Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[barracuda]

Excerpted from the Inception thread.

.....
As for Hugh's commentary ... um, yeah, sure.

Find me JUST ONE DOCUMENT or INVOICE showing someone/somewhere was tasked with or paid for ANY of the things you suggest in your KWH theories and I will bow down before your Disinfo-Deciphering prowess.

For the umpteenth time...

> Scripts were written from scratch during WWII by the Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Pictures.
It's an open history-
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Goes-Wa ... 0520071611

> Some letters from a CIA mole at Paramount back to hq were declassified in 1995-
http://www.iamhist.org/journal/eldridge.pdf
(skip the academic intro and go to page 159 for the actual letters. Also ignore the academic's unsupportable guess that the CIA's Hollywood projects fizzled out.)

> Any examination of Hollywood scripts will show an exact correlation between character names and real world events, psyops. The thousands of examples to be found obliterate any coincidence theory.

Hugh, having looked over those links you've provided above, I fail to see a single instance in which the works cited point to any significant confirmation of your keyword hijack theory. I haven't read Hollywood Goes To War, but it is hardly surprising that the government would be taking command of the primary popular venue for foisting propaganda on the public in the midst of a world war in which the Axis powers may have actually been bent upon world domination.

As for the "Dear Owen" letters, I would say they tend to work directly against your thesis, and in no way demonstrate the interjection of keyword associations into major films. For example, the film Giant is referenced in the letters:

Here’s another we have to watch. A novel called the Giant [sic] by Edna Ferber. In case you missed the reviews it’s a long involved novel on life in Texas, and touches upon the following three problems:

1. Unflattering portrayal of rich, uncouth, ruthless Americans. (Texans)
2. Racial denigration of Mexicans in Texas.
3. Implication wealth of Anglo-Texans built by exploiting Mexican labor.

Doran asked me to read it as a possibility for Gregory Peck or Kirk Douglas [84]. I read it. Story could be told and above problems avoided by very careful handling and sincere effort of Producer and Director. A lot depends on the latter point. I asked D.A. how it came on the lot. Had he dug it up personally. He answered Charlie Vidor was interested in doing it either for MGM or Paramount, and it was Vidor who had brought it to his attention. I killed it then and there and told D.A. bluntly we couldn’t possibly take a chance with Vidor, after Thunder in the East. He said forget it. I’ll see to it that it is killed each time someone tries to reactivate it at Paramount; but what happens if Vidor doesn’t lose interest and tries to take it elsewhere? That’s why the sooner we can get general industry help, the happier I will feel.

You will notice, if you watch the film itself that not only was the project not killed, all three of these "problems" made it into the film, and combined to produce a pretty good movie. Kinda left-wing for the height of the McCarthy era.

So have you located any primary sources which provide confirmation of this theory in practice? If you have, please quote the relevant passages for us.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Thanks for starting a new thread.
I noticed that you had put in the 'Inception' thread but quickly deleted it to follow Jeff's rule.
Tedious, isn't it?

Army Field Manual FM33-5 Psychological Operations
January 1962 edition

pages 62-64

Uses of Content Analysis
.....
c. Content categories, or systems of classification arbitrarily assumed by the analyst, may be any of several kinds, including:
1) Subject topics or objectives discussed in the communication;
2) Subject topics or objectives implied in the communication;
3) Direction (favorable or unfavorable) of the treatment of the communication.

d. Units of measurement arbitrarily assumed by the analyst likewise are of several kinds:
1) The word, which is the smallest unit applied in content analysis; its application results in the compilation of a list of the relative frequencies of selected words;
2) The theme, which in its most compact form lends itself readily as the unit of measurement;
3) The particular vehicle employed to convey the word or theme; it may be a book, article, fiction story, speech, radio program, letter, news story, editorial, or any other self-contained expression;
4) Certain personalities featured in propaganda who may be catalogued and used as a basis for measurement;
5) Quantitative coverage of propaganda, as, for example, the column inch, page, line, paragraph, minute, or foot.
.....

Ahh. "Vehicles" for words and themes.

