S
server
Guest
The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 29/12/21 18:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It may have been a \"cool\" war for the isolated Merkins,
but it was a very hot war for much of the world.
It may have been a \"cool\" war for the isolated Merkins,
but it was a very hot war for much of the world.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of centuries of wars, not
ours. We saved your lives and you can\'t forgive us.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of centuries of wars, not
ours. We saved your lives and you can\'t forgive us.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote:
My apologies if pointing out historical facts
has discomforted you.
My apologies if pointing out historical facts
has discomforted you.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk.
We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and Russians
carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk.
We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and Russians
carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote:
So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started in 1941.
So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started in 1941.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote:
I am confused.
It is true that most Americans (at least, the small percentage that
actually knows anything at all about WWII) have a hopelessly inaccurate
and biased view of WWII. They think they \"saved our asses\" - in fact,
they only joined the war when they realised they could make more profit
selling critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than
they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew that if
either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they\'d lose a big market and
their place in the world - possibly ending up Russian or German
themselves in the long run. And of course it is easier to think of a
war as being \"cool\" when it is happening somewhere else and it is not
/your/ country that is being fought over.
(Equally, the British tend to think WWII started in September 1939 when
/they/ joined it - Austria and Czechoslovakia might say it started in
1938, and China might say 1937.)
However, the Battle Of the River Plate was from the very early war
(December 1939), between Germany and the UK and New Zealand. The US was
not involved.
So I really don\'t see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread.
Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical
knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will
turn into another display of ignorance? Or is that particular book one
of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571
film?
I am confused.
It is true that most Americans (at least, the small percentage that
actually knows anything at all about WWII) have a hopelessly inaccurate
and biased view of WWII. They think they \"saved our asses\" - in fact,
they only joined the war when they realised they could make more profit
selling critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than
they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew that if
either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they\'d lose a big market and
their place in the world - possibly ending up Russian or German
themselves in the long run. And of course it is easier to think of a
war as being \"cool\" when it is happening somewhere else and it is not
/your/ country that is being fought over.
(Equally, the British tend to think WWII started in September 1939 when
/they/ joined it - Austria and Czechoslovakia might say it started in
1938, and China might say 1937.)
However, the Battle Of the River Plate was from the very early war
(December 1939), between Germany and the UK and New Zealand. The US was
not involved.
So I really don\'t see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread.
Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical
knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will
turn into another display of ignorance? Or is that particular book one
of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571
film?
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 30/12/21 11:25, David Brown wrote:
The last paragraph sums it up.
Strictly speaking I\'m not making comments about Larkin, merely
about the attitudes and ignorance. That distinction is not entirely
clear, of course.
The last paragraph sums it up.
Strictly speaking I\'m not making comments about Larkin, merely
about the attitudes and ignorance. That distinction is not entirely
clear, of course.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
\"We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire\"
is absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it\'s just one more episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2.
The book dates from 1974, and the author joined the British Navy in 1941 - when he was sixteen - and got invalided out the following year when his ship was torpedoed. He wrote a series of naval novels set during the Napoleonic wars that were modelled on C.S.Forrestor\'s \"Hornblower\" series that I liked rather better than the originals. Pope was a generation younger than Forrestor, and it showed.
If I remember rightly it is a respectable book - the reviews do seem positive. The battle itself was decidedly one-sided - the Graf Spee had much bigger guns that the three cruisers that took it on - and the British saw it as small but heartening victory against the odds.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
\"We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire\"
is absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it\'s just one more episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2.
The book dates from 1974, and the author joined the British Navy in 1941 - when he was sixteen - and got invalided out the following year when his ship was torpedoed. He wrote a series of naval novels set during the Napoleonic wars that were modelled on C.S.Forrestor\'s \"Hornblower\" series that I liked rather better than the originals. Pope was a generation younger than Forrestor, and it showed.
If I remember rightly it is a respectable book - the reviews do seem positive. The battle itself was decidedly one-sided - the Graf Spee had much bigger guns that the three cruisers that took it on - and the British saw it as small but heartening victory against the odds.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 14:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
I know Larkin\'s history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a
whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken,
but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to
everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one
of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.)
This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to
the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe
again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here -
and there isn\'t. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There
are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end
because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable
in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can\'t
distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the
same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give
everyone more guns.
How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the
same pointless threads? Let\'s be clear here - John Larkin did /not/
start another \"The US saved Europe\" thread. He posted about a book he
liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA.
It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have
expected. John was right to call him a jerk.
