Some comments about "political operatives" posting here at DU:

[bemildred]

1.) It's something of a compliment to us and to the site that they would think it worthwhile to spend precious time trying to influence us.

2.) Why should they not? Are they not Democrats too?

3.) Why should they not make their best arguments for us to consider and agree with or refute? Is that not what the site is all about?

4.) Maybe we can even educate some of them.

To summarize, I think this is a useless argument. Anybody that wants to can post here, as long as they follow the rules, and if that were not so this would be a worse site for it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I agree

This place would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

[wtmusic]

2. What if a particular interest were to inundate DU with their POV

by hiring a few "objective" parties to post all the time?

I do believe that's happening right now.

[EFerrari]

4. How is that different from the corporate media inundating us with bs

every day?

It just tunes up your BS detector after a while. :shrug:

[bemildred]

7. They generally get tired of it after a while.

That's been my observation. In the meantime you can learn about their agendas and intentions etc.

Edit: and have a little fun. :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

35. So what?

Really, who cares?

If they have persuasive arguments, maybe they will convince a few people to see things their way. But that's no different from anyone else coming here - even with lots of friends joining them.

I agree with the OP - so long as the rules are being followed, c'mon in!

[wtmusic]

59. Here's why.

We are all by nature more accepting of a position if many others seem to agree with it. That said, as blogs/discussion boards become more important as places people look to for some kind of factual, objective commentary and news, these places become the first lines of attack for those seeking to advance an agenda.

People who are being paid to do so are advancing it, by definition, for the wrong reason. That's why newspapers run disclaimers -- "Paid Advertisement" -- for baldness cures, even when the ads are constructed carefully to look like an actual newspaper story.

I can conceive of a time when PR campaigns become so well supported that people are paid to inundate them with public relations positions to the extent that opposing, honest opinions are virtually drowned out. Two or three people working full time to advance a position at DU would be very successful at it, if they used a little subtlety. How much would it cost to hire 50 people to hit the most popular liberal boards day and night about how Halliburton is not really to blame for the mismanagement, bribery, corruption of which they've been accused? What was Halliburton's net profit last year?

Drop in the bucket.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. I just don't think most of us here are such sheep.

Sorry.

[wtmusic]

86. I hope you're right

but sometimes I see posts (even those I initially have disagreed with) which make a lot of sense -- but then are countered with such hostility and persistence that the posters just give up.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. Well, but despite the hostile responses, it sounds like

the post that made the impression on you (the positive one) was the well reasoned, sensible ones, right?

I'm not sure it's necessary for people to refute every silly post. Usually they sort of stand there, being silly, and speak for themselves, you know?

[PSPS]

3. Are they not Democrats too? - Not necessarily.

2.) Why should they not? Are they not Democrats too?

I think most long-time members would agree that there are quite a few participants who are republican operatives promomting a specific democratic candidate solely as a stalking horse.

[TheDebbieDee]

9. I agree. These operatives may be

in the employ of repuke organizations trying to spread repuke propaganda or divide and splinter Democratic activists.

[devilindisguise]

24. I believe the reps. have landed on DU

I haven't been here long, but I recognize a rep. when I hear one, read one, see one(usually). Different breed of cat from democrats. I've seen Hillary knocked so much the first day I was on here by people claiming to be Obama supporters, I knew they were reps. Democrats don't knock each other that way. We state our preferences, but we vote for the nominee. I think reps. are on here to divide and conquer so McNutjob can win in November. Or should I say McWW111.

[TheDebbieDee]

27. "I think reps. are on here to divide and conquer"

You re right, of course. The sad thing is that it seems to be working!

[devilindisguise]

33. It just doesn't work with me

Republicans will only debate on boards like this. Ever tried to get one of them to tell you why they voted for Bush Jr.? I have, and they have no answer. Except "well, I'm a rep."

[TheDoorbellRang]

52. Oh yes indeed. I'm sure there are "reps" here

supporting one side or the other, or claiming that one side or the other has been infiltrated.

You may not realize this as you've only been posting two days, but up until the primaries we were all holding hands here and singing "kumbayah," with never a cross word exchanged. Damn those "reps" for destroying our brotherly and sisterly love!11!!1!!