How about covert methods?
From Army Field Manual FM33-1 Psychological Operations
August 31, 1979 version
page 17-7

Motion Pictures
....
Entertainment films developed specifically for propaganda purposes can be very effective as the themes may be woven into the plot of the movie. These films can be very effective in gaining attention for other propaganda.
.....

How about hijacking?
The military use of decoys is a tactic that goes back atleast to Sun-Tzu and 'The Art of War.'
Neurolinguistics and marketing only reinforce the obvious value of the strategy prima facie.

Having established the long documented history of USG spooks writing and massaging scripts, the next things to determine are:
> what ends are they trying to accomplish?
> what means are used to achieve those ends?

This mandates an historical-scientific examination of:
> military doctrines of total war supporting national security state objectives
> methods of propaganda and counterpropaganda
> methods of socialization and conditioning
> patterns of memory and cultural transmission
> patterns of keywords, themes, and images in popular culture that are likely to be made by USG spooks to see if they fit the above elements..

Right? Right.

For more than one hundred years brain function has been studied using word lists to test memory recall and association. This is an enormous catalogue of keyword-based science that isn't definable by "a link" anymore than is thermodynamics or biology.

Start with the work of Bluma Zeigarnik and his hierarchy of association that showed us why keywords are more valuable than other words.

Look at the work of L. L. Thurston on word association matrixes.
Look at the work of Charles E. Osgood on subconscious judgements attached to keywords defined as semantic differential, a significant attribute of keywords.

Fables and allegories using metaphors and similes have been used for eons to impart accumulated knowledge to the next generation by setting up the use of keywords in a fictional setting meant to transfer the associations with those keywords to real life circumstances. Also called "transferrence."

During World War II studies of *the dynamics of rumor* were formalized as an aid to demoralizing enemy countries.
The strategy was to pinpoint the basic elements of a narrative that promoted dissemination throughout the society.
Not surprisingly, the basics of memory and social repetition were codified as:
> leveling (simplification)
> sharpening (catchy novel 'hooks')
> assimilation (understandable using existing knowledge)

Even before Pearl Harbor Hollywood was putting out subliminal keyword massaging propaganda films.
The earliest I've identified is from 1938, 'The Amazing Doctor Clitterhouse,' a decoy of the turf war between Nelson Rockefeller and Sumner Wells over control of a new State Department propaganda division meant to counter Nazi influence in South America.

[barracuda]

Thanks for starting a new thread.
I noticed that you had put in the 'Inception' thread but quickly deleted it to follow Jeff's rule.
Tedious, isn't it?

Not at all. I just copied and pasted. Pretty routine, actually.

Having established the long documented history of USG spooks writing and massaging scripts, the next things to determine are:
> what ends are they trying to accomplish?
> what means are used to achieve those ends?

Many of those ends are directly mentioned in the "Dear Owen" letters, and none of them jibe with the directives implied by your KWH theory. Rather, the letters show an attempt by government operators to influence the filming of pictures in order to paint a more positive image of America and their goals and to lessen the leftist/pinko tendencies of the writers and filmmakers, which it seems to be a force that must be fought against in innumerable instances throughout the epistles.

This mandates an historical-scientific examination of:
> military doctrines of total war supporting national security state objectives
> methods of propaganda and counterpropaganda
> methods of socialization and conditioning
> patterns of memory and cultural transmission

I sort of follow this line of reasoning, but again, it doesn't seem to follow from an examination of the primary text of the "Dear Owen" letters in any way. They were anything but an analytical or scientifically/neurologically based set of instructions. Yet you say the technique has been in use since at lest 1938. Why didn't the author of the letters avail himself of this aspect of propaganda?

> patterns of keywords, themes, and images in popular culture that are likely to be made by USG spooks to see if they fit the above elements..

Right? Right.

Not really. Here is where you lose me, by making a jump which is frankly not fully fraught with logic. For example, over and over in the letters, the writers wants to introduce african americans into the frame of the picture in ways that mitigate the image of segregation and Jim Crow rampant in the U.S. He proposes to casually place negros in the crowd at a scene set in a golfing match, or to show well dressed negros in other settings. I don't see anywhere in that process anything resembling even an embronic interest in specific names or titles as keyword deflections.

