Slim and Will put the smackdown on LaRouche, was: SlimVirgin, back with a vengeance Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "old" SlimVirgin is back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

Gone is the chastened, relatively civil, law-abiding SV. Over the past days, she has unleashed a torrential flood of edits on a subject dear to her heart, Lyndon LaRouche (T-H-L-K-D). Her rich palette of POV editing tactics, including intimidation and confusing and misleading edit summaries, is in play (for example, when adding some guy to the lead that says LaRouche is a fascist, her edit summary is "some tidying.") And, she has renewed her tag-team vows with Will Beback. They are so sweet when proclaiming that the two of them have together found "consensus." Was it good for you?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

All kinds of interesting people are showing up now at the LaRouche articles, including LaRouche planet (T-C-L-K-R-D) , whom I believe to be a sock of Dennis King. I notice that next to his edits in article history, a little notice shows up that says "(Tag: possible conflict of interest)". I've never seen that one before. Is it because he is linking to a website called "LaRouche planet"?

[Cla68]

All kinds of interesting people are showing up now at the LaRouche articles, including LaRouche planet (T-C-L-K-R-D) , whom I believe to be a sock of Dennis King. I notice that next to his edits in article history, a little notice shows up that says "(Tag: possible conflict of interest)". I've never seen that one before. Is it because he is linking to a website called "LaRouche planet"?

I reported it to GWH. By the way, Jayen and SV appear to be collaborating effectively on the Duggan article. If could be that SV is trying to adjust the Duggan article to justify including mention of it in the LaRouche BLP. Is so, she has a ways to go.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

By the way, Jayen and SV appear to be collaborating effectively on the Duggan article.

SV is biding her time. When the moment is right, the stiletto will come out.

[Milton Roe]

By the way, Jayen and SV appear to be collaborating effectively on the Duggan article.

SV is biding her time. When the moment is right, the stiletto will come out.

What a mess this article is:

The British inquest heard from a psychiatrist that Duggan had no history of mental illness. His mother told the court she believed he had been the victim of a recruiting technique used within the LaRouche movement known as "ego stripping," in which recruits are made to doubt all their basic beliefs. A psychiatrist testified that a severe stress reaction can be caused by a rapid change in a person's belief system.[5][20]

Ref 20 (Mintz) is a to an article in a newspaper from 1985, and it's used as cite for testimony by a psychologist in the Duggan case about "ego stripping." Duggan was 5 years old in 1985, and the article doesn't mention ego stripping. While it may be read to suggest something about stress reactions in response to belief changes, it's relevant to the sentence it's used as a cite for, only if the psychologist mentioned THIS article in his testimony. Otherwise, it's WP:SYN by the WP article's author, trying to provide a 1985 news article reference which is vaguely about the same thing.

Sigh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

What a mess this article is:

The British inquest heard from a psychiatrist that Duggan had no history of mental illness. His mother told the court she believed he had been the victim of a recruiting technique used within the LaRouche movement known as "ego stripping," in which recruits are made to doubt all their basic beliefs. A psychiatrist testified that a severe stress reaction can be caused by a rapid change in a person's belief system.[5][20]

Ref 20 (Mintz) is a to an article in a newspaper from 1985, and it's used as cite for testimony by a psychologist in the Duggan case about "ego stripping." Duggan was 5 years old in 1985, and the article doesn't mention ego stripping. While it may be read to suggest something about stress reactions in response to belief changes, it's relevant to the sentence it's used as a cite for, only if the psychologist mentioned THIS article in his testimony. Otherwise, it's WP:SYN by the WP article's author, trying to provide a 1985 news article reference which is vaguely about the same thing.

Sigh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

They are arguing about that point on the talk page. Slim is using the argument that "the Times bone's connected to the... Post bone," etc.

[Milton Roe]

They are arguing about that point on the talk page. Slim is using the argument that "the Times bone's connected to the... Post bone," etc.

Yeah, in her own mind. And it's an interesting connection, too, if Slim were writing an original essay on the subject. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

The model for the death of Jeremiah Duggan is getting to be more and more like the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories article, except without the moon landing article. Why not just call it the Jeremiah Duggan conspiracy theories article and be done with it? Like the JFK assassination, you know there IS an official view of this matter. Should it not have its own article?

