I'm in trial preparation mode, so this will be brief.

A publisher in India called OMICS Publishing Group has threatened to sue a blogger named Jeffrey Beal, who runs a blog called Scholarly Open Access. Beal critiques open-access publishing venues, and and ran a post asserting that OMICS engages in spamming and bait-and-switch. OMICS' threat would be mundane, except that its lawyer, Ashok Ram Kumar of the Indian firm IP Markets, has chosen to be so very ridiculous. He's threatening to sue for $1 billion, and to seek criminal penalties in India.

In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The punishment can be as much as three years in prison.

Lawyer, please.

Mr. Beal has little to fear from civil or criminal proceedings in India unless he wants to travel there.

First, if OMICS gets a civil judgment against him from India, they won't be able to enforce it here. The SPEECH Act prohibits any federal or state court in the United States from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless (1) the judgment creditor can prove that the foreign court offers equivalent protections for free speech as the defendant would have enjoyed in United States courts under the First Amendment, or (2) the judgment creditor can prove he or she would have prevailed even under the stricter standards in the United States.

Second, if OMICS seeks criminal charges against Mr. Beall in India, they won't be able to extradite him there. Like most extradition treaties, the treaty between the United States and India requires dual criminality — that is, that the offense is a crime in both countries. Hurting fee-fees isn't a crime in the United States. Moreover, under these circumstances, the chance that the U.S. Departments of State or Justice would cooperate with extradition requests is effectively zero.

So. OMICS can sue in the United States. If they do so, they'll have to satisfy their burden under U.S. law — for instance, by showing that Mr. Beall made provably false statements of fact. Attorney Kumar's bluster does not encourage confidence that they will be able to do so:

The rambling, six-page letter argues that Mr. Beall's blog is "ridiculous, baseless, impertinent," and "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance." The letter also accuses Mr. Beall of racial discrimination and attempting to "strangle the culture of open access publications."

"All the allegation that you have mentioned in your blog are nothing more than fantastic figment of your imagination by you and the purpose of writing this blog seems to be a deliberate attempt to defame our client," the letter reads. "Our client perceive the blog as mindless rattle of a incoherent person and please be assured that our client has taken a very serious note of the language, tone, and tenure adopted by you as well as the criminal acts of putting the same on the Internet."

Let us know how that works out for you, Mr. Kumar. Remember: you can't say "all the publishing credibility of COMIC SANS" without OMICS.

Depression is hard to talk about. I don't mean "there's a social stigma to it", although that's true. I don't mean "modern society calls minor mood swings 'depression' and medicates them with lifestyle drugs, so the depths of true depression are hard to convey to someone", although that's also true.

I mean that depression is a color, and people who haven't experienced it are color blind to its hue. There are no words to bridge the gap, to make it clear.

This comic is the best thing I've ever seen:

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2013/05/depression-part-two.html

I recommend taking a few minutes to read it all.

I suppose I should close with some pithy words of advice, but … I don't have any.

The best I can muster is this:

* If you're depressed, know that it might very well get better. Hang in there. Please. Deep in the darkness, you can't imagine that the sun will ever come out again, or even that if it does come out that light is worth seeing. But it is.

* If someone you know is depressed, be there for them, as much as you can (and I know it's hard. A depressed person is … depressing.)

If anyone has any better advice or thoughts, please share.

(UPDATE: I am reminded that we have written previously about depression here at Popehat.)

Mississippi Supreme Court Presiding Justice Michael K. Randolph wanted to speak his mind, and he wanted to speak his mind right the hell now, in the first medium available to him.

As it turned out, that was not in a letter to the editor or a tweet or a LiveJournal post or in a screed made up of letters ill-cut from discarded magazines. It was in an order stopping the State of Mississippi — temporarily at least — from killing Willy Manning.

Willy Manning came so close to death he could smell the alcohol swab. But finally — with the Federal Bureau of Investigation questioning the reliability of its own forensic analysis and testimony in the case, with other elements of the case plagued by doubt, and with untested DNA samples available, the Mississippi Supreme Court was moved to stay his execution pending further proceedings, which will probably include the DNA tests he has been fighting for.

