BN's Latest Cyber Stalker / EBG Kidnapped?

[FourAces]

Our former pal CHO CHO AKA ChicagoBoy or whatever he calls himself now has gone one step beyond the line of anything I've seen in quite sometime ... a blog to destroy BN.

 

Daddy sez: "Link removed, Let's not proprogate such activity."

 

What I find more troubling than what CHO CHO has created is my former friend, EBG, highlighting such a waste of bandwidth. Somewhere along the dusty roads between Las Vegas and Phoenix a kidnapping occurred. A kind, funny, intelligent, good natured soul was taken and in his body someone placed old, bitter, coffee grinds.

 

I miss my former friend, I miss hanging out with him, laughing with him, learning from him, sharing a sadness we both have in common, but I am not a coffee drinker, it tastes bitter to me, I prefer the sweet taste of tea.

 

Someone send a torch please ... Area 51 is still alive - people be careful.

[GuntherCory]

Remember, this "cyber stalker" is obviously unwell, both emotionally and psychologically. It's hard not to pity someone who is so abjectly disturbed.

 

[bigguyinpasadena]

I second Daddys comments.Please,lets keep some walls up her folks,we were doing so nicely :-)

[joel304]

It's interesting that the management of this site finds nothing wrong with reviews of underage prostitution, scat, or any other form of deviant behavior; but when it comes to this examination of BN, skirts are blown in the air. Isn't this obvious to many of you?

 

If the aim of this site was to provide unbiased escort reviews, a blog like this would be highlighted, rather than discouraged. How is it that BN has no negative reviews on this site? Is that even possible? BN has taken, I'm guessing, hundreds of clients. Not one bad experience among them? Is that even possible?

 

Gentlemen, look at your "Daddy" for what it is. The reactions by the men of this board are shameful. You truly do enjoy being "protected" and fooled into the notion that certain escorts on here aren't "protected" in a different way. Dear God!

[Guest DallasObserver]

>It's interesting that the management of this site finds

>nothing wrong with reviews of underage prostitution, scat, or

>any other form of deviant behavior; but when it comes to this

>examination of BN, skirts are blown in the air. Isn't this

>obvious to many of you?

>

 

Your comments are off mark. Management had no idea that the reviews of Scott Adler had been written and submitted when he was a minor. Once that became known daddy took the correct steps and removed the reviews. Escorts, on this site, do not go through an age verification process. Possibly that might be something daddy could set in place ongoing to protect the site from such occurrences. However, it would be a huge task to accomplish.

 

I blame Scott for the reviews of his escorting services as a minor. He knew that he was placing HooBoy, daddy and others in jeopardy yet did absolutely nothing about it. Scott had zero concern for their welfare. I won't even address, at this time, a 17 year old escort. However, Scott allowing the illegal reviews to remain on this site while he made a profit off of of them is inexcusable.

 

Now lets return to the topic of this thread. Another man stalking Ben and this time doing so at one of the lowest levels seen. The man is obviously very ill and should be forced to seek help.

 

I don't quite understand FourAces remarks about EBG but it sounds as if they are/were pals who became divided over the direction of their forum. Maybe he is trying to send a reality check message to EBG; possibly one of them can fill us in with more detail.

 

-Dallas Observer

[SAdler]

Not going to respond directly to Joel except to say it's so interesting how opinions change as a matter of convenience. Only months ago he was sharing my opinion and a quite a few interesting ones of his own on the topic.

 

>I blame Scott for the reviews of his escorting services as a

>minor. He knew that he was placing HooBoy, daddy and others in

>jeopardy yet did absolutely nothing about it. Scott had zero

>concern for their welfare. I won't even address, at this time,

>a 17 year old escort. However, Scott allowing the illegal

>reviews to remain on this site while he made a profit off of

>of them is inexcusable.

 

Come off it. I've never lied about the issue at hand. REGARDLESS NOBODY WAS IN ANY MORE DANGER THAN THEY ALREADY WERE -- let's not forget you're talking about solicitation and prostitution. YEESH. Yes it sucks and I was young and stupid but regardless nobody was being put in "extra" danger. You're ASSUMING that there was a clear and present danger of the cops raiding this site and taking prisoners, the allegations of "what if" and "hypothetically" are ludicrous. It wasn't likely, possible, or ever going to happen. My pictures were never even SHIRTLESS during that time and even with today's astringent policies on photos there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

Do you REALLY believe that "everyone" I put in jeopardy would have been given the needle just for being 17. No. So please, get off your soap box and give it to the next preacher because this topic is moot.

