Brent, your petulance did not move the argument forward.

[Charles]

Brent,

Judging from your peevish response, it is obvious that my comments touched a raw nerve. That is perhaps a positive sign, since your defensiveness appears to indicate that you recognize that some of your more inflammatory postings may have indeed crossed the line into poor taste. Unfortunately, some of your arguments of rebuttal similarly crossed that line. I suspect that was simply the result of your "playing to the audience."

I have noted one positive consequence of the proceedings though. While attempting to compile a list of some of your most inappropriate posts (mostly from the forum "Father's Issues") to send to you as you requested, I discovered that you (by my assumption) had edited out most of the distasteful commentary that you had interjected at places within the articles you posted over the past six months. There are a sizeable number of objectionable comments still remaining in your responses to other board members, but those appear to be outbursts of temper rather than maliciousness. Your purging of the inflammatory, sexist comments, while perhaps prompted partially by my post, was equally likely the result of Waylon's prior reprimand for driving away potential supporters with your insensitive commentaries.

Attempting to respond point-by-point to your reply would be tedious and unfruitful, since your diatribe was a mass of logical fallacies, specious arguments, [EM]non sequiturs[/EM], and other attempted diversions. Your attempt to advance your argument by [EM]"failure to state"[/EM] (i.e., asking enough questions and making enough attacks to avoid addressing the issues) did nothing to promote rational discourse. And with your entire argument constructed around a framework of [EM]ad hominem[/EM] attacks that served no reasonable purpose initially, revisiting them would be doubly unproductive. Such attacks are efforts to side-step debate by attacking the person instead of addressing the issues, and they usually indicate a failure of intellect or the absence of an argument of integrity.  Name-calling, crude language, and verbal bullying, while a characteristic of barroom brawls, have no place in intellectual debate.

One relevant issue that should be addressed is your attempted [EM]"argument from undefined authority"[/EM] intimating that you have some unannounced level of authority or responsibility that extends beyond the role defined by SPARC for its moderators. Since you provided no insight into what that special authority might be, the lack of specificity leaves us to wonder if your allusion to power is valid or simply a "red herring". If you have been granted special administrative authority that allows you to violate SPARC's published standards of behavior and AUP ([EM]"Moderators may not knowingly promote behavior intended to annoy, inflame or incense users"; "Vulgar, Abusive, Racist, and Sexist Language will not be tolerated."[/EM]), then that authority should be publicly stated so as not to mislead readers.

None-the-less, as I indicated initially, in spite of your failure to effectively defend your position relative to my original proposal, progress has been made. I accept your editing of your previous posts by deleting some of the excesses as your concession that moderation in tone and language is always the best approach for avoiding contentiousness. I commend you for that recognition.

With that said, I shall now retire to my other discussion boards where the intellectual exchange is more rewarding. Frankly, dealing daily with counseling and academic issues as I do, I find discussing such topics as "science versus mysticism", "legal aspects of cloning", and "the nature of Dark Energy" far more productive than debating "the usefulness of hostility and sexist propaganda in promoting gender equity and improving family values." The latter topic is a no-brainer.

It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices.
>A. Dumbledore<

[richiejay]

Charlie baby,

  I have found a mission in my life.  I wanna be just like you! Imagine, spending countless hours on discussion boards (thesaurus in hand) trying hopelessly to prove that I am smaht (sorry, Boston accent).  I could use words like diatribe, fallacies, and other latin words that no one really cares about.  On top of that I could use flawed logic simply to win an argument!  Imagine (oops, used that one twice) the glory and fame bestowed upon me by..well, I'll think of someone who will appreciate it.  And, oh, the condescending demeanor I could use to prove my smahtness even further..after all, discussions boards about the "legal aspects of cloning" are much more rewarding than offering real people help with real problems. I wanna be a counselor just like you! Thanks, Charlie baby for leading me in the right direction.  I don't know what I would have done without you. Where should I send the money?

P.S.  Could you send me a quote that I could use of ANOTHER ficticious character?

[Brent]

>Judging from your peevish response, it is obvious that my
>comments touched a raw nerve.

No, but you gave me gas. Does that count?



>Unfortunately,
>some of your arguments of rebuttal similarly crossed that
>line. I suspect that was simply the result of your "playing to
>the audience."

