Ed Forum & DPF posting activity: Accurate Inaccurate Emphasized Avoided Dropped

[Peter Goth]

As evidenced by the numerical decline in postings on virtually all on line JFK sites, one has to ask why. 10-15 years ago I was an avid, ardent LN poster. I rarely post any longer. Simple explanation for me is, why oh why must be debate the very same arguments day after day, year after year. What’s accomplished? For so many years many of us that researched the case waited for NARA to release the “smoking gun”. There was/is no smoking gun. What’s left to debate? The evidence hasn’t changed one iota in 56 years despite the efforts, distortions and outright lies of DiEugenio and his ilk.

  a sad surrender, neither side can prove.

[Paul May]

a sad surrender, neither side can prove.

We disagree. For the majority of historians it has been proven, and was in 1964. The conspiracy side however has not changed nor will it. Their mantra is and remains “we cannot prove conspiracy because the conspirators won’t let us.” I personally have stated numerous times on this site and other sites over the years, Oswald and only Oswald shot and killed JFK to the exclusion of anybody else. However, we don’t know and likely never will whether some individual or organization was pulling his strings. Is it possible? Of course it’s possible. Can it be proven? No, it cannot be.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

We disagree. For the majority of historians it has been proven, and was in 1964. The conspiracy side however has not changed nor will it. Their mantra is and remains “we cannot prove conspiracy because the conspirators won’t let us.” I personally have stated numerous times on this site and other sites over the years, Oswald and only Oswald shot and killed JFK to the exclusion of anybody else. However, we don’t know and likely never will whether some individual or organization was pulling his strings. Is it possible? Of course it’s possible. Can it be proven? No, it cannot be.

Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the conspiracy is exposed, deliberately or by accident. People talk, documents are found, evidence discovered.

But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because over time, despite efforts to find the conspiracy, none is found. People who should have talked never do. Documents that should indicate something don't. Evidence that should be discovered isn't. Time reveals the emptiness behind a conspiracy theory just as much as it reveals any actual conspiracy.

We've had more than half a century of investigations - directly and indirectly into this event. It's the most studied crime in American if not world history. Multiple government investigations, news media, investigative reporters, historians, "citizen" journalists. On and on and on. And nothing of any substance has been found.

It's not there. Oswald shot JFK. Maybe he had some help. Maybe (again) he was used, or manipulated. Maybe. But after all of these years that will never be proven. Whoever may have worked with him or used him - and it had to be a small "c" type conspiracy - is long dead.

If someone wants to or needs to use this tragedy to go after the secret "they" - the CIA, the government, the secret fascist cabal running the country - that that person believes needs to be exposed then please stop. Stop using this to go after your own monsters that you've created. They didn't kill JFK. One sad misfit did.

[Tom Scully]

We disagree. For the majority of historians it has been proven, and was in 1964. The conspiracy side however has not changed nor will it. Their mantra is and remains “we cannot prove conspiracy because the conspirators won’t let us.” I personally have stated numerous times on this site and other sites over the years, Oswald and only Oswald shot and killed JFK to the exclusion of anybody else. However, we don’t know and likely never will whether some individual or organization was pulling his strings. Is it possible? Of course it’s possible. Can it be proven? No, it cannot be.

Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the conspiracy is exposed, deliberately or by accident. People talk, documents are found, evidence discovered.

But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because over time, despite efforts to find the conspiracy, none is found. People who should have talked never do. Documents that should indicate something don't. Evidence that should be discovered isn't. Time reveals the emptiness behind a conspiracy theory just as much as it reveals any actual conspiracy.

We've had more than half a century of investigations - directly and indirectly into this event. It's the most studied crime in American if not world history. Multiple government investigations, news media, investigative reporters, historians, "citizen" journalists. On and on and on. And nothing of any substance has been found.

It's not there. Oswald shot JFK. Maybe he had some help. Maybe (again) he was used, or manipulated. Maybe. But after all of these years that will never be proven. Whoever may have worked with him or used him - and it had to be a small "c" type conspiracy - is long dead.

