Will General Motors declare bankruptcy?

[Young_Warrior]

Yes but they do what they were intended for. But SUV's dont. The way SUV's are used they might aswell just be jacked up and beefed up station wagons.

 

[Joey D]

SUV's and trucks = manual labour

How come so many engineers drive them then? There is nothing manual about my job, I mean for God sakes I sit at work looking at data all day. I use my brain, not my hands.

98% of the owners dont do any of that.

That's wrong, most truck owners use them for out door activities, for pulling a boat, or for hauling stuff. Most SUV owners have big families and need to transport the kids and their stuff around. Not everyone wants a mini-van.

Luxury limos = get people places in comfort and style

So do some SUV's, so do some trucks. Look at a GMC Denali.

Cars such as the A8 serve their purpose.But who said it produces more harmful emissions. what amount does your truck produce and im pretty certain a W8 is cleaner than your 4.2.

I have a 4.3L not a 4.2L. But I don't even know where to find out the exact numbers, but my truck would pass emissions testing and so would any other SUV for that matter. And you do realize that the A8 has a W12 in it right? I doubt its more efficent and cleaner then an SUV.

And since you love Europe so much, what about a G-Wagon? They have to be the biggest, more ineffiecent SUV on the road today.

But blazing you keep referring back to your truck which is pretty much a station wagona nd not a full fledged SUV. Its a baby SUV.

SUV = Station Wagon on insurence no matter what the size. But honestly Blazer = SUV, there is no way around that, and since I know about the Blazer I will talk about that.

And you wanna know what? I'm going to say the same thing again, it's not your money, you don't have to drive an SUV, so why b**** about it?

 

[Young_Warrior]

I b****in because Im tired of seeing mummys doing the school run and shopping in these great big off roaders that are bad for the enviroment when a car can do everything they need but better.

 

[Joey D]

I've explained this to you, they aren't bad for the environment. I want you to show me with numbers that an SUV is worse then planes, trains, ships, factories, big rig semi trucks, and most of all cars other then little I4's. Show me numbers from the EPA or the UK's verison of it.

And why do you care? You don't have to drive one. I just find it funny the someone with an ego as big as yours would let something as simple as a vehicle make them so upset.

But just to let you know a car can't do everything an SUV can do, but an SUV can do everything a car can do. I would like to see a Honda Civic make it through Michigan roads, in Decemeber when there is close to a foot of snow on the ground. It couldn't.

 

[Young_Warrior]

LOL i cant show you a civic but I can show you a car. And out come thee Audi Quattro models. And dont even try and say they wouldnt be able to cut it cause in icelandic countries audis pawn 24/7.

It also annoys me that if your at the lights and you have a SUV next to you your visibility is reduced drastically and most SUV drivers are crap drivers. And they think thyre the kings of the road because they drive 2.5 tonne monstrousitities.

I've explained this to you, they aren't bad for the environment.

Cars are bad for the enviroment. SUV's are worse.

And SUV's are more enviromentally unfriendly. I cant even belive our arguing the point comparinfg a suv against a train and planes. Oh and there are trains that are more enviromentally friendly than even 2 stroke motorbikes.

 

[194GVan]

I b****in because Im tired of seeing mummys doing the school run and shopping in these great big off roaders that are bad for the enviroment when a car can do everything they need but better.

You know why? Because driving such monstrosoties make them feel safer. And we all know thats what its all about if you have kids. I agree, many people have SUV's that don't need them, but its a problem that feeds itself. If more and more people drive SUV's, then the only way to feel safe around them is to drive a nice big one yourself. Who gives a crap about environmentally friendly? Safety comes first for kids!

I myself drive a big, inefficient, full size van. Do I REALLY need it? Not 99% of the time but I like camping and it sure comes in handy sometimes if I have to move something large around. I drive it because I like it, I dont mind paying the $40-$50 to fill the tank. But boy do I feel safe knowing that if I ever get in an accident there is a possibility that I will probably walk away. Tough cookies if a compact car happens to be the other one. After all, they could have got a nice big SUV, no one made them buy a compact car.

And im not looking up specs, but I think its probably safe to assume high end sports cars probably get about the same or worse gas mileage as SUV's, but require high octane fuel.

ANYWAYS...any more news about this possible bankruptcy?