I really don't care about crossing your imaginary "line". I speak and post as I see fit, and I don't let self-righteous boobs like you tell me what to do. Sorry to burst your bubble.




> ...I discovered that
>you (by my assumption) had edited out most of the distasteful
>commentary that you had interjected at places within the
>articles you posted over the past six months.

100% wrong, but I'm amused you would dare to try and tell a lie this big. I haven't gone back and edited any of my posts, with one exception. That was yeaterday, when I worried that my "Dr. Kevorkian" comment might send your mentally disturbed wife over the edge. Other than that, I haven't edited anything. I really don't have the time or the interest to do that.

But here's the real curious thing: these message boards have only been up since Nov 21st. That's just over 2 months, charles, so how could you go back 6 months and see anything? Hmmm?

Lol, you are such a liar- and now everyone can see the proof for themselves. :)


> Your purging of
>the inflammatory, sexist comments, while perhaps prompted
>partially by my post, was equally likely the result of
>Waylon's prior reprimand for driving away potential supporters
>with your insensitive commentaries.

Nope. I've purged nothing with the exception of that one comment yesterday, and we both know it. In fact, everyone knows you're lying now, because this board keeps all the posts ever made on it....and people can go right back to November 21st, 2003 and see for themselves.

You must be feeling kinda  dumb right now, huh? Claiming that you've reviewed the posts back 6 months, when these boards have only been up for less than 3.

And no, Waylon hasn't said one word to me about my posts, nor has he asked me to change anything I do. You can email him if you don't believe me: [email protected].

Waylon likes what I do here, and he wouldn't be shy about reprimanding me publicly if he had a problem with anything I've posted. You obviously don't know him, or how he thinks. Maybe you "missed" his comment to you where (as the admin) he basically told you to shutup. Here's his comment to you:

http://www.deltabravo.net/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=625&mesg_id=645&page=

He was awfully diplomatic, but clearly he doesn't give a damn for you or your non-stop whining.



>Name-calling, crude language, and verbal
>bullying, while a characteristic of barroom brawls, have no
>place in intellectual debate.

You must be referring to the comments your supposed "wife" made to numerous people here. She was the only one having a hissy fit.



>I accept your editing of your previous posts by
>deleting some of the excesses

Nice try, but no cigar. :) And every time you say that, I'll remind you of what a blatant liar you are, "charles". Ummm, tell me again- how many months did you go back and view posts on this board?



>as your concession that moderation in tone and
>language is always the best approach for avoiding
>contentiousness. I commend you for that recognition.

Don't watse your time. I don't accept compliments from petulant little blowhards like you. But I'll take it as a concession that you admit you were wrong, and that you lied in a crude attempt at character assasination.



>With that said, I shall now retire to my other discussion
>boards where the intellectual exchange is more rewarding.

Thank goodness, you're finally going to shut your mouth and stop lying? Are you going back to the NOW boards or the singlemomz boards? Whichever it is, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, you pompous twit.


>Frankly, dealing daily with counseling and academic issues as
>I do, I find discussing such topics as "science versus
>mysticism", "legal aspects of cloning", and "the nature of
>Dark Energy" far more productive than debating "the usefulness
>of hostility and sexist propaganda in promoting gender equity
>and improving family values." The latter topic is a
>no-brainer.

Well, you'd be the authority on things that were "no brainers", I'll give you that. And your "wife" is the expert on sexist propaganda, as anyone here can attest to.


>It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our
>choices.

It's just a damn shame that you have no clue as to what that statement means.

[richiejay]

Thank you Brent...that was refreshing....6 months!  LMAO!

[Brent]

>Thank you Brent...that was refreshing....6 months!  LMAO!

Yes, in addition to having a lifetime subscription at Thesaurus.com,  "charles" is also apparently an accomplished time-traveler. :)

[MKx2]

I have to admit that when I read the "six months" I really wondered ... we can't even GET to the old boards now - can we?  Unless there's some magical URL that has been devined by the powers that be and distributed to a select few ....

Six months?????

What really made me chuckle was you, Brent - editing your "old" posts (with the one exception) - now if that really happened, I would be SERIOUSLY worried about you!  Unless you had the flu and were in a delerious state of mind, I have sincere doubts that would happen.

