What is the status of the 2008 voted rules changes?

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 17 Apr 2009, 23:47

Hi Barry

F.3.4 DIMENSIONS
for an aluminium spar, the difference between
largest and smallest value along the spar of
any wall thickness dimension ............................................ ...... 0.1 mm

Not quite. The 0.1 tolerance is for wall thickness. To prevent masts with specially light heads.

difference between largest and smallest diameter .................... ...... 0.3 mm

This tolerance is for the difference between mast diameters, to prevent tapered masts.

While neither of these tolerance values are particularly relevant to what we are discussing, they do illustrate that the IOM class rules happily specify such tolerances where considered useful.

Currently, the rules specify an absolute minimum mast diameter of 10.6 mm:

diameter...................................................................... 10.6 mm

No normal mast tube has such a diameter. The intention was to make sure that a mast tube of 11 mm (or 11.1) could pass measurement without any difficulty. The 'allowance' of 0.4 mm was, I believe, taken upon the advice of aluminium tube extrusion manufacturers/

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 18 Apr 2009, 00:32

OK. No more corrections please.

It could be stated more plainly but I'm back to the .3 mm piece now.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 18 Apr 2009, 03:24

To try to bring this back where it started this has now become a pretty clear example of what happens when the claimed "experts" substitutes their judgement for the vote of the entire class.

Fact is, Robert claims that he has a "better" idea. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Really it's just his opinion. Others, equally smart, equally educated, equally knowledgeable, have different opinions.

But we have a democracy. As Barry so clearly pointed out earlier in this thread, the class voted to allow 10mm masts. Not 9.6mm. Not 10.4 mm. TEN. Plain and simple.

Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't presume to know better, but I do know that it is not the place of a non-elected "expert" to tell everyone who voted on an issue, "Well, I know you made a choice, but I have more knowledge than you and I am going to change things. Trust me, I am an expert."

Well maybe that is a preview of an upcoming Robert Grubisa controlled IOMICA. For now, for me, however, I will live with democracy no matter how messy or imprecise.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 18 Apr 2009, 03:48

RoyL wrote: the class voted to allow 10mm masts. Not 9.6mm. Not 10.4 mm. TEN. Plain and simple..

Roy, I agree with you. From reading the background documents, the original value was set to grandfather all existing rigs and allow for manufacturing tollerances.

However that argument does not apply to the new value. If the tollerances is needed then the motion should have allowed for it.

However, did this motion really pass? While it had a simple majority of votes cast, it did not receive a 2/3 majority of the votes cast. I read the constitution as requiring a 2/3 majority of votes for this item.

valpro · Post by **valpro** » 18 Apr 2009, 09:50

And seeing that the matter of the wall thickness tolerance has come up, given that measurement is required to be done using non-destructive methods only, how does Ordinary Joe measure this as required by the rule, at any point along its length. No-one has come up with a valid and operable answer to this yet.
Further, regarding hardware store aluminium tube, where is the alloy specification available so that you know you are buying tube that will pass the rule. How do you know it anyway since the tube is not marked, comes with no material certificate and has no specification given in the suppliers catalogue?
If things are in the rules they must be capable of being checked by both owner and measurer. That's the whole purpose of the published rules and unless we start licencing manufacturers and suppliers, which will undoubtedly have a financial outcome for the end user, such rules are a waste of time. If you cant police them, dont have them in the first place. Keep it simple and it will work. Try and close all the real or imagined loopholes and all you get is endless trouble and argument.

Lester · Post by **Lester** » 18 Apr 2009, 10:25

Hi Val

Would you please start a new thread with your topic, rather than hijacking this one, thanks. Perhaps a request to the moderator will let you transfer your post. You make important points and they deserve their own debate.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 18 Apr 2009, 10:32

First of all: The ISAF-RSD PC is totally aware that constitutional deadlines have not been meet.

When I accepted to take on the task as PC acting chairman I asked the remaining committee members to stay on until we have had a DM vote on the future of the ISAF-RSD. For several reasons it has taken much longer than expected and I am sure that the PC members would be more than happy to resign directly if the DMs express such a wish.

