Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Dean,

What justifies a reaction of this kind? We all have things to learn here, including that DiEugenio is not always a reliable source, even in relation to recounting the testimony of an interesting figure from the HSCA hearings, which is rather unexpected, and that Lifton is willing to shade the evidence and commit multiple fallacies in order to "nail me", which is not.

I had rather expected him to show up and tackle Tink for reaffirming his abandonment of the "double-hit" analysis of SIX SECONDS (1967), which Lifton had actually verified with Richard Feyman, who demonstrated it to him. Which means that Tink has subverted the strongest scientific argument in his book for the sake, it now appears, of trashing JFK conspiracy research.

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 516
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean,

What justifies a reaction of this kind? We all have things to learn here, including that DiEugenio is not always a reliable source, even in relation to recounting the testimony of an interesting figure from the HSCA hearings, which is rather unexpected, and that Lifton is willing to shade the evidence and commit multiple fallacies in order to "nail me", which is not.

I had rather expected him to show up and tackle Tink for reaffirming his abandonment of the "double-hit" analysis of SIX SECONDS (1967), which Lifton had actually verified with Richard Feyman, who demonstrated it to him. Which means that Tink has subverted the strongest scientific argument in his book for the sake, it now appears, of trashing JFK conspiracy research.

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

The flip flopping on Witt is killing me, but thats not the main reason

Tink not only insulted Cutler, he insulted every single one of us that has a conspiracy theory that we back up

It makes no difference that I dont agree with Cutler, Tinks comment that Cutler is a wingnut is the same as calling you and I wingnuts for backing Z-film alteration

This enrire thread has some very good posts from Don and Lee but nobody seems to notice

I really wish that all of us could just stay together and present a united front

I know thats wishful thinking but do know how strong we would be fighting against the LNers then amongst ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Excellent, Pat. Taking one person's characterization of what another person said, and using it to denounce that other person without actually knowing and citing exactly what *was* said is beyond poor, imo.

Well said, Pat.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to echo another's sentiments in this thread. It would have been well advised for Tink to have clarified his current position (LN or CT) notwithstanding his evaluation of this particular evidence. His failure to do so (at least in the available clip) is more than troubling because it tends to create the appearance of equivocation on his part. If he did make such a clarifying statement that was edited out of the clip, then there are other forces in play. On the other hand, if he failed to mention his existing position or failed to demand that his position be included "for the record" then he owns the failure in its entirety. Perhaps such a statement will appear in another segment? If not, the responsibility to speak unequivocally was his and he should have required its inclusion.

Now, there is a "price to pay" for making such demands, I know. But, under the circumstances such a price is cheap at twice the cost! I have personally withdrawn from 3 television specials in the past for their refusal to allow me to state my position. One such case was a special in which I was asked to debunk "ice bullets" in general, and then more specifically, as they may have been used to inflict JFK's shallow back wound. Upon debunking "their particular ice bullet scenario", which I might add was quite weak, I wanted to make it clear that the exploration of such evidence does not constitute forensic quackery; that even if "ice bullets" (as they defined them) were not used in Dealey Plaza that does not mean JFK was killed by a lone gunman...etc.

They refused. I withdrew. End of show. I have never regretted that decision, nor similar subsequent decisions. The more visible a member of this community has become the more important it is for them to make their BIG PICTURE position clear. If not, our work becomes farcical and just one more target for the disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cliff. It just strikes as a peculiar turn of phrase. How can anyone truly know what anyone else "understands"? What is is important is what she saw and heard - not her understanding/interpretation of it.

I stole the line, with a few liberties, from Willie Dixon's "Back Door Man."

"The men don't know but the little girls they understand."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuChTazs9Q

The song was popularized by the Doors.

An attempt to lighten the gravity around here. B)

You're right, perhaps I'm over interpreting what Rosemary said. I can't find anything suspicious in her description of Witt.

Perhaps you can.

Cliff, has anyone ever asked her if she thought his actions were suspicious - whether in retrospect, or at the time?

