Full Transcript for my Segment on Whistleblowing, Snowden, Manning, Assange and Greenwald

[stevenleser]

Full audio of show: http://kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/leser/20130805.html Note: 6 min 20 secs of intro commercials. Whistleblower Segment starts at 9:05

This past week, in the wake of Bradley Manning being found guilty of enough charges to have him potentially spend well over 100 years in prison, I was on my friend Peter Lavelle’s Crosstalk show on the RT network to discuss Snowden, Manning and surveillance and privacy issues.

If you have been listening to my show for a while, you heard my take on what Snowden supposedly revealed and how Greenwald reported it. I reposted the transcript on my blog at Steveleser.blogspot.com so you can see it and listen to that piece.

In my spot on Peter’s show, I took issue with the idea that either of these two guys are heroes and I attacked the myth we sometimes hear that the Obama administration is anti-whistleblower. Here is my opening statement on that show:

Condensed version of audio snippet: “What no one has been able to give me a straight answer about is why Snowden and Manning refused to use the options available to them under the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act to go to a defense department Inspector General or to a member of congress or the senate. If they had, they would have been protected under that statute”

The interesting thing about that is you could have turned off that episode of Crosstalk after that opening because the rest of the segment involved two other people flailing against that argument and completely unable to overcome it.

What I said is really an IQ test and a test of how sane and reasonable you are when you hear it. Let me put it another way.

Let’s imagine that you have a goal in mind. Let’s call it Goal A. You have two options of achieving Goal A. Option 1 will either put you in prison for over 20 years or exile you to a country far away forever. Option 2 will leave you perfectly free and if you take Option 2 and it doesn’t get to Goal A, you can still do Option 1 afterwards.

It sounds like a trick right? What person in their right mind would choose Option 1 right off the bat? Would you feel sorry for someone who chose option 1 as their first choice and then suffered the consequences? Maybe a little, but almost all of us would think they ought to have known better.

Bradley Manning and Eric Snowden chose Option 1 right off the bat. Option 1 was ignoring the law, ignoring the fact that Title 10 subchapter 1034 also known as the military whistleblower protection act exists which provides a method that members of the military and department of defense and defense contractors can use to blow the whistle without fear of retaliation and reprisal. It’s a simple law.

Subsection a(1) of that law says No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.

Subsection b basically says No person may take (or threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold (or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action, as a reprisal against a member of the armed forces for making or preparing a communication to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General

That is how the whistleblower law works. If as a federal employee or member of the US Armed forces, which really is just a special kind of federal employee, but if you are one of those and you go to a congressman or senator to blow the whistle, you cannot be prosecuted or retaliated against for that.

So, why would you choose what I call option 1 here? Why wouldn’t you try option 2, the safer option first.
I think there is a pretty simple answer.

Have you ever wondered why people would go on Tabloid trash talk shows like the Jerry Springer show? I mean, I think Jerry himself is great, but if you go on that show, you are going to be embarrassed. Someone is going to reveal something embarrassing or hurtful to you or about you.

So Why do people do it?

They do it because some people are desperate to be on TV and to get fame and fortune. I think the main reason Snowden and Manning did this was for the notoriety. Manning also had ongoing discipline issues in the military. He had emotional issues his whole life and had a history of striking back at those who he perceived had wronged him. I think that the last time he got in trouble in the military he decided to strike back by embarrassing the military and his country.

In the segment on CrossTalk, it was suggested to me that going the legal route would not have been effective. There is a simple answer to that. If going the legal route wasn’t effective, you could always have gone to the press after that. But there is something more basic that makes it better to have gone about this the right way.

Now you may be wondering, why would it have been better to go the route of contacting a member of congress or the military or use the Inspector General?

For one thing, Manning and Snowden were both very junior and inexperienced people who had a lot of access to documents, but little to no experience in how to interpret them. Neither had ever supervised people nor had either man ever been put in charge of anything and were never responsible for making any kind of important decisions. These guys were techies who happened to work for organizations that dealt in intelligence.

So these guys grab a few documents, and an edited video, and leap to some conclusions, but are they the right ones? Well, we know for sure in several cases that they were not the right conclusions.