Welcome to DU.

[bemildred]

11. Well, that's true.

The site actually welcomes "progressives" if I remember right, but it allows most anybody, since there is no real way to check, as long as they obey the rules, and the rules are quite lax overall.

[libbygurl]

45. Yup, there's no way to verify anyone's true loyalties on an anonymous Internet website. nt

[Mike03]

5. Nice Post

It really is insulting, though, to be accused of this, which I have been (although, only once, I think).

K @ R, Bemildred. You always have something worthwhile to say.

[bemildred]

6. I've been accused of many things here.

Often conflicting too. I guess I must be a very complex person. But, it isn't much of an argument.

[EFerrari]

10. I've been accused of being an illegal alien freeper troll.

Now, *that* would be complicated!

:hi:

[bemildred]

13. LOL. Well, freeper" and "troll" go together anyway. nt

[devilindisguise]

19. Trolls

are like stalkers. They follow people around and question everything that person says. Then they usually call the person they stalk a 'troll". I've experienced that. Happened to me on a Soap Opera posting board. This one person would get in every post I posted, say terrible things to me, and then call me a troll.

[Mike03]

12. Your posts have such integrity, at least in my mind

I can't imagine you being accused of anything.

But, anyway, thanks for writing this post, as well as many others.

It's always good to read posts made by you.

[bemildred]

14. Aw shucks. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The phrase is "nice post, ____"

as in Nice Post, Hitler. Oh wait, you actually meant "nice post". Nevermind.

[Mike03]

15. What do you mean?

It is insulting to be accused of being an operative for some particular point of view, especially when you have been here for six years.

What is your point, please.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. sheesh it was a joke. relax.

The phrase "nice post, <insert evil person here>" is a running joke on DU. When I see a post with the subject "Nice Post" I expect to see 'Karl', or 'Hitler'. Instead you actually meant 'nice post' so I made an (obviously failed) joke on my own expectations. Sorry.

[Mike03]

20. Okay, sorry.

I didn't understand it.

I'm relaxed. You relax too.

[Mike03]

16. This is what I wrote to you by private email, but it said you cannot

accept private messages:

Why did you write what you wrote to me? Is it something I said, or was it an attack against the author of the OP. I'm totally confused.

Regards,

Mike

[devilindisguise]

17. No.,3 - because republicans aren't welcome at D.U.

Pretty sure I read that in the rules a time or two.

[bemildred]

21. There is no such rule.

We love Republicans here, so long as they are reformed or reformable. Or anybody else for that matter, with the same conditions.

[devilindisguise]

28. I belive I did see something in the rules that said

Reps. weren't welcome. Or at least "if they have nothing to contribute". They never have anthing to contribute. I'll go read those rules again and see. I know I didn't dream it. I used to post here several years ago, for a short while at least. I think the rules are still the same.

[bemildred]

31. If you find it, let me know. nt

[devilindisguise]

32. Believe this says it all

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.


Members are expected to be generally suportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

That sort of says to me that reps. aren't welcome. You know like the old saw that says "Don't come knocking if this van is rocking". I can't see how a rep. could contribute anything to democratic ideals. They want reps. to be elected to every office except dogcatcher. That is saved for democrats in their opinion.

[bemildred]

34. We'll have to disagree. Some Reps are "progressive".

They are just confused about it and need to talk it out. Historically, the Reps were the progressive party in this country, a fact now buried under 40 years of reactionary divide-and-rule politics.

[devilindisguise]

36. That's okay

I certainly have no use for any republican, and I have some in my family. Not immediate family of course, or there would be blood. All the reps. I've know, worked with, talked to, think as one mind. Money. Money. Money.

[bemildred]

37. Well, I have some relatives I don't talk about much but Barney the Dinosaur with.

So yeah. But if they came here, I'd have a good time destroying their arguments.

[opihimoimoi]

22. The Pub Ops who come here...I suspect many are paid ops with a mission to confuse, distract, influen

ce, etc....

The GOP are Rich and Ruthless

They are clever and conniving

They will adhere to their Flawed Philosophy no matter what..

Its a WAR

between Good and Bad

If I were a Bad Pub...I would do the same....