If you really wanted to comment on John\'s first post in this thread, you
could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book
he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world.
I know Larkin\'s history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a
whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken,
but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to
everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one
of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.)
This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to
the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe
again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here -
and there isn\'t. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There
are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end
because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable
in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can\'t
distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the
same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give
everyone more guns.
How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the
same pointless threads? Let\'s be clear here - John Larkin did /not/
start another \"The US saved Europe\" thread. He posted about a book he
liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA.
It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have
expected. John was right to call him a jerk.
If you really wanted to comment on John\'s first post in this thread, you
could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book
he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 13:48, Tom Gardner wrote:
Tom, you are usually one of the sane, rational and polite people in this
group. Your first post in this thread - responding to Larkin\'s
pointless \"look what I had for breakfast - I\'m such a wonderful person
that everyone will want to know\" post - was deliberately and
unnecessarily provocative and simply goading him into saying something
stupid so that you could insult him more. It is one thing to correct
him when he says something wrong, but another thing entirely to push him
into repeating his ignorance.
Tom, you are usually one of the sane, rational and polite people in this
group. Your first post in this thread - responding to Larkin\'s
pointless \"look what I had for breakfast - I\'m such a wonderful person
that everyone will want to know\" post - was deliberately and
unnecessarily provocative and simply goading him into saying something
stupid so that you could insult him more. It is one thing to correct
him when he says something wrong, but another thing entirely to push him
into repeating his ignorance.
D
Dimiter_Popoff
Guest
On 12/30/2021 16:12, David Brown wrote:
David,
repetition to the absurd level you refer to is part of what is keeping
the group alive I suppose. Look at us at CAE, we are so quite mostly
because we don\'t want to go into that much repetition, most of use being
still alive and active.
But John did quite well with his post - he just posted a title, no
suspicious links, nothing he can be blamed for. Yet he ignited a WWII
discussion, it does not get much better than that.
And who am I to miss a party like this
.
I am not so sure the Russians could have stopped the Germans on their
own. The Americans were sending these ships on which the Russian effort
depended a lot; not just economically, they got the first planes (Air
Cobras and probably others) to not only begin to mount some effort in
the air but also to see how these were made and start making their own
(no www back then you know. They started making planes like their
La-5, Mig-3 (I think) etc., prior to these they had some Polikarpovs
which were just lame sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts, completely
useless. The Brits helped a lot as well, that effort at Bletchley park
must have contributed significantly to the US shipments not being sunk.
Of course the Russians did the bulk of the job, in terms of human loss
which they suffered, they made their T34 tank which was good enough
against the German tigers etc. The harsh winter (harsher than usual,
though winters there are invariably harsh) made the German tanks freeze
etc. (I suppose winter counts as part of the Russian effort, they had
to endure it, too).
But I think it is impossible to say what the outcome would have been
for the Russians had there not been the US supplies. Overall the Nazis
could not possibly have held Europe for a long time, but things could
have looked very very different without the US intervention.
Dimiter
David,
repetition to the absurd level you refer to is part of what is keeping
the group alive I suppose. Look at us at CAE, we are so quite mostly
because we don\'t want to go into that much repetition, most of use being
still alive and active.
But John did quite well with his post - he just posted a title, no
suspicious links, nothing he can be blamed for. Yet he ignited a WWII
discussion, it does not get much better than that.
And who am I to miss a party like this
.I am not so sure the Russians could have stopped the Germans on their
own. The Americans were sending these ships on which the Russian effort
depended a lot; not just economically, they got the first planes (Air
Cobras and probably others) to not only begin to mount some effort in
the air but also to see how these were made and start making their own
(no www back then you know
. They started making planes like theirLa-5, Mig-3 (I think) etc., prior to these they had some Polikarpovs
which were just lame sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts, completely
useless. The Brits helped a lot as well, that effort at Bletchley park
must have contributed significantly to the US shipments not being sunk.
Of course the Russians did the bulk of the job, in terms of human loss
which they suffered, they made their T34 tank which was good enough
against the German tigers etc. The harsh winter (harsher than usual,
though winters there are invariably harsh) made the German tanks freeze
etc. (I suppose winter counts as part of the Russian effort, they had
to endure it, too).
But I think it is impossible to say what the outcome would have been
for the Russians had there not been the US supplies. Overall the Nazis
could not possibly have held Europe for a long time, but things could
have looked very very different without the US intervention.
Dimiter
S
server
Guest
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:19:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
The Battle of the River Plate happened in December of 1939. The book
says so.