The so-called collateral murder video of the helicopter attack in Iraq purported to show an army helicopter firing on civilians. This video, which Manning said is one of the big reasons that he leaked documents, was released first in edited form which omitted the parts of the video that showed that three men of the eleven that were fired upon had weapons. One man had an AK-47, and two had RPGs or rocket propelled grenade launchers, one of which was loaded. And this group of men was in the section of town that had seen heavy fighting that day.

If Manning had gone to the inspector general of the Army, or if he had gone to a member of congress and an investigation were performed of that video, he would have found out what we eventually found out anyway that there was no wrongdoing involved in that incident. Except because of how this went down, we found out after months of hysterical assertions that a US Army helicopter fired on unarmed civilians.

Julian Assange himself finally had to admit that there were people in the video who looked like they were carrying weapons. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Assange admitted quote “"So it appears there are possibly two men, one carrying an AK-47 and one carrying a rocket-propelled grenade -- although we're not 100 percent sure of that -- in the crowd,"

If Assange admits that is what he sees when he looks at the video, how is it that his organization, Wikileaks, put that video out there as an example of wrongdoing?

What we see with this video and the documents released by Snowden and Manning is form of the old Axiom that is the name of a book by Richard Moran called “Never Confuse a Memo with Reality”.

A document or a video doesn’t prove anything. There may be context behind them or edits that change everything.

That’s why you need a level-headed investigation. And there is great harm sometimes when you don’t get one early on because the first thing that people hear causes most folks to form an opinion that is hard to shake. If you have heard about the collateral video before, the one that contains the helicopter attack, I’ll bet most of you didn’t know that it is now accepted by all sides that the people in the crowd the helicopter fired on had weapons. Not just basic weapons, RPGs. With an RPG, you can take out armored vehicles. With an RPG you can shoot down low-flying helicopters. That is a weapon of someone participating in the insurgency. It’s not a civilian’s personal defense weapon.

It’s like the Bush administration suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There are a percentage of Republicans in particular that will always believe that. I think this myth of the misconduct in what’s called the collateral murder video will similarly persist among some circles for a long time.
To show you how pervasive this can be, my friend Peter Lavelle on CrossTalk repeated these allegations about the helicopter this past week. The truth is out there that these folks were armed with heavy weapons common to the insurgency, but he was still under the impression they were unarmed civilians.

And Snowden’s revelations, well, I spent 15 minutes going through why that is all nonsense back in June. As I said the transcript is on my blog at Steveleser.blogspot.com context is everything but I’ll give you a taste. The Bush administration used warrantless wiretapping during its time in office. No paper trail, no oversight, nothing. They just listened to phone calls and read emails.

The Obama administration went back to using FISA. There is a paper trail, there is oversight by the judicial branch and by committees in both houses of congress. That’s a significant difference. That’s important context that shows things are going in the right direction.

Look, I am in favor of congressional investigations into exactly what the NSA is doing. Let’s have the investigations. But like the helicopter video, like the Bush administration claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, any misconceptions created by the Snowden release through Glenn Greenwald, and there are major misconceptions created there, are going to be hard to change.

I talk a lot about how Greenwald failed to provide the proper context for what he wrote concerning Snowden’s leaked documents. If you go to my blog and check out the transcript of the show where I discussed it you see I talk about context and framing. What do I mean about that? What do I mean about context and framing?

This is an important concept in terms of making sure you are really informing the public instead of spreading disinformation. Let me give you a good example.

Imagine you were out of contact and without a source of news for eight years in the African rainforest studying the great apes from 1937 through March of 1945 and you came out of the rainforest in March of 1945 and asked the first person you encountered what is going on in the world and that person said there is a world war going on in which Soviet Union, the US and Great Britain are bombing German cities and the Soviet red army is about to invade Germany and seize Berlin which would win the war.

If that was what was said to you, it would be true, that is what was happening in the European theater of the war in March of 1945, but do you think you would have been everything you need to know to understand the truth about the Second World War? No, that rendition lacks a lot of context and framing and without that context and framing, it’s disinformation, not information. That is often what you get when you present the truth without context.

Even if we for a moment assume that the documents leaked by Snowden are 100% correct, that’s what Glenn Greenwald did with his first Snowden piece. Again, check out my blog, steveleser.blogspot.com, the transcript is there for the show where I laid that all out.