If someone wants to or needs to use this tragedy to go after the secret "they" - the CIA, the government, the secret fascist cabal running the country - that that person believes needs to be exposed then please stop. Stop using this to go after your own monsters that you've created. They didn't kill JFK. One sad misfit did.

Paul, I have been surprised since I got a more complete impression of your thinking and approach, beginning when I was comments editor @JFKfacts, 2015 - 2016, than I had prior to that, from what I read in your Ed Forum posts, that you seem in such close agreement now, with Steve.

I do not understand why anyone would be this self-limiting and not recognize it as a severe handicap, if fact finding is the goal. If you start with a strong LN or CT bias, you'll build in a tendency to avoid finding what you don't want to know because you are actually about validating your biases.

Years of LNs observing the erroneous assumptions driven anger of CTs must account for a portion of LN cynicism and frustration. I disagree that they are all worked up about nothing, but there is the problem of them knowing what they know that is not as sinister or corrupt as they believe it all is.

Example: Three things triggered this reaction, which I found very telling. It exposes an ideology resembling a religion.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=319024
Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
​I will repeat this for your benefit, I think everyone else got it:

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

​To make a point of comparison: its like saying Humes' beveling idea overrides all the problems with the autopsy.

Yeah, sure it does.

Edited November 19, 2015 by James DiEugenio

I think LNs have a similar block, if a thing as condensed as the WC Report can also be the foundation of a "circle the wagons" ideology.

The WC Report, just as its opposite CT pushback, is a sum of its parts. DiEugenio believes his ideology is all or nothing.

I read a question I thought was interesting and original. I try not to limit myself, mainly by staying indifferent about Oswald's guilt or innocence or if he was an LN or not, to the extent I can discipline myself to.

A poster using the name Brian Castle was briefly active on several forum in 2015 - 2016. He asked a question about the meaning of the key punch holes in the postal money order deposited by Klein's Sporting Goods.
Author Jean Davison attempted to use the key punch holes to support a conclusion the holes proved the money order was bank processed routinely and validated the authenticity of the payment to Klein's for the Assassination rifle mail order.

I was surprised such a simple method of validation could have been overlooked and instead, many embraced John Armstrong's objections, serial number sequence discrepancy, lack of bank endorsement stamping on the reverse side, and the money order not found in Kansas City, but instead located in Washington, DC serving as the main points of a sub-belief system of DiEugenio outlined ideology.

I found, ironically, that Jean Davison's observation about the key punch holes was correct if the Klein's money order had been the older version that was replaced in Dallas just weeks before Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order at the Dallas Post Office. The Post Office Dept. had paid the Federal Reserve $650,000 annually to provide keypunch operators to manually process cashed money orders with punches representing the dollars and cents displayed on the face of each money order. A primary reason for the revised money order cashed by Klein's was to eliminate that cost and the manual fraud check operations of the
Kansas City Postal Money Order Center, which could then be eliminated after most outstanding old method money orders were cashed, after the gradual, 1963 roll ouy of the new style, in one postal region after another!

I did some digging, had some luck, and presented proof countering John Armstrong's long embraced objections. Lance Payette became interested and solved the mystery of the meaning of the blue inked string of
numbers displayed on the postal money order's face. Just as Jim DiEugenio left himself with no method to consider these new facts and adjust his views, Jim Hargrove's reaction, speaking for John Armstrong, was even more telling. He rewrote Armstrong's web presentation challenging the money order, even incorporating the article image below, taking all credit for presenting a more accurate account to readers.:

My critique of Armstrong's long held claims on his web page, considering the new discoveries.:

Rebutting John Armstrong's conclusions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161020060305/http://jfk.education/node/13
Klein's postal money order - claims raising suspicion it was faked

https://web.archive.org/web/20161020060221/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:

https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today. "File Locator Numbers - See Explanation, below:)

https://web.archive.org/web/20161020060221/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19620623&id=2PQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Nc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,4714873&hl=en