[Brent]

>I have to admit that when I read the "six months" I really
>wondered ... we can't even GET to the old boards now - can we?
> Unless there's some magical URL that has been devined by the
>powers that be and distributed to a select few ....

You can get to extracts of the old state boards, but there aren't any posts there by me. I almost never posted on the state boards. The old main boards are are still there, but I don't think they're accessible. I could be wrong, but I don't see any links on the site to them.




>What really made me chuckle was you, Brent - editing your
>"old" posts (with the one exception) - now if that really
>happened, I would be SERIOUSLY worried about you!  Unless you
>had the flu and were in a delerious state of mind, I have
>sincere doubts that would happen.

Nope, for better or worse, I rarely edit my posts (other than correcting typos and stuff when I'm actually making them). Charles busted himself bigtime there.

In fact, all the posts on the new boards show exactly when they were last edited, there's a red date and time at the top of the post when the last edit was made. The proof is there for all to see- all people have to do is page back through them and look for themselves.


>

I know- it's funny. He was in such a hurry to tell that whopper that he never noticed that there are no posts older than November 21st, 2003 on any of the new boards.

[Indigo Mom]

In a tall cool can of shut the f*ck up?  



Let's talk Albus, shall we?  Can you imagine Mr. Dumbledore insisting that the young Mr. Potter return to Privet Drive each summer and starting shit?  Nah...I can't either...so why do you insist on coming back to this site with your petty rants?????  You're making more problems for yourself!!!!  Why would one do that?

Simply put, you and nerd are trolls.  Big, HUGE ones that drip with troll bogies!

[joni]

...find another on-line community to abuse.  There are plenty out there.  The internet is a plethora of useless information....such as yours.

The beauty about America, if you don't like what you see on TV, change the channel.  I have 900 channels on my cable.

If you don't like what you read, don't read it.  CLOSE YOUR BROWSER WINDOW AND GO AWAY.

[MYSONSDAD]

Charlie, You made mention several times of 'so called' veiled threats.
What you are doing now, leans more toward harassment.
We're all here to help each other. This type of thing, 'DOES NOT HELP ANYONE'.

You appear to be some what educated. But, APPEARANCES CAN BE DISCEIVING. Continuing this farse, is STUPID. AND YOU, MY FRIEND, NEED TO 'GET A LIFE' and leave us be.

[sweetnsad]

I have to agree...Six months??  How stupid does this guy think you are??

While I have to say that, yes, some of Brent's posts are somewhat controversial, he does have some very useful information.  And sometimes I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be lashed out at like this...

Give me a break "Charles"...why don't you go look up the word for "wingnut" and see how many different ways you can say THAT!!

[Charles]

Brent, I am somewhat disappointed in your post. Just when I thought we were making progress in promoting a kinder, gentler image for you (and you have made progress), you are showing a hint of backsliding to some of your old habits. You know, one indication of an evolving intellect is its ability to learn from its mistakes. We must both continue to assess our progress in that area.

I concede to you one point. You are correct in your proposal that I did not read six months of posts, though it was not for my lack of trying. While attempting to re-read your prior posts, I selected the listing option to retrieve six months of posts. It delivered five pages of threads. Focused on content as I was, I neglected to note the posting dates. Consequently, I assumed that there were six months of posts when there were really only about two months. Attention to detail is always of great importance, and I dutifully acknowledge my error. But it was an error of neglect rather than of deceit. None-the-less, your point was well taken.

Now as far as some of your less constructive comments, it is important to keep in mind that an insult is never effective unless it is accepted by the intended party. After thirty-six years of witnessing the ungodly things that parents say to each other and to their children, I developed early an immunity to such invective, especially coming from strangers, and even more so when delivered in this environment.

There is a measure of people who use such boards as this as a sort of "bonding" ritual, seeking affirmation of self-worth by having their opinions accepted at face value. They would take your unkind remarks as a sign of personal rejection, which would in turn impact their self-esteem. I cannot be counted among that number. Rather, I am among those who visit for useful information and for the occasional exchange of ideas, accompanied by their intellectual debate.