The real problem is that there are any number of conspiracy theories about how Duggan died, and they don't even agree with each other, much less the forensic evidence. There are people who think the LaRouchies beat the crap out of Duggan, despite his mother getting a phone call 45 mintutes before he was dead on the highway, in which he fails to mention anybody doing anything to HIM. Nor does depositing Duggan on the highway fit with the drivers of the cars who hit him, saying he ran in front of them. Are they all in on the conspiracy also?

As with conspiracy theories everywhere (including the moon landing and the JFK crowd of other gunman), the conspiracy people, if not required to put down their own theories, are accorded the privileged position of sitting on the sidelines and simply sniping, piecemeal, at the "official" theory. Without having to lay out any complete alternative hypotheses. An article like this one is the perfect venue which allows that. It's the "official version" plus a bunch of people taking potshots at it, without having to play the game fairly.

Look, Neil Armstrong's suit doesn't cast the right shadow! Okay, put that fact in the Apollo Space Program Wiki.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Look, Neil Armstrong's suit doesn't cast the right shadow! Okay, put that fact in the Apollo Space Program Wiki.

There is no conspiracy theory, except in the sense that the family's fears about what happened to their son are based (in part) on having read LaRouche's conspiracy theories about Brits, Jews, and the Tavistock Institute. The issue is simple. An apparently stable, happy, young British Jew, who was in love, had lots of friends, enjoyed his studies, had plans for the future, and had no history of mental illness, suddenly appears to have committed suicide after making bizarre early-morning phone calls to his mother and girlfriend, during which he sounded incoherent and frightened. This took place while he was attending a training school for members of a political cult that is widely regarded as antisemitic and dangerous. The German police conducted no autopsy, took no signed witness statements, and burned his clothes without an investigation. They declared it a suicide according to their legal definition of that term, which the prosecutor explains in the article.

One of the things this cult is known for is its so-called "psycho sessions" with members, during which they try to destroy the member's personality structure. The theory is that it's easier to insert new ideas into minds that are undergoing some kind of psychotic breakdown. See the Washington Post article about Duggan's death that mentions these sessions and an earlier New York Times article written by a reporter who heard a tape recording of one of them (payment required). Another thing the cult is known for is its distrust of three things Duggan represented: Brits (regarded as the epitome of evil), Jews, and people who've been involved with the Tavistock Institute in London. Duggan had received family therapy at the related Tavistock Clinic when he was seven and his parents were divorcing. He didn't realize the implications of sharing this information with the activists. LaRouche believes the Tavistock is a brainwashing center, and that Brits have been brainwashed to kill him.

It was a British man accused of having been brainwashed to kill LaRouche who was put through the "psycho session" the New York Times writes about above. In 1999, LaRouche said the British royal family or MI6 was planning to assassinate him. One of the LaRouche recruiters in Wiesbaden where Duggan died (this recruiter is based in one of the California LaRouche offices were HK works) told LaRouche activists after Duggan's death that Duggan had been brainwashed and was a danger to the movement.

I experienced the LaRouche focus on Brits and Jews myself when I started editing those articles. They believed I was British and Jewish, and Herschelkrustofksy's socks started posting on WP that I was editing to protect the British royal family. He continued this on the early Wikipedia Review forum, where he became part of an unholy alliance with Poetlister, BlissyU2 and Daniel Brandt in accusing me of being a British agent provocateur or intelligence agent, with many months of discussion about whether I was Jewish and what it all meant. This is what the LaRouche activists do. They blacken people who criticize LaRouche, invariably deciding they're "agents" of some evil higher power. Now HK, a LaRouche employee for 30 years, is a staff member of this site, and is allowed to continue doing it with impunity.

Don't believe a word he says about any of this. Jeremiah Duggan died in odd circumstances during a LaRouche training course, and his British/Jewish/Tavistock profile may or may not have been relevant to his death. His family, and at least 96 British MPs from all the major parties, want to know what happened to him during the six days he was with the LaRouche activists before he died. It's a perfectly reasonable enquiry.