More.....

https://web.archive.org/web/20161020055109/http://jfk.education/node/12
Klein's Postal Money Order - 1963 Banking System Innovation

I was fortunate to make and present this other discovery, shortly after,:

The two people, brothers named by author Joan Mellen as proof of CIA interference in Jim Garrison's investigation, also described in DiEugenio's book, were actually first cousin's of Garrison's wife, and Clay Shaw was informed of this within a week of his arrest.:

https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-15/
and

https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/
Tom S.   April 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm

Although I am credited as a contributor to Ms. Mellen’s book, “Our Man in Haiti,” my entire body of research results influence me to share an opinion that the description of Joan Mellen in this article is overdone….

She first met Jim Garrison just months after the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 and described interviewing more than 1200 people before publishing her book on Jim Garrison, “Farewell to Justice.”

More than 30 years after she first met Jim Garrison and in addition to much other research and interviewing 1200 people, this was the crux and the emphasis of Joan Mellen’s presentation on the best supported CIA influences/interference on Garrison’s investigation and his prosecution of Clay Shaw.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –

JOAN: – when Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people….

I think, so far, four years later, that the Garrison investigation may have been an elaborate ruse intended to make the clamoring from 1966 on, for a congressional committee inquiry, seem unreasonable and after Clay Shaw's almost instant acquittal, ridiculous. The role of Nicholas B. Lemann as the most prominent critic of "JFK, the Movie" in 1991, and the suit against Lemann and Conde Nast in 1992 by Perry Russo encourage this supsicion, even more. There was no investigation until six years after Clay Shaw walked out of the courtroom a free man, and nine yeras after the June 1967, CBS INquiry.

[Paul May]

Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the conspiracy is exposed, deliberately or by accident. People talk, documents are found, evidence discovered.

But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because over time, despite efforts to find the conspiracy, none is found. People who should have talked never do. Documents that should indicate something don't. Evidence that should be discovered isn't. Time reveals the emptiness behind a conspiracy theory just as much as it reveals any actual conspiracy.

We've had more than half a century of investigations - directly and indirectly into this event. It's the most studied crime in American if not world history. Multiple government investigations, news media, investigative reporters, historians, "citizen" journalists. On and on and on. And nothing of any substance has been found.

It's not there. Oswald shot JFK. Maybe he had some help. Maybe (again) he was used, or manipulated. Maybe. But after all of these years that will never be proven. Whoever may have worked with him or used him - and it had to be a small "c" type conspiracy - is long dead.

If someone wants to or needs to use this tragedy to go after the secret "they" - the CIA, the government, the secret fascist cabal running the country - that that person believes needs to be exposed then please stop. Stop using this to go after your own monsters that you've created. They didn't kill JFK. One sad misfit did.


Paul, I have been surprised since I got a more complete impression of your thinking and approach, beginning when I was comments editor @JFKfacts, 2015 - 2016, than I had prior to that, from what I read in your Ed Forum posts, that you seem in such close agreement now, with Steve.

I do not understand why anyone would be this self-limiting and not recognize it as a severe handicap, if fact finding is the goal. If you start with a strong LN or CT bias, you'll build in a tendency to avoid finding what you don't want to know because you are actually about validating your biases.

Years of LNs observing the erroneous assumptions driven anger of CTs must account for a portion of LN cynicism and frustration. I disagree that they are all worked up about nothing, but there is the problem of them knowing what they know that is not as sinister or corrupt as they believe it all is.

Example: Three things triggered this reaction, which I found very telling. It exposes an ideology resembling a religion.

I think LNs have a similar block, if a thing as condensed as the WC Report can also be the foundation of a "circle the wagons" ideology.

The WC Report, just as its opposite CT pushback, is a sum of its parts. DiEugenio believes his ideology is all or nothing.

I read a question I thought was interesting and original. I try not to limit myself, mainly by staying indifferent about Oswald's guilt or innocence or if he was an LN or not, to the extent I can discipline myself to.