As you know, not all ideas are created equal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Thus, those proposals with less than stellar merit deserve to be challenged and reworked until they can stand the litmus test for validity. That is how we learn to separate good ideas from bad ones. We can count upon good ideas to give us a strong foundation for our thinking and for our lives. Bad ideas will always lead us down a treacherous path.

I will be presumptuous in making the following suggestion. You might find it beneficial to practice graciousness in accepting kudos for doing the right thing.  Sometimes such recognition is offered less often than deserved, so rejecting it seems to me to be imprudent. But that, of course, is only my opinion.

And finally, one reflective observation... should someone choose to adopt the role of a paladin fighting righteously for fairness and equity, then one's avatar should reflect that moral initiative. While "Mr. Smith" certainly portrays an aggressive image, he exemplifies bad programming from start to finish. A better choice as a paradigm for "fighting the good fight" might, instead, be "Neo".

I leave you with the following quotation that might strike you more positively than my signature.

"Not a day passes over this earth but men and women of no note
do great deeds, speak great words, and suffer noble sorrows."
>Charles Reed<

It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices.
>A. Dumbledore<

[MKx2]

Charles, I truly am disappointed that you have chosen to renew this entire issue.  Is your background in psychology/teaching or a similar area?  I ask this in sincerity.

I definitely do not want to get started on this whole thing again ... I am hoping with this post that you will simple agree to disagree, and cease your attempts to "be right" about Brent, his personality, or whatever.  Brent is Brent, you are you.  You, no doubt are a fine man, just as is Brent.  

I may not always agree with Brent, however he DOES provide a great deal of information to those in need.  I am thankful someone as knowledgeable as he is a part of SPARC ... just as I am thankful for so many others here, for that and many other reasons (yes Brent you're in the "many others" group too, and I know you "don't care" - I was brought up to be kind, say what I mean and mean what I say [type in this instance]).

Charles, please stop trying to change Brent, and/or be "right."  Each of us has a reality within which we live daily ... one man's celing is another man's floor, ya know?

[richiejay]

Ah, the pompous moron speaks again........and again....and again....Are you so insecure in your life that you feel as though you MUST be right about everything?  That you must have the last word?  Seems as though you are too busy trying to seem intelligent when all you are doing is missing the big picture.  I know I am not alone when I offer this simple and brief advice....SHUT THE &@#$ UP! Have a nice day.

[sweetnsad]

nm

[Brent]

>Brent, I am somewhat disappointed in your post.

You poor baby! You should ask for a refund right away.



>Just when I
>thought we were making progress in promoting a kinder, gentler
>image for you (and you have made progress), you are showing a
>hint of backsliding to some of your old habits.

You go to a lot of "12-step" meetings, don't you? I can tell, your terminology reeks of it.




>I concede to you one point. You are correct in your proposal
>that I did not read six months of posts,

My "proposal"? That wasn't a "proposal", you wind-bag. You must mean my "assertion". Perhaps someday you'll learn to speak English properly, but I won't hold my breath. And maybe one day you'll stop LYING, but I won't hang around waiting for that to happen either.




>my lack of trying. While attempting to re-read your prior
>posts, I selected the listing option to retrieve six months of
>posts. It delivered five pages of threads. Focused on content
>as I was, I neglected to note the posting dates. Consequently,
>I assumed that there were six months of posts when there were
>really only about two months.

Did it take you this long to think up this convoluted "explanation" for your LIE? You are so full of shit, charles. Ummm, gonna tell me which of my posts were "edited"? Hmmmmm? Ooops, I fogot- you were LYING about that, too.




>Attention to detail is always of
>great importance, and I dutifully acknowledge my error.

NO, you mean your LIE. You dutifully acknowledge your LIE.




>Now as far as some of your less constructive comments, it is
>important to keep in mind that an insult is never effective
>unless it is accepted by the intended party.

Well I'm sure all the people here who have been referring to you as a "pompous jerk" will be terribly disapponted. But they're still right.



>There is a measure of people who use such boards as this as a
>sort of "bonding" ritual, seeking affirmation of self-worth by
>having their opinions accepted at face value. They would take
>your unkind remarks as a sign of personal rejection, which
>would in turn impact their self-esteem.