Trying to discern "suspicion" in a cold description of someone's actions is a little tricky and may necessitate actual mind-reading. However, finding those actions in and of themselves, suspicious, is a different matter and does not depend upon suspicion actually being verbalized by the describer.

I'll quite happily get behind Witt as the genuine article if anyone can produce evidence that JFK was ever heckled prior to 11/22 by umbrella wielding hecklers as claimed by Witt. I've searched newspaper archives and found nothing even vaguely similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

I love how you bypass #215 and respond to #217 as though that were the important post. When I see some

even-handed distribution of pros and cons, I will have to reassess my impression of you as a dilettante in

JFK research. Cliff was paraphrasing what Tink said during his interview, namely: that for every seemingly

conspiratorial element in the study of the assassination, there are innumerable innocuous explanations. You

ignore the dozens of important points I make in the earlier post to claim I have slighted Tink in the latter,

without even acknowledging that I was simply quoting another student of the case who noticed the same thing.

I expect Junk to show up and cast doubt on any who challenge Tink's integrity, but you continue to post more

and more nonsense. Get serious, Pat. It's far past time to take account of Tink's deliberate subversion of

JFK conspiracy research. How long is it going to take for you to come to grips with what's under your nose?

Jim

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

It's a distinction without a difference and he's 100% wrong. Tink clearly dismisses the entire notion of "sinister fact" in the JFK assassination.

Here's the vid. Check out the sarcasm dripping from Tink's "really sinister" and "sinister underpinning".

Here's a transcript:

(laughing) What it means is, that if you have any fact which you think is really sinister, right? Is really, obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister under-pinning -- hey, forget it, man, because you can never, on your own, think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

Pat, you appear to infer that Tink is commenting on the cognitive imperfections of human beings; it seems clear to me that he's dissuading people from the "sinister fact" meme held near and dear by most CTs.

Not only does Tink Thompson own every non-sequitur and baseless claim of Craig Lamson, he owns your "I Almost Did It With My Girlfriend" alleged "recreation" of bunch theory.

Tink also owns John Hunt's "that essay (making his case) isn't finished yet."

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

"May"? Where does Tink make any such qualification? He smugly tells you to "forget it, man" -- how much more of a blanket statement do you want?

Where is the appeal for an open mind in that segment? It seems to foreclose anything anyone would regard as "sinister" -- quite explicitly.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

But that's not what he concluded. He's using this to make blanket assertions he can't back up. His comment does not apply to the physical evidence in the case -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothing. Hard, concrete, measurable and knowable evidence which is impervious to Tink's assertion.

He owns all the spew this post will engender.

There is NO valid non-sinister explanation for the location of the holes in the clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Excellent, Pat. Taking one person's characterization of what another person said, and using it to denounce that other person without actually knowing and citing exactly what *was* said is beyond poor, imo.

Well said, Pat.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Since when does "forget it, man" translate into an appeal for an open mind?

Tink made a blanket statement neither he, nor you, nor Pat, nor John Hunt can ever back up.

Tink's conclusions do not well apply to the JFK assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to echo another's sentiments in this thread. It would have been well advised for Tink to have clarified his current position (LN or CT) notwithstanding his evaluation of this particular evidence. His failure to do so (at least in the available clip) is more than troubling because it tends to create the appearance of equivocation on his part. If he did make such a clarifying statement that was edited out of the clip, then there are other forces in play. On the other hand, if he failed to mention his existing position or failed to demand that his position be included "for the record" then he owns the failure in its entirety. Perhaps such a statement will appear in another segment? If not, the responsibility to speak unequivocally was his and he should have required its inclusion.

Now, there is a "price to pay" for making such demands, I know. But, under the circumstances such a price is cheap at twice the cost! I have personally withdrawn from 3 television specials in the past for their refusal to allow me to state my position. One such case was a special in which I was asked to debunk "ice bullets" in general, and then more specifically, as they may have been used to inflict JFK's shallow back wound. Upon debunking "their particular ice bullet scenario", which I might add was quite weak, I wanted to make it clear that the exploration of such evidence does not constitute forensic quackery; that even if "ice bullets" (as they defined them) were not used in Dealey Plaza that does not mean JFK was killed by a lone gunman...etc.

