Taijitu
Forum Meta => Role Play => Archived Role Play Boards => Archive => Treaty Conferences/Organisations => Topic started by: Glomin on October 21, 2007, 09:42:20 PM
-
Man has the right of liberty.
Except where he has forfeited this right through criminal actions, has given up his liberty (i.e. those in governmental service) or must be confined for his and the greater good (i.e. those that are mentally ill or dangerously contagious).
Man has the right of Freedom of Conscience.
-
Except where he has forfeited this right through criminal actions, has given up his liberty
As in the provision of the International Peace Charter draft.
-
But this is a good project to explore, i hope your submit a project for the 1st of November about the elaboration of the human rights. If you don't, I'll do it, but not this time.
-
I just thought if we agree on vague human rights we can then use it as a basis for building other treaties.
-
The Enlightened Empire will not sign any human rights threaties. We have such rules already in our law texts, and they work perfectly.
-
the problem is the violation of them in other countries, imagine one of yours goes to a foreign country with primitive or no human rights at all...
-
The point of this discussion is to work out generally accepted human rights on which specific international treaties can be worked out using them as a frame of reference.
If your nation wishes to exceed these or not sign up to the treaties that is fine but bear in mind this initiative is so that other nations cannot go "well this is how we treat people here" which if you have no common standards of treatment then they have every right to do so.
-
"this is how we always treated people here"
:h:
Dignity, Privacy and Life itself is the strongest human rights, it comes with the right to a shelter, and right to choose their way and other strong rights, but as i understood, Glomin wants a general treaty of human rights as someone agreeable to everyone, but the details will have to be discussed. Maybe it will be eternal as in no consensus of specific human rights. This is a strategy for a globalized human rights, to appeal to everyone, we must generalize and start what it will be discussed further, and there are no turning backs. If Mankind has the right to privacy, there's no way you can say they don't, but the treaty won't specify exactly what is private what is not, and that will be subject of governmental interest until a more specific clause for the treaty is created.
-
The Empire vehemently opposes any international law which imposes globalist westernized values on foreign cultures. Your doctrine of cultural imperialism and ignorance deciding who deserves what based on your opinions will only serve to anger those you do not understand.
The Empire warns that should any such law be imposed upon it by an international body, the Empire will not hesitate to use force in defense of it's cultural values. We will govern our people as we see fit.
OOC: As a point of discussion, the rights of man heralded modern democracy. Any true Imperial power would despise this as part of international law. In fact, I would be willing to bet a war similar to the French Revolutionary Wars would be fought against this kind of blind idealism. Even the current United Nations Charter does not go this far, even the simple right to water and right to life is argued over.
The Empire provides for it's native citizens in every way possible, and doesn't require some sort of formality and international watchdog to tell it to do what it does. It also doesn't need an international watchdog waggling it's finger at it. Actually, if I were the Sudanese government and there were some reporters in Darfur I'd go ahead and shoot them too. My country, my law, those people don't like it they can move and rebel somewhere else.
-
OOC: I realize that a war might have to be fought over this kind of thing, I'm hoping to form some sort of power block to oppose the current hegemony's.
IC: My friend this treaty would be entirely voluntary and it is to protect all our peoples not to impose anything upon them.
-
the only right that any man has is the right to choose. which is something no govornment can take away.
-
It seems to me that we have a misunderstanding here.
First
This treaty is not about "Forcing ANYTHING on ANYONE"
First of all it is there for those who wish to sign it. If you sign it fine. If you don't sign it fine too.
Second
This treaty is not about how you handle your people in your country it is also about how other people that visit your country are treated by you and how your people are treated in other country's.
OOC People don't seem to understand that some treaties work in both ways.
If this treaty goes down I will be rich.
"We always club and roll foreign people for their money here. It's part of our cultural tradition."
-
I do club and roll many foreign people. That is... there are many bars and dance clubs and tourist shops with exaggerated prices.