I thought it was a great book about three old outclassed British
steam-powered cruisers sinking a new German diesel battleship with
some dinky 6-inch guns and a lot of guts and guile. You altered the
concept to propose that Brits are now mainly rude assholes who
probably don\'t read.
OK, we get it. Times have changed.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
The Battle of the River Plate happened in December of 1939. The book
says so.
I thought it was a great book about three old outclassed British
steam-powered cruisers sinking a new German diesel battleship with
some dinky 6-inch guns and a lot of guts and guile. You altered the
concept to propose that Brits are now mainly rude assholes who
probably don\'t read.
OK, we get it. Times have changed.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
S
server
Guest
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
Ignorant illiterate idiot. The author was a British veteran,
historian, and novelist. You might have looked that up, but inventing
stupid insults is less work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Pope
I thought it was a great book.
My renowned lack of historical knowledge can be blamed on my shortage
of bookshelf space. I have about 200 books on naval history and the
two World Wars and am running out of space for many more. I used to
own sailboats and design marine automation and go out on ships so this
stuff interests me. I used to like England until I encountered the
Brits here.
I have separate shelves for books about radio, radar, sonar, prox
fuses, and nuclear weapons.
I keep the Austen, Wodehouse, Sayers, Christie, Doyle, and other brit
fiction writers in separate shelves upstairs.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
Ignorant illiterate idiot. The author was a British veteran,
historian, and novelist. You might have looked that up, but inventing
stupid insults is less work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Pope
I thought it was a great book.
My renowned lack of historical knowledge can be blamed on my shortage
of bookshelf space. I have about 200 books on naval history and the
two World Wars and am running out of space for many more. I used to
own sailboats and design marine automation and go out on ships so this
stuff interests me. I used to like England until I encountered the
Brits here.
I have separate shelves for books about radio, radar, sonar, prox
fuses, and nuclear weapons.
I keep the Austen, Wodehouse, Sayers, Christie, Doyle, and other brit
fiction writers in separate shelves upstairs.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
S
server
Guest
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:18:12 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
It\'s a good book. Don\'t read it.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
It\'s a good book. Don\'t read it.
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 17:06, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It may or may not be a good book - I place very little value on your
judgement, and even less on your contradictory advice.
It may or may not be a good book - I place very little value on your
judgement, and even less on your contradictory advice.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 16:39, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
It really is impossible to guess what might have happened. It was a
complicated war, with many factors. What might have happened if Hitler
had been assassinated or otherwise replaced by someone who was not a
rapid drug addict with barely the most tenuous grasp of reality? (The
British had a plan to assassinate him for a while - they dropped it when
they realised Hitler was doing half their job.)
It is probably fair to say the war would have gone on longer, and done
more damage, if the Americans hadn\'t contributed with their usual
quantity, enthusiasm, and total confidence in their own abilities
despite all evidence to the contrary. (There was a popular saying
amongst the allies in WWII - \"When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the Americans shoot,
everyone ducks!\".)
On 12/30/2021 16:12, David Brown wrote:
On 30/12/2021 14:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown
wrote:
So I really don\'t see why you are getting at Larkin here in this
thread. Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of
historical knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that
the thread will turn into another display of ignorance?
\"We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians
carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire\" is
absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same
isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it\'s just one more
episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2.
I know Larkin\'s history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a
whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken,
but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to
everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one
of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.)
This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to
the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe
again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here -
and there isn\'t. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There
are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end
because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable
in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can\'t
distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the
same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give
everyone more guns.
How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the
same pointless threads? Let\'s be clear here - John Larkin did /not/
start another \"The US saved Europe\" thread. He posted about a book he
liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA.
 It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have
expected. John was right to call him a jerk.
If you really wanted to comment on John\'s first post in this thread, you
could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book
he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world.
David,
repetition to the absurd level you refer to is part of what is keeping
the group alive I suppose. Look at us at CAE, we are so quite mostly
because we don\'t want to go into that much repetition, most of use being
still alive and active.
But John did quite well with his post - he just posted a title, no
suspicious links, nothing he can be blamed for. Yet he ignited a WWII
discussion, it does not get much better than that.
And who am I to miss a party like this
I am not so sure the Russians could have stopped the Germans on their
own. The Americans were sending these ships on which the Russian effort
depended a lot; not just economically, they got the first planes (Air
Cobras and probably others) to not only begin to mount some effort in
the air but also to see how these were made and start making their own
(no www back then you know
La-5, Mig-3 (I think) etc., prior to these they had some Polikarpovs
which were just lame sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts, completely
useless. The Brits helped a lot as well, that effort at Bletchley park
must have contributed significantly to the US shipments not being sunk.