 

>Now lets return to the topic of this thread. Another man

>stalking Ben and this time doing so at one of the lowest

>levels seen. The man is obviously very ill and should be

>forced to seek help.

 

HooBoy's website has and I would hope will always be a FAIR and IMPARTIAL site for reviews. It's obvious that good reviews appear to have a lower level of security and bad reviews are taken VERY seriously based on reality principles.

 

It's obvious there are people out there that happen to be pure con-artists, sociopaths, and vindictively evil people. It's evident by the fact that in New York many escorts are never sure if the address they're being sent to is a vacant lot or condemned building. Likewise people submit fake reviews and the management has to put up with a seriously intensive verification process.

 

The one that keeps being discussed at the other boards and attempted in the review is a breach of reality building off of a fictitious character and it's wrong. People have sick twisted vendettas and it simply proves what sad pathetic people they are.

[Guest DallasObserver]

>>I blame Scott for the reviews of his escorting services as a

>>minor. He knew that he was placing HooBoy, daddy and others

>in

>>jeopardy yet did absolutely nothing about it. Scott had zero

>>concern for their welfare. I won't even address, at this

>time,

>>a 17 year old escort. However, Scott allowing the illegal

>>reviews to remain on this site while he made a profit off of

>>of them is inexcusable.

>

>Come off it. I've never lied about the issue at hand.

>REGARDLESS NOBODY WAS IN ANY MORE DANGER THAN THEY ALREADY

>WERE -- let's not forget you're talking about solicitation and

>prostitution. YEESH. Yes it sucks and I was young and stupid

>but regardless nobody was being put in "extra" danger. You're

>ASSUMING that there was a clear and present danger of the cops

>raiding this site and taking prisoners, the allegations of

>"what if" and "hypothetically" are ludicrous. It wasn't

>likely, possible, or ever going to happen. My pictures were

>never even SHIRTLESS during that time and even with today's

>astringent policies on photos there wouldn't have been a

>problem.

>

>Do you REALLY believe that "everyone" I put in jeopardy would

>have been given the needle just for being 17. No. So please,

>get off your soap box and give it to the next preacher because

>this topic is moot.

 

 

Don't put words in my post. I never suggested that anyone would get the "needle." However, you were escorting at age 17, you allowed reviews of those experiences to be placed on this web site. It is not a stretch of the imagination that you placed your clients in serious legal jeopardy as well as the owner and hosting service of this site. "just for being 17" reminds me of "I only shot him once officer." If you cannot see that then you're blind and have confirmed your zero concern for those who come in contact with you at this level.

 

I find your remarks above akin to a little boy trying to justify a wrong doing. Time to grow up son, time to grow up.

 

-Dallas Observer

[BlueFlame]

Isn't is interesting that your willing to lump reviews that predate Daddy with reviews that he put up just to create a bit of scandal. Isn't it interesting that he's willing to put up reviews about scat, deviant behavior or even <gasp> reviews about Escorting?

 

But when an obvious attempt at cyber stalking rears its ugly head, his only response is a mild "post that link somewhere else".

 

Perhaps he subscribes to that quaint old expression "Innocent until proven guilty" and maybe just maybe, he believes that such allegations must be proven in the proper venue, and not in the "Court of Public Opinion".

 

Opinions advocated by faceless, nameless characters that always seem to show up at same time to spew the same old weary diatribes. The same people that will use any underhanded method to undermine whoever their current target is, no matter what.

 

If I am amazed, it's because I don't understand why Daddy allows such shallow, transparent creatures to remain around posting under multiple names to wreck such havoc.

 

He seems to have a rather excessive tolerance for such drivel, but of course that does allow us to discuss scat, deviant behavior and even <gasp> Escorting.

[joel304]

Scott,

 

My opinion on the validity of the claims against you means nothing. The fact that this site condones some subjects, and bans others, should be a concern to all. I believe that the forum should remain open, and allow others to make their decisions regarding the validity of claims. I do not believe that a "cyber Daddy" should filter the information. Do you?