[bemildred]

23. And I say "Bring it on!"

How you doing? Good to see you around.
:hi:

[opihimoimoi]

47. Same Ole Shit I am......Still a Believer in the COMMON GOOD..its a passion of mine

True Blue Democrats are altruistic in varying degrees..

[ralbertson]

25. Hey, now! I *am* one of those pesky PO people. Although I, at least, freely admit it.

While I am weighing in on this particular subject, and discussing this particular kind of, um, er, stuff, I am not doing so randomly.

As you can tell from my sig line and the comment I'm about to quote below, I happen to work for a United States Senator. I consider that to be a pleasure and a privilege, though not always in that order, and I do take it seriously.

I didn't join DU because of that connection -- if anything, the reverse would probably be closer to the truth, since one part of the reason I got hired as the Online Content Manager for his websites was because of the depth and breadth of my pre-existing online political connectivities, DU included.

There are legitimate ways for "paid political operatives" to participate in online forums such as DU. There also are personal and professional responsibilities involved, both internal and external, and it is entirely appropriate that these issues should be discussed in public as well.

To wit, this is something I wrote in a specific candidate's forum on DU several weeks ago:

Since we're making new friends in this group who may or may not have run into some of us elsewhere on DU before, I think it's an appropriate opportunity to officially introduce myself to the rest of the Barack Obama Group.

It's obvious from my sig line that I am a professional political staffer specializing in online content production creation and management. This is not accidental. While I was an active DUer before I became a staffer for the junior Senator from Massachusetts' in-house internet team, as soon as I did go to work for him, I switched to a new nick that has always been clearly associated with my professional situation and I now use that exclusively when I post here.

This does not mean that I stopped posting, although to be honest I did avoid posting much at all for quite some time in order to establish a clear boundary line here. Although I am a paid staffer for a professional politician, I can and do still have opinions of my own and there is no reason that I should not post them here...

...*if*, that is, there is never any doubt about who I am and who I work for. That is, imho, an unbreakable rule of political blogging: Thou Shalt Disclose. Period, full stop. No dodging, no sock puppets, no playing games.

Even when I am off-duty, as I am right now, whatever I say in places like DU does reflect on the judgment of the guy who decided to hire me as one of his online voices. I am not going to say or do anything that will make him wish he hadn't done so. But that doesn't mean I am not going to say, or should not say, anything at all.

I had been careful not to make any public statements of support for Senator Obama in the past, because of the above caveat. I had hoped for some time that he would decide to publicly endorse Obama, and like practically all of his staffers I was delighted when he did so. That has freed me to publicly declare my enthusiastic support for Obama's campaign, and to publicly throw all the help I am able to provide bhind his efforts.

As some of the other readers already know and some might not, there has been a sudden influx of active John Kerry supporters into this group since he made his endorsement known last week. This is not a Bad Thing. As has already been mentioned upthread, we have no intentions of trying to co-opt or colonize the Barack Obama Group. Rather the contrary -- we are here to participate, to assist, to become part of *this* group for what it is and what it can be.

We came here to back Obama because we *want* to back Obama. He is a terrific candidate, with a terrific message, and the fact that a guy we also happen to think is pretty terrific believes that Obama is pretty terrific too, well, that just adds icing to the cake.

And this is a terrific group of people who've been introducing themselves in this thread to you longtime Obama supporters that hadn't met them before. I had the privilege of meeting many, though not all, of them in December of '06 when they gathered in Boston to celebrate a certain rather tall Senator's birthday. I had gotten to know many of them in DU previously, and some of them I know from way back in the '04 presidential wars.

They're good peeps. Really, really good peeps. If truth be told, an awful of what I know about DU I learned from them. And if they support Barack Obama as ably and effectively as they have supported John Kerry over the years -- and I know that they will -- then, silverweb et al, you and your candidate are very lucky indeed to have them join your online team. (And not just your online team, for that matter -- I know from experience that these guys have one helluva ground game, too.)

GOBAMA!

The second through fifth paragraphs in the preceding blockquoted comment are absolutely critical to this message, y'all.

Even if you, too, happen to be a paid political operative, as I freely admit that I am these days -- there are legitimate ways to participate in conversations like those we have on DU, and illegitimate ways as well. I don't have to tell you good people which are which.