But more importantly, it appears that he is merely attempting to affect the outcome of the film, mostly without success. Let's face it - everyone from Swifty Lazaar down to Mickey Rooney's wig fluffer does the same thing in Hollywood. Everyone wants to influence the shoot. The letter writer seems largely powerless.

For more than one hundred years brain function has been studied using word lists to test memory recall and association. This is an enormous catalogue of keyword-based science that isn't definable by "a link" anymore than is thermodynamics or biology.

That was probably a poor analogy. Thermodynamics or biology are both easily represented in both theory and practice through linking to exact source documents. But the sources of the science itself is not the point of my contention. I'll easily grant you that the study of these areas of brain/mind function exist in spades. What I'm looking for is something on the order of the "Dear Owen" letters which documents a government operator requesting a change of a movie's title, or a character's name, or something of that nature, specifically in order to deflect attention from a similarly named political theme or incident. Does anything like that exist?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Sorry, I've been editing in stuff to my post above.

Requests for name changes ala the 'Dear Owen' letters?

An example on page 160 of those letters regarding the script for 'International Airport' cites changing the American name of a bad guy to one that is "slavic sounding" due to the war in the region.

In the meantime, however, since the heavy was to have been an American, Holt has been
informed that we positively don’t want an American heavy in Tangier , or any part of
that world, at the present time, for the very obvious political reasons. This will be
changed; the heavy will probably have a slavic sounding name.

Knowing how much you like Roald Dahl,
I think a better example of what you seek is the title change of the movie made out of Roald Dahl's 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' to instead 'Willie Wonka and the etc.'
Because at the time "charlie" was slang for the US's Viet Cong enemy in Vietnam.

Sorry, Charlie.

And both the 1964 novel and the 1971 movie where KH of the word "factory" for positive framing due to anti-pollution legislation.

[barracuda]

Sorry, I've been editing in stuff to my post above.

Requests for name changes ala the 'Dear Owen' letters?

An example on page 160 of those letters regarding the script for 'International Airport' cites changing the American name of a bad guy to one that is "slavic sounding" due to the war in the region.

In the meantime, however, since the heavy was to have been an American, Holt has been
informed that we positively don’t want an American heavy in Tangier , or any part of
that world, at the present time, for the very obvious political reasons. This will be
changed; the heavy will probably have a slavic sounding name.

That's not really a "keyword hijack" though, is it, now?

This might be an opportune moment for you to put forth a definition of the term which has some specificity and succinctness.

Knowing how much you like Roald Dahl,
I think a better example of what you seek is the title change of the movie made out of Roald Dahl's 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' to instead 'Willie Wonka and the etc.'
Because at the time "charlie" was slang for the US's Viet Cong enemy in Vietnam.

Sorry, Charlie.

Okay, but do you have any documentation of that? The movie was financed by the Quaker Oats company to the tune of $3,000,000.00, at least partly so they could capitalise on the production and sales of a Wonka-named candy bar. All the documentation of the reason for the name change I have read points to this. Is there a source for your Vietnam anti-"Charlie" idea that I am not aware of?

And both the 1964 novel and the 1971 movie where KH of the word "factory" for positive framing due to anti-pollution legislation.

Same thing here - any documentation of this? Where did you originally get these ideas about the film?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Two sources cite the Viet Cong "Charlie" problem and mention that another explanation was given 30 years later.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Will ... -1171.html

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/J ... ateFactory

You do get the Spartan values embedded in the name of Willy Wonka to propel little boys to be Cold War 'achievers,' right? Patriarchy, industry, consumerism, militarism....
Willy Wonka.

I don't want to digress from the op too much but psyops for kidz by the likes of MI6-ers Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming should be scrutinized for methods and agendas.
Didja know that September is Roald Dahl Month at libraries? ech.

Check out this UVirginia American Studies student site on Dahl-
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/evans/toc.html

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And both the 1964 novel and the 1971 movie where KH of the word "factory" for positive framing due to anti-pollution legislation.

Same thing here - any documentation of this? Where did you originally get these ideas about the film?

'Nuff tonight. But I'll tell you in short for now to keep the ball in the air.