Presiding Justice Michael K. Randolph, by contrast, was moved to use his dissent from the stay to tell America what he thinks of the FBI. In addition to saying all of Manning's arguments should have been raised before — a familiar and unremarkable argument — and apparently having no other outlet, he let fly with this:

The letter also states that the Department of Justice is "assist[ing] [the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in their evaluations." "The Innocence Project supports a moratorium on capital punishment." The "NACDL has been an outspoken critic of the death penalty system. Of critical concern is the language contained in the first FBI report stating that, "[g]iven the abbreviated time frame for review, the FBI requests the Innocence Project (IP) to advise as to whether or not they agree with the FBI's conclusions as soon as possible." Although the connectivity and expediency by which this review was accomplished is mind boggling, I should not be surprised, given that the families of the victims of the clandestine "Fast and Furious" gun running operation can't get the Department of Justice to identify the decision makers (whose actions resulted in the death of a border agent and many others) after years of inquiry, and that this is the same Department of Justice that grants and enforces Miranda warnings to foreign enemy combatants." [emphasis in original]

THANKS, OBAMA!

Mississippi has chosen this man to help decide whether inmates should live or die or spend the rest of their lives in dank holes. This should not cause you any concern, or weaken your faith in our criminal justice system. I'm sure his judgment is sound, his temperament ideal, and all of his faculties equal to the task.

Hat tip to Brian Tannebaum.

There's a map floating around the Twitterverse that I find fascinating:

(Click to embiggen!)

The main populations in the circle are these:

I'm reminded of Hans Rosling's intriguing videos. Especially this one.

What does this geographic concentration of us humans suggest or imply about current Unitedstatesian foreign policy? What does it suggest about possibilities for sustainable development of underindustrialized (or post-industrial) areas? How does the leveling influence of communication technologies intersect the social stratification that inevitably comes with such development? How should foreign language instruction and cultural education change in regions outside the circle? Which languages should Popehat support with i18n/l10n?

There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called "the present".

Is there a better way of doing today in view of tomorrow's important issues?

Scott Bloch used to be a deputy director to the Department of Justice's Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush and a Special Counsel at the United States Office of Special Counsel. Now he's a defendant in a federal criminal case, and has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for approving a "seven level wipe" on certain Office of Special Counsel computers, and now faces sentencing. This represented a milder charge than ones the government previously pursued: the feds charged him initially with contempt of Congress but abandoned that charge after Bloch was allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to it.

In addition to all that, it appears that Scott Bloch is a censorious thug.

Empty Wheel — which has been following Bloch's prosecution closely — has a post describing how Bloch has threatened bloggers writing about his case. Empty Wheel attaches and quotes a letter on Scott Bloch's own law firm letterhead. It includes the following language:

I write to demand that you remove these articles and blogs about me and my time as Special Counsel immediately. This is harmful to my professional reputation as a lawyer and you are not commenting on any public matters that are current. The prior legal defense fund is defunct and has not been active for over two years. Your demeaning and personal attacks impute to me qualities that tend to injure me in my business of representing contractors. Your website is dedicate [sic] to them and therefore you are targeting my business in Washington, D.C. intentionally, and my residence in Virginia, from where I draw some of my clients.

If you choose to ignore this and not remove the materials from your internet site and blogs and all caches, I will be forced to sue for an injunction and to seek damages. As long as the article remains on your website, you are publishing it. In addition, you are publishing it in various fora, including in Virginia and Washington D.C. where I represent employees and federal employees [sic] Continuing publication also subjects you to Virginia jurisdiction as long as the article remains on the web. I will institute an action in Virginia and in Washington D.C. against you for defamation and actual malice, together with damages and punitive damages.1 I will also seek damages for civil conspiracy to harm my business, and Virginia courts and juries have proved to be very protective of one’s business reputation when gratuitously harmed by publications. If I determine through discovery that you have worked with others to do this, I will join them as well. (emphasis added)