Pachamama, Rights are guaranteed by governments, Liberties are not. There are only a few Rights of Man, and in the real world even the United Nations does not recognize any Right of Man. Argueably the only Rights which could possibly be extended by an international treaty are the following:
Right to Life
Right to Property
Right to Food
Right to Water
Right to Shelter
Right to Justice
Right to Healthcare
Beyond these you are beginning to stretch the imagination. You could say Right to Vote, but that severely limits the number of nations that will join. You could say Right to Bear Arms, but again who gets to own it? The main problem with Rights is the government has to take drastic steps to ensure these rights are always upheld, and is held accountable in instances when they can not be upheld. Should a village suffer a drought, the Human Right to Water is being violated and the government is held accountable for not providing water. The Right to Healthcare would go against capitalism. The Right to Life goes against the Right to Justice in cases where the punishment is death. A Geneva Convetion-style treaty, ascertaining the rights of POW's would have a better chance of being clear rather than a general Rights of Man treaty. I'm not trying to be harsh in shooting down this idea, but while at a conference for Model UN we discussed this idea and the world is a realistic not idealistic place. Rights of Man simply are too difficult to ensure.
-
Add "The right to bear arms" or Myroria will not accept any worldwide definition.
-
:h: ahahaha never. keep living in the uncivilized world.
-
the right to bear arms would not be included, if your nation wishes to allow its citizens to be armed then that is its business however it is not a universal right (this would lead to the bizarre idea that any treaty made in relation to this would result in you not being able to disarm POW's due to them having the right to be armed.....).
The right to freedom of thought or conscience as it is in the draft idea (note not of action or of speech) is because it should be the right of everyone to have freedom within themselves. (i.e. peoples beliefs shouldn't result in punishment only their actions (speech can be an action regarded as harmful (so if you incite people to burn churches/schools/whatever your words and then they do your speech was a harmful action)))
The freedom of liberty is the idea that people should not be imprisoned or made to act against their will, now obviously there are exceptions. Criminals should be imprisoned and/or made to act against their will to protect society (their will to commit more crimes for example). Soldiers/those in government service should expect to have to do things they may not wish to do however they do so in exchange for certain things (pay/citizenship/etc) and so it is an agreement between the citizen and the state (note however that this doesn't preclude conscription). Those who are dangerously ill either mentally or physically can be restrained from mingling with society both for their and society's good (i.e. to stop them injuring themselves or others).
These rights are merely the basis of building other treaties in the future.
-
Delfos - At least my citizen's won't be murdered by the thousands because they can't own guns.
Needless to say, Myroria will not sign this treaty and finds countries that don't allow the right to bear arms restrictive.
-
how can you even consider the right to bear arms a human right.
-
Because without the right to bear arms, citizens are not given the ability to revolt. If the populace can not revolt, it is asking for dictatorship. Dictatorship brings the violation of the more important human rights.
At least include the right not to be drafted. The right to choice.
-
that's something, a human right is the one that lets them live free, bearing arms isn't exactly anything related to it,
and to your comment, most of the European population doesn't bear arms and lives in a peace paradise, I even made a joke earlier about thinking of going to a Californian engineering school, i didn't want to get shot there.
People can revolt without fire-arms, and it works when it's really strong. Actually it seems to work better without arms than with them. I haven't seen any 'revolution' attempt in USA since Nixon spanked those hippies..so if those hippies were armed, USA would be a hippie land?
You made a comment, i made a comment, lets just stop here.
-
Oh, please. Most dictatorships won't fall because a few soldiers stuck roses or carnations or tulips or whatever in their guns. Sure, some will, but the vast majority of dictatorships are far more brutal.
-
Actually I have to side with Myroria here.
First for some information The European population DOES carry and own firearms.
In Germany you can posses firearms if you are a sports marksmen, forest warden or hunter.
You have to be in a gun club to own a firearm and you must prove that you need it for sports purposes.
You have to be a member for at least one year and make a expertise test on technology, safety and law concerning firearms.
In Germany there are 2,000,000 official sport marksmen.
In England the government prohibited the owning of firearms.
Scotland Yard makes a regular survey amongst burglars they have caught.
The Question "Do you care if somebody is at home while you are trying to break into that home" was answered by 5% with "No I don't care"
After the law was in effect Scotland Yard noted that 50% answered "No I don't care"
Also the gang shootings and armed crimes by gangs have risen drastically in the now arms-free England.
Also please not when looking at the table that Australia has the same gun laws as Great Britain.
If Delfos doesn't want to go to California ES he also better not go to Erfurt in Germany. There was a school shooting too.
Also we should understand that just someone does not do a bad thing because he does not have the possibility to do it does not make him a good person.