There was lots of counterpropanda against Rachel Carson's promotion of anti-pollution legislation and both MI6-ers, Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming plus CIA-Disney cooked up some psyops for the kidz in '64.
(Remember the name of the patriarch in 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Dick van Dyck's role in 'Mary Poppins?'
Well, search up "Potts, chimney sweep, occupational cancer")

Same thing in '71 when DDT was finally about to be banned and the EPA was created.

And both those MI6-ers wrote just psyops during their careers.
And they used the same tricks as all other psyops.

[barracuda]

Two sources cite the Viet Cong "Charlie" problem and mention that another explanation was given 30 years later.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Will ... -1171.html

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/J ... ateFactory

These are your two sources? The first one is "Encyclopedia Fun Trivia". Here is their logo:



I hope you noticed the disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

Fun Trivia cannot guarrantee the validity of the information found here. Fun Trivia offers no professional advise, and you take all responsibility for your use of anything contained herein.

So that's a real confidence builder. Your second source, "TV Tropes and Idioms" seems more interesting, but they issue a correction of the urban legend you cite about the racist implications of the name Charlie with regards to the titling of the movie:

Dahl did hate the movie (reportedly he refused to ever see it in it's entirety, and would immediately change the channel if he ever caught sight of it on tv) because the initial screenplay he wrote was massively re-written by David Seltzer. But that isn't the reason for the name change. The movie was renamed "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" because the Vietnam War was still in full swing at the time, so the name "Charlie" would have had...Unfortunate Implications.
Actually, the interview in the "Willy Wonka" special features said that they changed the name because they wanted the movie to better promote the Wonka Bars that were being produced at the time. The candy had a flawed recipe and had to be pulled pretty quick, though...

So it seems you are prepared to definitively reference an unsourced piece of "Fun Trivia" from "Encyclopedia Fun Trivia" as a starting point for building your theory that the CIA or some other yet-to-be-identified government agency deliberately and systematically instructed the film's producers to change the title of the movie, rather than accept the sourced information from interviews with the actual producers of the film presented on the 30th anniversary DVD. Fair enough.

Let's just say that I accept the premise that the title change ws racially or politically motivated, and that the interviewees on the DVD are lying to protect and further this insideous plot. How do we get from my acceptance of this unsourced urban legend as fact to the notion that there was actual governmental control of the script in this instance? Where does that part come in? Because that is the actual sourcing I'm looking for.

You do get the Spartan values embedded in the name of Willy Wonka to propel little boys to be Cold War 'achievers,' right? Patriarchy, industry, consumerism, militarism....
Willy Wonka.

No, I don't really get that, but then, I've known some guys named Willie in real life, and I had a car once that went "wonkawonkawonka", so I may be the wrong person to ask.

I don't want to digress from the op too much but psyops for kidz by the likes of MI6-ers Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming should be scrutinized for methods and agendas.
Didja know that September is Roald Dahl Month at libraries? ech.

Anyone interested in examining what small amount of water your theory regarding the children's books of Roald Dahl as cold-war propanda for youngsters holds is advised to examine the exhaustively extensive "Gremlins" thread and make up their own mind.

I'll stipulate to the idea that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is not the greatest work of film ever produced, but that doesn't mean I can stomach a comprehensive grad-school Veblen analysis at this time. Thank you, no.

[barracuda]

And both the 1964 novel and the 1971 movie where KH of the word "factory" for positive framing due to anti-pollution legislation.

Same thing here - any documentation of this? Where did you originally get these ideas about the film?

'Nuff tonight. But I'll tell you in short for now to keep the ball in the air.

There was lots of counterpropanda against Rachel Carson's promotion of anti-pollution legislation and both MI6-ers, Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming plus CIA-Disney cooked up some psyops for the kidz in '64.
(Remember the name of the patriarch in 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Dick van Dyck's role in 'Mary Poppins?'
Well, search up "Potts, chimney sweep, occupational cancer")

Same thing in '71 when DDT was finally about to be banned and the EPA was created.

And both those MI6-ers wrote just psyops during their careers.
And they used the same tricks as all other psyops.

All you have documented here is your own say-so. This is not really what I am looking for, but rather a source besides yourself that shows me in some more definitive fashion that what you say happened actually did. That's sort of the idea behind this here thread.