Were it not a vexatious attempt to chill free speech, Bloch's letter would be comical because it is so surpassingly ridiculous. First, Bloch does not specify which specific statements in the blog posts are false and defamatory. As I often say, vagueness in a defamation threat is the hallmark of meritless thuggery. Second, the assertion that Bloch's federal case — the prosecution of a former Department of Justice and Office of Special Counsel lawyer — is not a "public mater" that is "current" is freakishly frivolous. Third, the demand that bloggers remove all materials — not just specified allegedly false statements — is legally unsupportable and a reliable tell of censorious bullying, not merit. Fourth, the statement "As long as the article remains on your website, you are publishing it" is at best a highly questionable assertion of law. Virginia will probably follow the Single Publication Rule, and the District of Columbia definitely follows it; that rule provides that the statute of limitations for a defamation suit begins to run when a statement is first published, even if it remains on the internet thereafter.

Bloch's letter has all of the signs of bullying and none of the signs of truth. Empty Wheel notes that he has not threatened a larger blogger with a wider audience, but smaller blogs — perhaps ones more easily cowed.

I hope that someone finds a way to put this threat before the judge in Bloch's case to consider when he is sentenced.

All of Popehat's Prenda coverage is collected here.

Watchers of the Prenda Law saga have been waiting for United States District Judge Otis D. Wright II to issue an order in the wake of his apocalyptic hearing on proposed sanctions against Prenda Law, its putative client entities, and its lawyers. During that wait, doubt has set in. Could Judge Wright's order, after all this drama, possibly live up to expectations? Could any dry memorandum capture the jaw-dropping antics that have come before?

Yeeeeop.

Continue Reading »

Update! Tickets on sale now!

If you'll be in the Los Angeles area this June, and if you enjoy Golden Age detective stories, then the Hollywood Fringe Festival will be offering a special treat just for you: Kill A Better Mousetrap. This one-act comedy (with a legal twist!) by actor/writer Scott Ratner will be playing every Saturday that month.

…and yet, I did.

The Daily Currant is a parody news site, right?

Too bad – I wish that this was true.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/02/bloomberg-refused-second-slice-of-pizza-at-local-restaurant/
Bloomberg Refused Second Slice of Pizza at Local Restaurant

May. 02, 2013

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was denied a second slice of pizza today at an Italian eatery in Brooklyn.

The owners of Collegno's Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg's proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.

Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Read the rest through the link.

Over in the insanely long religious thread (362 391 comments and counting!) @Adrienne and I had a bit of a back and forth.

I expressed some thoughts on whether various believers all worship the same God or not, and @Adrienne took me to task.

Now, a quick note: I really don't want to clutter up this thread with theology. I'm not the theology blogger here, Popehat is not – despite the name! – a theology blog, most people don't care about theology. So, for the love of (cough) God, please don't use this thread to talk theology; keep it in the other thread!

What I do want to discuss here is how a society deals with three-, four- and five-deviation-from-the-mean opinions.

I quote @Adrienne's most recent comment:

I absolutely do not believe that the law should prohibit basically any sort of speech… I think hate speech laws, in particular, are horrifying.

Excellent, glad to hear it.

However, many things that are (and should remain) "okay" in a legal sense are "not okay" in a social sense, an ethical sense, or both.

100% agreed.

Certain thoughts and ideas and statements by and large make their possessor or speaker appear to be a complete asshole.

Yes, I agree.

However I note three things:

1) appear – verb – 3: to have an outward aspect

2) appearance is in the eye of the beholder, and beholders vary widely.

Saying that Jews are non-human and can be exterminated without moral qualm would not raise an eyebrow in Germany c. 1941, but saying it in 2013 would exclude you from polite society.

Saying that fetuses six months after conception are non-human and can be exterminated without moral qualm would not raise an eyebrow in Germany c. 2013, but saying it in 1941 would exclude you from polite society.

3) Most people don't read any books in a given year. Most people watch four hours of TV per day. Half the populace has an IQ under 100, and 99.8% of it has an IQ under 145.