Righteous gas-bags like you always seem to miss the word "self" in "self-esteem". That's because you're not terribly intelligent, and you don't take responsibility for your actions. That way you can always blame someone else for the way you feel. Well, too bad, charley. You're a pompous boob who's desperately trying to be accepted here, but no one wants to have anything to do with you. Just like in your real life.



>Rather, I am among those who visit for
>useful information and for the occasional exchange of ideas,
>accompanied by their intellectual debate.

Oooh, you're so refined and special.




>
>As you know, not all ideas are created equal. Everyone is
>entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Thus,
>those proposals with less than stellar merit deserve to be
>challenged and reworked until they can stand the litmus test
>for validity. That is how we learn to separate good ideas from
>bad ones. We can count upon good ideas to give us a strong
>foundation for our thinking and for our lives. Bad ideas will
>always lead us down a treacherous path.


Wow, listening to you is better than Sominex. I was actually asleep before I got to the end of your paragraph.





>I will be presumptuous in making the following suggestion.

You'll be presumptuous making a sandwich, changing the channel, or going to the bathroom. What do I care?




>But that, of course, is only my opinion.

Which is worth little or nothing to anyone who would prefer to (gasp!) do their own thinking. Sorry to burst your bubble, charley.



>
>And finally, one reflective observation... should someone choose
>to adopt the role of a paladin fighting righteously for
>fairness and equity, then one's avatar should reflect that
>moral initiative.

Gee, I guess I didn't see that in the Rulebook, charley. Can you tell me what section that's in? Is it under  "Things Idiotic Users Say" or in the "Care And Feeding Of Your Avatar" chapter?




>While "Mr. Smith" certainly portrays an
>aggressive image, he exemplifies bad programming from start to
>finish. A better choice as a paradigm for "fighting the good
>fight" might, instead, be "Neo".

LOL!  Now you're giving me advice on my avatar? LOLOLOL!!!!!! A burning issue for you, no doubt. Yes, this was definitely worth your writing me about, as it's clearly a very, VERY important thing to consider. (snicker)

Thanks for the laugh, charley, I'm going to copy your post to a whole bunch of folks so they can see what a complete bozo you are. LOL!



>
>I leave you with the following quotation that might strike you
>more positively than my signature.

I'll leave you with this quotation: "I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter."

[sweetnsad]

LMAO....over and over....:7

[FatherTime]

This isn't the same Charles is it?  I just started thinking of all those MASH episodes.  He always had a thing against Hawkeye too.

Remember Brent... in his eyes he's doing it for you and not for him.  Or is that presumptuous of me?

Here's one for Charles....

"My YEN for being OBSTREPEROUS towards the biased judicial system conflicts with my IRENIC nature.  I wish to ABROGATE this topic and hope that you have some form of TERGIVERSATION because I feel TIMOROUS  to your ire, Charles."
--FatherTime, 2004 with the help of this [a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/01/]site[/a]



"He becomes obstreperous and truculent as an infant in need of an afternoon nap. "
--James Doran, "Bonus question raises ire of fund managers," Times (London), April 19, 2001

[richiejay]

once upon a time there was an engineer, Choo-Choo Charlie was his name we hear.  He had an engine and he sure had fun, he used Good and Plenty candy to make his train run.....

[Indigo Mom]

YA!  What FatherTime said!!!!

-----"My YEN for being OBSTREPEROUS towards the biased judicial system conflicts with my IRENIC nature. I wish to ABROGATE this topic and hope that you have some form of TERGIVERSATION because I feel TIMOROUS to your ire, Charles."
--FatherTime, 2004 -----

Now...WTF exactly, did FatherTime just say????????

;)

[Brent]

I just feel so relieved that charles has taken on the role of "Avatar Policeman". As soon as he forwards us Volumes 1 through 3 of the Official Avatar Guidelines we can all work on getting into compliance. ;)

But I will say that even though he's a pompous gas-bag, it's good to know that there are still people like him who have enough free time to micro-manage everyone else's life.

[FatherTime]

I made up seven avatars for the site.  I have them zipped up and ready for delivery but where do I send them.  I will make more from time to time if it helps.