The present ISAF-RSD is a temporary solution until it is decided whether radio sailing should join ISAF fully or return to be independent. Awaiting this decision ISAF has awarded ISAF-RSD the right to hold up to four annual championships for its classes and will publish the radio sailing appendix to the Racing Rules of Sailing. However as ISAF-RSD is not an ISAF member it thereby has no submission right etc.

A major problem for ISAF-RSD - and its predecessors IMYRU, IYRU-MYRD - has been to act both as international multi class association and the body that approves international classes. Both as the class association that writes class rules and the body that checks and approves them.

The PC has therefore encouraged the formation of international class associations for the ISAF-RSD classes. Unfortunately the â€œAâ€

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 18 Apr 2009, 14:51

Jan: Thank you so much for the informative clarification of the situation with RSD. And I think you have put forth a really productive solution to the problem of IOMICA/RSD relations in this interim period by offering to have ISAF assume technical review authority for our class.

One question--if as you say, ISAF-RSD PC has been "totally aware" that constitution deadlines have not meet, why has Robert Grubisa continued to attempt to assert authority over IOMICA technical questions and when asked about the status of RSD and its failure to meet its constitutional obligations, essentially claim that he would not deal with "political" questions? (Well, maybe this is a question for Robert to answer....)

I have been looking for guidance on this issue for some time now and again thank you for providing it. As always, your thoughtful and informed response is appreciated.

jandejmo · Post by **jandejmo** » 18 Apr 2009, 15:39

Hi Roy

The reason is that ISAF-RSD, while seeking a final decision on the ISAF / ISAF-RSD relation, has continued to handle tasks like being class rules authority for the ISAF-RSD classes.

But, as stated in my previous posting, if IOMICA is unhappy with RSD carrying out this task for the One Metre, then I see no reason to argue about it and I will ask the PC to relieve Robert of this duty provided ISAF would be prepared to temporarily take on the role as class rules authority for the class.

The important thing is to make a decision on whether to join ISAF fully - or go independent again as in the IMYRU days - and to make this decision as soon as possible. Status quo is not an option and status quo does not gain anybody.

Jan

Andy Stevenson · Post by **Andy Stevenson** » 18 Apr 2009, 19:17

Folks

I have stated to the Exec, that I will not condone action that goes against the agreement between IOMICA and RSD. I will not be swayed from that position.

Cheers

Dick Carver · Post by **Dick Carver** » 19 Apr 2009, 01:29

Hi Andy.
Please clarify.

First, what is the "agreement between IOMICA and the RSD" ?
Is there a document somewhere on this site, or the RSD site explaning the agreement?

Second, by "not condone action that goes against the agreement....", do you mean that you feel the RSD (and the RSD PC) is still intact and functioning in the same capacity with all the authority it had in 2005 ?

In other words, do you feel taking the view that the RSD is defunct is going against the agreement?

Thanks

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 19 Apr 2009, 01:53

The only agreement I can find on the FTP site between IOMICA and RSD was dated 10-23-03 and consists of the following:

AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL ONE METRE CLASS
AGREEMENT dated the 23rd day October 2003
PARTIES: 1. International Sailing Federation â€“ Radio Sailing Division (ISAFâ€“RSD)
2. International One Metre International Class Association (IOM ICA)
OPERATIVE TERMS:
1. Definitions
1.1 â€œInternational One Metre Class boatâ€

Jan Dejmo · Post by **Jan Dejmo** » 19 Apr 2009, 11:58

A final posting on my part regarding this subject

If ISAF-RSD exists the One Metre is an ISAF-RSD class and can have world championships.

If the One Metre is an ISAF-RSD class, then RSD is the class rules authority. If the One Metre becomes an ISAF class, then ISAF will be the class rules authority. This, as Robert explained it, is a â€œquality assuranceâ€

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 19 Apr 2009, 16:58

Jan: I know you have said that you have made your last post on this topic, but an important clarification is needed.

In your prior post you offered the option of having ISAF Technical serve in the review role of IOMICA class rule changes. Is this now no longer the case?

The concern I have is not with the existence of RSD, but with the power attempting to be asserted by Robert Grubisa over our class. As you pointed out, RSD had a series of "constitutional failures" one of which was not to properly and timely elect its officers. Under its own rules, RSD would seem to have no elected official in the Tech role we can work with.