 

[Joey D]

LOL i cant show you a civic but I can show you a car. And out come thee Audi Quattro models. And dont even try and say they wouldnt be able to cut it cause in icelandic countries audis pawn 24/7.

I want to see an Audi Quattro pull 7,000lbs. while loaded with a bunch of stuff. I want to see an Audi Quattro drive off road and survive. I want to see an Audi Quattro fit 7 people and their stuff and still be comfortable.

It also annoys me that if your at the lights and you have a SUV next to you your visibility is reduced drastically and most SUV drivers are crap drivers. And they think thyre the kings of the road because they drive 2.5 tonne monstrousitities.

I see just fine and my truck is much lower then whatever you drive.

And hello Mr. Generalization! All SUV drivers are crap drivers? I'm a good driver, no at fault accidents and I've never lost control of my truck...well unless I was doing something stupid, but that's another story. I've been to several driving schools as well. So don't give me this crap that I can't drive.

And trust me, I've had just as many people in Civics, Camrys, and yes BMW's cut me off, not pay attention, and down right drive unsafe. It's not the vehicle, it's the driver.

Cars are bad for the enviroment. SUV's are worse.

Then walk, shoes are as cheap as 10 bucks.

But not all SUV's are bad...

Ford Escape Hybrid:

Also you have the E85 line of trucks and SUV's from GM.

And SUV's are more enviromentally unfriendly. I cant even belive our arguing the point comparinfg a suv against a train and planes. Oh and there are trains that are more enviromentally friendly than even 2 stroke motorbikes.

Wrong....

http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/suv_facts/300_env_emissions/4_emissions.html

 

[Joey D]

You know why? Because driving such monstrosoties make them feel safer. And we all know thats what its all about if you have kids. I agree, many people have SUV's that don't need them, but its a problem that feeds itself. If more and more people drive SUV's, then the only way to feel safe around them is to drive a nice big one yourself. Who gives a crap about environmentally friendly? Safety comes first for kids!

Exactly, I could careless if someone hates the truck I drive because I want to keep my kids safe.

 

[Young_Warrior]

want to see an Audi Quattro pull 7,000lbs. while loaded with a bunch of stuff. I want to see an Audi Quattro drive off road and survive. I want to see an Audi Quattro fit 7 people and their stuff and still be comfortable.

Audi Quattro. How many rallies did that car win? And as for carrying 7 people the Audi Q7 can do that. I also belive you can get rear facing seats for the A6 avant.

And if you need to pull 7,000lbs of something then get a suv but 99% of the owners dont.

It's not the vehicle, it's the driver.

Then what was your BMW rant over?

Exactly, I could careless if someone hates the truck I drive because I want to keep my kids safe.

You havent got kids.

And some SUV'S.... Certain american ones were actually found to be inferiour at protecting passengers than several cars.

Although like I said I would buy a SUV when I have kids because I dont trust woman. Im still working on that however and maybe by the time I do have kids I will trust them.

 

[Joey D]

Audi Quattro. How many rallies did that car win? And as for carrying 7 people the Audi Q7 can do that. I also belive you can get rear facing seats for the A6 avant.

And if you need to pull 7,000lbs of something then get a suv but 99% of the owners dont.

Rear facing seats aren't safe, you know that right? Also the Q7 is an SUV, you know that right? And rally and off road are two different things, rallies are still ran on roads, off road is mud, rocks, etc.

Then what was your BMW rant over?

It had to do with BMW's if I remember right.

You havent got kids.

You know this how? How do you know I don't have kids in my truck? I don't have kids of my own, but I do have cousins, and a nephew that I watch all the time. Plus my girlfriend has a little brother and sister that we take places. I have kids in my SUV all the time.

And some SUV'S.... Certain american ones were actually found to be inferiour at protecting passengers than several cars.

Some cars were found to be less protecting of passangers then SUV's. What is your point?

Although like I said I would buy a SUV when I have kids because I dont trust woman. Im still working on that however and maybe by the time I do have kids I will trust them.

You are a bad person, you know that? You don't trust women? How do you get along in day to day society? I'm just curious? Or do you go around smacking that ho tell that bia to clean you clothes? You sicken me.