They refused. I withdrew. End of show. I have never regretted that decision, nor similar subsequent decisions. The more visible a member of this community has become the more important it is for them to make their BIG PICTURE position clear. If not, our work becomes farcical and just one more target for the disingenuous.

It is my understanding, based on what Morris wrote in the article referenced and quoted in the opening post of this thread, that this first article by Morris is based on just a mere snippet of his 6 hour long interview with Tink Thompson. Morris said:

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

It would seem to me, that unless you, Mr. Fetzer and a couple others here have somehow seen the entirety of the SIX HOUR interview, that Thompson is being rather prematurely pilloried for what he did or did not say. Thompson also is not the author of the NYT times article ... Morris is. What Morris chose to include in this first article lays at his feet, not Thompson's. And, unless Thompson or Morris chooses to disclose any info about the particulars of their arrangement, there is nothing to criticize or compare there either.

It might seem to many, imo, that the intent of some, and I am not saying you are one of those, is to denounce Tink, call his beliefs and intentions into question, and, initially, at least subject him to ridicule and suspicion based on his opinion of Witt. Of course when it became apparent that the originator of the thread, who was critical about how Tink had it all wrong on Witt, was unaware of Witt's actual testimony, there was a marked flip-flop ... notably about Witt, but not about Thompson. The criticism of Tink Thompson, based on this small snippet a writer chose for an initial article, somehow continues.

Personally, I just don't see any reason or logic in that. Unless, of course, you or others have seen the entire 6 hour interview and can support the suspicions being cast about Thompson.

As Kathy Becket pointed out, all CTs do not believe the exact same things. There is no "ten commandments of CT" test of which I am aware, and the very notion is nonsense. Like all of us who have studied the case, Thompson is entitled to his own considered opinions. Ultimately, whether this, that or the other of us agrees with him or not, it is to our benefit to listen to what such a well known, highly and widely respected, accomplished and long time part of our community has to say. At the very least, denouncing Thompson before having even heard it all fails on even a basic honest research level, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you have made some very valid observations, Cliff. Indeed, there is overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence (everything from the alleged weapon, to JFK's clothing, to the MBT, and much more) that indicates the event was of a SINISTER nature. Tink's demeanor towards indications of same appears to be one of dismissal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Establishing that STRANGER THAN FICTION offers a similar account of the origins of WWI and WWII to that found in Hitler's volume does not show either of them is false."

Jim Fetzer, 2010

Correct. "Winners" write history. "Losers" don't because they are the ones who are dead. Just because Adolf Hitler had some theories on how WWI and WWII started does not mean he was wrong. The "winners" wrote the history of WWII. Pat Buchanan has been writing some really good revisionist history on WWII. The "winners" have been writing the history of the JFK assassination for a long time in the MSM, the NY Times and in academia. It does not mean that they are right. In fact, they are wrong.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to echo another's sentiments in this thread. It would have been well advised for Tink to have clarified his current position (LN or CT) notwithstanding his evaluation of this particular evidence. His failure to do so (at least in the available clip) is more than troubling because it tends to create the appearance of equivocation on his part. If he did make such a clarifying statement that was edited out of the clip, then there are other forces in play. On the other hand, if he failed to mention his existing position or failed to demand that his position be included "for the record" then he owns the failure in its entirety. Perhaps such a statement will appear in another segment? If not, the responsibility to speak unequivocally was his and he should have required its inclusion.

Now, there is a "price to pay" for making such demands, I know. But, under the circumstances such a price is cheap at twice the cost! I have personally withdrawn from 3 television specials in the past for their refusal to allow me to state my position. One such case was a special in which I was asked to debunk "ice bullets" in general, and then more specifically, as they may have been used to inflict JFK's shallow back wound. Upon debunking "their particular ice bullet scenario", which I might add was quite weak, I wanted to make it clear that the exploration of such evidence does not constitute forensic quackery; that even if "ice bullets" (as they defined them) were not used in Dealey Plaza that does not mean JFK was killed by a lone gunman...etc.