What I take away from all of this is that I really don't care if my ideas – reasonably well-thought out, somewhat researched – make me appear to be an a-hole to 99% of people.

I'm not going to speak what I consider lies or refrain from speaking what I consider truth because the masses are bad at thinking and rarely experience any idea outside of of the comfortable bubble of two-major-parties / late-night-TV-comedy / approved US history.

I additionally believe that certain statements are irresponsible to make on a widely-read and well-respected blog such as Popehat

I strongly disagree.

I don't think that the marketplace of ideas is good in theory but bad in practice – I think it's good in theory and good in practice.

Here's how I engage in the marketplace of ideas :

1) I say things that may or may not make me appear to be an a-hole.

2) Anyone who wants to can leave a comment questioning my facts, my sanity, or my rationality.

3) I will engage with those people, striving to calmly respond to each and every one of them.

At the end of the day I may end up changing my opinion, one or more of them may end up changing their opinions, or no one will be swayed, but we will all be better off for having explored each other's premises and logic.

I would be enthusiastically in favor of your being socially shunned because of your statement.

I have been socially shunned for my opinions, and I've survived. The fact that I'm an nerdy INTJ who's extremely (perhaps pathologically) capable of sticking to his opinions even in the face of social opprobrium that has allowed me to explore lots of ideas, argue about them out loud, and change my mind dozens of times, so the causality implied by the previous sentence is backwards: it's not that I'm tough that has allowed me to survive the shunning, it's that I knew up front that I could survive the shunning that allowed me to explore ideas and embrace fairly crazy ideas like voluntaryism, transhumanism, modified Newtonian dynamics and Catholicism.

I would be totally okay with the New York Times printing your statement, your real name, and your photo on page one.

Interesting example. In fact, the New York Times has quoted me (under my real name) saying things that are outrageous to conventional prejudices. Twice. Neither, sadly, made page one. Both resulted in dozens of emails from people who went to the work of tracking me down and telling me that I'm terrible.

I think what you said is detestable and that you should face social consequences for it

I would not oppose your being fired from your day job (whatever your day job is) because of it.

I note that you don't merely say that it's OK if I face social consequences – you chose the word "should". You want me to be punished for expressing ideas that I have reached honestly.

That being the case, you don't really believe in a marketplace of ideas, do you? You want people to be punished for saying non-conformist things, you just want to keep your hands clean (or, rather, to claim that your hands are clean. You want your intellectual enemies to go hungry, but you want to be able to say that you didn't do it to them).

The goal here is – what? To raise the cost of speaking non-conformist ideas, so as to lower the total quantity of non-conformist ideas produced? I personally like the idea of an open society with intellectual ferment, but it seems like you do not.

Further, you're in favor of pretty extreme punishments: you'd like to see my lose my income, and because of that, inevitably, my house and my ability to support my family. You'd like to see that happen, and all because I dared to reach and then say out say out-loud an unpopular conclusion.

I consider that to be a shameful stance on your part.

…

However, I note that I don't want you to lose your job or your house, or go hungry because of your opinion. I'm glad you said it out loud, because it lets me see what you think.

What I want is to engage you, change your mind, and change the minds of anyone who might agree with you.

The following will likely bore most readers, as it's a family fight of sorts. Anyone who doesn't want to argue about the merits of Aunt Deb's lasagna versus those of Aunt Dorothy's is advised to move along. … and if you think Italian food is a pale excuse for the obviously superior Greek / Armenian / German / Nigerian food, this debate will be deeply uninteresting.

OK.

In the process of attacking a censorious tyrant ( a stance I entirely back Ken on), Ken wrote:

http://www.popehat.com

Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term.

Probably true, but "you're on the wrong side of history" was an argument-by-bigger-stick back when communism seemed to be ascendant, and it's not much better now. "May have been the losing side; still not convinced it was the wrong one." and all that.

If one cares about popularity, knowing how the mob votes is important.

If one cares about Truth, not only is the voice of the mob irrelevant, it's downright distracting.