[joel304]

>Perhaps he subscribes to that quaint old expression "Innocent

>until proven guilty" and maybe just maybe, he believes that

>such allegations must be proven in the proper venue, and not

>in the "Court of Public Opinion".

 

Puuuuhleez! What would be the proper venue? This is a review site dear. Allow the reader to determine the validity of claims, not a cyber monitor. Claims of rip offs, scandal, etc. have been discussed with great frequency on this site. Why is it only addressed when certain claims are made against certain escorts, and not others? That's the problem with censorship.

 

Chicagoboy is clearly nuts, but why should he be censored?

[woodlawn]

>It's interesting that the management of this site finds

>nothing wrong with reviews of underage prostitution, scat, or

>any other form of deviant behavior; but when it comes to this

>examination of BN, skirts are blown in the air. Isn't this

>obvious to many of you?

 

Yes, it's quite obvious. Longtime observers of this site have no difficulty remembering that it used to include pictures of what appeared to be underage kids provided by a certain escort/porn entrepreneur for the delectation of men who enjoy fantasizing about sex with teenagers. How people can find that practice acceptable while expressing outrage over a blog that points out the silly and pretentious nature of BN's posts -- that's quite a mystery.

 

>If the aim of this site was to provide unbiased escort

>reviews, a blog like this would be highlighted, rather than

>discouraged.

 

If the aim of this site was to provide unbiased escort reviews then one wouldn't be able to recall so many occasions on which its management filtered out or discouraged the posting of negative reviews on certain escorts.

[woodlawn]

>Our former pal CHO CHO AKA ChicagoBoy or whatever he calls

>himself now has gone one step beyond the line of anything I've

>seen in quite sometime ... a blog to destroy BN.

 

>What I find more troubling than what CHO CHO has created is

>my former friend, EBG, highlighting such a waste of bandwidth.

 

What I find troubling is that when Escortspeak was first created by you and EBG, it was to include a periodic column by Doug69 whose sole purpose was to lambaste BN, and that you seemed to have absolutely no problem with this idea. Why are you criticizing EBG for allowing something on Escortspeak that you yourself allowed just a few months ago?

[kjun]

Censoring is bad! This is especially true when it is used to protect a "favorite".

 

the Cajun

[seattlebottom]

I must confess that this whole Benjamin Nicholas stuff is incredibly boring to me. However, ChgoBoy is providing nothing more than an alternative to the fawning which this site exhibits to this particular escort both from certain posters and from the site operators as well. All businesses, and this site is a business, must keep any hint of favoritism from rearing it's head during it's day to day operations.

 

One must wonder then how one individual is given preferential treatment above all others. Specifically I am referring to the 15 Minute blog which can be argued is both an advertisement for this individual's business as well as a mind numbing peek into his life. As a consumer I would feel more comfortable knowing exactly what this individual's relationship is to this site and the site operators. If, as I suspect, Mr. Nicholas holds a share or interest in this site, it is our right to know.

[FourAces]

>>Our former pal CHO CHO AKA ChicagoBoy or whatever he calls

>>himself now has gone one step beyond the line of anything

>I've

>>seen in quite sometime ... a blog to destroy BN.

>

>>What I find more troubling than what CHO CHO has created is

>>my former friend, EBG, highlighting such a waste of

>bandwidth.

>

>What I find troubling is that when Escortspeak was first

>created by you and EBG, it was to include a periodic column by

>Doug69 whose sole purpose was to lambaste BN, and that you

>seemed to have absolutely no problem with this idea. Why are

>you criticizing EBG for allowing something on Escortspeak that

>you yourself allowed just a few months ago?

>

 

You're usually pretty good when it comes to detail however, this time you're assumption is off base. So to clarify.... I founded escortspeak (without EBG). He joined in a few weeks later. It was EBG's suggestion that Doug write the column you refer to, not mine. Also, the column that Doug wrote once, I believe, was more funny than anything else. Doug's writings on BN were not as careless or vindictive as CHO CHO's web of destruction.