Speaking of Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, let’s talk about their responsibility to their sources as supposed journalists.

Did these guys hang their sources out to dry or what?

I wonder, at any point, did Assange or Greenwald say to Manning or Snowden respectively, hey Bradley, hey Eric, I think you may have some legitimate concerns, are you sure this is the way you want to go, there is another way we can approach this.

Let’s go to the most progressive member of the US Senate. Let’s go to Senator Bernie Sanders. Call his office, ask to speak with him or a senior member of his staff, say I’m involved and that you are contacting them as a whistleblower, better yet, let’s call his office together, hold on and I will conference them in and let’s get protection for you through the federal whistleblower laws.

If Assange and Greenwald had done that for their prospective sources, there would still be a story there, it may not have been as sensational but there would have been a story, the difference is, neither Manning nor Snowden would be facing imprisonment or exile. And we would have their issues addressed via congressional investigation with none of the hysteria or the erroneous impressions. And by the way, if there is wrongdoing at all involved in any of Snowden’s or Manning’s various leaks, the way they are going to get addressed is via congressional investigation.

Either way, we’re back to that.

That is why I offered on RT’s Crosstalk this past Friday, I offered to assist any federal government employee if they wanted to be a whistleblower. I will advise them and steer them to a member of congress to get their issue resolved so that they do not face imprisonment or exile. That is what a journalist who is looking out for their source would do. After the fact, Assange and Greenwald are talking a good game about how concerned they are for their sources, but now it’s too late.

They screwed their sources for a sensationalized story.

A few more things I want to talk about regarding the CrossTalk debate.

In response to my assertion that the approved way to go is to use the inspector general or go to a congressman or senator, there was one instance raised by Tighe Barry where he said that a whistleblower did that but faced retaliation anyway, and that person is Bunny Greenhouse. It was also suggested that if I started assisting federal whistleblowers, I would be in danger of going to jail and that I was naiive to think otherwise.

Now, right off the bat, the ironic thing about that last statement is that the person who said it, Tighe Barry from Code Pink, assists whistleblowers all the time, lives in Washington DC, was participating in the debate from Washington DC, and is free to assist whistleblowers and complain about the government all he wants and has not been arrested or retaliated against for it. You understand, he is doing and saying that from the nations capitol, from Washington DC with the FBI, CIA and NSA all headquartered nearby.

Cuckoo sound effect

That’s some unintended comedy there.

But let’s look at the case of Bunny Greenhouse. Since Tighe offered Bunny Greenhouse as an example of a whistleblower who went to congress but then suffered reprisals I decided to look into her case. She had a job with the Army Corps of Engineers and she blew the whistle on a division of Halliburton receiving a No bid contract in Iraq shortly after the start of that war. She testified about that in a meeting of a congressional committee.

So what’s the the big reprisal against her that Tighe suggests all whistleblowers and those who would assist them should fear? The reprisal against Bunny Greenhouse is that she was demoted. That's it. No arrest, no exile, no physical punishment, she was demoted. And when she sued, citing the federal whistleblower laws that she had dutifully obeyed, as would be my suggestion, she won and the government settled with her for $970,000.

As far as I am concerned, that is a positive outcome and doesn't make the point Tighe intended.

So let’s sum up.

The video Manning says is the reason he decided to be a leaker that was posted by Assange’s Wikileaks doesn’t show actual wrongdoing.

The NSA allegations Snowden raised when viewed in the proper context with an understanding of the history and legalities involved also don’t amount to wrongdoing and suggest that the Obama administration took steps to improve oversight with surveillance but I agree should be investigated anyway.

Greenwald failed to do virtually any background into the history and legality of NSA Surveillance in his pieces on Snowden’s leaked documents and as a result, his story was so lacking in context and framing that it qualifies as disinformation.

Snowden and Manning had avenues open to them to blow the whistle where they would be free from any prosecution or retaliation and refused to use them.

Greenwald and Assange happily let their sources hang themselves so they could print sensationalism.
My original point in the CrossTalk segment stands. Whistleblowers are safe if they use the appropriate methods to blow the whistle. The one attempt to provide an example otherwise failed when one looks at the issue.