A poster using the name Brian Castle was briefly active on several forum in 2015 - 2016. He asked a question about the meaning of the key punch holes in the postal money order deposited by Klein's Sporting Goods.
Author Jean Davison attempted to use the key punch holes to support a conclusion the holes proved the money order was bank processed routinely and validated the authenticity of the payment to Klein's for the Assassination rifle mail order.

I was surprised such a simple method of validation could have been overlooked and instead, many embraced John Armstrong's objections, serial number sequence discrepancy, lack of bank endorsement stamping on the reverse side, and the money order not found in Kansas City, but instead located in Washington, DC serving as the main points of a sub-belief system of DiEugenio outlined ideology.

I found, ironically, that Jean Davison's observation about the key punch holes was correct if the Klein's money order had been the older version that was replaced in Dallas just weeks before Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order at the Dallas Post Office. The Post Office Dept. had paid the Federal Reserve $650,000 annually to provide keypunch operators to manually process cashed money orders with punches representing the dollars and cents displayed on the face of each money order. A primary reason for the revised money order cashed by Klein's was to eliminate that cost and the manual fraud check operations of the
Kansas City Postal Money Order Center, which could then be eliminated after most outstanding old method money orders were cashed, after the gradual, 1963 roll ouy of the new style, in one postal region after another!

I did some digging, had some luck, and presented proof countering John Armstrong's long embraced objections. Lance Payette became interested and solved the mystery of the meaning of the blue inked string of
numbers displayed on the postal money order's face. Just as Jim DiEugenio left himself with no method to consider these new facts and adjust his views, Jim Hargrove's reaction, speaking for John Armstrong, was even more telling. He rewrote Armstrong's web presentation challenging the money order, even incorporating the article image below, taking all credit for presenting a more accurate account to readers.:

My critique of Armstrong's long held claims on his web page, considering the new discoveries.:

Rebutting John Armstrong's conclusions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161020060305/http://jfk.education/node/13
Klein's postal money order - claims raising suspicion it was faked

https://web.archive.org/web/20161020055109/http://jfk.education/node/12
Klein's Postal Money Order - 1963 Banking System Innovation

I was fortunate to make and present this other discovery, shortly after,:

The two people, brothers named by author Joan Mellen as proof of CIA interference in Jim Garrison's investigation, also described in DiEugenio's book, were actually first cousin's of Garrison's wife, and Clay Shaw was informed of this within a week of his arrest.:

https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-15/
and

I think, so far, four years later, that the Garrison investigation may have been an elaborate ruse intended to make the clamoring from 1966 on, for a congressional committee inquiry, seem unreasonable and after Clay Shaw's almost instant acquittal, ridiculous. The role of Nicholas B. Lemann as the most prominent critic of "JFK, the Movie" in 1991, and the suit against Lemann and Conde Nast in 1992 by Perry Russo encourage this supsicion, even more. There was no investigation until six years after Clay Shaw walked out of the courtroom a free man, and nine yeras after the June 1967, CBS INquiry.

