, that person's >: attractive" phase. If the trigger is pulled, looks are totally irrelevant, >: as are any other 'rational' decisions one may have made regarding choosing >: a SO. Irony abounds in new relationships. I spent a bit too much time >: with a sarcastic, mean minded woman simply because I was overcome with >: FBC's. Meeting her now, I can't imagine what I ever saw in her. > >: As for D'idiot Sandebrains, I'm waiting for him to question my mental >: stability because I don't fit his image of a potential mate. He did not, >: after all, make any distinctions other than physical fitness. If then, >: he were standing behind me at the checkout line in the grocery store, I >: must assume that since I am a male and thus not attractive to him, that I >: must, in his opinion, have a psychological disorder. (What a straight >: line. Shields up!) Or, perhaps not. He never said that he wasn't >: attracted to muscular men, afterall. Hey, David, how about it?R > >: James Mayhar >: jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu > >: And Sydney? Ahm pahtial to women of all sizes and shapes.;-) > >Sorry Frank, I only sleep with women.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
>You on the other hand, imply anything is suitible as long as "the trigger is >pulled". In that case, hey ROSEANNE, dump Tom FRANKIE is waiting. >Hey Tom, Frankie's waiting for you too. > Hey, Sandebrains! I just love to see someone exhibit stupidity as well as you have. If you'll go back and look at the attributions, you'll see that Frank and James are two (2), I say, two, different people.
As far as what you say I'm implying, you're dead wrong. What I said wasn't a normative assertion at all. (Feel free to go and look up the words that you're having trouble with, David.) My statement was that people,IME, have little, if any, control over who they fall for, physical characteristics notwithstanding. Speaking strictly for myself, I had much rather spend my time with a person, whatever the physical characteristics, than with a most gorgeous woman with whom I spent many a happy hour, followed by guilt trips, power trips, sarcastic jabs at my ideosyncracies, ad nauseum. Indeed, one of the most memorable encounters of my life was with a woman who was what you would quite likely consider overweight.(Of course, she could probably bench press *you*, but the muscle didn't show.) It was the only time I have spent time with a woman and wasn't afraid that my hands might inadvertently do something that would hurt her. I would suggest that expecting the world to conform to your expectations will never have any but negative consequences for you. How you conduct your life is your business. Don't try to tell me what is right for me.
Oh, and I hear that surgery is now available for your 'problem' You can have that recto-cranial inversion corrected, although I'm told the treatment may not be permanent. Relapses are common.
jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu (James Anthony Mayhar) writes:
>And Sydney? Ahm pahtial to women of all sizes and shapes.;-)
You only present your full self to men ?
Do some of your organs shut down from lack of blood when said blood is required by other organs in the presence of women of all shapes and sizes ?
I can see that that might be a problem...
WOASS: <Woman of a shape and size> "Hi there."
James: "Hi t- hi- " <THUD>
WOAnSS: <Woman of another shape and size> "What happened ?"
WOASS: "I don't know. He looked at me, got, um, 'excited', and fainted !"
WOAnSS: "Gosh, he fell face forward. That must have *hurt*..."
- Tony Q.
--- Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no) "At school they taught me how to be, so pure in thought and word and deed. They didn't quite succeed..." - PSB
In article <2pi5as$...@golem.wcc.govt.nz>, <quirk...@ix.wcc.govt.nz> wrote: >jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu (James Anthony Mayhar) writes: >>And Sydney? Ahm pahtial to women of all sizes and shapes.;-) > You only present your full self to men ?
Well, so far, in this medium, the only ones who have exhibited such an intolerance to difference that I felt compelled to respond have been men. As a result of my training no doubt, critical rebuttal is the response type I like best. This often seems innappropriate for the discussions in progress.
Oh, and did I put my foot in my mouth somewhere up there? I seem to detect that familiar taste of toes.
> Do some of your organs shut down from lack of blood when said blood >is required by other organs in the presence of women of all shapes >and sizes ? > I can see that that might be a problem...
