quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: When jobs ask for bilingual people they dont actually want bilignual people they just want someone whose a native french speaker and to hell with it if they cannot speak english.
Not in my experience in the west. Government employees in particular in the west, in my experience, have to be fluent in both languages and are generally native English speakers.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can either go just down the street to buy stuff or I can go 20 miles to the nearest fabric store.
The difficulty is, that's exactly what will make that nearest fabric store close its doors in a couple of years. Better quality, better service, better associate knowledge, and (often) better selection loses out to... saving a few bucks.
Not worth it to me. I have driven 20+ miles to go to local or specialty stores rather than going to Walmart - I don't really think of the comparison of it being "farther", because Walmart isn't even on my list of options. Then again, living in northern New Jersey, there are plenty of options. If I lived in an area where WalMart had already driven all the nearby smaller stores out of business.... I'd probably have to pay a lot more for gas each month.
quote:You anti Wal*Mart bigots can go pay twice as much for the same junk somewhere else.
Thing is, more often than not, it's *not* the same junk. Companies make a separate, lesser quality product for WalMart. For example, Levi could not sell its product at the price WalMart wanted to sell it and still make any profit - so they created a separate line of Levi jeans that had lower quality and lower production costs that they could sell at WalMart. Snapper lawnmowers refused to sell at WalMart, because they could not sell their machine at the price WalMart wanted to sell it and they refused to make a lesser quality product as WalMart suggested.
You may get a cheaper product at purchase, but if you're replacing it sooner what's the point? My roommate bought icicle christmas lights from Walmart for a "great" price... then ended up buying three such sets over two years because they stopped working. Wouldn't it have made more sense to buy a better quality product for a little more the first time?
Call me whatever you like, I don't shop at WalMart.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I think it's lovely that poor people have a place where they can get inexpensive goods.
Agreed. Often the higher quality goods are not an option - it doesn't matter if it's a better idea if you can't afford it, and you shouldn't have to take out a loan to buy school clothes for kids who will outgrow them before they wear out.
Thank heavens I can buy work-okay clothes at Wal-Mart and Target because if I had to pay Ann Taylor prices every time I'd have two pairs of pants and one sweater.
I think there's more than a small element of classism in the constant disparagement of Wal-Mart quality. There's a reason much of advertising is called aspirational.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there's more than a small element of classism in the constant disparagement of Wal-Mart quality.
For something that you don't expect to last, I have no problem justifying buying an inferior product. But, if someone were to tell me I could get a paper mache house at half the price, I'd tell them to go peddle their junk elsewhere.
If I need to buy something, I'm willing to spend extra to get something that will be worth the money - rather than spending less for something that isn't. Spend $100 on something that will give me many returns on that money over the years, or spend $70 on something that will break and need to be replaced. In the long run, I'd have to spend $140 for the same longevity as something I could have paid $100 for up front.
Buying poorly made products is shortsighted, but quality isn't the only reason to avoid WalMart. The list is long.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the long run, I'd have to spend $140 for the same longevity as something I could have paid $100 for up front.
The inability of many people to spend the extra money up front is a significant factor in many people's inability to lift themselves out of poverty.
It is almost certainly cheaper in the long run to buy a low-end washing machine and dryer than to go to the laundrymat each week. Yet this option is not available unless one can come up with the up-front capital needed. One can either save or borrow to do this. Both cost significant amounts of money - saving requires using the laundrymat while saving up, and borrowing requires interest payments.
Obviously the difference is greater between laundrymat/washing machine ownership than between $70 and a $100 dollars. But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you only have $70 to spend, it doesn't matter than paying almost 50% more will get you a better product.
Sure, paying $140 over a longer period costs more than paying $100 up front, but if you only have $70 at the time, that's the way to go. Paying for school out of pocket instead of taking out student loans would make more monetary sense in the long run, but if you don't have the cash to do it and taking out a loan is the only way to enter the door, it doesn't matter how much better life would be if it were completely different.
Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to echo Javert and Dagonee, and wonder how many people on Hatrack have actually experienced poverty?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: If you only have $70 to spend, it doesn't matter than paying almost 50% more will get you a better product.
