Australian churches, Victoria, Qld, ACT, New Zealand offer sanctuary to asylum seekers

apologies for the conspiracy book dig sd. that was uncalled for.

indo-dreaming wrote:

clif wrote:

Why would that be ironic? Refugees/Asylum Seekers can be processed while living as part of the community. It is done elsewhere (e.g. Canada, Sweden, Spain). In fact, community placement is undertaken for some even in Australia. It has been shown to be the most effective means of dealing with issues, such as PTSD. On the other other hand the impact of Immigration Detention has been shown to be terrible.

See
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/188/1/58
http://apy.sagepub.com/content/21/4/315.short

If Australia is serious about putting an end to people smuggling, it needs to address the reasons why asylum seekers risk getting on a boat. The process also involves devoting resources to addressing the poverty and disenfranchisement currently experienced by fishermen in Indonesia.

I thought it would be quite obvious that if you give people exactly what they are after (to get to Australia and live in the community) you will only encourage more people rather than deter people.

But if it ever happens i will be looking into the possibility's of exploiting it and paying to help them get to Oz, I've got plenty of very poor Indo friends that would be happy to live and work in the Australian community yeah sure once there are processed they will be flown back home, but i know they won't care because they will go back with more with more money than they will ever otherwise see.

Or are you going to tell me, they won't be processed and will instantly turned back based on the fact they look Indonesian?

People do not just pack up and make such journeys into Australia, even though they may think it a good idea. It's a very difficult decision. They did not make these journeys enmasse before these draconian measures were introduced nor will they afterwards. Where is the evidence that they have in the past or would in the future? There are many factors which keep people from moving across borders, away from family and friendship networks and cultural familiarity, etc. Into Australia the numbers have only ever been small. When larger amounts of immigrants have arrived the country has benefited greatly.

We were having a discussion about asylum seekers, not economic and lifestyle migrants into Australia (there is a distinction. See: 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees) of which far more are of European descent than any others (but they arrive by plane, are less 'noticeable', and thus do not provoke moral panics like those from more culturally and ethnically different backgrounds).

The assumption that most of the asylum seekers arriving are principally economic migrants and are not genuine asylum seekers has been shown to be false. I say its worth being very wary of conflating the two, and the government has made a deliberate shift in language to muddy the waters and so support their measures.

In 2013 around 90% of asylum seekers who arrived by boat were found to be refugees. The benefits for that 90% far outweigh any concern about a 10%. Also, that 10% tends to arrive by plane, not boat. The percentage found not to be asylum seekers and who have arrived by boat is minuscule (the majority of Asylum Seekers arrive by plane).

Anyway, in many cases "what appears at first sight to be primarily an economic motive for departure may in reality also involve a political element, and it may be the political opinions of the individual that expose him to serious consequences, rather than his objections to the economic measures themselves” (Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees).

In short, the people attempting to arrive by boat are desperate and cannot get visas to fly. They risk everything to come by boat. To stop the boats we need to provide safety measures and not draconian military ones (which they have come to be).

Um no comment, I've read it all before and replied to these unrealistic views before, lets just agree to disagree.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Um no comment, I've read it all before and replied to these unrealistic views before, lets just agree to disagree.

What is obvious is that on issues like refugees there are many in our community, like indo-dreaming, who don't care about the proper processes of international law, don't care about the means just the end, don't care about the suffering and the inhumanity, who are happy for their government to speak in 1/2 truths and to constantly change the law to stymie legal challenges and who happily get on forums like this using trumped up logic and mumbo jumbo all the while attempting to deny Australian's rich traditional of helping out those in need by arguing things have changed or it costs too much or refugees are unemployable because they have no english language skills or they are terrorists or they will bring in disease ........

Its a position that is played out on internet forums, A Current Affair and sock jock radio on all sorts of issues like Aboriginal reconciliation, climate change, so-called welfare cheats, why bike riders should be banned from the roads, gay marriage, blah blah b;ah ......... and more generally reflects the conservative white middle aged (employed) man's narrow view of the world. They feel threatened, they double bolt the front door and have a dog that will bark at anything that moves.

What a sad miserable heartless frightened bigoted lot they are.