Well, umm, it can be a problem when one is well, ummm, endowed. Chuckle.
>WOASS: <Woman of a shape and size> "Hi there." >James: "Hi t- hi- " <THUD> >WOAnSS: <Woman of another shape and size> "What happened ?" >WOASS: "I don't know. He looked at me, got, um, 'excited', and fainted !" >WOAnSS: "Gosh, he fell face forward. That must have *hurt*..."
^^^^ See above remark.
>- Tony Q.
Well, actually it's just my extremely shy nature.8-)
>--- >Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no) > "At school they taught me how to be, > so pure in thought and word and deed. > They didn't quite succeed..." - PSB
>o...@pell.com (Orc) writes: >> Wanna work for D*****?
>> I've got a headhunter calling *every* *day* trying to get me >> into a DBA job there, and using the most *amusing* threats (yes, up >> to and including "You'll never work in this town again!") to try to >> convince me to take it. It's *buckets* O fun, particularly since >> this headhunter is also trying to sabotage other job offers so that >> I can become an overworked minion of Hollywood. >Sheesh. Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit. >Now, if I were the sinister type, I'd advise you to tap your own phone, >to have on recorded media his threats to keep you from work so you can >play them back for your listening enjoyment, like perhaps in the presence >of his lawyer and a DA in a discovery meeting under the heading "extortion". >I remember bugging someone else's phone being of dubious legality, >but your own is most probably fair game. Then again, I'm just an innocent >Canadian, completely devoid of malice and guile. I wouldn't *dream* >of using someone else's words against him.
Its unfortunately illegal to record your own phone conversations, unless either all parties agree to be recorded, or you have a regular warning tone. Certain government services are exempt from this, such as 911 calls. (But other government agencies that also routinely tape calls have to use the warning tone.) I would think that warrants could be obtained allowing you to bypass this, but I dont know for certain. Personally, I wouldnt exactly feel any moral outrage if Orc did illegally tape such a conversation; I would just rather any such tape were admissible as evidence :)
Keith -- Keith Rickert | ke...@imppig.caltech.edu | "death - the undiscovered country from rick...@cco.caltech.edu | whose bourne no traveler returns" | -Hamlet, Act III
David Sandelands <sande...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote: >James Anthony Mayhar (jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu) wrote: >: As for D'idiot Sandebrains, I'm waiting for him to question my mental >: stability because I don't fit his image of a potential mate. He did not, >: after all, make any distinctions other than physical fitness. If then, >: he were standing behind me at the checkout line in the grocery store, I >: must assume that since I am a male and thus not attractive to him, that I >: must, in his opinion, have a psychological disorder. (What a straight >: line. Shields up!) Or, perhaps not. He never said that he wasn't >: attracted to muscular men, afterall. Hey, David, how about it?R >: And Sydney? Ahm pahtial to women of all sizes and shapes.;-) >Sorry Frank, I only sleep with women.
Geez, Dave. You can't even keep track of who's responding to your posts?
>You on the other hand, imply anything is suitible as long as "the trigger is >pulled". In that case, hey ROSEANNE, dump Tom FRANKIE is waiting. >Hey Tom, Frankie's waiting for you too.
I'm sure that would be a terrible insult somewhere in your tiny world, but not on this newsgroup.