I'd like to again request that you concisely define the term "keyword hijack" so I have some better idea of the boundaries of your conception.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

...should be in bed....shut computer off...but, no.....

So you did not search up "Potts, chimney sweeps, occupational cancer." Try it.

No, I assuredly do nott hang my hat on those two trivia and tropes websites as reality anchors. Not how I do research.
You hadn't heard about the Vietnam-era reason for changing the title and asked if there were sources you hadn't seen.
So I gave you those links to show you it is indeed posited.

I'd love to know what their source was. But the candy bar angle is no more valid on the face of it.
Psyops movies for kidz use candy bars all the time. Nothing like linking sugar to memes.
Psyops manual FM33-1 calls these "infiltrated novelties."

The Vietnam-era name concern only makes sense by any reasoning.
Filmed in 1970, released 1971.
That's when the public got a face full of the My Lai Massacre and the trial of Lt. Calley. Lots of dead baby images.

Imagine releasing a film right after Abu Ghraib torture photos were revealed called 'Hadji and the Chocolate Factory.'
Wouldn't make sense, would it? That's just an example of name-sensitivity for you, doesn't mean it was CIA dunnit, true.

And the college website on the lessons taught by WILLy WONka serves to show the camoflage that was used to do positive framing of both factories and patriarchy as Moral Centers of Society. That's the psyops message.
"You, too, can be the rich owner of a factory by your own moral virtue...Will Won!"

...g'night, John Boy...

[barracuda]

So you did not search up "Potts, chimney sweeps, occupational cancer." Try it.

No, I assuredly do nott hang my hat on those two trivia and tropes websites as reality anchors. Not how I do research.
You hadn't heard about the Vietnam-era reason for changing the title and asked if there were sources you hadn't seen.
So I gave you those links to show you it is indeed posited.

I sort of took it for granted after reading what you said that someone had gotten the idea. But I haven't started this thread in order to examine your search engine-based research methodology, which I am frighteningly well aware of already. So no, I didn't do the search. What I'm trying to nail down here is whether or not there are any primary sources documenting the use of the propaganda technique you call "keyword hijacking" by governmental operatives, and as yet I still haven't seen any.

I'd love to know what their source was. But the candy bar angle is no more valid on the face of it.

Why not? It's an actual documented fact that Quaker Oats funded the picture partly to sell candy bars. I should think that the institutional history of what is today part of the fourth-largest consumer goods company in the world might have a bit more validity than unsourced "Fun Trivia". Why would you feel otherwise?

Selling Wonka bars was, in fact, a pretty good business model, even if it didn't originally pan out. You can buy a variety of candy products to this very day from the highly profitable Willy Wonka Candy Company in your local candy store, 7-11, or from http://www.Wonka.com. I personally recommend Nerds. They are, in fact, indescribably scrumdidlyishious.

Psyops movies for kidz use candy bars all the time. Nothing like linking sugar to memes.
Psyops manual FM33-1 calls these "infiltrated novelties."

I will stipulate to the notion that children enjoy candy treats of all shapes and sizes. Really, I will. And I do not require the buttressing of an army field manual to do so. However, that fact does not really constitute a "psyop", another word you should define for the sake of this discussion if you intend to apply it to the desires of children for sweetie-treats.

The Vietnam-era name concern only makes sense by any reasoning.

I get that part. But what makes you think the government had anything to do with it? Don't you think the film's producers could have come up with that on their own? And more importantly, is there any evidence that they didn't?

[compared2what?]

For more than one hundred years brain function has been studied using word lists to test memory recall and association. This is an enormous catalogue of keyword-based science that isn't definable by "a link" anymore than is thermodynamics or biology.

Hugh, forgive the intrusion, but those two sentences above are so misleading that they amount to a fallacy. Here's the deal, as I understand it:

> Yes, there are many, many tests of neurological and/or cognitive functioning that use lists of words to test memory recall and association.

> No, that does not mean that there's an "enormous catalogue of keyword-based science" out there.

Or at least not if by "keyword-based science" you mean "the scientifically demonstrated transferal of connotative meaning that occurs when a word learned in one context is unexpectedly and casually encountered in an entirely different context."