Sure, paying $140 over a longer period costs more than paying $100 up front, but if you only have $70 at the time, that's the way to go. Paying for school out of pocket instead of taking out student loans would make more monetary sense in the long run, but if you don't have the cash to do it and taking out a loan is the only way to enter the door, it doesn't matter how much better life would be if it were completely different.
Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
I don't think it's fair to start claiming classism when the people who made those statements were essentially just put in the position of defending their choices by someone who called them "Wal*mart bigots."
posted
I wonder how many people who regularly shop at Walmart have actually experienced poverty?
edit: For some people, yes, they don't have the money nor will they have the money (or more importantly the potential to get the money through responsible and restrained financial management) to buy the better quality item.
But I'd be really suprised if these people make up the bulk of regular Walmart customers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine that "expenses" means different things to different people. Clarification there is needed.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd imagine that being able to pay for internet access and having a computer are generally going to disqualify people for "poverty" status for most definitions of the word I can think of.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places. They charge fees that would work out to obscene amounts over a year, but in the short term it relieves the upfront costs of maintaining a bank account. This is in Canada though and my knowledge is strictly theoretical so I do not mind being corrected. Any thoughts?
I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'd imagine that being able to pay for internet access and having a computer are generally going to disqualify people for "poverty" status for most definitions of the word I can think of.
The most common definition of "poverty" I know if is "below the poverty line," which doesn't preempt having a computer or being able to pay for internet access.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places.
Very much so.
My comment wasn't meant to speak directly to the Wal-Mart issue, but rather to expand on a significant structural issue regarding poverty highlighted by the general discussion. It's expensive to be poor, and this expense can keep people poor.
quote:I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
Many large grocery stores allow people to cash paychecks there, sometimes for a fee, but often not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places. They charge fees that would work out to obscene amounts over a year, but in the short term it relieves the upfront costs of maintaining a bank account. This is in Canada though and my knowledge is strictly theoretical so I do not mind being corrected. Any thoughts?
I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
I'd say that the payday loan places are more about getting money now than they are substitutes for banks. The vast majority of people in the United States have some sort of access to a bank with free checking. And with online banks such as ING and free internet access at a library, you could probably argue that everyone who lives close to a library has access to a bank.
I have no idea what Publix is.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the first three years of my marriage, until my husband got his paying job at the fire department with good insurance, we lived under the poverty line. My oldest was born just after our first anniversary, so for the first two years of her life, we would have to do things like decide what we would sacrifice in order to buy diapers. Had my husband missed one paycheck we would have been unable to pay our monthly bills. Had I lost my job, which provided our health insurance, my child would have been uninsured. Of course, the majority of my check went to daycare, but even though we would have been financially better off if I quit and stayed home, I couldn't because I carried the insurance for the family.
We rented an 800 sq ft home in a low rent, high crime area of the city. We had three cars - all junkers, and counted ourselves lucky if my husband could keep two of the three running - he did all the maintenance and repair on them himself because we certainly couldn't afford to take them to a mechanic. The co-pays for Natalie's well-child visits to the doctor were enough to throw off our entire monthly budget and if she needed a prescription it meant we had to give up something - usually food for us in order to buy her medicine. (on the plus side, I was skinny!)
So yeah, I think I know a bit about poverty. Wal-Mart was the only place I could afford to buy diapers.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The inability of many people to spend the extra money up front is a significant factor in many people's inability to lift themselves out of poverty.
This is a good point.
Offering a poor quality, cheaper alternative seems to perpetuate the cycle of poverty rather than helping people out of it. So, in selling someone a product for less money (hooray! I can afford it!) you're actually forcing them to buy that product *again* at a later date for even more out of pocket (damn thing broke! how am I going to afford a replacement?), ultimately worsening their condition rather than helping it.
A lot of this comes from WalMart's "Every Day" low prices. A Sears/Home Depot/Lowes/etc can often equal or better the WalMart price during a sale, and for a better quality product. It's the convenience of not having to wait for a sale that WalMart offers - at the cost of having to pay for that same product *again* sooner rather than later.
I understand that it's a "rock and a hard place" position for many people of doing without or buying crap. I get that.