-- Stef rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty s...@netcom.com Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -- Jules de Gaultier Stupidity seems to work well also. -- songbird
James Anthony Mayhar (jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu) wrote: : In article <9404211816.AA20...@bcserv.wustl.edu>, : Sydney D. Hoeltzli <syd...@bcserv.wustl.edu> wrote: : >04202318.AA18...@bcserv.wustl.edu> <2p625i$...@acsc.com> : >fmay...@acsc.com (Frank Mayhar) writes: : >>In article <9404202318.AA18...@bcserv.wustl.edu>, syd...@bcserv.wustl.edu : >>(Sydney D. Hoeltzli) writes: : >>|> _WHISTLE_ *whooop!!!* (waves) Jeem! Francois! Frank! Over here! : >>|> TELL Mr. Sandebrains what he might win! : >>What? Huh? Who? Oh, him. Sydney, I plonked him so hard and so quickly : >>that he never had a chance to react. : > : >*heh* : >I was referring more to the sentiment I understood him to express, : >to whit, that "one must question" and speculate about the psychological : >problems of fat people (even though he acknowledges that they might : >not be such as to prevent said fat person from being a staunch friend) : >because fat people don't interest him romantically, but that "any : >psychological problems" Ms. Slim Hardbody might possess don't elicit : >similar questioning and "may be worth accepting" for the sake of : >the romantic potential. I thought you might have some useful commentary : >on the concept that "any psychological problems" may be worth accepting : >from an object of romantic interest. Brevity and succinctness preferred :) : > : >*nasty chuckle* : >Sydney's Evil Twin
: IME, psychological problems don't become apparent until much later, in : a developing relationship, than the initial "damn, that person's : attractive" phase. If the trigger is pulled, looks are totally irrelevant, : as are any other 'rational' decisions one may have made regarding choosing : a SO. Irony abounds in new relationships. I spent a bit too much time : with a sarcastic, mean minded woman simply because I was overcome with : FBC's. Meeting her now, I can't imagine what I ever saw in her.
: As for D'idiot Sandebrains, I'm waiting for him to question my mental : stability because I don't fit his image of a potential mate. He did not, : after all, make any distinctions other than physical fitness. If then, : he were standing behind me at the checkout line in the grocery store, I : must assume that since I am a male and thus not attractive to him, that I : must, in his opinion, have a psychological disorder. (What a straight : line. Shields up!) Or, perhaps not. He never said that he wasn't : attracted to muscular men, afterall. Hey, David, how about it?R
: And Sydney? Ahm pahtial to women of all sizes and shapes.;-)
Sorry Frank, I only sleep with women.
You on the other hand, imply anything is suitible as long as "the trigger is pulled". In that case, hey ROSEANNE, dump Tom FRANKIE is waiting. Hey Tom, Frankie's waiting for you too.
: Geez, Dave. You can't even keep track of who's responding to your posts?
Stef,
I only have about 2 minutes each day to write these things! Not enough time to keep track of who is who apparently.
: >You on the other hand, imply anything is suitible as long as "the trigger is : >pulled". In that case, hey ROSEANNE, dump Tom FRANKIE is waiting. : >Hey Tom, Frankie's waiting for you too.
: I'm sure that would be a terrible insult somewhere in your tiny world, but : not on this newsgroup.
Yes, I thought that in this politically and oh so socially correct newsgroup, that wouldn't be much of an insult. However, in bars all across the country, its more than enough to start a fight!
Dave
: -- Stef : rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty : s...@netcom.com : Imagination is the one weapon in the war against : reality. -- Jules de Gaultier : Stupidity seems to work well also. -- songbird
In article <2pi2l3$...@tamsun.tamu.edu>, jam4...@tamsun.tamu.edu (James Anthony Mayhar) writes: |> In article <2phdvb$...@lynx.unm.edu>, |> D'idiot Sandebrains <sande...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
Without, I might add, trimming down any of the quoted material, like the true Clueless Fuck(tm) he is.
|> >Sorry Frank, I only sleep with women. |> Methinks he doth protest too much.
I think he's scared, since it's been so long since he's used anything but his hand that he's beginning to be afraid he's gay. Certainly no self-respecting woman would go out with him, at least not if he ever opened his mouth.
|> [James does a good job of explaining his point, which I'm sure D'idiot has |> missed entirely.]
Give it up, James, you would have more luck trying to teach an amoeba to jump through a hoop. More potential for growth, there, at least the amoeba isn't willfully ignorant.
|> Oh, and I hear that surgery is now available for your 'problem' |> You can have that recto-cranial inversion corrected, although I'm told |> the treatment may not be permanent. Relapses are common.