 

Everything you guys are doing at ES is wrong. There was an opportunity "the futures so bring I've got to wear shades"and instead of taking advantage of it you ALL wasted it. You have no idea what you missed, EBG does and I believe that is why he is so bitter these days. "You took your lucky break and broke it in two now what can be done for you, you loose"

 

The lot of you are posting zombies ... had someone been able to open their fucking eyes just for a minute and look past today there was so much frontier. "up a head there is a fortune just waiting to be had and if you think I'm gonna let it go you're mad, you've got another thing coming"

 

CHO CHO's blog is very wrong. It goes beyond anything reasonable. Thankfully the few who will read it will realize that he really has nothing to say.

 

Even EBG only comes out to bang the drum and it is his message center? You'll probably see a few more posts then in 5 or 6 months he will be doing the exact same thing Hooboy used to do here, beg for money, how ironic, eh?

[woodlawn]

>You're usually pretty good when it comes to detail however,

>this time you're assumption is off base. So to clarify.... I

>founded escortspeak (without EBG). He joined in a few weeks

>later.

 

I don't see how that differs significantly from what I wrote. Shortly after opening the site you named EBG as your collaborator and co-manager, is that not so?

 

> It was EBG's suggestion that Doug write the column you

>refer to, not mine.

 

I didn't say you suggested it. I said that the column was part of the site at the time when you were still running it, and you never expressed any objection to it that I can recall.

 

 

>Also, the column that Doug wrote once, I

>believe, was more funny than anything else. Doug's writings on

>BN were not as careless or vindictive as CHO CHO's web of

>destruction.

 

That's a matter of opinion. My opinion is that there is not much to distinguish Doug's column from Chgo's.

 

 

>Everything you guys are doing at ES is wrong.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. But the fact is that the ES board has developed in more or less the way that I predicted when I first began to post there months ago -- it is a place where people who are kicked out of M4M due to Daddy's or deej's personal vendettas can post, and a place where anyone can post much if not all of the material that is discouraged or censored here. You may have had different ambitions for it, but I didn't.

 

>The lot of you are posting zombies ... had someone been able

>to open their fucking eyes just for a minute and look past

>today there was so much frontier. "up a head there is a

>fortune just waiting to be had

 

If you can figure out a way to make a "fortune" from Escortspeak then I really don't see why EBG wouldn't go along -- did he take a vow of poverty? But all I've heard from you in months is a lot of bitter remarks about a site from which you were excluded after you went through some sort of meltdown.

[FourAces]

>If you can figure out a way to make a "fortune" from

>Escortspeak then I really don't see why EBG wouldn't go along

>-- did he take a vow of poverty? But all I've heard from you

>in months is a lot of bitter remarks about a site from which

>you were excluded after you went through some sort of

>meltdown.

>

Wood once again, in this case, you do not know any of the actual facts as to why es began, my intentions or EBG's for that matter or our relationship. I've already presented clarity for those interested.

 

Everything else is your assumption or opinion and this time you are not correct. I will not release personal information about EBG or myself therefore I won't answer your comments any more specifically than I already have.

 

The people who need to know do know what took place, what any plans might have been, and why I am no longer associated with ES. I'm a little surprised that someone like yourself who is usually on target is so far off this time but we all have off days.

 

Besides I don't feel you'll find too many negative comments by me about Ben. Scott without question but most of my comments about Ben have been pretty tame. So when you say you didn't hear any objections you also didn't see another column either, now did you?

 

Now regarding to Cho Cho's blog I see a big difference between Doug's usually tongue in cheek comments and Cho Cho's vindictive blog. Doug was not at all vindictive in my opinion.

 

Had Cho Cho began a blog that did not copy BN's logo, image and had an original name then made comments about BN I would have a different view. Not that I would feel he was correct in what he claims about BN.

 

The reason for the acceptance is I feel anyone has a right to form their OWN blog and write whatever they want. But again to be clear other than that I would still disagree 100% with Cho Cho on Ben.

 

While I find Ben and Scott completely full of themselves I give Ben credit for having a solid sense of business. Something his pal Scott and many other escorts do not have. Ben is marketing himself and anyone who claims he is not doing so successfully isn't paying attention to reality.

 

Can Ben take this business sense beyond the skin he currently pushes? I believe he can but I don't feel he knows how to find the bridge between now and the next step. Should he be able to find that bridge I believe he will continue to be successful.