Further, although the agreement between IOMICA and RSD allows RSD technical to only accept or reject our voted on rules changes, Robert has asked us to "revise" language per his specifications. Additionally, since Robert is a manufacturer and seller of boats (and a licensee of another manufacturer, Sails, Etc.) many people have expressed extreme discomfort in having him be the final authority over all things technical.

IOMICA in this instance is the innocent victim of the prior lack of leadership at RSD. Given Robert's insistence on asserting authority over our class, many of us believed that the suggestion you made was an excellent one--for the moment to turn technical issues over to ISAF Technical.

If you have now taken that option off the table, could you explain why? It seemed like the perfect answer to our problem. Finally, as another alternative, I am certain that given your long history and experience with our class and others, if you would be prepared to step into the Tech review role as acting chairman of RSD as opposed to Robert Grubisa, again this problem could be easily resolved.

As always, best wishes, Roy

Jan Dejmo · Post by **Jan Dejmo** » 19 Apr 2009, 18:06

Roy

The offer stands if the IOMICA Executive asks.

If the IOMICA Executive asks, I will ask the ISAF-RSD PC for permission to contact ISAF on this issue.

If I get the PC approval to contact ISAF, then I will.

Jan

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 19 Apr 2009, 23:15

Jan: Thank you for your prompt response. Regards, Roy

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 20 Apr 2009, 08:38

I am in favor of taking Jan up on his proposal. We really need to get this going in preparation for the WC's.

Additionally, we ought to announce that the 10mm spar resolution did not pass and needs to be re-submitted by ESP is they choose to do so.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 20 Apr 2009, 11:10

I am sorry but I have got lost, what is Janâ€™s proposal?

Having the risk of loosing our WC just for two proposals: one of them THAT DID NOT PASS and the other that is incomplete.

Please Lady and Gentlemen, listen our Chairmanâ€™s advice because this post should have finished the first time he said Cheers.

Why we like making a mountain out of a molehill?

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 20 Apr 2009, 16:36

Alfonso: The option being kindly offered to IOMICA by Jan Dejmo is that until the future of RSD and IOMICA with ISAF is settled, ISAF Technical will review our class rules changes and requests for interpretation as opposed to Robert Grubisa, claimed head of RSD technical committee.

As has been made clear, this is not a challenge to the existence of RSD, it is a concern that due to RSD's failures to timely hold proper elections there is no duly elected official in the RSD Tech role that we can work with. Under RSD's own rules prior officers do not hold onto their jobs if elections are not held.

This problem is magnified by the fact that rather than accept or reject rule changes (the limits of RSD's powers), Robert would like IOMICA to rewrite them to his specifications. It also appears that Robert is acting on his own in these matters, at least one "member" of the RSD technical committee has claimed on these boards that they have not been consulted and I know of at least one other who says the same. Further, there is a real concern that because Robert manufacturers and sell boats internationally and he is a licensee of one of the largest suppliers of parts and other components out there (Sails Etc.) that there will be the question of a conflict of interest over every decision he makes. As one person put it simply: "A manufacturer should not be responsible for technical decisions. Period."

Finally, as to the issues that are pending, there are two requests for rule interpretations, one from the MYA concerning sail tablings and one from Spain regarding corrector weights plus the rule changes passed at our last AGM. You should know that I have offered as another way to resolve this problem is for Robert Grubisa to simply accept the rules as passed by the class and the interpretations put forth by IOMICA, to the best of my knowledge this offer has been refused. (FYI, I totally agree with the actions requested by Roger Stollery on behalf of the MYA and would adopt his proposals as written.)

IOMICA is the innocent victim here. For someone who appears so concerned that the IOMICA Exec should always follow the exact letter of the rules and regulations, I am surprised that you view this situation as "making a mountain out of a molehill." Giving an unelected third party unlimited control over all of IOMICA's technical issues seems to me to be a major issue not to be in the best interests of the class. Oh, and I agree with Bruce Andersen that we should take advantage of the choice offered by Jan. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 20 Apr 2009, 18:35

Dear Roy:

I think you told us that you are a lawyer so let me ask you a question: Does a company fail to exist because they did not call for shareholdersâ€™ meeting?