No matter *which* Democrat you might happen to be personally throwing your support behind,you are certainly welcome to post about that here on DU -- *IF*, that is, you fully disclose who you are and who you work for and you make your PPO status very clear when you post.

As I said above:

That is an unbreakable rule of political blogging: Thou Shalt Disclose. Period, full stop.

If you get paid for posting under the table, though... well, let's just say that I don't want to know you, and leave it go at that. Because you don't want to hear what I *really* think about that kind of smelly, steamy, sticky pile of horse -- um, er, stuff.

[bemildred]

29. Well, disclosure is nice, it can give you credibility even.

But you can't rely on it, as people will lie. So you have to apply a sort of extended Turing test to figure out who people are. That's the way the net is, the default is anonymity and you can't force it to be different.

In the case of paid political staff, I do surely see why disclosure would be a good thing, and why it would be the smarter choice too. But I would not want the job of ferreting out those who choose otherwise, and it would be a waste of our time here, like cutting off the heads of Hydra.

That said, I can testify that far from being paid, DU has been a vast sinkhole of time and money for me.

[devilindisguise]

40. Let us see your credentials

If you are legit. Anybody who swallows that spiel about you being paid to do this by a rep., but you just are so pure, (and you are't endorsing Obama because the reps. want inexperience instead of experience) is so lame. Do you think we are fools? Count me out, because I don't believe your shtick.

[mloutre]

42. self-delete

[here_is_to_hope]

57. Whats this "us" shit?

Enjoy your stay...:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

71. So you speak for $$

And you do not disclose with each post. You go on my ignore list. You are part of what is killing the Democratic Party. You are the problem, and your opinions are merchandise. You are a commodity and what you are posting here is commercial output, a product of your job.
But here at DU it seems that professional disrupters and Republicans are far more welcome than Progressives and/or gay people.

[bemildred]

72. It is you that come across as a "disrupter", 182 posts and all. nt

[Forkboy]

26. If they are here it's still just a single opinion from one person.

The merits of said opinion can then be weighed. If it's a stupid opinion most will ignore it, and if it's a good one then all the better. :shrug:

[bemildred]

38. Yeah, let them talk.

We get more hits for the site too ...
:hi:

[devilindisguise]

41. Opinion of one person?

I've counted several who believe the Reps. have invaded this board.

[ConcernedCanuk]

51. 115 posts in 3 days, a newbie, and abrasive to boot - no respect for the elders here

.
.
.

LINKS to back up opinions and facts are welcome here.

Stop attacking, and maybe just sit back and watch this board for a bit.

But I suspect you've been here before.

[devilindisguise]

83. I have been here before

Sometimes I just read. I did join once but it has been a few years ago. I only posted a few times, and it was a different user name. I don't personally care if reps. are on here - but the way I read the rules - to back, and to vote for democrats, (which I know reps. do not do) if I were a rep. I would take that as a sign I am not wanted. As far as my number of posts, I've only posted one post. I have answered a few posts I found interesting. Now this guy who says he is really a hired big shot republican flunkie has only posted a few posts. And those who defend his actions. words, sound really disturbed by my comments. It makes me wonder about their status. This isn't a job for me, and even if it were, seniority doesn't always count. Maybe you should google Democratic Underground and see that republicans know they aren't wanted here. It's like crashing a party when you aren't invited.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

30. I wouldn't mind- if they were open about who and what they are.

The fact that they hide behind bogus nyms says a lot about their methods and goals.

DU needs a "I'm ............ and I approved this post" professional political post requirement.

[devilindisguise]

39. Can't believe that guy claiming he's on here for pure reasons

Even though he is being paid by the Greedy Old Party to troll the boards. That is hysterical.

[ralbertson]

43. Um, excuse me, devilindisguise?

I don't understand your reply to my comment above, or your subsequent comments in the thread, because they seem to imply that I mysteriously, underhandedly work for a "rep." -- by which I assume you to mean "Republican", although I could be wrong about that; but if you meant "Representative" instead, then that wouldn't make sense either, because I did state clearly that I work for a Senator, rather than a Representative, ahem.