In fact, tediously enough, at least as far as I'm aware, science actually shows the reverse. Semantic recall (by which I'm taking you to mean "the activation of an extant set of recalled associations stored in semantic memory") decreases dramatically when a familiar denotative semantic form appears in a different, unfamiliar and semantically unrelated context.

I'm pretty sure that I've brought that to your attention one or two times before. However...

Start with the work of Bluma Zeigarnik and his hierarchy of association that showed us why keywords are more valuable than other words.

...I've got to admit that I'm stumped by that one. Not least because whatever Bluma Zeigarnik's hierarchy of association is, it would have to be "hers" and not "his." But what is it? I thought she was known for her research into how individual gestalt affects memory, not for how global or cultural gestalt affects memory.

Look at the work of L. L. Thurston on word association matrixes.

Or you could look at the work of L.L Thurstone on the same thing. Those are conceptually context-contingent, like I was just saying above.

Look at the work of Charles E. Osgood on subconscious judgements attached to keywords defined as semantic differential, a significant attribute of keywords.

I'm not sure that "subconscious" is really the right word. Or, for that matter, "judgments." The semantic differential measures the culturally normative abstract conceptual attributes ascribed to....Well, stuff. Including people, events, actions, institutions (and so on). But even though it does so by naming or describing them using the words by which they're commonly identified, what it defines is the attitude with which the named or described entity is generally regarded. It neither defines nor measures any attitude associated with the words used to name or describe them qua words, though.

Basically, in a stark and stand-alone sense, most words don't actually have any broadly applicable covert powers in that way, afaik.

I mean, there are words that have subtle but perceptible negative connotations when they're used in a certain way and words that have subtle but perceptible positive connotations when they're used in a certain way, of course. And that's a very significant part of what effective marketing, branding, messaging, imaging, advertising, propaganda, and political campaigning is all about, obviously.

So it pretty much goes without saying that insidious weasel-wordery along those or very closely comparable lines is also very highly exploitable for psyop purposes. Naturally. Just not in the form of cross-contextual keyword hijacking.

Inter-contextual keyword repetition is a whole other story, though. To be fair, since that is sometimes what you're pointing to under the general rubric of KWH. As with the Thom Hartmann narrative regarding the murder of Reverend King, for example.

Apart from that, I'm still waiting for primary sources on the science even if barracuda isn't. If you care. But it's okay with me if you don't, so please feel free to suit yourself.

Fables and allegories using metaphors and similes have been used for eons to impart accumulated knowledge to the next generation by setting up the use of keywords in a fictional setting meant to transfer the associations with those keywords to real life circumstances. Also called "transferrence."

Again, that's not actually a transferal of meaning via keyword without conceptual continuity. Vice versa, in fact.

[82_28]

I don't know if I should even crack this joke C2W, but I'm gonna give it a go at risk of angering you. I like to jollily push buttons in real life, as it should be here.

But the way you write, there would be no way KWH you. You've been inoculated it seems.

[elfismiles]

Exactly. Thank you cuda.

But the sources of the science itself is not the point of my contention. I'll easily grant you that the study of these areas of brain/mind function exist in spades. What I'm looking for is something on the order of the "Dear Owen" letters which documents a government operator requesting a change of a movie's title, or a character's name, or something of that nature, specifically in order to deflect attention from a similarly named political theme or incident. Does anything like that exist?

.....
As for Hugh's commentary ... um, yeah, sure.

Find me JUST ONE DOCUMENT or INVOICE showing someone/somewhere was tasked with or paid for ANY of the things you suggest in your KWH theories and I will bow down before your Disinfo-Deciphering prowess.

[barracuda]

You've been inoculated it seems.

Your jollility notwithstanding, it seems as if you may have had a shot of something yourself. But I'd like to request that we attempt to stay on topic here rather than introduce random demonstratives regarding the writing styles of other posters. The issue at hand is itself slipperier than a pig rodeo in a canola oil hurricane, quite without the introduction of errant sidetracking. So while conceding to the inimicable quality of her prose, I'd request that any further accolades accorded to c2w's remarkable literary legerdemain might be more fruitfully addressed to her via pm. Thanks.