This post has been edited by Hell Freezes Over:

[Somey]

I experienced the LaRouche focus on Brits and Jews myself when I started editing those articles... (snip)

Is that really surprising, though, considering your rather obvious feelings towards the subject(s) in question? I doubt anyone would say you've been losing the war, so to speak.

Don't believe a word he says about any of this. ... It's a perfectly reasonable enquiry.

But is is an appropriate subject for a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia? It doesn't look that way to me, and I'm much more inclined to agree with you on the not-so-nice intentions of the LaRouche organization than you might think.

The word "temperance" doesn't always apply to the consumption of alcohol, you know!

[Hell Freezes Over]

I experienced the LaRouche focus on Brits and Jews myself when I started editing those articles... (snip)

Is that really surprising, though, considering your rather obvious feelings towards the subject(s) in question? I doubt anyone would say you've been losing the war, so to speak.

The point is that there wasn't simply opposition or criticism. HK set out to destroy me, focusing on (as he believed) my being British or Jewish, with claims about me being an agent of some kind. This is what they always do. It's never "We disagree," or "have you considered this argument." It's always, "SlimVirgin was spotted in 1972 at a dinner party attended by a former chief rabbi of Israel who, interestingly, was a student of the wife of a psychiatrist who trained at the Tavistock Institute, and who once had as a patient the next-door neighbour of a man whose dog became the head of MI6. THEREFORE ..."

But is is an appropriate subject for a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia? It doesn't look that way to me, and I'm much more inclined to agree with you on the not-so-nice intentions of the LaRouche organization than you might think.

I really don't see why not. It has been the subject of multiple court hearings in two countries, and long articles or extended news segments by high-quality newspapers in several countries, including the BBC's Newsnight. I think a reader who looked it up on WP would be surprised not to find an article.

[gomi]

... HK set out to destroy me, focusing on (as he believed) my being British or Jewish, with claims about me being an agent of some kind. This is what they always do. It's never "We disagree," or "have you considered this argument."

Let's see, Slim. HK wants to destroy you for his LaRouchie reasons, and I want to destroy you for ... I forget now, but you've said it. And Lar wants to destroy you, and how many others want to destroy you? Dozens? Hundreds? And each for their own specific reasons.

Ask yourself, what is the common denominator here? Perhaps it is that your version of "adding criticism" to some articles and "tidying" the criticism out of other articles that you like is (correctly) perceived by editor after editor after editor as being the most pernicious, virulent disinformation present in the so-called encyclopedia. And your never-ending cries of personal persecution, calculated so skillfully for each audience, ring hollow in that context.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Let's see, Slim. HK wants to destroy you for his LaRouchie reasons, and I want to destroy you for ... I forget now, but you've said it. And Lar wants to destroy you, and how many others want to destroy you? Dozens? Hundreds? And each for their own specific reasons.

Ask yourself, what is the common denominator here? Perhaps it is that your version of "adding criticism" to some articles and "tidying" the criticism out of other articles that you like is (correctly) perceived by editor after editor after editor as being the most pernicious, virulent disinformation present in the so-called encyclopedia. And your never-ending cries of personal persecution, calculated so skillfully for each audience, ring hollow in that context.

I have never said that Lar wanted to "destroy" me. But a series of banned editors -- HK, Poetlister, BlissyU2, Daniel Brandt, Igor Alexander (User:Amalekite), then you -- most certainly did, each for your own reasons (you, because it was me who blocked you). As I said, an unholy alliance.

Regardless of that, the fact remains that you have as a staff member -- with access to all the IP addresses of people who post here -- a long-time employee of a very unpleasant, far-right cult that specializes in propaganda, who is using this site not only to attack editors who've edited about LaRouche in ways that displease him, but also to try to persuade other editors to join in the editing on his side. It doesn't exactly enhance your reputation, and you know full well that the only reason you support it is because I'm one of his targets, and one of yours too.

[gomi]

you have as a staff member -- with access to all the IP addresses of people who post here -- a long-time employee of a very unpleasant, ... cult that specializes in propaganda ...

How about that! The very same words apply to your association with Wikipedia! Who'd a thunk it! (Though I suppose that your access to IP information was momentarily disrupted with Jayjg was defrocked.)