They refused. I withdrew. End of show. I have never regretted that decision, nor similar subsequent decisions. The more visible a member of this community has become the more important it is for them to make their BIG PICTURE position clear. If not, our work becomes farcical and just one more target for the disingenuous.

It is my understanding, based on what Morris wrote in the article referenced and quoted in the opening post of this thread, that this first article by Morris is based on just a mere snippet of his 6 hour long interview with Tink Thompson. Morris said:

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

It would seem to me, that unless you, Mr. Fetzer and a couple others here have somehow seen the entirety of the SIX HOUR interview, that Thompson is being rather prematurely pilloried for what he did or did not say. Thompson also is not the author of the NYT times article ... Morris is. What Morris chose to include in this first article lays at his feet, not Thompson's. And, unless Thompson or Morris chooses to disclose any info about the particulars of their arrangement, there is nothing to criticize or compare there either.

It might seem to many, imo, that the intent of some, and I am not saying you are one of those, is to denounce Tink, call his beliefs and intentions into question, and, initially, at least subject him to ridicule and suspicion based on his opinion of Witt. Of course when it became apparent that the originator of the thread, who was critical about how Tink had it all wrong on Witt, was unaware of Witt's actual testimony, there was a marked flip-flop ... notably about Witt, but not about Thompson. The criticism of Tink Thompson, based on this small snippet a writer chose for an initial article, somehow continues.

Personally, I just don't see any reason or logic in that. Unless, of course, you or others have seen the entire 6 hour interview and can support the suspicions being cast about Thompson.

As Kathy Becket pointed out, all CTs do not believe the exact same things. There is no "ten commandments of CT" test of which I am aware, and the very notion is nonsense. Like all of us who have studied the case, Thompson is entitled to his own considered opinions. Ultimately, whether this, that or the other of us agrees with him or not, it is to our benefit to listen to what such a well known, highly and widely respected, accomplished and long time part of our community has to say. At the very least, denouncing Thompson before having even heard it all fails on even a basic honest research level, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

As I said in my post: IF Tink clarified his current position in subsequent segments, then it should, hopefully, speak for itself. If not, I stand by the criticism I made of his "performance" in this film. And, BTW, I am not casting suspicion about Tink. I am unequivocally denouncing his position as currently presented because of the reasons stated.

I long ago suspected that Gary Mack would, one day, debunk Badge Man himself. So far, he has not. Perhaps Tink remains a Conspiracy Researcher as opposed to a Lone Nut Advocate. I just couldn't tell from his presentation. A pity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Excellent, Pat. Taking one person's characterization of what another person said, and using it to denounce that other person without actually knowing and citing exactly what *was* said is beyond poor, imo.

Well said, Pat.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Since when does "forget it, man" translate into an appeal for an open mind?

Tink made a blanket statement neither he, nor you, nor Pat, nor John Hunt can ever back up.

Tink's conclusions do not well apply to the JFK assassination.

Thanks for posting the video clip of what Tink actually said in your post #227. Here is what Tink says in that snippet ... of course, from this, we have no way of knowing what led up to this comment, and context, is everything.

QUOTE TINK THOMPSON [all emphasis mine-bj]

If you have any fact which you think is really sinister, it's really obviously a fact that can only point to some sinister underpinning, hey, forget it man, because you can never. on your own, think of all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. That's a cautionary tale.

END QUOTE

I understand the context of what he is saying. It's about weighing and evaluating evidence and not being so cock sure of what we believe about any particular fact that we don't check it out to see what else that fact could possibly mean and fail to get the perspective of others on it.

What I do NOT see is any part of this that someone reading it, complete and in context, can take to mean that Tink is saying there is not a single sinister fact in the case that cannot be explained away.

That is selective, shortsighted nonsense, in my opinion. He is calling it "a cautionary tale" because too many fall headlong into the pitfall he described. And there are many who fall into that pit regularly. Ironically enough, there are examples of exactly that even in this thread.

Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...