Yes, we will have to disagree because it's your view I understand to be unrealistic .

I think the scholarship (which has been addressing the issues for decades now) and research projects (both national and international) I've been reading tend to be very realistic.

good advice sd. in fact I'm far more conflicted about the whole thing than my comments here would have you believe. it is upsetting to read about what goes on at manus. there is no easily getting to sleep once you start forming those pictures in your head.

Im surprised no one has mentioned Christmas Island here and the twist that it plays, both positive and negative..

I thought someone would at least click and bring it up against me with the quarantine issues, but i guess people don't really think too practical here, its more just think with ideals and emotions.

It's obviously part of Australia but less than 350 km from Indonesia and as we know its a favourite point for people smugglers to reach obviously because its cheaper for them to reach than take a longer route to get to Aust even going from West Timor to North Aust adds another 200km on a return trip for people smugglers thats a lot of fuel ($) and i don't think most refugees want to land on remote crocodile infested coast anyway.

The Christmas Island factor is a positive in the fact as far as quarantine risk goes, its not of huge concern on this route, it 100 times better if a disease or pest was introduced here rather than mainland Australia, also authorities can easily monitor a small island rather than a huge area of coast so they can be there when people board the shores or transfer them at sea.

BTW. this doesn't just cancel out the quarantine risk to Australia as we still have seen many boats take a direct route to Australia. but it does help reduce rip to Aust, so despite Christmas Island being easy to get too so in thats sense a negative, the big positive is it helps reduce the risk on the quarantine issue.

And just importantly its not all about quarantine although important its just one slice of the pie.

Oh i almost forgot another positive about Christmas Island those that reach Christmas island obviously want to be found by authorities hence you can almost be certain are true refugees.

If you were a true economic migrant its not a route you would want to take, your aim would to reach Australia without being intercepted by authorities, most likely your people smugglers would have a boat at the Australian end to transfer you too so you can buzz of somewhere safe and evade authorities and slip into society.

Poor little floyd, all torn up over the responsible and reasonable policies that made this country the one that others would risk their lives to come to. As for mk1 and stu, make a legitimate rebuttal if you can.

Im going to try to help you guys a bit more.

Now the people smuggling deal and people drowning at sea thing that some believe is the real issue.

If it was also only about stopping the people smugglers trade or stopping people drowning at sea, wouldn't the solution be very simple.

To provide a safe regular affordable ferry service from West Java to Christmas Island.

It wouldn't be too hard to undercut the people smugglers price and if you were a refugee what boat would you rather take a big safe government run boat with life rafts etc or a small wooden leaky fishing boat?

Obviously this screws over people smugglers and safes people from drowning and as I've mentioned above landing on Christmas island doesn't have the quarantine risk that come with people landing on Aust.

I couldn't see why Indonesia wouldn't corporate?

Yeah sure it will encourage more refuges to pass through Indonesia, but thats not the big problem for Indonesia, refugees passing through are just like tourist, the problem for Indonesia is when refugees become stuck in Indonesia long term because they can't legally work so they run out of money and become a problem for Indonesia, i believe many then end up in Indonesian detention centres of which there is about 13 and you can imagine what conditions in those would be like, you guys would actually have a right to whinge about conditions.

Yes you will still have to detain and process people, but if your not using the detention process as a deterrent than processing times should be able to be much quicker.

But thats if it was only about those problems, stopping people smugglers, stopping people drowning at sea, and quarantine issues, and even reducing the time people are in detention, personally i think there is more to it than that its about numbers which i don't think there is ceiling too, and at this stage we have a chance to prevent numbers getting huge rather than have to deal with huge numbers of people in the future.

I know this is controversial and most don't agree, but also think its about the social class of the refugees our government in general wants in Australia especially the english skill factor and with this kind of idea the journey becomes more affordable to a lower class of refugee with less english skills.

Many people don't understand that in many countries people don't own passports to fly on planes because its not affordable to them and they don't have holiday time, in many countries people don't even have bank accounts or eftpos cards, credit cards etc..

But still it could be in part a solution or idea worth trying.

That sounds like a good idea however The west oz govt have other plans for Christmas island, im not sure if the will effect eachother but west oz govt are growing cannabis all around the island to make medical cannabis oil. It could be a security risk?
Good idea however and im sure theres a way to make that idea work.