I think you've proven my point, though: the "people who want SlimVirgin removed from Wikipedia" club would need a stadium to hold a meeting. That's not Hersch's fault, it's yours. And as far as Hersch's politics, I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in thinking that you're a menace. I contain multitudes.

[Cla68]

Of course it makes sense that anyone who edits Wikipedia as a pasttime or hobby woud want to do so in topic areas that interest them. It appears, SV, that you have a particular interest, besides animal rights, with Israel and anti-Semitism. The problem is that you appear to be too emotionally involved to edit those topics, especially the latter, with much objectivity.

Like I said before, I give Dennis King and Chip Berlet some credit for being open and honest about why they edit LaRouche in Wikipedia. Both are very clear, and give no pretense, that they think LaRouche and his ideas are dangerous and need to be discredited, including in Wikipedia. In contrast, however, to them you try to pretend that you don't have an anti-LaRouche agenda.

Another example: people spent a lot of time over several years trying to rein-in Jayjg's POV pushing in Israel-related topics. The ArbCom finally stepped in and sanctioned him which appears to have been effective in finally ending the problems that he was causing, at least for now. The problem is, as far as I can see, you never tried to get him to stop it even though you all worked together on many articles. In fact, you often defended him and in many cases helped him push a pro-Israel POV. Were you the one that originally changed the Martin Luther article to make it sound like Luther was the inspiration for the Nazi movement?

The same thing is happening here with LaRouche. You're POV pushing while trying to pretend that you're not. You can't completely blame HK for this situation. Most of us here readily agree with you that HK was POV-pushing for LaRouche in Wikipedia. Most of us also agree that you are POV-pushing in that topic area also. Can you hear what we are saying?

[Hell Freezes Over]

The same thing is happening here with LaRouche. You're POV pushing while trying to pretend that you're not.

Perhaps you could respond to my post above about the Duggan article. NPOV on Wikipedia means we try to represent the majority and significant-minority positions as published by reliable sources. Given that, where is the POV pushing on the Duggan article? If you read the article and the sources carefully, you'll find it's entirely representative of them. If you were to do the same with Lyndon LaRouche, you'd find that the article is a great deal softer on LaRouche than the sources are, which it ought not to be. The lead, for example, is absurdly pro-LaRouche, but for one third of a sentence at the end, a violation of WP:LEAD.

It's easy to criticize. It's a lot harder to read the source material. It takes ages and it's dull, but if you don't do it, you're not in a position to offer an informed comment. If you do read it, you'll see that the balance of the LaRouche articles still swings too far in LaRouche's favor.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm going to abandon my usual terse posting style, and veer dangerously into tldr territory, so that I can address a number of comments specifically to SV. She will then proceed to evade them.

I have never said that Lar wanted to "destroy" me. But a series of banned editors -- HK, Poetlister, BlissyU2, Daniel Brandt, Igor Alexander (User:Amalekite), then you -- most certainly did, each for your own reasons (you, because it was me who blocked you). As I said, an unholy alliance.

Spoken like the archetypical paranoid conspiracy theorist. Slim, the truth here is remarkably simple: you have edited Wikipedia with a supercilious tone and dishonest tactics, and you have pissed off more people than you can shake a stick at. End of story, no conspiracy required to explain the phenomenon.

It's easy to criticize. It's a lot harder to read the source material. It takes ages and it's dull, but if you don't do it, you're not in a position to offer an informed comment. If you do read it, you'll see that the balance of the LaRouche articles still swings too far in LaRouche's favor.

The fact of the matter is, Slim, that you have done very little actual research on this topic. You have simply immersed yourself in the Chip Berlet/Dennis King conspiracy theories, and I for one believe that you are too clever to actually believe them, but instead you simply retail them for tactical purposes. (I sometimes wonder whether Berlet and King believe those theories themselves, although my brief interaction with Berlet during my time at WP convinced me that he is a semi-literate dunderhead.) There is far more extensive, and honest, coverage of LaRouche in other parts of the world, so you and Will are simply adopting a tactic of a sort of nervous, feigned xenophobia with respect to those sources.