Having a debate about Chris Boussard's beliefs might be interesting, but having a debate about how his beliefs stack up against the latest USAToday poll is not only uninteresting, it's a confusion of categories; it makes comparing apples to oranges seem like an exercise in sanity.

One heuristic I use when someone is making an argument is the presence of absence special pleading – stacking the deck, or outright removing certain cards from it and discarding them. Any politician who argues against gay marriage because it denigrates the sanctity of the sacrament – while on his second or third wife – should have his lips sewn shut before being tossed into the ocean (metaphorically, of course – I don't condone polluting oceans that way).

Conversely, if someone says something like "drugs are bad because they're addictive; I know from my own 20 year struggle with alcohol, where I rose up and fell down a dozen times", I may not be immediately convinced that we should continue the war on drugs, but I do respect the debater for putting evidence on the table, including evidence that does not flatter him and his self discipline.

So, by this heuristic, how does Broussard do?

Well he stands up for traditional Christian sexual morality – whatever you think of that – and was very clear that he considers premarital heterosexual sex to be sinful as well.

That itself is a wildly unpopular position. To use Ken's term, this isn't just snarling against the next asteroid; it's snarling against the one that already hit (and had a detrimental effect on the dinosaurs).

Broussard is not engaged in special pleading – he's declaring that 100% of the population is tempted by the category of sin he'd discussing, 99% have fallen into it, and he's explicitly leaving open the possibility that he himself is a sinner.

So far, so good. We need not be convinced by Broussard's stunning unpopular and uncontemporary stance, but we have, as yet, no reason to think that he's arguing in bad faith.

Ken wrote:

If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk…

First, let me say that I'd like to ban the word "ilk" from debate by fair minded people. Technically, it merely means "type" or "group", but the connotation is clear – we never talk about "our wonderful mother and others of her ilk".

I cringe when I hear the word – especially from people that I agree with. Arguing for or against Obamacare / abortion / guns / pepperoni pizza is fine. Let's have a rational debate or three. But demonizing opponents shuts down the cerebellum processors and spurs the lizard hind-brain to action.

Ken continued:

…his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.

I didn't detect any anger or bitterness in Broussard's explanation of his beliefs. They were calm and dispassionate. Far less angry, than, say, this:

Matthew 16:23

He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

Ken, and I, Broussard and 273 million Americans identify as Christians. A core theme in Christianity is the concept of the high path and the low, of God's law and the temptations of flesh, of sin and redemption. Coupled with this theme is the idea that that which is identified as sinful should be rejected. Jesus himself is quoted above berating the man who would later become the first pope.

Christians have been fighting about which fruit are forbidden and which are not since 30 AD, and will continue fighting about it until the end of time, but no matter where one draws various lines, the concept of forbidden actions is inextricable from Judeo Christian morality. Further, Christians are explicitly told to call attention to sinful behavior and correct it:

Proverbs 27:5-6

Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted

Ken says that Broussard is acting with "bitterness and resentment", but it's pretty clear to me that Ken is wrong, and Broussard is acting like a good Christian.

(side note: speaking as a Christian who is deep in sin – including several mortal ones – I'll say that it's a blessing to have better Christians than myself calling my attention to my deficiencies and reminding me that attonement is a good thing that has wonderful results. I'd rather be painfully prodded to do what I know is right than lied to by a brother and told that black is white.)

Now, perhaps Ken is right that homosexual relations / heterosexual relations outside of marriage / wearing white after Labor Day / mixing dairy and meat on the same plate is not sinful and Broussard is wrong on the matter of theology.

That does not make Broussard wrong to argue his point, and argue it in public (at least, not according to Christian doctrine; I acknowledge that according to Puritan New England Neo-Anglican SWPL doctrine, he's committing one of the worst offenses possible).

Jesus did not much care about unanimity and bowing to the popular opinion.

Matthew 10:34

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I note that Ken didn't argue that Broussard's theological interpretations are wrong. He argued that they're unpopular. As someone who actively prefers to be out on the intellectual fringes than in the mainstream, I find it weird and suspiciously neurotypical that Ken considers that an insult, but no matter.