 

[Duke]

He's yet another of the "women can't drive" brigade, which he must have inherited from his father, because as far as I know, he's not old enough to have a driver's license. He certainly doesn't act it if he is.

For the record, I've been in 7 accidents total, and women drivers were involved in precisely 2 of them. So, out of a total of 11 drivers (some were single-car accidents), 2 were female, or 18%. Assuming a 50-50 split in the gender of drivers today, male drivers in this sample are 2.77 times worse than the female drivers. There's no reason to believe my experience is non-typical.

Boy, do I just love idiots that spout unconsidered garbage without thinking.

 

[Young_Warrior]

LOL woman cant drive especially big cars. Woman arent better drivers but safer in that they dont speed nearly as much as men. And Im sure woman put alot more dings and scratches into their cars than men. Men are just insensible.

And I do drive and I havent crashed...My mums been in 4 accidens and my dads been in 0. And hes been driving since 17 and hes 50 now.

Anyway know as I have time to put together a proper reply unlike my last few as I was rushing off to the gym.

All SUV drivers are crap drivers?

No but alot of SUV drivers dont seem to use their mirrors. Or dont want to as they know you have to yeild.

Wrong....

Which bit cause from that I cant tell you a bunch of things your wrong about.

Some cars were found to be less protecting of passangers then SUV's. What is your point?

You said people buy SUV's because theyre safe and they want to protect their children. Well thats not always the case with every SUV when theyre not that safe compared to some cars afterall.

You know this how? How do you know I don't have kids in my truck?

You havent got kids...No one said anyhting about other peoples kids. Hell ive got kids in my car occasionally but I sure as hell know that when you choose your extreme kids werent on the agenda in your decision making.

Also the Q7 is an SUV, you know that right? And rally and off road are two different things, rallies are still ran on roads, off road is mud, rocks, etc.

You are a GM fanboy and so a bit of a SUV fanboy. Im a VAG fanboy (but not as much as you are a GM fanboy )

So yes I do know that the Q7 is a SUV. Unibody

And rallies = Mud, rocks, dust, cold, heat snow, standing water and rain. Dont try and say that off road driving isnt done by rally cars. You must either not know much about rally driving or think that were dumb.

You are a bad person, you know that? You don't trust women? How do you get along in day to day society? I'm just curious? Or do you go around smacking that ho tell that bia to clean you clothes? You sicken me.

I know that im a bad person. I have said so myself plenty of times. Im working on it as Ive jsut recently realised. And no I dont hit woman. Unless theyre trying to kill me or something.

 

[Duke]

LOL woman cant drive especially big cars. Woman arent better drivers but safer in that they dont speed nearly as much as men. And Im sure woman put alot more dings and scratches into their cars than men.

On what possible information, other than hearing your father repeat the same tired cliches, are you basing this revelation?

 

[LeadSlead#2]

wow, first an administrator trys calling me a dumb@$$, then jumps in from time to time calling specific people stupid....I guess Duke thinks his opinion counts more?
P.S. Duke -- you wreck a LOT
and what in the world makes you think with that many accidents, your experiance is typical? In all my life, ive never met anybody who wrecked that much

 

[Duke]

wow, first an administrator trys calling me a dumb@$$, then jumps in from time to time calling specific people stupid....I guess Duke thinks his opinion counts more?

Where did I call you a dumbass? All I said was that people who throw words like that around should make sure that they are not vulnerable to having the same words thrown at them.

But if the shoe fits, by all means wear it. I won't argue.

And I have yet to see many arguments were Y_W has much of a reasoned debate to offer. Since he feels compelled to broadcast an opinion on nearly every topic that happens to come up, I see no reason to let him forget that you're actually supposed to think before you express an opinion, and have at least a small amount of factual backup for your thinking. Where it seems he does think, I don't comment about his posts.

My opinion is not worth any more than anybody else's. But a well-thought-out, fact-based opinion is infinitely more valuable than uninformed, unconsidered, stereotyped, and unsupported blather.