I am very well-informed about the LaRouche organization, and with an insider's perspective, although in a way that is probably quite unlike what you imagine it to be. LaRouche is notable and controversial for one reason only, which is his economic theories. Those theories are the basis for all the attacks on him, although the attacks never address the theories directly, and always use the Straw man (T-H-L-K-D) tactic. Quite simply, LaRouche is the only contemporary economist to present a fully developed alternative to the presently hegemonic model of globalization, "free trade" and untrammeled speculation (ironically, the one member of the Review who has a totally legitimate basis for disagreement with LaRouche is Milton Roe, who has been quite restrained in his criticism.) LaRouche's message, in a nutshell, has been consistent since the 60s: if we phase out productive activity in industry and agriculture, and replace it with financial speculation, we will get a series of bubbles, which will collapse, and the promoters of the bubble economy will then demand draconian cuts in the living standards of the populace, insisting that the fictitious value of the financial paper must take precedence -- welcome to 2009.

Now, the model which LaRouche opposes, which became dominant across the political spectrum in the U.S. after the death of FDR, is British: not in some stupid ethnic sense, but in the sense that there is a clearly defined British school of thought that encompasses both political economy and philosophy. It includes monetarism, Keynesianism, Malthusianism, "Laissez-faire," geopolitics, and utilitarianism. In the post-WWII U.S., both political parties embraced the dismantling of the entire edifice of regulation that was crafted during the FDR period. Both parties facilitated the de-industrialization of the economy and the shift to a "service" (read "speculator's") economy. There was a time when both parties would have rejected these developments. Instead, both parties marched in lock-step down the path which lead to the present collapse, and LaRouche was the voice in the wilderness warning about the consequences. He constantly referred to those periods of our history during which we rejected the British ideology (including, obviously enough, the American Revolution, which was in fact fought over ideas, not some sort of parochial, pragmatic concerns.) He became a problem for the faction which was promoting this shift.

So, they didn't want to debate him, because that would only draw attention to ideas that they wanted to exclude altogether from the public consciousness. So, they went with the straw man approach. Ironically, this is what got me interested. Long before Berlet and King began producing their slanders, there was a little pamphlet that was circulated nationwide on campuses around 1975. It was called "NCLC: Brownshirts of the 70s," published anonymously, and written in such a transparently propagandistic style that it piqued my curiosity. What sort of organization was this, that we were warned never to listen to its ideas, but instead advised to simply physically attack its activists at every opportunity? King and Berlet are marginally more sophisticated than that, but the same tactics are employed. Attention WP admins: only you can read John Train Salon (T-H-L-K-D), which was deleted, not redirected, and I believe at Slim's instigation (the talk page is of historical interest because it contains Slim's opening attack on Daniel Brandt.)

I can't seem to address this very succinctly. If LaRouche were what Slim claims he is, he never would have received this much hostile attention. If he were a Sun Myung Moon-like cult leader, he would probably control a mainstream media empire comparable to Moon's, and be wooed by establishment figures. If he were a financial fraudster, he might have spent one year at Club Fed and wound up teaching at UCLA like Michael Milken. If he were a right-wing conspiracy monger, he would be largely ignored like the John Birch Society. The truth is that he is targeted here for the same economic theories that are increasingly making him into a celebrity in Russia and China. And I suspect that Slim has some inkling that this is the case.

[Mackan]

If LaRouche were what Slim claims he is, he never would have received this much hostile attention. If he were a Sun Myung Moon-like cult leader, he would probably control a mainstream media empire comparable to Moon's, and be wooed by establishment figures. If he were a financial fraudster, he might have spent one year at Club Fed and wound up teaching at UCLA like Michael Milken. If he were a right-wing conspiracy monger, he would be largely ignored like the John Birch Society. The truth is that he is targeted here for the same economic theories that are increasingly making him into a celebrity in Russia and China. And I suspect that Slim has some inkling that this is the case.

How much attention does he get, really? The only thing I'd heard of him pre-Wikipedia was joking about the people with the loudspeakers on the street corner.

The guy could be a genius for all I know. The problem is I've not yet seen the case for why I or anyone should read his material. That nobody independent seems to give them any credence is one strike against them; that they think they're going to have an impact by shouting on the street corner is another. That the whole thing is focused around a movement is probably the third.