Indo-dreaming:

"I guess people don't really think too practical here, its more just think with ideals and emotions."

"Im going to try to help you guys a bit more."

Hmmm, you're really in echo-chamber territory now. Probably have been for a bit.

Is that true about growing medicinal cannabis on Christmas Is. Groundswell?

I can see a spike in tourism there in the not too distant future if there is.

zenagain wrote:

Is that true about growing medicinal cannabis on Christmas Is. Groundswell?

I can see a spike in tourism there in the not too distant future if there is.

Yep old mate ex liberal senator has got the gig if they get it off the ground, surprise!

http://www.smh.com.au/business/australian-company-auscann-to-grow-medici...

Thanks Tim, looks like the good oil on this budding enterprise will come to a head.

zenagain wrote:

Thanks Tim, looks like the good oil on this budding enterprise will come to a head.

Zen, there are new medical cannabis laws in NSW. Not sure if other states are also looking at this. But there is certainly a strong push to get this drug for medicinal purposes. Where it is grown - don't know. Not sure if that is relevant as opposed to the type, quantity etc.

It wont be for tourists. only for specific terminally ill patients and people with autism i believe.

Anyway back on topic:

theween wrote:

Poor little floyd, all torn up over the responsible and reasonable policies that made this country the one that others would risk their lives to come to. As for mk1 and stu, make a legitimate rebuttal if you can.

I already did.

Indo & the gang. All your scurrying work on this thread up-ended here. Worth a read.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/bradley-asylum-policies-and-the-pr...

Drove through Sydney today.

They reckon a third of all Australians are born overseas.

Apparently in Sydney, that figure would be up around the fifty percent mark .

Is Sydney better for a doubling of its population ?

I'd say no.

Stop the Pom, Kiwi and Asian invasion!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/latestProducts/3412.0Media%20Release12013-14

NSW, 50%? Yeah, nah. Sydney sucks though. That's why crew are bailing out?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3412.0~2011-12+and+2012-13~Chapter~State+and+Territory+Composition+of+Country+of+Birth?OpenDocument

Fuck! Gotta cut n paste the links if you can be arsed. Don't let the stats get in the way of the 'feeling in ya waters' though. Speaking of which. Beer o'clock.

Blowin wrote:

Drove through Sydney today.

They reckon a third of all Australians are born overseas.

Apparently in Sydney, that figure would be up around the fifty percent mark .

Is Sydney better for a doubling of its population ?

I'd say no.

well, multiple concepts going on there. one of which is entrenched government thinking that economies of scale are the way to go. big cities are cheaper to run than many smaller cities...but we pay the price in other aspects. spreading people out is the way to go. people get along much better when theres a little more space between them.

talkingturkey wrote:

Indo & the gang. All your scurrying work on this thread up-ended here. Worth a read.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/bradley-asylum-policies-and-the-pr...

With that intro, i was expecting something that was going to be challenging and different, but nah same old far left mumbo jumbo.

Up-ended?….

People who write lines like "Open borders is a myth. So is the next logical step, which is that the influx of asylum seekers by boat will break our borders"

I view these people exactly like people who deny climate change, all the facts and figures and evidence is there but just because it hasn't happened they live in denial.

No surprise that i got to the bottom of the article and read "Michael Bradley is the managing partner of Sydney law firm Marque Lawyers, and he writes a weekly column for The Drum. He tweets at @marquelawyers."

Probably comes from a rich inner city suburb, went to a private school, real smart dude intelligence wise but lacks actual life experience out of his western bubble, hence doesn't really have a very good grip of the reality of the world.

Indo says " .... hence doesn't really have a very good grip of the reality of the world".

Yeah the last time I drove through Phillip Island I thought Sunderland Bay was the centre of the universe where one could get a very good grip ... for a tosser.

floyd wrote:

Indo says " .... hence doesn't really have a very good grip of the reality of the world".

Yeah the last time I drove through Phillip Island I thought Sunderland Bay was the centre of the universe where one could get a very good grip ... for a tosser.

Okay so now we are calling each other names?….