Oh, and one more thing. The same usual sources in the blogosphere and sectors of the media that like to do hit pieces against the United States have jumped on the bandwagon to spread what has turned out to be inaccurate information or information that lacks the proper context. Again, all because it seems bad for the United States.

Folks, when I cover an issue, the facts and what makes sense trumps any ideology and trumps any prior support I have for a party or person or group. If the facts are bad for President Obama, I say that and he makes it into my Hall of Shame, like when he tried to implement chained CPI or when he has spoken in favor of supporting the Syrian rebels. If the facts don’t reflect well on the Democratic Party, I hammer the Democratic Party. There are no sacred cows on my show, I let the facts and good sense take me where they will.

When you examine all the facts and all the context there is only one conclusion to which one can come. The actions of Snowden, Manning, Assange and Greenwald were wrong and do not make sense.

We’ll be right back.

[Savannahmann]

1. Unfortunately I answered your question.

When the Senators are given a script of what they are allowed to ask, then oversight at the Congressional Level is at best a joke.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023402403

The response as you might remember, was the Least Untruthful Lie that James Clapper could tell.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023014982

So when someone does question a program, they get from the operators of the program, the least untruthful lie that the person sitting at the microphone can tell. That is when a Senator knows it is a screwed up program.

The only reason we are having the debate now is because people who saw the insanity and knew the truth behind the lies were willing to drag the program kicking and screaming into the light of day. Call them traitors, and suggest they work through the system, but the problem is that system isn't set up to find the truth when Senators violate the rules by asking a question. The system is set up to obscure the truth.

Now where are we? We are watching as each assurance falls by the wayside. The NSA programs have never been used to observe people domestically. Then the truth about that was revealed, and we heard about the FISA court and how that allowed them under the 4th Amendment, but they never didn't save the content, merely the metadata. Then the Op-Ed by Senator Feinstein said that they would access the content of the suspicious phone call in question ONLY AFTER a Warrant was procured by the FISA court, which would be possible only IF they saved the content too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023377468

Then today we learn that the DEA got information from the NSA on intercepted communications, information that was passed along to Law Enforcement to set up phony traffic stops etc. The police were told to lie about what started the investigation. Violations of the rules our civilization is founded upon come numerous times a day, and we were ignorant of the entire thing, because it was secret to us the regular people. Because this has been operating since 1994, we are supposed to be totally cool with the fact that the police and judicial system participates in lies regularly to persecute people. Further, we are told that each Attorney General reviewed the program, and approved it as absolutely legal. Absolutely legal to lie about where your information came from, and absolutely legal to deny the defendant to potentially exculpatory information?

All of this we are learning about, all of it, is because someone decided that they could no longer stomach the lies. Senator Wyden when he smelled lies, could do nothing as a Senator to get to the truth, because even if he managed to learn some truth, was prohibited by the same secrecy rules that people say these programs must be protected by.

Reporting to the IG isn't going to change these things, and prevent the further erosion of Civil Rights. Reporting to the Ombudsman would have accomplished even less. The only people with the power to end this crap was Us, the citizens and voters. Now that we are learning the surface truth, with only our imagination to limit how deep and dark these programs get, is there a chance, a slim one, of change.

The one thing that isn't ever coming back though, is the naïve belief that the Government cares about our Civil Rights. The false image of a Government dedicated to defending the rights of the people is one that will never return.

So your assumption that the whistleblowers of today, by informing those who have spent their entire career violating the rules, that they are in fact violating the rules, will ever have any impact is not just short sighted, but borders on insane. We have within the last two months, learned more about our Government than they ever wanted us to know. I wonder what the next two months will bring us. The one thing I am certain of is that every assurance that there are lines the Government will not cross, sounds weaker than the last. Because so far the programs we have learned about, cross lines that they had previously said they would never cross.

Then there is the Historical examples. The only time that a system does start to reform itself, is when those truths become public knowledge. The NYPD of the 1970's didn't suddenly decide to stop taking bribes and prosecute those who were taking the bribes because Frank Serpico reported to his boss that the cops were all crooks. They stopped because Frank Serpico testified before a City Government Panel and in full view of the press. The secret was in the light, and there was no more keeping it hidden. The NYPD was forced to investigate, and prosecute those taking bribes, not because some IG or internal affairs learned about it. But because the PUBLIC demanded it.