 

Anyway, I have rambled on enough about this topic. So I'm gonna move forward now. If you or anyone else wants tro continue to comment, you guys can have the last post ... so be it.

[seaboy4hire]

>One must wonder then how one individual is given preferential

>treatment above all others. Specifically I am referring to

>the 15 Minute blog which can be argued is both an

>advertisement for this individual's business as well as a mind

>numbing peek into his life. As a consumer I would feel more

>comfortable knowing exactly what this individual's

>relationship is to this site and the site operators. If, as I

>suspect, Mr. Nicholas holds a share or interest in this site,

>it is our right to know.

Seattlebottom many would like to know the exact relationship BN has to this site but I feel that since this is not a publicly traded company the owner(s) of the site are not required to reveal such information. Now if one were to contribute a large some of money to this site they if I am not mistaken would or should be considered a shareholder and such information should be revealed to that person as well as any other investments this site has.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[woodlawn]

>Wood once again, in this case, you do not know any of the

>actual facts as to why es began, my intentions or EBG's for

>that matter or our relationship.

 

That's true. All I know about those subjects is what you actually told those of us who visited the site. I've been assuming that the statements you made at that time were not lies, but of course I could be wrong.

 

 

>Everything else is your assumption or opinion and this time

>you are not correct.

 

Once again, everything I know about the founding of the site comes from you. If it's not correct, you can hardly blame me for that.

 

 

>The people who need to know do know what took place, what any

>plans might have been, and why I am no longer associated with

>ES. I'm a little surprised that someone like yourself who is

>usually on target is so far off this time but we all have off

>days.

 

You're absolutely right in saying I don't need to know about your meltdown and expulsion from Escortspeak. It really means nothing to me.

 

>So when you say you didn't

>hear any objections you also didn't see another column either,

>now did you?

 

What I see is that you are yelling at Chgo -- a poster with whom you had many acrimonious disagreements when you were still at Escortspeak -- for doing something that seems to me indistinguishable from what Doug used to do with your explicit approval.

 

 

>Can Ben take this business sense beyond the skin he currently

>pushes?

 

I don't know and don't care. My interest in the subject goes only as far as commenting that this site was originally created, so its founder told us, to provide clients with accurate information about escorts. How far the site has departed from that purpose is apparent in the treatment accorded BN and certain other escorts, as many people besides myself have already stated.

[VaHawk]

Since when is refusing to provide a clickable link to a website that doesn't pay for the privilege, and a site that not only doesn't support this site, but in fact, does its best to harm this site, and the users of this site, censorship?????

 

Way too long, imo, was a clickable link to es, a real cesspool of the web, allowed to freely reign here. KUDOS to Daddy for taking action this time!

 

Want to link to a stalker site, then go a site where the links are provided free of charge! That's not difficult is it?

[seattlebottom]

Hi Greg,

Maybe if we ask real nice they'll tell us. After all, we're from Seattle, a threat to absolutely no one.:7

[seaboy4hire]

LOL Ya with the cold weather that is here and the off and on rain we are pretty mellow and subduded (sp).

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[SAdler]

>Don't put words in my post. I never suggested that anyone

>would get the "needle."

 

Oy -- excuse my use of hyperbole and exaggeration -- didn't realize they take things so seriously in Dallas. If you're such an observer maybe you culd notice a bit of sarcasm once in a while.

 

>However, you were escorting at age 17,

>you allowed reviews of those experiences to be placed on this

>web site. It is not a stretch of the imagination that you

>placed your clients in serious legal jeopardy as well as the

>owner and hosting service of this site. "just for being 17"

>reminds me of "I only shot him once officer." If you cannot

>see that then you're blind and have confirmed your zero

>concern for those who come in contact with you at this level.

 

What you don't seem to understand from your seat in the "bandwagon" is that unless I had said anything nobody would ever have known. Secondly, worst case scenario is the vice squad decides to put this site on the agenda.