The answer is No, so the situation with ISAF RSD is exactly the same, there are different consequences for that mistake but the company is still alive and all the agreements signed with any supplier or client is valid.

Moreover, and now as an owner, did you asked your DM or your MNA to ask ISAF RSD for calling for the AGM? Let me guessâ€¦.No?

But let me keep on asking you a few questions.

Did you read the ESP NCA proposal to change the mast dia rule before the class voted? Did you read the GBR proposal to change the rule that deals with the measurement forms? Did you read the minute of the 2008 AGM? I think that the answer to all these questions is the same: NO, at least not like the VC Technical should have read it.

Why I am so sure? Because, of course I read our proposal, but I did not read carefully the GBR proposal and so I did with the minute. Why?, because me, as most of the owners of this class, thought you had revised carefully. When I read them carefully I have realized they were wrong.

How can you say that IOMICA is the innocent victim here. Owners are the innocent victim. We are victim of your leap in the dark. We are not stupid, instead admitting that you made a mistake (well, in fact two or three) that we all would have accepted, you start looking for problems when just one year ago, in the same situation, everything was perfect.

But not happy with that now you are trying to damage Robertâ€™s reputation suggesting that Robert has some kind of conflict of interest just because he sells boats (what it has been declared). Havenâ€™t you realize yet that Robert was trying to help you to fix your mistakes?

RoyL wrote:For someone who appears so concerned that the IOMICA Exec should always follow the exact letter of the rules and regulations, I am surprised that you view this situation as "making a mountain out of a molehill

It is true, I like to follow the rules so I can ask others to follow the example, but unfortunately you are not in my situation.

Antonio Espada · Post by **Antonio Espada** » 20 Apr 2009, 18:45

For information on all of ISAF and consultations:
ISAF act quickly if you are asked ...
Since (a proposal of mine) was disqualified in Mr.Bundock at Palma trophy AUS1 to ISAF for approval of new rule G.5.3 repealing G.5.1, have only 9 days ...
So there is time ... Just asking.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 20 Apr 2009, 21:59

Alfonso: I am attempting to keep this focussed on issues, not personality, but I would be glad to answer your questions. In no particular order:

1. I view the job as VC Technical to work to grow our class; reduce controversy, and try to steer all disputes to be resolved by the membership in a full vote if at all possible. I do not think it is the job of VC Tech to substitute my judgement for that of the membership and certainly not for a proposal submitted by a national authority.

2. To answer your question directly, of course I have read all of the proposals submitted during my tenure. What I did not and will not do is rewrite them because I differ with the language or the intent of the proposal or even if I thought I could make it better. I do not presume to substitute my judgement for that of a National Class Authority.

3. I also believe that for the good of the class, that it is inappropriate for anyone who sells boats and parts (regardless of disclosure) to have final authority over technical matters for our class. Others may disagree. However, I am very concerned that should a manufacturer hold the VC Technical position, any controversial decision will be questioned and cause problems for the class. I can say that of the many manufacturers and suppliers to our sport that I spoke with not a single one thought that it was right for them to serve in the VC Technical post.

4. Regarding, RSD, I hope I have made it very clear that I have not questioned its validity. I have immense respect for Jan Diejmo and what he has done and is trying to do.

5. As has been pointed out by many people here, however, RSD has failed to timely hold elections for its officers and per our agreement with RSD there is therefore no properly elected Tech official for IOMICA to deal with. Thanks to Jan, however, should we choose, we have the option to deal with either the last holdover in the RSD Tech position or ISAF Technical. I would prefer ISAF Technical.

6. I assume you are not serious in suggesting that I or anyone else is somehow responsible for the failures of RSD because we did not ask our national authorities to ask RSD to timely hold elections.

8. Do not presume that everything with Robert Grubisa was "fine" a year ago. Internally, among the IOMICA Exec we had extended discussions about what was the best thing to do for the class in responding to Robert's requested rule changes. It was decided for the good of the class and to move forward at that time, that the best thing to do was to "suck up" to Robert. At the time I thought it would make him more flexible and easier to work with in the future. In retrospect that proved not to be true.