P.S. Duke -- you wreck a LOT
and what in the world makes you think with that many accidents, your experiance is typical? In all my life, ive never met anybody who wrecked that much

I've been driving for 26 years; probably 300,000 miles by now. That's one incident every 3 years 8 months on average. In those 7 accidents I was driving 5 times; 2 I was a passenger. In the 5 accidents where I was driving, 4 of them involved chargeable offenses committed by the other driver. In the remaining one, I fell asleep while driving alone on an empty road in the middle of the night - 100% my fault.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

well, this is one of the few forums where I at least somewhat agree with YW...women are bad drivers -- (all that I know) but men have testostarone...& a lot of us go to fast...which is why we wreck more...statisticly, I understand men wreck more...but that doesnt mean women are better drivers - or more cautious - they just don't try the dumb crap some guys try....but I have had to pull quite a few drastic road manuevers to avoid women (more women then men) & I've driven in 14 states so I've been fairly well across the country (though mainly on highways) :Verdict:: women (not that all men do either) NEED to pay way more attention to what the hell they are doing on the road
P.S. I hate SUV's --- they hurt me because they use more gas---raising gas prices
2004 Stat::: 17.4 <--- average vehicle in Americas avg. gas milage
& because of them, I pay more money for gas.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

well, this is one of the few forums where I at least somewhat agree with YW...women are bad drivers -- (all that I know) but men have testostarone...& a lot of us go to fast...which is why we wreck more...statisticly, I understand men wreck more...but that doesnt mean women are better drivers - or more cautious - they just don't try the dumb crap some guys try....but I have had to pull quite a few drastic road manuevers to avoid women (more women then men) & I've driven in 14 states so I've been fairly well across the country (though mainly on highways) :Verdict:: women (not that all men do either) NEED to pay way more attention to what the hell they are doing on the road
P.S. I hate SUV's --- they hurt me because they use more gas---raising gas prices
2004 Stat::: 17.4 <--- average vehicle in Americas avg. gas milage
& because of them, I pay more money for gas.

OK... this is getting irritating. Men and women have equal driving abilities from start to finish.

MOVING ON:

STATE STREET CORPORATION owns nearly 17% of the outstanding shares in GM. How is an individual investor suppose to vote when nearly 99% of the float is owned by institutions?

GM burnt $395 million in cash, lost $2.4 billion after $47 billion in sales, and lost $2.6 billion in stockholder's equity. If they can reduce their current liabilities by the end of next year (bringing it in line with their current assets) GM won't need to declare bankruptcy.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

good point, men & women have no differences whatsoever....we're exactly the same except for anatomy...(sarcasm) this whole equal things getting old too...why can't men & women alike accept that there are some things different sexes can do better than the other? why is that so hard?

 

[Joey D]

Psssh my girlfriend can probably out drive me, you guys are idiots.

But any ways....

STATE STREET CORPORATION owns nearly 17% of the outstanding shares in GM. How is an individual investor suppose to vote when nearly 99% of the float is owned by institutions?

It's a public company, people, organizations, anyone with the money can buy part of the company. I don't see a problem with them owning it.

GM burnt $395 million in cash, lost $2.4 billion after $47 billion in sales, and lost $2.6 billion in stockholder's equity. If they can reduce their current liabilities by the end of next year (bringing it in line with their current assets) GM won't need to declare bankruptcy.

Once again a lot of their spending goes to support the UAW, which in turn gets pissed, makes the cars suck, they don't sell, GM loses money, GM can't pay the UAW what they want, etc. It's a big circle that the UAW started. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that if the UAW never would have entered the GM realem then no body would be worrying about this right now.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

good point, men & women have no differences whatsoever....we're exactly the same except for anatomy...(sarcasm) this whole equal things getting old too...why can't men & women alike accept that there are some things different sexes can do better than the other? why is that so hard?

I find your medieval notion of men and women quite interesting.

It's a public company, people, organizations, anyone with the money can buy part of the company. I don't see a problem with them owning it.

As an investor I see a BIG problem with that. 1 share = 1 vote. So if an organization holds 99% of all votes, they can pretty much sway the votes in their favor. My vote is essentially worthless assuming I owned a few shares -- I did for a period of time by the way.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

are you suggesting I'm not P-C?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

are you suggesting I'm not P-C?

Of course not.

Once again a lot of their spending goes to support the UAW, which in turn gets pissed, makes the cars suck, they don't sell, GM loses money, GM can't pay the UAW what they want, etc. It's a big circle that the UAW started. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that if the UAW never would have entered the GM realem then no body would be worrying about this right now.