The cycle of selling crap to those who can't afford better, then forcing them to come back and give you even more money to replace that crap at a later date, is exploitative and perpetuating a cycle of poverty, but I don't begrudge those below the poverty line that need to shop at WalMart to be sure there is food on the table.
But my beef is not with those below the poverty line. It's not even with those near the poverty line.
It's with those who have plenty of money, who don't have to feed the destructive force of WalMart, who do so anyway.
quote:Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
Only if those "thrilled" are actually in a lower class than myself.
If someone in my same economic state, or in a better economic state, chooses to shop at WalMart with all the other alternatives at their disposal - then I can scorn them all I like, thankyouverymuch.
If you are not forced to shop at WalMart by economic forces, then I feel you shouldn't shop there. Period.
Such people are not in a situation where they *need* WalMart - they just get "wowed" by the low prices, and forget about everything else.
"You mean I can get christmas lights for $3 less? Sounds great!"
They don't think that there's a good chance they'll break before the season is out (and almost definitely by the following year) and need to be replaced, or that the company they're buying from may be put out of business because of WalMart undercutting them (see: Vlassic), or that another better quality company may be pushed to bankruptcy, or another distributer/retailer might be pushed to bankruptcy, or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc...
"Who cares about all that! It's 3 bucks! I could put that toward a latte at Starbucks!"
It's these people who are shortsighted, imo.
Personally, I don't need to shop at Walmart. So I don't. If you don't *have* to, I don't see any reason to.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most common definition of "poverty" I know if is "below the poverty line," which doesn't preempt having a computer or being able to pay for internet access.
Sorry, yeah, I meant as it seemed to me it was being used in this thread. Many people contribute to their impoverished state by poor financial decisions and paying for luxuries (which internet access would be for most people). Obviously they'd still be in poverty, but would not be facing the situation where they'd be unable to get the capital to purchase higher quality goods in the amounts we are talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to say that shopping at Walmart is morally wrong, FlyingCow, you're going to have make some sort of argument about why it is so bad, either for yourself or because of negative moral externalities. So far I haven't seen an argument like that yet.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They don't think that there's a good chance they'll break before the season is out (and almost definitely by the following year) and need to be replaced, or that the company they're buying from may be put out of business because of WalMart undercutting them (see: Vlassic), or that another better quality company may be pushed to bankruptcy, or another distributer/retailer might be pushed to bankruptcy, or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc...
and, with some extention, this:
quote:The cycle of selling crap to those who can't afford better, then forcing them to come back and give you even more money to replace that crap at a later date, is exploitative and perpetuating a cycle of poverty, but I don't begrudge those below the poverty line that need to shop at WalMart to be sure there is food on the table.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: .. or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc. ... Personally, I don't need to shop at Walmart. So I don't. If you don't *have* to, I don't see any reason to.
May we humbly ask for your permission to shop at Walmart if we simply shop at a Price Club/Costco, Dollar Store, Walmart, Zellers, etc. if we find specific items that *are* cheaper at Walmart and *are* identical to ones sold elsewhere?
Alternatively, what if we actually like money/jobs being funnelled to China since they are improving the standard of living there? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know...I've never shopped at a Walmart. Not because I have any moral objection to them, but because there has NEVER been one located in my area (or, when in my area, located closer than Target/grocery store/Fred Meyer/whatever).
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, Jhai, I have, many times in the past, made such arguments on this site. It's not a new topic.
I'm not even sure what I'm still doing spending time posting here. It started with a joke on the first page, lead to being called an "anti WalMart bigot", lead then to being called a "classist", and deteriorated from there.
I have affronted the religious order of WalMart customers - shame on me.
I'm backing out now, because I need to do some actual work here at work, and by the time I get back to hatrack this will likely have ballooned three more pages.
There are plenty of sources on the web, though, should you care to check it out. Here is a good place to start. You can also check out: walmartmovie.com, walmartwatch.com, and hel-mart.com, just to name a few from a quick google search.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On this issue of things breaking: Buying something that will likely break in the future might shortsighted, but it's not clear to me that it's a morally wrong action. Also, it's not clear that it's always in the best interests of the person to buy the best quality product - that is, it may not be shortsighted to purchase cheap crap. Finally, not everything Walmart touches explodes into a fiery ball 11.3 months later - I have some things from Walmart, like an iron, a crockpot, gloves, etc that are still going strong.