Finally, there is no basis in law for keeping illegal actions secret. You might want to consider that when you suggest that whistleblowers keep their mouths shut and try working through the system. Even attorney client privilege does not protect an attorney from being prosecuted for conspiracy. There is no basis in any civilized law that requires people to remain silent when they observe illegal activity. Again, look at history. We prosecuted people for keeping quiet many times, we call the charge conspiracy. If it is illegal for someone to keep a private crime silent, why is it admirable to keep a government crime silent?

[stevenleser]

2. The fact that disproves your response is simple and irrefutable.

All you have to do is reread the part of the transcript about Option 1 and Option 2.

There was always the opportunity to do the most public and damaging leak possible. That option doesnt go away by trying to use the Inspector General or go to a Congressman.

That by itself is something to which there is no response.

But I can go further.

As I noted, since the level headed investigation way wasnt the one chosen, we were presented lies as truth such as the edited "Collateral murder video"

AND, what are we back to with all of the allegations? We are at a congressional investigation in order to figure out if there was any wrongdoing and if so to address it. That is the same place we would be if the first step would have been to go to someone like Bernie Sanders.

[MNBrewer]

3. Any update yet on those classified legal interpretations that you've read?

Still waiting...

[stevenleser]

4. Can you be more specific? Have no idea to what this is in reference. nt

[MNBrewer]

11. well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023185536#post324

[stevenleser]

13. If you want to discuss that, start a new OP and send me a link. That has nothing to do with this OP

And amounts to threadjacking.

[Savannahmann]

19. Option one was tried.

Again, Senator Wyden tried to bring some of it to light by asking an unscripted question, in violation of the understanding I might add, and James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate. You might want to read up on the outrage of the Senators that Wyden would do that by the way. Now your idea of oversight might include getting your questions approved beforehand by the guy who is reporting to you, but that is not what the rest of us imagine when we think of oversight.

So option one was tried, by those "in the know" who were deeply disturbed by the secret actions of the Government. They were unable to effect the change, because there was no public opinion to back them, no outrage of the governed. Now, we are seeing changes. Just today it was announced that the Justice Department is going to re-examine the question of the DEA advising people to lie about how investigations get started. I can tell you the ACLU answer before it is even given. It is a huge violation of the rules of court, and a major violation of the discovery process to lie about the information you had, and when you got it. Again this has been happening since 1994, so how many thousands of people were locked up because of these lies told under oath in a court of law?

Option one had been tried, and tried by more than one person. Option two was the only recourse remaining. Your defense of the immoral and illegal actions of the Government is paper thin, demanding that people remain in the boxes when they see systemic abuses happening all around them. The oath they took, every single one of them was to defend the Constitution, not the people. The Constitution is supposed to be our highest duty, our highest law. Shredding that document under the specious argument that it will save lives is asinine. Defending those abuses is beyond even that.

Many times on this board, people have blasted former Colonel West, the lunatic Congressman from Florida. He was court martialed for torturing a prisoner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)#Iraq_interrogation_incident The court upheld his actions by operating on the same premise you now propose. They are acting to save lives is the argument. The problem is that what action is beyond the pale. What is too much when all the justification needed is that you are working to save lives?

The show 24 was fiction, we've seen it, some of us have seen more than others. I stopped watching an hour into the second season when Jack Bower shot a prisoner, and cut his head off and put it into a bag. Jack was only working to save lives right? We should commend him, and any action he takes because he's dedicated to save lives.

I don't commend the torturer West. There are things we aren't supposed to do, and the ticking time bomb scenario is bullshit. The ends never justify the means. The only reason we are having this discussion is because Manning, and then Snowden told us the truth about what was going on. What illegal and immoral programs were being undertaken in our names.

If we don't respect our Constitution, then how can we ask anyone to respect us? If we don't keep our words regarding our highest law, then why would anyone believe us? If we are going to spy on the world, what makes us think that we won't end up as pariah's, virtual outcasts among the civilized nations. We are rapidly becoming the next global enemy that the world is going to oppose.