Tom, always nice chatting with you. After some 50+ years of examining this case, taking a position is something I’m comfortable in doing.
Conspiracy theory Tom is a belief. A belief is something one has in the absence of evidence. When a person says “I believe in God”, I ask them to prove God exists. Typically the response is “I can’t prove it. I just believe it.” Sure, conspiracies have existed throughout history. We know this as fact because they ultimately were uncovered. The JFK case is not rocket science no matter what conspiracy types would have you believe. Man in building shoots man in car. Were it not a POTUS who was killed, the case is over and done with within days. I doubt no murderer in history has been more investigated that LHO. His motive? Doesn’t matter nor does it need to be. The physical evidence is compelling. Tom, LHO’s sole guilt cannot be proven to a 100% certainty. I cannot stress this enough. I am however able to state with a 100% certainly that LHO shot and killed JFK by himself. In 1999 I chatted for some 27 minutes (I kept the notes) with Robert Oswald. Robert answered my questions but also gave me several insights into Lee’s pathology. I showed no bias as I also met and had dialogues for many years with prominent conspiracy types, David Lifton, Robert Blakey to name a couple. Blakey, a “mafia did it” guy even invited me to Notre Dame to chat with him. I’ve never been an “A knows B and B knows C so A must know C” type of guy. For many conspiracy authors this is their bible.  Over the years I’ve asked the conspiracy side for only 3 examples of hard, irrefutable evidence anybody but Oswald did the deed. They cannot do so. And yet I leave open the possibility that Oswald was manipulated. A very small possibility indeed but I believe it’s possible. So Tom, l am not a 100% Oswald did it alone guy. I’m a 95% Oswald did it alone guy. For most conspiracy types, questions that cannot be answered and there are many in most murder cases are all nefarious in this case. It always easy to blame elements in government, business, the mob, et al. It’s exciting and stirs the imagination. Proof? None. But you never know.

[Tom Scully]

Tom, always nice chatting with you. After some 50+ years of examining this case, taking a position is something I’m comfortable in doing.
Conspiracy theory Tom is a belief. A belief is something one has in the absence of evidence. When a person says “I believe in God”, I ask them to prove God exists. Typically the response is “I can’t prove it. I just believe it.” Sure, conspiracies have existed throughout history. We know this as fact because they ultimately were uncovered. The JFK case is not rocket science no matter what conspiracy types would have you believe. Man in building shoots man in car. Were it not a POTUS who was killed, the case is over and done with within days. I doubt no murderer in history has been more investigated that LHO. His motive? Doesn’t matter nor does it need to be. The physical evidence is compelling. Tom, LHO’s sole guilt cannot be proven to a 100% certainty. I cannot stress this enough. I am however able to state with a 100% certainly that LHO shot and killed JFK by himself. In 1999 I chatted for some 27 minutes (I kept the notes) with Robert Oswald. Robert answered my questions but also gave me several insights into Lee’s pathology. I showed no bias as I also met and had dialogues for many years with prominent conspiracy types, David Lifton, Robert Blakey to name a couple. Blakey, a “mafia did it” guy even invited me to Notre Dame to chat with him. I’ve never been an “A knows B and B knows C so A must know C” type of guy. For many conspiracy authors this is their bible.  Over the years I’ve asked the conspiracy side for only 3 examples of hard, irrefutable evidence anybody but Oswald did the deed. They cannot do so. And yet I leave open the possibility that Oswald was manipulated. A very small possibility indeed but I believe it’s possible. So Tom, l am not a 100% Oswald did it alone guy. I’m a 95% Oswald did it alone guy. For most conspiracy types, questions that cannot be answered and there are many in most murder cases are all nefarious in this case. It always easy to blame elements in government, business, the mob, et al. It’s exciting and stirs the imagination. Proof? None. But you never know.

Same here, Paul, you're a rare, lucid poster on these forums, you're not worked up over Stone's and DiEugenio's "revelations," you have a sense of humor, and you keep the door ajar enough to contrast you with Dr. McAdams on his side of "the spectrum" and DiEugenio, on the other. The first time I read your reply, I thought you were saying, "if Oswald had not been killed, the case is over...."  but I can't argue with what you actually wrote. There are or were some who thought Oswald's target was solely Connally, over the USMC discharge matter.

There so many coincidences, and the "slice of life," a moment in time, presented generally by the FBI investigation, 1963 - 1964 is a fascinating but disturbing glance at the mental and criminal dysfunction generally in the entire country.

Working backwards, Bobby Hales's mother Virginia, at the TSE office sends Oswald to a job interview at Leslie Welding, Bobby and his twin allegedly briefly encountered Oswald at their high school, an FBI report in summer, 1962 observes the Hale boys "visiting" Judith Exner's FBI staked out apartment in L.A., traces the description and tag number of the car they were seen leaving in, to FBI former favorite, IB Hale, security director for Henry Crown controlled, Dallas area aircraft plant, FBI decides not to bother Hale with his sons' road trip, and the Hales and Connallys meet up at Kathy Connally's coroners inquest in Florida in 1959.