Of course the Russians did the bulk of the job, in terms of human loss
which they suffered, they made their T34 tank which was good enough
against the German tigers etc. The harsh winter (harsher than usual,
though winters there are invariably harsh) made the German tanks freeze
etc. (I suppose winter counts as part of the Russian effort, they had
to endure it, too).
But I think it is impossible to say what the outcome would have been
for the Russians had there not been the US supplies. Overall the Nazis
could not possibly have held Europe for a long time, but things could
have looked very very different without the US intervention.
It really is impossible to guess what might have happened. It was a
complicated war, with many factors. What might have happened if Hitler
had been assassinated or otherwise replaced by someone who was not a
rapid drug addict with barely the most tenuous grasp of reality? (The
British had a plan to assassinate him for a while - they dropped it when
they realised Hitler was doing half their job.)
It is probably fair to say the war would have gone on longer, and done
more damage, if the Americans hadn\'t contributed with their usual
quantity, enthusiasm, and total confidence in their own abilities
despite all evidence to the contrary. (There was a popular saying
amongst the allies in WWII - \"When the British shoot, the Germans duck.
When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the Americans shoot,
everyone ducks!\".)
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
A, the old trick of ignoring what people write and throwing around silly
insults instead? Perhaps you missed the bit where I /asked/ about the
book? Yes, of course I could have looked things up, but I was
interested in whether the other posters in this thread knew something
about it that caused their initial reactions.
That is obvious. Perhaps it /is/ a great book (meaning that this is a
majority of opinion amongst those who have read it). For every one
great book you, I or anyone else reads, there are a thousand more great
books that we have neither the time nor interest to read. So why would
you think your personal likes and dislikes are of relevance to me or
anyone else?
If you thought it was important enough to tell us about it, perhaps you
might have written something more than \"I liked it because it was cool
and great!\".
Do you think you learn by having the books on the shelves? Maybe you
read the books, but little seems to stick, and less comes out again.
I am not English. Oh, and there is a word for someone who judges an
entire country based on their experience with individuals - \"racist\".
And if you have never considered yourself a racist, then think /very/
hard about what you wrote there.
Amazing.
A, the old trick of ignoring what people write and throwing around silly
insults instead? Perhaps you missed the bit where I /asked/ about the
book? Yes, of course I could have looked things up, but I was
interested in whether the other posters in this thread knew something
about it that caused their initial reactions.
That is obvious. Perhaps it /is/ a great book (meaning that this is a
majority of opinion amongst those who have read it). For every one
great book you, I or anyone else reads, there are a thousand more great
books that we have neither the time nor interest to read. So why would
you think your personal likes and dislikes are of relevance to me or
anyone else?
If you thought it was important enough to tell us about it, perhaps you
might have written something more than \"I liked it because it was cool
and great!\".
Do you think you learn by having the books on the shelves? Maybe you
read the books, but little seems to stick, and less comes out again.
I am not English. Oh, and there is a word for someone who judges an
entire country based on their experience with individuals - \"racist\".
And if you have never considered yourself a racist, then think /very/
hard about what you wrote there.
Amazing.
S
server
Guest
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:12:00 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
Hilarious. You wouldn\'t dare read it now!
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
Hilarious. You wouldn\'t dare read it now!
--
I yam what I yam - Popeye
D
David Brown
Guest
On 30/12/2021 17:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
I really don\'t care. If I had the book easily available, and was bored
out my mind, I might perhaps read it. But I have hundreds of books -
fiction and non-fiction - that I\'d like to read if I had the time
(competing with hundreds of other ways to spend my time - just like
everyone else). A book about a historic naval battle does not interest
me, no matter how \"great\" some people may think it is.
Your posts here - like all your other recommendations for books or other
things you thought were \"cool\" or \"great\" - are quickly forgotten. If
you think I would specifically /not/ read a book because of what you
wrote, you flatter yourself more than usual. You really are not that
important.
I really don\'t care. If I had the book easily available, and was bored
out my mind, I might perhaps read it. But I have hundreds of books -
fiction and non-fiction - that I\'d like to read if I had the time
(competing with hundreds of other ways to spend my time - just like
everyone else). A book about a historic naval battle does not interest
me, no matter how \"great\" some people may think it is.
Your posts here - like all your other recommendations for books or other
things you thought were \"cool\" or \"great\" - are quickly forgotten. If
you think I would specifically /not/ read a book because of what you
wrote, you flatter yourself more than usual. You really are not that
important.