Let us look at Christian thoughts on intellectual marginalization:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Oh, horrors. Please, Ken, don't let Broussard be marginalized – tell him what he has to believe and profess aloud in order to travel the broad road and pass through the wide gate!

A conservative neo-prohibitionist feels that the only way to convince his libertarian-leaning audience that even soft drugs like pot are bad is to – wait for it – "take a big rip off a bong filled with 'Master Kush'".

You can't make this stuff up.

Bottom line: the 21st century is weird.

ICK: You think it's getting too weird around here?

CHRIS: Absolutely.

JORDAN: I didn't notice.

MITCH: I like it.

I kind of like it too.

We've got fan art!

Over at Snarky Posters someone made some posters based on our security-theater-martial-law-and-a-tale-that-trumps-every-cop-and-donut-joke-youve-ever-heard post.

http://snarkyposters.blogspot.com/2013/04/runs-on-dunkin.html

Despite the lack of a cat mispelling English phrases, I still found these JPGs amusing.

In the comments recently I did a brief bit of battle with the "government is just a word for all of us working together" shibboleth.

…which made me think of one of my favorite posts here at Popehat. Well, perhaps "favorite" is the wrong term.

Five years ago Patrick Non-White dusted off his Mark II outrage rifle , stuck in a large-capacity magazine of bile, and racked the slide.

I Dunno Mr. Mukasey, It Looks Like Punishment To Me.

I am on the record as hating most government.

Note that this is not because I think that most people serving in government are evil. I think that most people, in most cultures, and across most times, are more-or-less decent. The problem is best analyzed with systems theory, and best fixed with the same tool.

The government-run horror show that killed Castaneda wasn't because there were mustache-twirling villains; it happened because dozens of people were "just doing their jobs".

Every day Pakistani children are killed by US drones. On my best days I'll say that the folks in DC aren't evil baby killers, the staffers at the DoD aren't evil baby killers, the engineers at Boeing aren't evil baby killers, and the USAF drone pilots aren't evil baby killers. They're all just normal human beings doing their jobs…as part of a huge and grotesque machine that kills people.

Every day young adults are arrested for possession of minor amounts of pot, sent to jail, and gang raped. On my best days I'll say that this doesn't happen because the politicians writing anti-drug laws are in favor of anal rape, or because beat cops are in favor of anal rape, or because wardens are in favor of anal rape or because prison staff are in favor of anal rape. They're all just normal human beings doing their jobs…as part of a huge and grotesque machine that arrests people for possessing leaves of a plant and puts them in rape factories.

The list goes on and on.

Normal people are perfectly capable of being cogs in machines that engage in madness, if not evil. When pressed, these normal people tend to fall back on the phrase "just doing my job" and a hand-waving version of the just world logical fallacy.

Arguing that we shouldn't be outraged at government because "it's just us" is one of the worst lies we tell ourselves.

Frankenstein's monster was stitched together out of people like us. Nazi Germany was stitched together out of people like us. Mao's PRC was stitched together out of people like us.

And though it's not as bad, the US government is still pretty nasty, and it too is stitched together out of people like us.

There are a lot of reasons you're going to say I'm wrong. Most of them are covered here, but I'm interested in hearing any others.

As far as I've been able to tell through clever googling in my favorite search engine, the renowned and much beloved Pirate Resignation Letter was written by Chris Castle and delivered to James Bear (deceased), former managing partner of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP.

After using the letter, Castle shared it with his friend, user "Otter Von Pop" of the (now defunct) BirdSunEye.com forum, and that user posted it on 17 October 2003 both as a forum post and as a Word doc attachment.

Later that morning, Chris Castle, posting as "The Bartender" confirmed the story and reported on the (first ever!) recipient's humorless (or brilliantly funny!) reply.

Harvested from the past and hosted right here on Popehat is that original forum thread:

Original Pirate Resignation Letter Thread

Enjoy this bit of net.history! And if you have anything to add about the people or circumstances, please share what you know in the comments.