Any way you slice it, though, my sig line makes it very clear which (rather pointedly Democratic, in fact, just about as bloody well Democratic as they come) Senator it is that I work for, so I find your reply & comments about my "schtick" and my supposedly secret, manipulative, somehow pro-Republican motivations to be rather confusing. Would you care to explain your reasoning here, please?

[devilindisguise]

84. I thought I made it clear

If you are in politics at all, I would think you know rep. stands for republican on boards, blogs, etc. Just as dem. stands for democrat, U stands for you, r stands for are, and etc.(I could go on all day about abbreviations on the internet). Now I've been attacked by several posters in this thread who claim because they have "more" posts and that I am a newcomer with only a few posts that I can't speak out. I also - scanning rapidly through the posts- saw quite a few people with over 1000 posts who agree that republicans have infiltrated this board. I, of course, don't know if you are a republican(rep.) but I sorta think you are. Besides, if you are working for someone else in politics, you should do your job, and not endorse anyone. Simply gather information about the percentage of voters for each candidate. If I were an "operative" I would gladly tell you all about it, and which Senator I worked for. You said you are honored to work for this person, I can't quote verbatim, it may have not been "honored", but you were evidently in awe of your boss. Even though I can't remember your exact words of praise for him.

[Dorian Gray]

88. Most people here don't refer to Republicans

as reps. I would use "rep" for representative, myself. Repub is the shorthand many here use for republicans.

Internet abbreviations are not actually used all that often here, either. Most people seem to enjoy writing in full prose, though there certainly is no hard and fast rule about that.

Just saying why the confusion may have come in.

And though many here may think republicans may post here, it's usually the ignorant baiting posts that seem to be suspect. I don't think the poster that you referred to as Republican came across as republican at all.

[Canuckistanian]

44. They never stick around long enough to get educated

There are a lot of "hit 'n run" posters lately, I've noticed.

Low post count shit disturbers who come in, drop a bomb in GDP and are never heard from again in that thread.

[bemildred]

50. Or, "They get educated or they don't stick around."

So, you can't win them all. I can't say you are wrong, but that is the price of an open site.

[pinto]

46. I'm a political operative........I vote!

:kick:

[bemildred]

49. LOL. Me too. I'm a "partisan hack" every election. nt

[Major Hogwash]

56. Political Operatives, Inc.- our motto is "Because if we left up to you guys, you'd fuck it all up!"

LoL

Who us?

Hmmm, maybe.

LoL

[Swamp Rat]

48. Today, a poster said to me: "Which corporate entity do you represent?"

"The only real mistake one could make would be voting for the democratic candidate. Your prix fixe meal of neo-colonial corporatism, e.g. clinton/obama or mccain, remains unsavory."

:rofl:

Now I lay me down to sleep... :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=155654

[harun]

53. The site should put it in their rules that operatives cannot post here

for the sake of who is paying them. That is not to say they shouldn't be able to post their own opinions, their job just shouldn't be do it.

And if they really want their job to be that they do that, they should have to disclose they are doing it. I would actually really like to see that. Then I could ask them questions about their employers and maybe get a good answer from them.

[bemildred]

61. And how would that be enforced? nt

[harun]

75. Couple of ways to do it. None 100% though.

Make people agree to those terms to use the site for one.

[bemildred]

76. Yeah, but wouldn't they lie if their intentions are dishonest in the first place? nt

[L. Coyote]

54. I was a political operative once (I didn't enjoy all the crimes)

I was too busy working then to do things like post here :rofl:

what with bartering all the state-wide T-V advertising for annexing a square mile around a new Interstate interchange and zoning it for a shopping center, and printing billboards, and chauffering the candidate to a speech 200 mile away, and, and, and .... in by three, up at six, and another days work to do .....

[sendero]

55. Sorry..

.... I don't agree. If they disclosed such, then it would be fine.

Otherwise it is like a financial advisor who works for a particular fund, steering your investments without warning you that he has a pecuniary interest in your doing so.

It's not ok.

[JCMach1]

58. There is sometimes a fine line between political activist and operative

I don't see anything wrong with it AS LONG AS A PERSON'S AFFILIATIONS ARE KNOWN.