This isn't Snowden's fault, or Manning's fault, or anyone who told the truth. It is the fault of those who took the illegal and immoral actions in the first place. It is the fault of those who would like yourself, rush to defend the programs by arguing that those with a conscience should never speak out and instead keep the illegal activities and actions secret.

So continue to blame the messenger if it makes you feel better. The rest of us, the rest of the world will instead focus on the message, and demand answers of those in power. Sadly, they have little more to say than you do, that the messenger screwed up by telling anyone.

[Hydra]

16. Thanks for such a complete dustup

Amazing that it's even needed- the people denying that there's a problem here have no ground to stand on.

[Mojorabbit]

20. Great post. nt

[whttevrr]

5. Thanks for the heads up...

I stopped reading after this gem:

The interesting thing about that is you could have turned off that episode of Crosstalk after that opening because the rest of the segment involved two other people flailing against that argument and completely unable to overcome it.

What I said is really an IQ test and a test of how sane and reasonable you are when you hear it. Let me put it another way.

That alone tells me that you have effectively closed off any meaningful debate. You have prefaced your argument with an insult to anyone who does not agree with your point of view.

This is not an IQ test, except for testing the IQ of anyone who would enter into a debate that is sure to involve you insulting them. What you are saying is "my points are valid and if you argue against them you are not sane."

That's lame flamebait.

[stevenleser]

7. LOL, please, the unintended comedy of your post is Hilarious!!!!!!!

1. I went on that debate on RT with two people who disagreed with me and we hashed it out for half an hour.

2. I am posting this transcript here in GD in a forum full of people who disagree with me and who are not known for being shy.

So, in the words of President Obama, please continue!!

[whttevrr]

9. Why would I continue?

You are not looking for a discussion. You are looking to insult anyone who does not agree with you. Why would I waste time playing that game?

Enjoy your mental masturbation.

[stevenleser]

10. Nice try. The reason you aren't continuing is because you can't. The facts are in my favor

When you lay out the things that these four men did, and the facts surrounding their decisions, they look really bad.

You dont have a response for the points I outlined. It's OK to admit that. Go ahead, you will feel beter.

[Ron Green]

6. When you discredit the messenger,

you don't have to listen to the message.

[stevenleser]

8. So dont do that. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I am boycotting Russian product and that includes their media and their media figures.

Barf.

[stevenleser]

14. That's good. I don't blame you. Doesnt have much to do with this OP, but whatevs. nt

[treestar]

15. Wow, I did not realize that the video

showed no wrongdoing - that was Manning's one saving grace.

All four are very disturbed people. Julian and Glenn are worse for taking advantage of Bradley and Ed.

The whistleblower protection act is something they should have used. They could have avoided all of their current problems (Glenn alone is not stuck somewhere or in jail). There is no excuse for skipping that step. They are all in countries that probably don't even have such a law, let alone a FISA or a Fourth amendment. Yet the United States is supposed to be be bad one.

[ljm2002]

17. "What I said is really an IQ test and a test"...

..."of how sane and reasonable you are when you hear it."

In other words: If you agree with my points you are intelligent, sane and reasonable; otherwise, you are not.

Way to open a debate on the topic. Of course you are not really interested in opening a debate, rather your goal is to promote your name and your show. Which is okay as far as it goes, but not okay when you post things that are designed to tout how obviously right you are on the topic and to preemptively shut down debate about it.

What I do find interesting about all this is how you are able to ignore some irrefutable facts, namely: the whistle-blowers who followed protocols were unable to cause a broad discussion of the issues -- war crimes in Manning's case, and the surveillance state in Snowden's case. Manning and Snowden both spurred awareness and debates on topics where others had tried and failed.

So regardless of all the hand wringing about how they coulda shoulda done it differently, I say bravo to both of them because they found a way to effectively get their messages out.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Thanks, stevenleser for your comments. Too much truth here for some but the facts are the facts.

There is more to Snowden and Greenwald than they are publicly saying, there is more than revealing something they even date to 2005-2008 but this is not their agenda. Snowden is appearing to be more of a patsy or as you say feels like it is important to be on the news. There is a right way and a wrong way, now this chatter from some continues I guess because it sounds good to them but it is easy to distinguish fact from fiction.