[sweetnsad]

I can't help but wonder WHY???  What the heck is dear ole Charlie trying to prove here...that Brent is wicked???  That Brent is a bad, bad man??  LOL...Give me a break...at least when Brent has something to say we can ALL understand HIS english....:-)

[kiddosmom]

I come to this site for information, and YES to 'bond' with others who are understanding of my plight. I do not plan to put anyone down, and I am aggrivated that anyone is attacking others on this site. Everyone has a right to their opinion. You are all correct, if you do not like what someone has to say simply IGNORE them, as I am doing.
Brent is a big boy, if he wishes to interact with this --ummmm-- person that is his right as he is the one being attacked.
I have stated my support of Brent, and I hope that is enough for him.

I am now going to ignore any further post from said named (moron) I mean Sparc ID of Charles.

[Peanutsdad]

>Brent, I am somewhat disappointed in your post. Just when I
>thought we were making progress in promoting a kinder, gentler
>image for you (and you have made progress), you are showing a
>hint of backsliding to some of your old habits. You know, one
>indication of an evolving intellect is its ability to learn
>from its mistakes. We must both continue to assess our
>progress in that area.

Good, I'd hate to think that anyone would post to your approval.
>
>I concede to you one point. You are correct in your proposal
>that I did not read six months of posts, though it was not for
>my lack of trying. While attempting to re-read your prior
>posts, I selected the listing option to retrieve six months of
>posts. It delivered five pages of threads. Focused on content
>as I was, I neglected to note the posting dates. Consequently,
>I assumed that there were six months of posts when there were
>really only about two months. Attention to detail is always of
>great importance, and I dutifully acknowledge my error. But it
>was an error of neglect rather than of deceit. None-the-less,
>your point was well taken.

Is this your BS way of saying, Ok, Im full of shit and you guys called me on it?
>
>Now as far as some of your less constructive comments, it is
>important to keep in mind that an insult is never effective
>unless it is accepted by the intended party. After thirty-six
>years of witnessing the ungodly things that parents say to
>each other and to their children, I developed early an
>immunity to such invective, especially coming from strangers,
>and even more so when delivered in this environment.

Amen to that. Good, God forbid you should actually see yourself as you are.
>
>There is a measure of people who use such boards as this as a
>sort of "bonding" ritual, seeking affirmation of self-worth by
>having their opinions accepted at face value. They would take
>your unkind remarks as a sign of personal rejection, which
>would in turn impact their self-esteem. I cannot be counted
>among that number. Rather, I am among those who visit for
>useful information and for the occasional exchange of ideas,
>accompanied by their intellectual debate.

No, as my old English teacher would put it, you sir, are entirely too wordy. While you may not believe it, it is possible to exchange ideas without writing an entire book.
>
>As you know, not all ideas are created equal. Everyone is
>entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Thus,
>those proposals with less than stellar merit deserve to be
>challenged and reworked until they can stand the litmus test
>for validity. That is how we learn to separate good ideas from
>bad ones. We can count upon good ideas to give us a strong
>foundation for our thinking and for our lives. Bad ideas will
>always lead us down a treacherous path.

What you refer to is the scientific method. See? simple to say. Another time, I'll debate treacherous paths.....remember Hiroshima? What I count on is common sense, unfortunately, it cant be taught.
>
>I will be presumptuous in making the following suggestion. You
>might find it beneficial to practice graciousness in accepting
>kudos for doing the right thing.  Sometimes such recognition
>is offered less often than deserved, so rejecting it seems to
>me to be imprudent. But that, of course, is only my opinion.

Yes, you are presumptuous, and pompous.
>
>And finally, one reflective observation... should someone choose
>to adopt the role of a paladin fighting righteously for
>fairness and equity, then one's avatar should reflect that
>moral initiative. While "Mr. Smith" certainly portrays an
>aggressive image, he exemplifies bad programming from start to
>finish. A better choice as a paradigm for "fighting the good
>fight" might, instead, be "Neo".

I see, we got our favorite dictionary out again didn't we Charles? Put it away, it's not doing you any good. Good lord man,, come down out of the clouds.
>
>I leave you with the following quotation that might strike you
>more positively than my signature.
>
>"Not a day passes over this earth but men and women of no
>note
>do great deeds, speak great words, and suffer noble sorrows."
>>Charles Reed<
>
>It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our
>choices.
>>A. Dumbledore<

So you are leaving? Thank you.