[bemildred]

62. The problem is there is no way, in general, to enforce that.

So you are better served to deal with the situation as it is; that is to be aware that people have their own agendas, that people lie, and that you have to rely on your own judgment and good sense. And since this IS a political site, it makes perfect sense for politically affiliated people to be here and to post here. DU isn't a little safe pen for the left-wing sheep, and that is not what I would want it to be.

[JCMach1]

78. It used to be, but it was a much smaller pen at that time...

[bemildred]

82. I don't believe I remember it ever being "safe" here.

I would agree that we seem to get more and more varied "professional" attention than we once did. But I see that as on the whole a good thing and a good sign. It is true that it requires us to be more sophisticated "consumers of web content". I used to think our conversations here didn't mean much, now I consider that maybe they do.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. One Word: Transparency

If one is an operative for one political candidate, fine. Make sure we all know. But, if it's an attempt to fly under the radar, then i don't care for it.
The Professor

[bemildred]

64. That is probably a good idea.

It seems to me I can remember a number of examples of political people here who were candid about who they were, and it worked well for them. Although I'm pretty sure that Karl Rove would not do himself much good by that.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. I Have A Few Suspicions 'Round Here

It would be in violation of the rules to say who, but i think there are a few operatives here that are refusing to acknowledge their associations.
The Professor

[bemildred]

68. Indeed. I sure hope nobody thinks I am suggesting being gullible.

"By their works shall ye know them."

[NashVegas]

79. Agreed

I nailed one in GD: P. Even though he's *apparently* retired, he still works the board like a pro, on speed. At last check, he was at 2700 posts in 18 days of membership.

[bryant69]

65. Thank you for your understanding

As a secret freeper, I do find it kind of touching.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bemildred]

70. You, a freeper? Why I'm dumbfounded.

You must be very clever to dissemble your true intentions so well ...
:rofl::rofl:

[antigop]

67. "Are they not Democrats too?" Well, if they are fronting for the DLC, ..... n/t

[bemildred]

69. Well, some are, and some are not of course.

And even with some of the Democrats people will disagree. The fact is anybody at all, Karl Rove for example, can register as a Democrat and participate in party functions. Theoretically anyway. It's not an exclusive sort of club.

[Strawman]

73. My problem is that they do not operate in good faith

I don't care for their obvious hit posts on other candidates, their "rapid response" tactics to any mild criticism of their candidate or praise of an opponent that seeks to tear down good faith, ordinary citizen posters who come here for a genuine conversation about candidates or issues. I think their spam/propaganda posts and personal attacks on other good faith posters who do not support their candidates have a chilling effect on discourse on this site, or at least it lowers the quality of discourse. No candidate has a monopoly on these types either.

That being said, do I advocate banning them? I don't know, probably not. That seems too heavy handed. I think the post limit is a good policy to minimize this and I'd be sympathetic to other proposals to further minimize their ability to hijack threads. It's obvious when you encounter one, and its easy to add them to an ignore list or simply take their crap for what it is. But do I welcome their presence here as you suggest I ought to? No, I don't.

[bemildred]

74. Well, I admit that can be quite annoying.

I think you and I largely agree.

[NashVegas]

80. Those Are My Feelings

They should register like lobbyists, or something.

[Chovexani]

77. They shouldn't because they contribute NOTHING to this community

They have no vested interest in it except to push the agenda of whomever they're working for. To a one all they do is fling shit and poison the discourse. They're largely responsible for the cesspool that's GD-P.

If I were running this place they'd be summarily banned. They're nothing more than viral marketers.

[devilindisguise]

85. Absolutely

The first day I was on I saw a vicious attack on one poster by another poster. One supported HC and one supported BO. The language was pure filth. Lots of the "S" word involved simply because a person said I suport so and so, or had a banner of support. I didn't really understand. Democrats need to stick together and get ready for Nov. I'm not sure who I will vote for, and that is honest fact. I was for John Edwards, because I think he really cares about working people, and I liked his ideas on the other issues. I like Hillary, I like Obama. Whoever wins, I'm voting for them in Nov. I will not vote for an old warmonger like McCain.

[qwertyMike]

81. Peaching to the converted n/t