I guess it's not easy to have your views challenged and to expose issues you have totally ignored, i know its much easier to be idealistic and ignore reality and make yourself feel good..hey I'm the compassionate one.

Sheepdog wrote:

"hence doesn't really have a very good grip of the reality of the world."

Says the guy who reckons trekking across a war zone or an iranian mountain range to a refugee camp is the way to go.....

x2

Sheepdog wrote:

"hence doesn't really have a very good grip of the reality of the world."

Says the guy who reckons trekking across a war zone or an iranian mountain range to a refugee camp is the way to go.....

The simple fact that you even try to argue that it's easier to get to Australia on the other side of the world rather than get to a refugee camp, proves my point.

Anyway the refugee camp thing was only to prove a point if you go back and read the discussion you will see i actually said i understand why people bypass camps, i even said that if put in the same circumstance we would all do the same thing.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Im going to try to help you guys a bit more.

Now the people smuggling deal and people drowning at sea thing that some believe is the real issue.

If it was also only about stopping the people smugglers trade or stopping people drowning at sea, wouldn't the solution be very simple.

To provide a safe regular affordable ferry service from West Java to Christmas Island.

It wouldn't be too hard to undercut the people smugglers price and if you were a refugee what boat would you rather take a big safe government run boat with life rafts etc or a small wooden leaky fishing boat?

Obviously this screws over people smugglers and safes people from drowning and as I've mentioned above landing on Christmas island doesn't have the quarantine risk that come with people landing on Aust.

I couldn't see why Indonesia wouldn't corporate?

Yeah sure it will encourage more refuges to pass through Indonesia, but thats not the big problem for Indonesia, refugees passing through are just like tourist, the problem for Indonesia is when refugees become stuck in Indonesia long term because they can't legally work so they run out of money and become a problem for Indonesia, i believe many then end up in Indonesian detention centres of which there is about 13 and you can imagine what conditions in those would be like, you guys would actually have a right to whinge about conditions.

Yes you will still have to detain and process people, but if your not using the detention process as a deterrent than processing times should be able to be much quicker.

But thats if it was only about those problems, stopping people smugglers, stopping people drowning at sea, and quarantine issues, and even reducing the time people are in detention, personally i think there is more to it than that its about numbers which i don't think there is ceiling too, and at this stage we have a chance to prevent numbers getting huge rather than have to deal with huge numbers of people in the future.

I know this is controversial and most don't agree, but also think its about the social class of the refugees our government in general wants in Australia especially the english skill factor and with this kind of idea the journey becomes more affordable to a lower class of refugee with less english skills.

Many people don't understand that in many countries people don't own passports to fly on planes because its not affordable to them and they don't have holiday time, in many countries people don't even have bank accounts or eftpos cards, credit cards etc..

But still it could be in part a solution or idea worth trying.

So what about this idea?…I thought its a solution even you guys could see merit in.

If not tell me why and pick holes in it rip it apart, I'm cool with that.

https://m.

living the dream or dreaming the dream? let me contemplate that for a nano second ...

Indo...refreshing to see that you are trying to suggest solutions. That's the hard part.

Sheepdog wrote:

And Indo, when you man up and accept the fact that we invaded Iraq under Howard with GWB, with made up intelligence, killed the leader of Iraq, replaced him with a shiite puppet regime that went around slaughtering sunnis, which in turn gave birth to ISIS, and then we armed and trained ISIS to destabilize Syria so Russia's gas pipeline fails and Americas "buddy" Saudi Arabia's pipeline succeeds, maybe then you will accept that the blood of 250 000 innocent civilians is somewhat on our hands.... And you want to dodge and weave responsibility for this, using every red herring in the book to evade our moral responsibility....
You too, Tony barber.... History will judge you all....

Sheep dog I've manned up, I've told you ideally id love Australia to be not involved in wars, and I've also told you i don't understand the complexity of wars in the middle east or know if we have made things worse or made them better, i do know though that the middle east countries have been fighting with each other for thousands of years and i do know refugees are not a new phenomenon.

And in regard to your other post with the link, yeah bad shit happens everywhere, I'm sure like any other society in the world there is also fights in the camps and some people steal from each other and rapes and other types of crime, but generally speaking people are in camps because they are safer than where they have fled from.