What makes him a good person is that he does not do it even so he could.
And what happened at Erfurt and California is not the result of firearms but of the humans that use them.
And before someone Starts complaining that he could have killed less people if he did not have a gun.
I Japan a mentally unstable man killed several children in a pre-school and injured many more with a kitchen knife.
And many experts see the Erfurt shooting as a result of the failure of society, school, and even the authority's and parents.
Not something that was started with a gun.
We could have this turn into an endless discussion but I agree with Glomin here.
Humans should be given basic rights. But there are rights that should be decided by the governments. The right to bear arms is one of those.
If Myroria allows it's people to bear arms that's his decision. If Delfos doesn't allow it to his people then it's his decision too.
Well and about what Xyrael said.
Those human rights should be taken with some common sense.
I do not see it as a violation to "The right to water" if there is a drought and people have a lack of water.
Sure if you wish to find a reason to attack that country then their "Rights violation" could be a good reason.
But not if you are sensible about it.
And being sensible is not something granted by some god.
It is your decision to be sensible about it.
Laws, rights and treaty's should not be used as an excuse to stop thinking and become unreasonable.
-
ooc: and that's why 'most' of the europeans don't own weapons. And most of who does are illegal or just bare sportsmen or hunters or whatever. We are not allowed to have a firearm for protection, we already have the policemen to protect.
It was a joke about the California school, i even doubt there's shootings there..well not as much as fire. There's also two schools, one in Essen and another in Cologne that are appealing for a foreign graduation, and i won't care about being shot or not.
Yes England is a problem, but as i said, they are quite an exception rule in EU.
Firearms kill, and that's a direct threat or violation of the Right to Live. Jailing is something else, the person didn't respected the rule of society, and gets away of it. That's normal, but death penalty is a violation of the human right to live. So that's how i face it, and i will sure defend this in Taijitu if necessary. So the right to bear arms is a menace to social security and human rights. The one with bigger or faster gun will rule, and we will be back to the far-west cowboy land. Retrograde! lol
Anyway, this is only a generic treaty, it will take ages to get a specific treaty, so we need to go in parts, 1st a generic that everyone can agree, without the right to bare arms because there's quite allot of controversy, and then if you think the right to bear arms has anything to do with the right to live you can submit it. /ooc
-
OOC. You want to get schooling in germany . Welcome then. :clap:
If we ever meet over here I will invite you to a drink, and probably a hefty discussion. :drunks:
No shootings I promise. ;D
IC
I agree with you on the order of things.
I am going to side with you on the death penalty issue.
I am not siding with you on the firearms issue.
Some reasons I have already stated.
There are others that are specific to my nations history and social structure.
Should you be interested I will explain them to you.
-
I am, I've nothing better to do..oh, i gotta sleep, study and go to classes...but expose it, I'll read it as soon as i get here. Maybe in a few minutes? :h:
-
You want to see school shootings, please look at statistical information regarding Wisconsin. I believe there have been over five incidents in the past two years. In Los Angeles, the last major incident involved gang violence outside of Venice High School, and didn't occur on the premises.
Also, you are using skewed statistics to validate your argument in relation to the burglary. I'd like to ask the number of burglary-related murders which have occured after this law was enforced. Does not the Right to Life usurp the more mundane Right to Property? When one Right violates the other, what do you do? Turn to a treaty and go "oh hey look there's guidelines"?
-
please specify, what do you mean by the right to life usurp the right to property?
And right to property isn't very good, what it's normally said it right to privacy and right to have a shelter, doesn't really mean it has to be his/her shelter. This practically means that whatever shelter they receive must have a private quarter, and the simplest form of this right is a tent. Doesn't automatically makes it his/her property, because it can be an humanitarian aid tent as example, that's one of the goals of humanitarian aid, to enforce human rights even when they do not exist or threatened by war or pest or whatever.
So human rights are very important to get a direct constitutional answer for humanitarian organizations or humanitarian aid from nations...it will be very hard to get signatures here, i bet most of the IPO members will sign, leaving most of any other very undecided or reluctant.