D'idiots particular case seems resistant to therapy, although if we had him here in person, I'm sure we could affect a permanent cure. -- Frank Mayhar fmay...@acsc.com Advanced Computing Systems Company 3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
In article <2oi3vi$3...@cpuserver.acsc.com> fmay...@acsc.com (Frank Mayhar) writes: >In article <Co6o4n....@suncad.camosun.bc.ca>, >Andreas Tovornik <ua...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote: >>Hollywood and Volleyball's for culturally depraved pussies after all.
>Hey, leave volleyball out of this! Hollywood maybe, but beach volleyball >is a killer when it comes to exercise! No better way to work up a sweat >quickly.
I know a better way to work up a sweat, but maybe not so quickly.
-- Some hand in hand, some gathering together in bands, the bleeding hearts and the artists make their stand. And when they've given you their all, some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy, banging your heart against some mad buggers wall. (PF)
k...@pruxp.pr.att.com (Keith R. Smith) goes to the head of the class:
>I just want to make a point of fact here. You seem to express the idea >that one must "pig out", consciously or otherwise, in order to get overfat. >This is inaccurate. A person can gain fat as a sedentary person, on >_fewer calories_ than it would take to maintain their weight as an active >person. Add to that, the fact that some persons, b/c of their genetics, >have a tendency to gain more readily than others. Such a person might >easily gain 10-20 pounds per year on a calorie intake that would reduce >you or I to "skin-n-bones" in no time.
*dingdingdingdingding*
This seems to be a point of emerging agreement--many people who're fat don't eat more, they move less. I think there's even an emerging consensus that this doesn't just extend to exercise per se; I seem to recall reading something about a study of people's motions during daily activities (in a meeting, during conversation) and the finding that some people tend to be constantly moving--if they're in a meeting, their feet jiggle and they play with their pencils, while others sit perfectly relaxed and still. Funny thing, the people in constant motion tended to be thinner than the ones who naturally sat still; apparently all those little motions burn up a lot of energy over the course of a day.
>Therefore, a person who tends to gain easily in the first place, would have >to eat differently than all of his/her friends _and_ exercise more, just to >keep from turning into a total blimp. For whatever reason, they choose not >to do this. Maybe they were "turned off" from physical activity as a child, >and never got over it. If this be the case (and often it _is_ the case), >then all that is left is dieting (as in calorie restriction).
In general, what you say agrees completely with what I know but there's one additional caveat which is that I think there is also emerging consensus that people who tend to gain weight easily wind up needing _more_ exercise to achieve the same weight loss as people who don't; apparently their metabolisms adjust quickly to increased exercise, meaning if they stop exercising for any reason _watch_out_.
Certainly I've found myself that I need to exercise a lot more than some of my friends do to achieve the same effects; a simple half-hour 2 mile walkie a day doesn't do it for me if I'm trying to lose weight; about an hour an a half brisk walk is more like it. And the three major weight gains in my life have occurred immediately after times I was very active and forced to stop (playing judo three times a week then wrecked my knee and couldn't work out a month; running 6 miles a day then had to stop due to illness)--I didn't eat more, in fact I quite consciously ate _less_, but my metabolism was so efficient that I put on weight incredibly fast. This doesn't seem to happen to many of my thinner friends.
My point is "turned off exercise" is probably an oversimplification-- some people may need quantities of exercise (especially at first, when the exercises which give maximum effect in minimal time like running aren't possible) which are just plain tough to fit into the schedule of a working single mother with kids, say--that's not someone who's eschewing aerobics to sit in front of TV, that's someone who needs a machete to carve out time for enough sleep.
David Sandelands <sande...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote: >Stef Jones (s...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Geez, Dave. You can't even keep track of who's responding to your posts?
>I only have about 2 minutes each day to write these things! Not enough time >to keep track of who is who apparently.
Well, if you took the time to delete the excess quoted verbiage, you could just look back at the top to see who you're quoting (or is your software as brain-dead as you are?)