The UAW did not start GMs problems. They may have exacerbated the problems long after the downward spiral began, but they are not the ones to blame.

 

[Joey D]

As an investor I see a BIG problem with that. 1 share = 1 vote. So if an organization holds 99% of all votes, they can pretty much sway the votes in their favor. My vote is essentially worthless assuming I owned a few shares -- I did for a period of time by the way.

Wait don't you think if they have more money invested they deserve to have a greater say? I mean they do have more money in the company then you do, so therefore they have more power. If you want more power, you need more shares. 1 share = 1 vote sounds good to me, so that mean I should have 700 votes.

The UAW did not start GMs problems. They may have exacerbated the problems long after the downward spiral began, but they are not the one to blame.

I think the UAW is GM's biggest problem, and so do many people in the company itself. I don't care what some guy on MSNBC says, he doesn't really know whats up. The company itself knows whats up. There are other problems, but the UAW is still one of the biggest ones, and if they got rid of it I'm still betting 80% of GM's problems would get up and vanish. But that's not going to happen.

are you suggesting I'm not P-C?

No you are a sexist.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Wait don't you think if they have more money invested they deserve to have a greater say? I mean they do have more money in the company then you do, so therefore they have more power. If you want more power, you need more shares. 1 share = 1 vote sounds good to me, so that mean I should have 700 votes.

Would it be fair if Bill Gates had the majority vote in the Presidential elections because he's the richest person in the country (1 dollar = 1 vote)?

Votes are biased in favor of corporations and the wealthy. That doesn't sound good to me.

I think the UAW is GM's biggest problem, and so do many people in the company itself. I don't care what some guy on MSNBC says, he doesn't really know whats up. The company itself knows whats up. There are other problems, but the UAW is still one of the biggest ones, and if they got rid of it I'm still betting 80% of GM's problems would get up and vanish. But that's not going to happen.

GM's problems started with the increased regulation in the 60s.
Then the changing political/economic climate of the 70s (especially the oil embargo of '73).

This is when GM started to lay people off and roll back wages and benefits. That's how they cycle started:

GM lays off workers due to changing economy and increased regulation.
Workers get upset and sabotage company.
Company can't produce enough sales to offset labor costs due to sabotage.
GM lays off workers.
Workers upset.
Company loses sales.
GM lays off workers.
Workers upset.


...and so on...

 

[Joey D]

Would it be fair if Bill Gates had the majority vote in the Presidential elections because he's the richest person in the country (1 dollar = 1 vote)?

Votes are biased in favor of corporations and the wealthy. That doesn't sound good to me.

But no body owns the country, and the USA isn't a publicly traded place. If it was then Bill Gates would be president since he controls the wealth. But honestly I get to vote in stuff all the time with my stocks, GM give me things, Lockheed Martin is always sending me stuff, Disney, Amylin, and a bunch of others ones do the same for me. I have thousands of dollars in the market and I'm happy with how I'm treated by the companies.

But I would be pissed if a guy like me with 700 shares had just as much say as someone with millions of shares. It doesn't make sense to me.

GM's problems started with the increased regulation in the 60s.
Then the changing political/economic climate of the 70s (especially the oil embargo of '73).

This is when GM started to lay people off and roll back wages and benefits. That's how they cycle started:

GM lays off workers due to changing economy and increased regulation.
Workers get upset and sabotage company.
Company can't produce enough sales to offset labor costs due to sabotage.
GM lays off workers.
Workers upset.
Company loses sales.

...and so on...

Workers = UAW
GM has to re-adjust for the economy
Workers complain
Workers sabotage company

which translates to...

The UAW cried because the economy was bad so they made things worse.

There for

UAW = Problem

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But no body owns the country,

We as citizens own the country.

and the USA isn't a publicly traded place.

Yes it is. T-bills, T-bonds and other treasury securities. Not to mention municipal bonds. The US is in fact publicly-traded. But for the people who are able to afford bonds of $10,000 denominations, they still get the same single vote for the President as you and me. It should be the same way with corporations.

But honestly I get to vote in stuff all the time with my stocks, GM give me things, Lockheed Martin is always sending me stuff, Disney, Amylin, and a bunch of others ones do the same for me. I have thousands of dollars in the market and I'm happy with how I'm treated by the companies.