Here's my question: if someone is eighty years old and still looking for their first credible supporter, why should anyone other than perhaps an investigator spend their time looking into it?

[Cedric]

Here's my question: if someone is eighty years old and still looking for their first credible supporter, why should anyone other than perhaps an investigator spend their time looking into it?

Well, that seems to me to be the $64,000 question, in that the answer would prove more interesting than anything we could learn about LaRouche. I believe others have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: LaRouche is a character completely on the fringe, even back in the days when he was better known. He has no real influence to speak of in US or international policy-making. I had not heard or read a word about LaRouche or any of his organizations for some fifteen years before reading about the existence of a LaRouche editing war here on the pages of WR. He is a teeny blast from the past.

[Cla68]

Here's my question: if someone is eighty years old and still looking for their first credible supporter, why should anyone other than perhaps an investigator spend their time looking into it?

Well, that seems to me to be the $64,000 question, in that the answer would prove more interesting than anything we could learn about LaRouche. I believe others have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: LaRouche is a character completely on the fringe, even back in the days when he was better known. He has no real influence to speak of in US or international policy-making. I had not heard or read a word about LaRouche or any of his organizations for some fifteen years before reading about the existence of a LaRouche editing war here on the pages of WR. He is a teeny blast from the past.

Well, LaRouche apparently is given more credibility in Russia and People's China than in the US, but you wouldn't know that by the articles in Wikipedia, since the Russian and Chinese citations are apparently being removed with extreme prejudice by SV and Will. The Chinese even built a statue of LaRouche.

Anyway, Achromatic made some good points about what's wrong with the Duggan article. Moreover, SV, you didn't address why the Duggan article is referenced in so many of the LaRouche articles. You have worked with BLP issues and have been a staunch defender of protecting most BLP subjects, yet you continue to push connecting this unexplained death with LaRouche, a BLP subject. Why the double standard?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here's my question: if someone is eighty years old and still looking for their first credible supporter, why should anyone other than perhaps an investigator spend their time looking into it?

Well, that seems to me to be the $64,000 question, in that the answer would prove more interesting than anything we could learn about LaRouche. I believe others have already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: LaRouche is a character completely on the fringe, even back in the days when he was better known. He has no real influence to speak of in US or international policy-making. I had not heard or read a word about LaRouche or any of his organizations for some fifteen years before reading about the existence of a LaRouche editing war here on the pages of WR. He is a teeny blast from the past.

Well, LaRouche apparently is given more credibility in Russia and People's China than in the US, but you wouldn't know that by the articles in Wikipedia, since the Russian and Chinese citations are apparently being removed with extreme prejudice by SV and Will. The Chinese even built a statue of LaRouche.

Er, that part about the statue is news to me. But a Google search for Линдон Ларуш turns up 94,500 hits, and a search for 林登·拉魯什 turns up 146,000. It is these sorts of paradoxes that originally got me interested in LaRouche. How does "a character completely on the fringe" generate that sort of attention in the rest of the world? The assumption that is almost universally shared by Wikipedians is that the US Press is an infallible source of complete and honest information. I gave up that idea sometime in the 1970s.

Moreover, SV, you didn't address why the Duggan article is referenced in so many of the LaRouche articles. You have worked with BLP issues and have been a staunch defender of protecting most BLP subjects, yet you continue to push connecting this unexplained death with LaRouche, a BLP subject. Why the double standard?

SV is not big on addressing these sorts of things.

[Happy drinker]

How does "a character completely on the fringe" generate that sort of attention in the rest of the world? The assumption that is almost universally shared by Wikipedians is that the US Press is an infallible source of complete and honest information. I gave up that idea sometime in the 1970s.

Russia and China isn't quite the same as the rest of the world, though it's a big slice. (It's fair to conclude that he's not regarded as extremely right-wing in Russia and China.) So far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown in Britain and, if people have heard of him, he's a joke who accuses the Queen of drug-smuggling or something. Still, he's as entitled to be treated with NPOV as any other person or subject.

[gomi]

Russia and China isn't quite the same as the rest of the world ....

Advice to all concerned: do not rise to this bait. For most of you, the "Ignore" button functions well. Use it.