 

They're not going to go after the "email addreses" they get off the site -- they'd go after the escorts themselves and ask for client lists -- if they really cared that much. This website operates off of typically anonymous free email accounts. So let's recap:

 

We have to hypothetically assume this website warrants the attention of the authorities for investigation. I concede in advance I might be wrong about THIS but since this all takes place across state lines the federal bureau of investigation would have to get involved. Then they would have to trace each account and verify with computer submission files of the reviews (which undoubtedly were probably not actually kept so a defense of altered dates would stand) and then they'd have to search for the "alleged" (at this point) reviews which point to solicitation of a minor. But no, they don’t have to stop there to arrest and prosecute these individuals … no. They have to get their email addresses, granted a court order wouldn’t be difficult. Once they have these emails they have to trace them back through their providers to the individuals and PROVE that it was that individual using that account on THAT date to submit the reviews. Even still it’s not direct evidence.

 

The internet is a new and interesting frontier for the law. At this point, a lot of stuff is QUITE easy to argue one’s way out of. ALL of this is subject to my testimony that somebody had my password for a period of time and was using it to post as me …. Which we all know is COMPLETELY possible.

 

The point is that’s why the site has not been shut down. It’s not worth their time and effort because it goes FAR beyond just seeing hearsay evidence of solicitation – it takes a physical sting. Something they wouldn’t even BEGIN to accomplish unless an “unknown” escort contacted one of the clients I had supposedly endangered and convinced them to meet. Because really, who among you wouldn’t be suspicious of an escort contacting YOU for an appointment.

 

>I find your remarks above akin to a little boy trying to

>justify a wrong doing. Time to grow up son, time to grow up.

I find your remarks akin to a sheep jumping on the bandwagon to try and be friends with a mean girl. Don’t tell me to grow up since I know who I am and am quite happy with my life and future. You on the other hand have to assimilate to someone else’s belief structure to find your sense of self. I’m not justifying a wrong doing, I’m explaining that I did what I did because I knew that the hypothetical consequences that are continually referenced on the site were way out of the realm of possibility and if anything the only one in danger at ANY point was me trusting this individuals to meet them.

 

Oh and don’t call me son unless you’ve fantasized being a Menendez, I find addressing people you’ve never met that way rude and condescending but I have no doubt in my mind you meant it that way.

[SAdler]

>Scott,

>

>My opinion on the validity of the claims against you means

>nothing. The fact that this site condones some subjects, and

>bans others, should be a concern to all. I believe that the

>forum should remain open, and allow others to make their

>decisions regarding the validity of claims. I do not believe

>that a "cyber Daddy" should filter the information. Do you?

 

Doesn't that comment violate the restraining order or is it ok since you are addressing me?

 

[woodlawn]

>What you don't seem to understand from your seat in the

>"bandwagon" is that unless I had said anything nobody would

>ever have known.

 

That isn't true. As I recall, you spoke up only AFTER a member of this board pointed out that you had made inconsistent statements about your age. If he could figure that out, why couldn't others?

 

>The point is that’s why the site has not been shut down. It’s

>not worth their time and effort because it goes FAR beyond

>just seeing hearsay evidence of solicitation – it takes a

>physical sting. Something they wouldn’t even BEGIN to

>accomplish unless an “unknown” escort contacted one of the

>clients I had supposedly endangered and convinced them to

>meet.

 

I'm not going to address your legal arguments in detail because they're so far off the mark I would hardly know where to begin. For some reason "hearsay" is one legal term that people like you with no knowledge of the law seem to be fond of using. Like others who have used it on this message board, you clearly have no idea what it means; suffice it to say that a review which describes an encounter with a prostitute and is written by one of the parties involved is not "hearsay." The best advice anyone can give you in this area is to stop talking about a subject of which you know nothing, as it can only make you look ridiculous.

 

> I’m not

>justifying a wrong doing, I’m explaining that I did what I did

>because I knew that the hypothetical consequences that are

>continually referenced on the site were way out of the realm

>of possibility and if anything the only one in danger at ANY

>point was me trusting this individuals to meet them.

 

As I have pointed out before, the lies that clients here care about are lies escorts tell to induce them to hire people who are not what the clients want. Telling clients that you are of legal age when in fact you are not is just such a lie. There are few clients who would care to take the risk of hiring an underage prostitute; whether the risk seems large or small to you is quite beside the point, since it is THEIR risk, not yours. Even those who would be willing to take the risk would prefer to make their own decision about it, rather than have the decision made for them by an escort who deceives them. I really don't see why you have so much trouble understanding that.