On the issue of putting other people out of business: I don't think it's morally wrong to put people out of business because you offer a better product or a cheap price than they do. If mom & pop stores try to compete on price w/ Walmart, they're going to lose. But they can certainly compete on other fronts, such as customer service. No company has an innate right to exist.
On the issue of China: I'm glad that the Chinese people are no longer as impoverished as they were. I don't see why I should prefer an American person's *blank* (livelihood, income, etc) over a Chinese person's *blank*.
On the issue of selling crap to poor people: I don't think it's morally wrong to offer people choices in what they buy. I don't think Walmart should be faulted for an adult's poor decision.
Edit: That's cool, FlyingCow. I think we've butted heads on this issue before anyways.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, but you said you hadn't seen an argument. There's a difference between you not agreeing with what was put forth and no argument being put forth.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
So yeah, I think I know a bit about poverty. Wal-Mart was the only place I could afford to buy diapers.
Not trying to one up you, Belle, but just to show that everything's relative, I thought people who could buy disposable diapers were fabulously wealthy. I used baby shower money to buy cloth diapers and washed them at the laundromat for my first two children.
I I knew I didn't have much, but I truly did not consider myself "poor". Looking back, I can't believe how little money we lived on back then.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay - there was no argument put forth that didn't rest on a lot of unsaid and questionable claims.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also have many things purchased from WalMart that I've had for years and never experienced any problems with them.
I do not buy clothing there, because the clothing does tend to wear out quickly. But things like light bulbs, trash bags, paper goods - those I get at WalMart and am fine with doing so. It also helps that WalMart is the only store in my town, essentially, and the closest true grocery store is over 15 miles away.
I don't recommend buying meat from WalMart if you have one nearby that is a super WalMart with the grocery store. They don't employ meat cutters, so they buy all their beef pre-packaged which means it's not as fresh as it would be in a grocery store. But, since I buy all my beef directly from a local rancher, that's not an issue for me. Poultry and produce I get from a grocery store, usually when I'm taking the kids to gymnastics or cheerleading practice in that town anyway.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maui babe, were you living in Hawaii at the time? I just ask because the relative cost of disposable diapers to cloth diapers may have been quite different for you & Belle, given how exorbitantly priced some things are in Hawaii. Might be that you both went with the cheapest item, given opportunity cost and all that jazz.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have affronted the religious order of WalMart customers - shame on me.
Come on. You don't have to feel religious fervor or even like Walmart (I certainly don't the first, and I'm pretty neutral on the second) to take issue with you telling me I should shop there (which I do).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, from things maui babe has said in the past, I can tell you that she was living in the lower 48.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I avoid WalMart as much as possible, but mostly because it's crowded and my feet get tired walking down the enormously long aisles. But I appreciate having it fairly near our home because sometimes there are those 3 am runs for children's ibuprofen or whipped cream or whatever, and I know I can just go over to WalMart and get those. We have a 24-hour Walgreen's about a block away that is also handy like that.
I do like to shop the Mom & Pop stores when I can, but I'm always too late to get to them before they close. Being at work from 8 to 5 cuts off my access to lots of places that aren't open much past 6. Seriously, on the rare non-holiday weekday that I don't go to work and am out and about, it's a different world. Stores are open that I've never seen open. Services are available that are never available by the time I get home from work. In a small town we lived in about a year ago, I tried stopping at a small hardware store once on my way home from work. They were closing the doors and turning off the lights at 5:30. Crap. I would have been a regular customer there if I could have been.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I don't have money to buy my kids all new clothes. My kids wear hand-me-downs, thrift store clothes, and clothes bought on clearance sales at deep, deep discount. Bonus: I end up with better-quality clothes. There are other options for decent, cheap clothes than Wal-Mart.
I participate in a bargain shopping forum where we compare prices and deals. People who do check Wal-Mart's prices regularly find that they save more money on food and hygeine items doubling coupons at the grocery store and matching coupons with sales and stacking Target coupons with manufacturer's coupons and using drugstore money-back reward deals in tandem with coupons than they ever could with just coupons and Wal-Mart.