-
What Xyrael and others have described is called the 'collision effect,' it's something that comes up in constitutional government systems; where one guaranteed right may seem to infringe upon another. Usually the courts are responsible for drawing the lines and saying which or whose right trumps what in any given scenario where it is not black and white. Since there is no court system to interpret this (i.e. RL World Court), this will have to be an extensively long and mind-numbingly detailed treaty which would delineate what action is to be taken in any given scenario. Such a document would be larger than the U.S. Tax Code. Alternatively, you create a Taijitian Court to make rulings based on said treaty. But then you have a world government, and then things will be forced on members of the treaty here which they may not be able to perceive at this time. This begins to violate one of the five elements of the Rule of Law.
Right to Property is what was originally enumerated by John Locke, next to the rights of life and liberty. Right to privacy is far more vague and can be applied to almost anything. No wonder the serious political philosophers of the Enlightenment never placed the government with the responsibility of protecting the 'right to privacy.' The right to life can be effected by nature, but also by men, and that is where government's responsibility steps in. The rights of food and water are equally unenforceable against nature, but government should protect from violations against men. These kind of drizzle down to specific laws and regulations, not just 'we guarantee these rights.' Rights are ideas, laws are action.
-
Thank you Rabarac.
You put my thoughts into words.
I am sorry here but my English is not THAT good. Especially on legal matters and expressions.
Were I would have bogged this down with lengthy and awkward discussion you said it short and clear.
Delfos
I will come back to you for the info I promised you but I have currently other business. So please wait some time.
And to avoid a misunderstanding i was referring to my RP nation.
Xyrael
I removed the link because I have my doubts in the site the info is placed on (But not in the Info itself) I will try and bring up my point with Info from Scotland Yard if possible.
But you should consider that a criminal who breaks into your house will not spare you or your live because you do not have a gun.
Also about dictatorships.
If being unarmed would solve the problem 6 million German Jews and 2 million Cambodian civilians would be still alive.
They were mainly killed because they could not defend themselves.
And to finally clear one thing.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people and they will by any means available.
I know a army depot were several thousand guns are stored since decades and no one there has ever died.
The difference between an Axe that is used to chop wood and one that is used to kill someone is the will of it's user. Not that of the Axe.
This is my opinion. My :2c:
-
Being defenseless does not make sheep safe from predators. The same goes for humans.
And that's all I have to say about that.
-
Switzerland is a prime example of guns gone right. About 1 in 3 of the population have a gun in their home, many times an automatic rifle. Yet gun crime is so low they don't even keep records for it. Now, there are a bunch of other factors contributing to that, but I think this at least indicates that heavy prevalence of guns or a 'gun culture' does not make for any kind of violent crime. Clearly, other factors are to blame, for if gun ownership = violent crimes, then Switzerland must be explained, and it's not. In science, when a theory or model fails to explain all observable phenomena accurately, it is improved, altered, or altogether thrown out in favor of a model that does explain the phenomena. With Switzerland and several other countries as examples, we can see that arguing that violent crime is caused in some significant part by gun saturation is a scientifically incomplete, or possibly altogether incorrect, model.
Oops, I realized that that wasn't perfectly on topic. :P
Why is bearing arms a right? It's a check on the government. It's the right to self-preservation and protection. Kind of the proactive side of the right to life. As has been well pointed out, only after disarming their nations has any systematic domestic genocide occurred in the twentieth century. If you can't defend yourself from your government, you cede the ability to keep or dispense any and all rights to that government. Knowing how well governments seem to manage everything else they have their hands in, why would you trust them with your basic human rights unless you had some kind of deterrent against abuse? Regardless of how your government parades itself, you must assume it is a wily dictator in the making, and guard your rights, and those of others, fiercely. For all dictators at one time or another had the consent of the governed to take the power they later abused to horrific effect.
-
it isn't necessary if the right of freedom or choice or something preventing dictators to come is in action.
the only thing that can make guns come out is the right of self-defense, and it doesn't imply guns. So i really doubt bearing arms must be a human right, it's more like a social/political right for what you say. Humans can live free with dignity without guns, no need of them. It's the fact that there's guns that makes people wanting more guns.
Sheep don't kill sheep, wolves do, and last time i saw, Man was on top of food chain, there's no wolves trying to eat you.
Anyway, the only reason bearing arms is in effect is for protection, don't give me the right to revolt crap, that was never used.
You going on good examples with guns? Canada. They hunt deers, not humans. What's the point anyway? That society can live with guns, except USA?