If it was one vote per person (instead of one vote per share) these companies would not treat you any differently. In fact, you'd have GREATER influence in the corporation than you do now.

But I would be pissed if a guy like me with 700 shares had just as much say as someone with millions of shares. It doesn't make sense to me.

I see that system as being anti-democratic -- plutocratic in fact.

 

[Joey D]

We as citizens own the country.

We sorta own the country, but I don't look at the country as a business.

Yes it is. T-bills, T-bonds and other treasury securities. Not to mention municipal bonds. The US is in fact publicly-traded. But for the people who are able to afford bonds of $10,000 denominations, they still get the same single vote for the President as you and me. It should be the same way with corporations.

Ya I overlooked bonds for some reason, but I don't get to vote for everyone who runs the country do I? I mean I live in Michigan and I can't vote for a Congressmen from Cali. But I consider the President of the United States, and the CEO of a corporation very different.

If it was one vote per person (instead of one vote per share) these companies would not treat you any differently. In fact, you'd have GREATER influence in the corporation than you do now.

I don't really care about the stuff I vote for honestly. I just read the descriptions and vote for whatever one I agree with, but I'm no hell bent on one thing. But if I owned most of the coporation I would want more say.

I see that system as being anti-democratic -- plutocratic in fact.

I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Tornado]

LOL i would hedge a bet that you could corner faster in a standard top spec X5 than your blazer.

Lol! I bet a 540 Sport Wagon would destroy an X5 in any handling test! And it costs less! And it's faster!

Workers = UAW
GM has to re-adjust for the economy
Workers complain
Workers sabotage company

which translates to...

The UAW cried because the economy was bad so they made things worse.

There for

UAW = Problem

Well, look at it this way: If there was no UAW, the U.S. government would have to step in to take over UAW's job of keeping the unions together and fair. And that is really not a good alternative to the UAW. All the U.S. would do is raise taxes on imports to protect GM and Ford (at least in America), and that does horrible things to car companies. Look at Proton. They sell total pieces of crap for 10-15 years because they are under the Malaysian govt. protective wing, and when the govt. backed off, they were even worse than before because they didn't have to compete, so they didn't try.
I read something interesting today. Apparently, the board of directors in contemplating the idea of sacking Rick Wagoner.

GM enters critical condition !
After years of declining, General Motors - the world's largest car maker since 1931 - is approaching a critical condition. Whether it will collapse or revive could depend on how its CEO Rick Wagoner or - if he is ousted - the management board handle the crisis in the coming months. In the third quarter, GM lost an incredible US$1.6 billion. Whole year loss is estimated to be US$4 billion. In recent months, GM has been troubling by the rumors spread over stock market that it could run into bankruptcy, following the footprints of its component subsidiary spin-off, Delphi. Although GM denied that strongly, there is no doubt that declaring bankruptcy will be the only way if it fail to turnover its loss-making business in short term.

To stop bleeding and to regain investor confidence, Rick Wagoner announced a huge downsize of its North American business. The aim is to cut excess capacity by 1 million units annually - a reflection that fewer and fewer people buy GM's cars. 4 assembly plants will be shut down while some 30,000 jobs will be eliminated by the end of 2008. As a result, GM's North America production capacity will be reduced to 4.2 million, or 30 percent less than the level of 2002. A large share of these capacity has been lost to Toyota, which could be benefited by the cut to overtake GM a year earlier than expected.

Is that enough? market analysts seemed cautious. Should Rick Wagoner take the blame? GM's problem might be deep-rooted, but I would be very surprised if a CEO could stand under such result. After all, during the two and a half years leadership of Wagoner, GM ran from profitable to near bankruptcy.

I didn't know Wagoner made GM worse off than it was. I was under the impression, set forth by Motor Trend, that he was the Chritstian saint of all holiness and that he was turining GM around.
Article

 

[Joey D]

Rick Wagoner is a bastard and so are his kids, I used to know his kids because he lived next door to one of my good friends. I really hate that man, along with Jim Queen and Bob Lutz is a crabby old man.

 

[Duke]

are you suggesting I'm not P-C?

Frankly, I don't give a crap if you're peecee or not. I'm suggesting that you don't think any more about your opinions, and don't know any more about what you're saying, than Young_Warrior does.