BTW. What's people take on refugees getting pregnant in detention centres, many people here have called them concentration camps, why would anyone bring a child into the world when they live in a concentration camp and their future is unknown?

Is it just because they want to get on with life and maybe want children or do you think there is a possibility they are using these babies as a tool similar to anchor babies?

I do have to say that i think refugees are being influenced and coaxed to have babies to be used in this way.

But i guess the reasons behind having a baby while in detention is something only the parents and people close to them know the reasons behind.

From my own experience when i sponsored my wife to come to Australia on a spouse Visa, i went and saw an immigration agent and i was basically told "off the record" the processing time is unknown it can take anywhere between a few months to two years, but if you want to guarantee its processed fast and accepted if my wife got pregnant it was a guaranteed way to make it happen.

BTW we didn't take that route as weren't ready to have children.

tonybarber wrote:

Indo...refreshing to see that you are trying to suggest solutions. That's the hard part.

Thank you and thank you ground swell.

indo-dreaming wrote:

BTW. What's people take on refugees getting pregnant in detention centres, many people here have called them concentration camps, why would anyone bring a child into the world when they live in a concentration camp and their future is unknown?

Is it just because they want to get on with life and maybe want children or do you think there is a possibility they are using these babies as a tool similar to anchor babies?

I do have to say that i think refugees are being influenced and coaxed to have babies to be used in this way.

But i guess the reasons behind having a baby while in detention is something only the parents and people close to them know the reasons behind.

From my own experience when i sponsored my wife to come to Australia on a spouse Visa, i went and saw an immigration agent and i was basically told "off the record" the processing time is unknown it can take anywhere between a few months to two years, but if you want to guarantee its processed fast and accepted if my wife got pregnant it was a guaranteed way to make it happen.

BTW we didn't take that route as weren't ready to have children.

Funny that - all my friends have been told the exact opposite and that being pregnant is more likely to have you turned away until you have had the baby so that you don't try and have it in Australia. When applying for a work visa my Japanese housemate at the time was shocked that the question "Are you pregnant?" was followed with "Are you sure?" haha.

In reponse to babies in detention. I'd say it happens for all the reasons people otherwise get pregnant. People have sex. Desire doesn't automatically disappear when you are held indefinitely in detention, and it's highly unlikely that you're going to wander up to guards in Manus and say "can I get a few dongas mate? I know that you beat us with sticks and hammers not long ago, but me and me Mrs are keen on a bit of hanky panky"... It's one of those things that makes logical sense - that somebody might have a child to get them out - but I really can't imagine it being something that happens.

Like you rightfully said though, none of us know why people do things. None of us here have been kept in indefinite detention without charge in foreign nations while fleeing from countries in collapse, so we're all just speculating really.

This was over ten years ago, so possibly they have cracked down on it, i do remember my wife coming back from her interview in Australia embassy in Jakarta and her telling me there was girls in there applying for the same visa pregnant, i think it was a pretty common thing back then, we got told to do the same thing from an old expat that has a place down Cimaja (leo) one that likes to drink a lot.

She was keen on the idea but it was a no chance from me.

Nah from what I've read apparently contraception if freely available in the centres and you would expect this to be case, i don't think our government or anyone else wants more babes in detention centres.

If we are realistic and be mature about the issue we also know the centres are nothing like that, if it was an Indonesian detention centre yes, but realistically we all know Australian ones are going to be the complete opposite as is there is so many groups and people out there with agendas just waiting for slip ups.

tonybarber wrote:

Indo...refreshing to see that you are trying to suggest solutions. That's the hard part.

You're such a mummy's boy Tones

Floyd wasn't or isn't you mother involved in Aid organisations or something?

I thought you would have more to bring to the table so to speak.

I Think that's Yorkesurfer you're thinking of there ID.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Floyd wasn't or isn't you mother involved in Aid organisations or something?

I thought you would have more to bring to the table so to speak.

Is it time to again summarise all your bogus arguments key here indo?

Sheepdog wrote:

Well...... One of them was raped for starters..... Came to the mainland for an abortion.... But wasn't allowed.... Apparently Peter Dutton reckoned she changed her mind..... She absolutely denies this.. She was flown back to the camp to give birth to the rapists and her child..
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/refugee-raped-on-n...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34568421
.