So I think it is entirely possible to live on a very, very tight budget and not shop at Wal-Mart.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
wal-mart only has a few good deals at a time the rest are generally more expensive, it is in a documentary on wal-mart in an interview with the ceo or some thing.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't wear used clothing. Personal preference, but completely worth it to me. I get electronics, bikes, furniture, computers, everything else used, but not my clothes. I sweat in my clothes. I'm assuming every else does as well.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. That's fine. We don't mind because we wash our clothes. With soap. And bleach. We figure that probably takes out anything you can't see; we don't buy stained clothes to begin with.
I can understand the squick factor, I just don't personally have it. I mean, my kids eat each others' FOOD, despite all attempts to make them stop. So wearing other peoples' clothes, not a big deal to me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(If I really wanted to I could probably get all-new clearance clothes all the time. But it would be a lot more work.
For instance, Wal-Mart's website advertises a two-pack of toddler sleepers for $9.77. I generally pay no more than $6.88 on clearance for a two pack of blanket sleepers. Usually less.
A wearable blanket and cap set is $19.98, and is by Kiddopotamus, whose clothing quality I have been previously unimpressed with. I bought a Halo SleepSack set for $11.47 on clearance, and a Carter's sleeper with cap for $9.97 on clearance.
I'm choosing things I've shopped for recently so I'll have recent comparisons to give, but I bet I could do the same with most clothing I buy.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. All those bargains take a lot of work (my time) to get, and that means they are much more expensive than is reflected in the price tag.
That's why I LOVE the huge supermarts with groceries attached (although there aren't any nearby and that makes me sad). I go shopping about once every three weeks and I only have time on a Saturday, which is also the day for everything else in my life that isn't work or school or church. I love it that I don't have to spend an entire day wandering around picking up one item at a time after exhaustive research.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problems wearing used (used, not "old") clothes, but it takes so long to find something that fits me and is in decent shape that I usually give up.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw KQ, you know I wash my clothes as well.
I still don't want to wear something else's old clothing.
No, I understand that. I was just trying to explain why it doesn't bother us, personally, but that I can understand some people don't like it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try not to shop at Wal*Mart for many reasons, most already covered. But living in a remote area like I do, I don't have a lot of other options.
For example, a couple of years ago, my daughter burned herself pretty badly and her physician recommended that we keep it covered with gauze. She gave us a small supply of large gauze pads, but I needed to buy more. I was in one of my "anywhere but Walmart" phases, so I spent the better part of a Saturday driving all over the island trying to find large gauze pads. I went to every drug store, grocery store and variety store I could think of. I even went to a medical supply store. No one had any 4x4 gauze pads. I finally gave up and went to Walmart, and bought several boxes for about $2 each.
Of course, the Walmart here on Maui (and the several on Oahu) are not great about restocking sometimes. I've taken pictures with my cell phone to show my family on the mainland the rows and rows of empty shelves. I've been trying to find men's cotton athletic shorts in 36 inch waist for months, and can't find them anywhere in the state.
So I shop Walmart, only because there really isn't any other option here. I don't buy clothing there... I find I can get as good or better prices on clearance at Macys or Sears or at Ross, and far better quality. I don't buy small appliances or home decor items there. But for laundry soap, toilet paper, school supplies and the like, I shop at Walmart.
Also, my cats throughout the years have LOVED LOVED LOVED Special Kitty dry cat food (Walmart brand)... I've had them turn up their nose at the more expensive brands. They get so excited when I buy SK from Walmart. I'm not sure what it is about it. For about 3 years we lived in a town with no Walmart nearby, and my cat ate other brands, but never got excited. Then a Walmart opened up and I bought a bag of SK and he ripped the bag open with his teeth and ate until he was sick (literally). That was 4 cats ago, and they all do the same thing. If I buy any other brand, they'll eat it eventually, but let me know they don't approve. But Special Kitty makes them very happy. Maybe it has cat crack cocaine in it or something. But I see no reason to pay a lot more for something that they'll refuse to eat, so I keep buying the cheap stuff.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think we've butted heads on this issue before anyways.