So, Virginia Hale sends a job seeker on an interview who will soon shoot Connally, four years after her son Bobby claimed he attempted to slap a shotgun away from the head of Connally's daughter, but it went off and killed her. Forty some odd years later, Bobby Hale dies in an Alaska jail.

FBI 302 included Virginia Hale's Fort Worth address, but does not link her to her son Bobby or to her estranged husband, IB Hale, formerly a favorite Hoover agent, and the WC is not shown the report of Hale's car leaving the area adjacent to Judith Exner's apartment, 16 months before the Assassination, and around the time Henry Crown would have appreciated the leverage of Judith Exner and Johnny Roselli's phone calls audio, since the TFX contract was not certain and General Dynamics had just suffered the greatest losses of any still going concern corp., in history.

Other coincidences are Fred Korth representing Oswald's former step-father in divorce proceedings, and Korth being sent back to Texas just before JFK visited, and Korth's daughter, Kathleen Connally, and George DeM. all dying of 20 gauge shotgun "disease".

So, I just don't see how CTs seperate the coincidences from the meat. Oswald, with a publicized defection returning to Texas with a Russian bride just months before the Cuban missle crisis gives one pause. It certainly was not because he wanted to be around family. If any law enforcement or Intel. shop needed a pin cushion, for whatever expediency, Oswald was on hand.

How did Webster's employer, Rand, and his close friend, Shaheen, avoid any probing press inquiry in reaction to Webster's Soviet adventure?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2450.0.html#msg80947

It does not seem like editors supervising journalists or FBI Div. 5 and DIA / CIA supervisors of investgators and informants were getting much bang for the buck when it comes to Webster or Oswald.

Since I cannot identify and eliminate coincidences, I cannot lean as far as you towards "case closed". Resolving DeMohrenschildt is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
No breakthrough in 57 years, if you are not an ideological CT, reinforces the idea there was plenty of incompetence from the DPD to Mexico City's CIA post.

It isn't resolved whether Oswald was in Mexico City or whether RFK pushed for Allen Dulles's appointment to the WC, and neither question is likely ever going to be resolved.

I think it would help CTs immensely, especially those without much to look forward to than the bed closer to the window in a long term care facility, to nurture a sense of humor. Rehashing whether it was a Mauser or an MC, or who was in the doorway of the vestibule is no longer interesting or practical, considering the calendar.

Paul, how did you find Lifton? I've always found him irritating, but he and Harold soon tired of Garrison, so Lifton once had some discernment.

[John Iacoletti]

Conspiracy theory Tom is a belief. A belief is something one has in the absence of evidence. When a person says “I believe in God”, I ask them to prove God exists. Typically the response is “I can’t prove it. I just believe it.”

What you never admit, Paul, is that the thing you are 100% sure of is the same kind of belief.

I’ve never been an “A knows B and B knows C so A must know C” type of guy. For many conspiracy authors this is their bible.

As the WCR is the Bible of the LN-ers.

Over the years I’ve asked the conspiracy side for only 3 examples of hard, irrefutable evidence anybody but Oswald did the deed.
They cannot do so.

As you cannot give 3 examples of hard, irrefutable evidence that Oswald did the deed.

And around we go.

[Paul May]

What you never admit, Paul, is that the thing you are 100% sure of is the same kind of belief.

As the WCR is the Bible of the LN-ers.

As you cannot give 3 examples of hard, irrefutable evidence that Oswald did the deed.

And around we go.

John, you and I will never agree on the elements of this case. We have no reason to interact. I no longer will be drawn into 50+ year old debates. I believe the WC came to the right conclusion. You do not. Our big difference? I’ve mellowed over the years. You John, are still “in your face”. That’s so unpleasant. Good luck to you.