On that note, it's worth looking over the senates estimates questioning on this case: https://www.facebook.com/Senator.Sarah.Hanson.Young/videos/994706570552837/

In fact, it's worth watching all senate estimates to see how poorly this country is run.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Floyd wasn't or isn't you mother involved in Aid organisations or something?

I thought you would have more to bring to the table so to speak.

My mother ran the NGO (non government organisation) http://www.worldfamilies.org.au for 8 years but stepped down recently as she's is in her 70's now. She's still goes in 1-2 days a week and helps run the organisation.

I've been following this thread and one thing I will say is that often the same people who are so opposed to giving refuge to asylum seekers celebrated when the Abbott/Turnbull government slashed billions of dollars from the foreign aid budget?

If Australia and other Western nations wish for people to stay in their home countries then spending on infrastructure like schools, hospitals, irrigation projects etc. in these developing countries(as opposed to using our resources to finance wars) would seem to make more sense?
These are the sort of projects World Families has been working on for decades.

Schools are a big one because instead of young minds being poisoned with radical ideology there's the opportunity to promote more constructive ideas through teaching. And it's hard for extremists to demonise the west if we are financing food production projects and hospitals that are feeding people and treating their illness and diseases?

Maybe some of these countries could become desirable places for the people to live in with more of this kind of thinking?

yorkessurfer wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Floyd wasn't or isn't you mother involved in Aid organisations or something?

I thought you would have more to bring to the table so to speak.

My mother ran the NGO (non government organisation) http://www.worldfamilies.org.au for 8 years but stepped down recently as she's is in her 70's now. She's still goes in 1-2 days a week and helps run the organisation.

I've been following this thread and one thing I will say is that often the same people who are so opposed to giving refuge to asylum seekers celebrated when the Abbott/Turnbull government slashed billions of dollars from the foreign aid budget?

If Australia and other Western nations wish for people to stay in their home countries then spending on infrastructure like schools, hospitals, irrigation projects etc. in these developing countries(as opposed to using our resources to finance wars) would seem to make more sense?
These are the sort of projects World Families has been working on for decades.

Schools are a big one because instead of young minds being poisoned with radical ideology there's the opportunity to promote more constructive ideas through teaching. And it's hard for extremists to demonise the west if we are financing food production projects and hospitals that are feeding people and treating their illness and diseases?

Maybe some of these countries could become desirable places for the people to live in with more of this kind of thinking?

Okay sorry for the mix up, i remember discussing aid ages ago, to be honest i didn't know too much about it back then i think i did take the view that we should help our own first and get out of debt.

But when Indonesia's add got cut I read up about it quite a bit and have a slightly different view as understand aid is a lot more than most people perceive it to be and is also about the things you mention that are related to things like counter terrorism through education etc and in many cases in the bigger picture the money spent actually benefits us just as much as them.

Sheepdog wrote:

Indo - "BTW. What's people take on refugees getting pregnant in detention centres, many people here have called them concentration camps, why would anyone bring a child into the world when they live in a concentration camp and their future is unknown?"

Well...... One of them was raped for starters..... Came to the mainland for an abortion.... But wasn't allowed.... Apparently Peter Dutton reckoned she changed her mind..... She absolutely denies this.. She was flown back to the camp to give birth to the rapists and her child..
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/refugee-raped-on-n...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34568421

Now, as far as having sex on the island... Probably the only joy some husbands and wives have.... Do you want to ban it, Indo? .... Are you going to ban husbands and wives having sex, considering most of them are on the island for years? And if contraception is against their religious beliefs, will you forcibly insert an "Implanon" into the womans arm?

I'm fucking staggered, indo......

Please Sheepdog don't put words in my mouth.

But do you think children are being brought into this world in detention centres to be used as tools to gain advantage???

Oh please Sleepster don't put words in my mouth ... I'll just raise the issue, ask the question, cast the bait and see what I can drag up, even raise the issue about available birth control in the camps just to add to "implied" accusation that these families are deliberately becoming pregnant without saying so ... Sleepster, you misunderstand me .....