7. Finally, a personal issue. To suggest that I am in some unspecified way acting to cover up unspecified "mistakes" is just plain and simple wrong.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 22 Apr 2009, 16:41

Nice empty words. Let me also answer you some of your statements.

RoyL wrote: I do not think it is the job of VC Tech to substitute my judgement for that of the membership and certainly not for a proposal submitted by a national authority.
2. To answer your question directly, of course I have read all of the proposals submitted during my tenure. What I did not and will not do is rewrite them because I differ with the language or the intent of the proposal or even if I thought I could make it better. I do not presume to substitute my judgement for that of a National Class Authority.

Functions of the IOMICA Technical Subcomitee according with Constitution wrote: 11.2.7. Considering and advising on any change in the IOM Class Rules proposed to the World Council.

As you can see you are wrong again. How was the score of your last mistakes?

I think now we have 4. But in any case, if you thought that your role was different may be it should have been nice to inform owners of your intentions before you run for your position.

RoyL wrote:3. I also believe that for the good of the class, that it is inappropriate for anyone who sells boats and parts (regardless of disclosure) to have final authority over technical matters for our class. Others may disagree. However, I am very concerned that should a manufacturer hold the VC Technical position, any controversial decision will be questioned and cause problems for the class. I can say that of the many manufacturers and suppliers to our sport that I spoke with not a single one thought that it was right for them to serve in the VC Technical post.

I am already wondering how many times are you going to repeat the same song before the elections. But no problem Roy, everybody knows who is Robert and what does he do. He has also explained this question in this forum and our rules take preventive measures in this case.

RoyL wrote: 4. Regarding, RSD, I hope I have made it very clear that I have not questioned its validity. I have immense respect for Jan Diejmo and what he has done and is trying to do.

5. As has been pointed out by many people here, however, RSD has failed to timely hold elections for its officers and per our agreement with RSD there is therefore no properly elected Tech official for IOMICA to deal with. Thanks to Jan, however, should we choose, we have the option to deal with either the last holdover in the RSD Tech position or ISAF Technical. I would prefer ISAF Technical.

Hmm, interesting double opinion that nobody will understand. ISAF RSD is a valid entity and Jan Diejmo (sorry Jan for being in the middle of this post), its Acting Chairman, is a very nice person but the Technical Chairman is the devil. No more comments on this issue.

RoyL wrote: 6. I assume you are not serious in suggesting that I or anyone else is somehow responsible for the failures of RSD because we did not ask our national authorities to ask RSD to timely hold elections.

I thought I made myself clear the first time but I am going to put an example. In my opinion, nobody that did not vote in the Presidentâ€™s election can criticize when things go wrong. So with ISAF RSD is the same, if you thought that the failure of ISAF RSD in calling for the AGM was injuring your democratic principles you should have asked them, directly or through your NCA or DM, to call for the AGM. But if you did not you better now look in another direction exactly in the same way that when you break our IOMICA Constitution.

RoyL wrote: 7. Finally, a personal issue. To suggest that I am in some unspecified way acting to cover up unspecified "mistakes" is just plain and simple wrong.

Now I do not understand. Didnâ€™t I specify the 3 mistakes?

A final consideration. In the 2008 AGM there were 5 proposals to change the Class Rules:

- The GBR proposal about the measurement forms
- The ESP proposal about mast dia.
- The TSC proposal about dual receivers.
- The TSC proposal about rig fittings material
- The ESC proposal about Temporary Certificates

From the above list ISAF RSD disagree with our VC Technical only in the two first. The ESP proposal, that did not pass, and the GBR proposal because is incomplete, as everybody has seen in this forum, so it needs to be â€œfixedâ€

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 23 Apr 2009, 00:35

As they say in my country, Alfonso, "What you'd say about my mama?" (lol).

First, you have obviously not paid much attention to the affairs of this class other than for the last few months. When I ran for IOMICA office two years ago I said exactly the same thing I said to you here--I didn't believe the job of VC Technical was to substitute my judgement for that of the class members. I believe in votes and the power of democracy, not so-called "experts." I have repeated that statement so many times on these boards I can't even count. Go back and look at the last election. Lester Gilbert ran against me and he offered to provide the same "expert" guidance you claim is required and lacking in VC Technical. Lester was soundly defeated. Someone must have thought I was ok.