-
Well, yeah, Delfos, if there were no guns, no one would need them, that shouldn't surprise anyone. But this thread isn't entitled the basic human rights in a state of nature, granted by nature's God or anything, it's entitled the rights of man, encompassing political, social, economic, etc. Naturally, a treaty for all of these things is silly. The right to revolt crap was used, Thomas Jefferson went on about it extensively, and armed rebels have risen up against dictatorships all over the place. Do you think the situation in Myanmar would have come up if the government didn't fiercely regulate the weapons so that only the army has them? No dictatorship can last very long over an armed populace. In modern democracies it may seem obscure, but that was where the Weimar Republic was as Hitler rose to power.
-
armed rebels normally and illegal possession of weaponry, so no point there. And this is basic human rights, if you want Right to bear arms as a right, write it in your constitution, all we can do here is put a 'Right to self defense' and little more, in my bloody great opinion. Since there's constitutions that do not allow the possession of arms, and others that do, what's the point on trying to force it? I will not sign this treaty if it has anything to do with military or weapons or whatever related to killing tools. This is the basics of human nature to survive, things any government cannot deny to his population: shelter, to live, to choose their own path (prevent slavery)...and if you want to include protection, only if the government cannot supply such protection, and mine can.
-
armed rebels normally and illegal possession of weaponry, so no point there.
I wish I could understand this sentence.
And this is basic human rights, if you want Right to bear arms as a right, write it in your constitution, all we can do here is put a 'Right to self defense' and little more, in my bloody great opinion. Since there's constitutions that do not allow the possession of arms, and others that do, what's the point on trying to force it? I will not sign this treaty if it has anything to do with military or weapons or whatever related to killing tools. This is the basics of human nature to survive, things any government cannot deny to his population: shelter, to live, to choose their own path (prevent slavery)...and if you want to include protection, only if the government cannot supply such protection, and mine can.
The first written constitution (the one in the US) does claim the right to bear arms in its basic rights. The basics of human nature to survive can be obtained without the aid of government. Governments exist to preserve these rights from the unjust actions of other men and little else. I will not sign the treaty for reasons elaborated on above, and I highly doubt a right to bear arms will make it into such a flimsy document that is concerned about a man's or a woman's 'right to conscience.'
-
This is a experimental proposal.
Please comment, expand and change upon it.
I am no good in formulating legal matters.
So maybe some people on this forum could assist me in making this sound right.
The right to live
Every human being has the right to live.
This right may not be taken away because of disabilities, religious or political position, color, race or creed.
It is understood that this right can not be guaranteed nor enforced in case of natural disasters, natural terminal illnesses (Such that are not based on the use of weapons like Nuclear, biological or chemical warfare devices) or accidents.
Every government must in these cases take what reasonable steps lie within its abilities and possibilities to ensure the safety of all peoples lives threatened by such circumstances.
It is understood that a government can not be held responsible for the loss of live in such circumstances except in cases of direct neglect despite it's ability to assist.
It is the right of all human beings to defend this right in case of an unprovoked, direct and present attack were neither a governmental nor non governmental organization is available to do so.
It is understood that an attacker in this case may forfeit this right by his attack.
The right to bear arms for the case of self-defense is not considered a basic human right but lies within the discretion of individual governmental bodies.
-
The first written constitution that survives to this day and is still law is San Marino. Though I still agree with Rabarac.
-
The right to bear arms could never be included in the rights of man if it was to be universally accepted (or even accepted by any reasonably sized group of nations) because not every nation agrees with it. Therefore it is up to your government to decide upon (my nation for example has gun control but only restrictions on calibre, automatic capabilities and explosives (if your of sound mind semiautomatics in lower calibres are fine)). Switzerland only had/has (not sure how recent my information is) low rates of gun crime compared to the number of guns, they had some of the highest (I think in europe) compared to population, and anyway that is to do with their armed forces they still have strict gun control laws for civilian use.
-
how about...
every man has the right to reasonable ability for self defense.
-
yes, very precise! I think it's reasonable to defend myself from such right with a umbrella.
-
basically the right to bear arms should be left up to the individual nations, the rights I laid out were just the ones I thought no one would have a problem with.
If anyone wants to impose more rights on themselves then this treaty would require then feel free, but the rights of freedom of thought and freedom of liberty (i.e. the right not to be arrested for no reason) I thought were pretty universal (at least in what governments say if not in how they act).