Second, I am sorry that you don't understand that an organization can exist but one or more of its officers may not be properly elected. Seems very, very simple to me. RSD failed, not IOMICA.

Third, given that you have selected Robert Grubisa to run with you for VC Technical it is not surprising that you have no questions about potential conflicts of interest or his actions on behalf of RSD. However, as a wise man once said: "The mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open."

Fourth, I did not cause Andy Stevenson to resign. I offered numerous possible compromises to Andy and Robert Grubisa. I did not dispute RSD's existence. I did take the position that IOMICA should accept Jan Dejmo's offer and ask ISAF Technical to oversee our technical issues. This position was shared by the majority of the current exec. Andy did not find this acceptable and he choose to resign. I regret that decision, but it was his to make.

Fifth, your claim that all of us who did not go to RSD and tell them to hold elections are somehow responsible for (or excuse) RSD's failures is just plain silly. My time was pretty much occupied by my volunteer service with IOMICA. Sorry. Now that I think about it, under your theory, I suppose that would also make us both responsible for the tragic war in Iraq because neither of us told George Bush it was wrong.

Finally, I firmly believe that you should earn the right to become Chairman of our organization. Andy Stevenson was class secretary before he became chairman. Greg Willis helped organize the IOM World Championship in Australia and ran Australian model yachting. Even Lester Gilbert spent years working to found IOMICA before he became its first chairman. What have you done other than complain about me? If you want to be Chairman you have to learn how to work with others, even those who disagree with you. Basically, you have done none of the work and have not shown the proper temperment. Perhaps it might be a better course to gain just a little experience before presuming you are qualified to be in charge?

Nigel · Post by **Nigel** » 23 Apr 2009, 15:20

Gentlemen,

for anybody reading this thread it is very clear that IOM ICA and ISAF RSD are in limbo regarding the pending IOM CR rules changes and currently the blame for this is going around the houses.

Instead of long public discussions who is at fault, how about taking a more pragmatic approach and get things resolved in view of an upcoming Worlds and the time past since the vote on the CR changes.

This discussion is not putting the IOM class in a very positive light

and is really taking us backwards instead of moving things forward.

Alfonso · Post by **Alfonso** » 23 Apr 2009, 17:07

Nigel, you are absolutely right. Solutions and not discussions. Do you know when I asked RoyL if he had sent the resolutions for final ratification? The 12th of February.

Barry Fox CAN262 · Post by **Barry Fox CAN262** » 23 Apr 2009, 19:02

Let's put the damn fingers in our pockets and get back on topic and get it done. It appears that the first 2 proposals either didn't pass properly or need some more detailed definition before they could be implemented. Let's table them or at least withdraw our request for approval.

The other 3 are pretty straight forward, desired by the class membership and need to be in place.

The Worlds is not too far away. There are numerous National and Regional championships coming even before then.

We should get what we can get done, done. And then get back to work on the other(s).

The new proposals for this year also encompass a number of things that we have beaten to death (or beyond). Some time should be spent on those to make sure they can be implemented if passed without having to beat each other up after the fact.

This all started with a simple question concerning the status of some previously passed items. The answer is quite simple as well, if you take away the need to be "right".

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 23 Apr 2009, 19:11

Nigel/Barry--I promise, we really have been trying hard to reach a solution to this problem for months. What will happen now is two fold--first, we will approach RSD to see if Robert Grubisa can be persuaded to compromise with IOMICA on open technical questions. If he does, we will have an immediate resolution of all the pending issues. Second, if Robert is unwilling, we will then ask Jan Dejmo to turn over IOMICA technical issues to ISAF. It is our understanding that the process with ISAF is usually very quick and that classes receive (as per our agreement with RSD) a rapid "Yes" or "No" answer.

I promise you that the entire exec is resolved to close all open questions as soon as possible.

Alfonso: Just a guess, but I have a feeling that trying to blame me for this problem is not the kind of constructive solutions Nigel was asking for. Of course, I could be wrong....