-
Freedom of Thought will be banned when it can be. Freedom of Speech isn't universal, thought is just unspoken Speech. So yes, it's universal, for now. And don't call me barbaric or far fetched. When it can happen it will, maybe not in Europe or America, but Europe and America aren't the world.
As far as I am concerned, the Right to Life is the only universal Right. Life, as a basic, would start with cognitive reasoning abilities, the beginning of Freedom of Thought (and could be change based on a nations views). However, you must be able to balance one man's right to life with the deeds he has done. Therefore, in all honesty, I believe there are no fundamental human rights. You earn the Right to Life, you earn the Right to Freedom of Liberty. You break a law, you lose your Right.
-
It is interesting to see how easily human rights are pushed off the table.
Especially by people who in RL live in countries were they get several of this "unnecessary human rights" by birth.
Reminds me of Starship Troopers
"Something given has no value"
That sentence seems to be proved right once again.
I wonder how this discussion would go if we lived not under such cozy conditions.
And yes I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Namely the first one who can't understand why all those Africans are complaining about not having any bread. Cake tastes so much better anyway.
-
Freedom of Thought will be banned when it can be. Freedom of Speech isn't universal, thought is just unspoken Speech. So yes, it's universal, for now. And don't call me barbaric or far fetched. When it can happen it will, maybe not in Europe or America, but Europe and America aren't the world.
As far as I am concerned, the Right to Life is the only universal Right. Life, as a basic, would start with cognitive reasoning abilities, the beginning of Freedom of Thought (and could be change based on a nations views). However, you must be able to balance one man's right to life with the deeds he has done. Therefore, in all honesty, I believe there are no fundamental human rights. You earn the Right to Life, you earn the Right to Freedom of Liberty. You break a law, you lose your Right.
laws are made for societies. You break a law you are expelled from society. You never lose your human rights, because you are still human, always. But it's the other factor, if you are American as a member of American society, if you break a law, you must be kept away from America, in a prison for example. American law goes further and kills the human being, more often than God Himself.
-
we can't have the right to life as that precludes the death penalty, legal suicide and depending on your point of view abortion.
-
not exactly, that's a fanatic point of view. Rights are yours, and you have your right to be broken, are you going to jail someone that committed suicide?
-
OOC: What a hefty debate we are having!
Well I agree with Myoria whole-heartedly. He makes the most sense out of all of combined :D
-
no but it would prevent nations making up their own view about it, the right to not be imprisoned for no reason and the right to not get in trouble for thinking I think are the most general rules people have.
-
not exactly, that's a fanatic point of view. Rights are yours, and you have your right to be broken, are you going to jail someone that committed suicide?
To tell the truth.
In Germany if your suicide attempt fails you will be charged with attempted murder.
Just for the record.
-
In Germany if your suicide attempt fails you will be charged with attempted murder.
Just for the record.
Nonsense. Only if you help someone commiting suicide, you will be charged...the person trying to commit suicide is never put under trial etc..
-
In Germany if your suicide attempt fails you will be charged with attempted murder.
Just for the record.
Nonsense. Only if you help someone commiting suicide, you will be charged...the person trying to commit suicide is never put under trial etc..
Yes you are right, partially.
Man kann nämlich auch nicht wegen Beihilfe oder Anstiftung belangt werden.
Ausser der Selbstmörder war Unzurechnungsfähig. In diesem Fall ist der Helfer nach Paragraph 25 Absatz 1 Alt. 2 StGB strafbar.
Kann ja auch nicht alles wissen menno.
Das gibts nur auf deutsch weil mein Jura-Englisch nicht vorhanden ist.
-
Yes you are right, partially.
Man kann nämlich auch nicht wegen Beihilfe oder Anstiftung belangt werden.
Ausser der Selbstmörder war Unzurechnungsfähig. In diesem Fall ist der Helfer nach Paragraph 25 Absatz 1 Alt. 2 StGB strafbar.
Kann ja auch nicht alles wissen menno.
Das gibts nur auf deutsch weil mein Jura-Englisch nicht vorhanden ist.
Ah, ich verstehe ;) . Danke jedenfalls. Auch wenn ich dachte, dass dies nicht für Deutschland, sondern für die Schweiz galt...
-
Yes i guess you are both right... :shrug: