And I thought that if you were shorting the stock, you weren't actually trying to sell your stock, so if everyone who could tried to short the stock, the market shouldn't react as if they all were trying to sell.
There's nothing "as if" about it; when you short a stock, you actually sell shares of that stock. The only difference is that you haven't bought them yet. The person you borrowed them from doesn't care (since you've already put up the money to replace them whenever their needed) and the market doesn't care (all the market sees is the sale, which exerts a downward pressure on the stock. This is why people (especially people who are hawking overvalued stocks like SCO) hate short sellers.
And, IMHO, why the world needs more of them. Skeptics who are willing to risk their own money to call out frauds and charlatans should be welcomed by everyone--except of course the crooks.
It is possible that I simply misinterpreted "painted-up"...
The expression refers to the buying (not selling) of a lightly traded stock at the very end of the day, in an effort to raise the price leave it on an up-tick at the end of the day. This was more effective when more people got their stock prices from the papers, which only print the closing price and a few other statistics. Nowadays, it's pretty obvious when someone tries it, sort of like being able to stand behind a stage magician.
lol... "predictably painted up"... the share prices are getting "painted up" from having everyone and their dog trying to short this fucker. I wonder, can someone who knows more than I tell me how the stock market would react when the majority of the "stockholders" of a particular stock are all trying to short it?
You haven't been able to short SCOX for years. There simply haven't been any shares available to borrow for the past three years or so, and the price is well bellow $5/share, so your explanation doesn't hold water. That, and the consistency of the pattern, is why people say it's being painted up. This does not mean that it is SCO doing it (though I wouldn't put it past them); trolls can be found under almost every rock, and there are stock trolls who do just this sort of thing (and send spam about it).
And in any case (and in answer to your question) a large number of short sellers would drive the price down--the market doesn't know or care who is trying to sell a stock, or why, just that they are. So even if your "lol theory" held water, it wouldn't float.
I enjoy reading your comments, but your sig bugs the tar out of me. The line should be "Kinky is when you use the whole chicken." I've also seen it as ""Kinky is using a feather -- Perverted is using the whole chicken."
But "exotic" (which basically means "foreign" or "not native to this area") makes no sense and kills the joke. I know it looks like "erotic" but it's a completely unrelated word.
Repugnant as it seems, if those taking the high road could bring themselves to stoop to this level, we might stand a chance of salvaging a great many things from being savaged into oblivion (Net Neutrality, National Parks, and civil liberties among them).
It is exactly that sort of thinking that keeps The Dark Side packed to capacity even in the off season. And it's such a simple logical fallacy; if The Good Guys try to "win" by becoming Bad Guys then it's no longer a struggle between "Good" and "Evil", but rather between "Established Evil" and "Nouveau Evil" -- and Good has lost before the battle is fairly joined.
For a prime example of how this plays out in practice, watch as our foreign policy implodes.
* Do you think that Ma Bell should be forced to give paedophiles and terrorists full and unfetted access to the AOLnet, so that they can swap their depraved upskirt images of your children, and instructions on how to blow them up?
And that's how you skew a poll. Funny or insightful, I'll take either.
I'd give you both, but I don't have either at the moment, so I'll have to offer one of my home-brew mods, a +1 Sad But True.
At the rate we are going I would not be surprised to see that level of push polling being done in the next few years. If it hasn't started already.
What I need, and haven't been able to find, is a simple SIP enabled device that will auto-answer, and has line-out that I can feed to the PA. That way, if a user calls one of several numbers, they get tied into the associated PA system, or maybe even all PA systems at once.
I sure hope you've got a air tight way to screen out telemarketers.
Just saying, "Be a good parent!" helps in absolutely no way. What we need to know is what, given the factor of technology, are the sort of actions and decisions make one a good parent. What sort of discussion is best? What sorts of limits and boundaries should be used, and what exactly are those limits? We need exact details here, not vague, overly broad suggestions like "talking", or "setting limits".
I did not say "be a good parent", I said to spend time with your kids on an ongoing basis and base your actions on what you learn from that interaction. Slashdot can not do it for you. No book can do it for you. Why? Because every kid is different, and they change over time.
What would you say if someone asked "My wife and I are thinking of buying some food. How would you suggest we cook it?"
Or what if they said "There's something wrong with my car. I'm not a mechanic and I don't know of any in my area. How should I fix it?"
For questions like these, even "Google is your friend" is too specific.
But the questions the topic creator asked are focusing on how to parent
I already answered that. You may not like the answer, but there's very little anyone can do about that. Spend lots of time with your kids. Pay attention, and try to learn from the interaction.
Somehow I doubt it. But I'm pretty sure it's expressible as the sum of two primes.
And I'm positive that it's expressible as the product of twenty two or fewer primes.
--MarkusQ
P.S. And to answer the main question, I couldn't do without either. Just the thought of having all that productive time back gives me the heebie jeebies.
(Bit of a hippocrite---Her position on handgun control for instance. Vocal anti gun shill... but _She_ packs a concealed weapon...)
Interesting. I'm not sure she's as hardline as you make it sound...as I recall, she voted to let pilots carry. Can you source the claim that she carries a gun?
It's called parenting. It involves spending lots of time with your kids. Every day. Talking to them. Listening to them. And enforcing and adjusting the limits and boundaries based on that.
Are you sure? Or do you simply choose the best candidate in from the two major parties?
I can recall voting for quite a few Libertarians and Independents over the years, and at least one Green (I wasn't fond of his positions, but his opponent was a known crook--I'd rather an honest person I disagree with than a crook who tells me what I want to hear).
When Cobb and Badnark were arrested at the debates, I publicized the issue every chance I could, called and wrote letters to various officials, and gave to both of their campaigns.
Please note that the troll I was replying to above appears to have been removed/demoted.
The "you are full of shit" and the agravated tone of my post were aimed at the post I was responding to, not the post which now appears to be it's parent.
Sure thing. All I'll you need to do is help me find a few dozen people to vote for us.
And make sure they understand we aren't talking any of that weak kneed "one man one vote" stuff. These are some super charged Diebold votes we want to have them cast for us.
But don't go overboard. Two or three per state should do it.
If you're still a Republican at this point, then *you* by your support of these scum *are* acting to subvert our Democracy. Unless you're over 40, then given that you've been a Republican "all your life", you have always stood for exactly this sort of subversion of our Democracy.
I am comfortably over forty, thank you. And I vote for the best candidate, regardless of their party.
Wake up and take some responsibility for your actions.
Why in the heck do you think I'm sitting here at my keyboard, trying to educate my fellow Americans, when it is a beautiful day out and I own a hammock? Why do you suppose I took the time to dig up all the links, submit the story in the first place, and then reply to as many of the comments as I could?
All that torture and murder based on lies and fear mongering? That's *your* fault.
Ah, so all the Democrats stood with Murtha? Backed Finegold? Filibustered every stupid move that this administration made, sacrificing their careers for the good of the country?
I guess I missed that.
Be a man, step up and have an ounce of personal responsibility.
See above.
Oh right, you're a Republican personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you.
Grow up. There are millions of good and honest Republicans in this country. And there are millions of good and honest Democrats. Ignoring the dog catchers and such, we can count ourselves lucky if more than a few hundred of them are holding public office at the moment. The higher you go, the worse it gets.
And you will never fix this by punching the guy who happens to be next to you, just because he has a different color jersey than you do.
I'm assuming you're a Democrat, right? So rather than taking cheap shots at me, why don't you go rout out the bad apples in your party. Demand that the cowards step up to the plate instead of letting slide every time the forget and leave their spine at home. Vote in the primaries, for gods sake. For my part, I'll keep hammering on my own side, and maybe some day we can get back to having a real debate about who we want up there solving our problems instead of who we want up there causing them. I'll bet there are some good, hard working, honest Democrats out there, who are getting the tar beat out of them by the DLC and their corporate pals, or who have grown so gun shy that they start apologizing before the Republican noise machine has even warmed up. Why don't you go give them a hand instead of making snide remarks at people who, so far as I can tell, want the roughly same things you do?
First of all, he isn't a republican. Probably never has been. He just said that to not look objective with the story's tone, his slander of charectors and the closeness of one sidedness with his reply.
How dare you. Do you suppose that just because I don't blindly support my party and every crook that decides to cloak his perfidy under its mantel I must be lying? That the very fact that I care more about principles than I do about party affiliation means I'm not really a Republican? For your information, it galls me a hundred times more when Republicans lie, cheat and steal because they are dragging my honour in the gutter when they do it. But gauging from the tone of your post such concepts probably don't mean that much to you.
Odds are, I was voting for the Grand Old Party before you were out of diapers. And it's the sort of smear anyone you disagree with, win at all costs attitudes, from Nixon on down to people like you that have made the party what it is today. You do realize that the two main points of your post "He refuses to turn a blind to curruption, so he must not be a Republican" and "Voter shouldn't feel responsible for the people they put in office, or try to hold them accountable" are anathema to what used to be considered core Republican values--or even American values--for most of our nations history, don't you?
Where exactly do you think this new age "Morals are for suckers, tee hee!" form of civic pride is going to get you, anyway?
Your rebuttal chock full of internal inconsistencies; for example, when the subject is the officers who awarded Kerry his medals we're to assume that they "simply signed a document placed in front of them" but for the modified affidavits that the vets signed thirty years later, we're to assume that they carefully read them and agreed with any changes since "there is no legal requirement that one write the statement that one signs - only that one make an attempt to understand and agree before signing."
Or when the issue is DCI's involvement, on the one hand we are supposed to focus on the vets and not the company they hired (because it's the client that matters) but on the other hand, when the subject is who paid for the ads, we're supposed to ignore who paid for it because...it doesn't matter who the client was?
But the key problem here is that you are pointedly inverting the sequence of events. The vets didn't hire DCI, and then go looking for republican donors to pay for their ads. The republican donors hired DCI who (as part of the astroturfing campaign they were hired to perform) paid private investigators to search for vets who would be willing to participate in a smear job on Kerry's record. Then, based on what they were able to come up with, they put together the ads and started a program to create a "controversy" (which the Democrats stupidly went along with) so that they ads could get the maximum amount of free coverage. It was a very professionally put together PR campaign, and the vets were nothing more than props, added to make it look like it was coming from the grass roots.
That's the whole point of astroturfing in the first place.
Er, wait, DCI have gone from making dumb home movies to fraud?? Can you actually prove the company has been involved in money laundering, fraud and electioneering? Because if you can it seems to me you should be doing something about it rather than posting it to Slashdot...
*sigh* And after all the trouble I went to to provide links. This isn't some "gosh I think they may have done it" speculation. Tobin, for example, is presumably telecommuting from prison at this very moment, since he started his ten month sentence in May. And the other charges are likewise documented in the links I provided. At this point there's no reason for me to tell the authorities anything because they already know.
Until then, the longer you support those lunatics, by continuing to claim to be a Republican, the longer that change will be held off.
I can give them ulcers. I can vote in the primaries. I can hold them accountable (elephants are known for their long memories). And come election day, I can vote for the best candidate regardless of which party they're running for.
And I do. My name isn't Inigo Montoya, but I do my small part.
Theres only one question, which alternate search engine do *YOU* work for? (kidding!:)
No, I'm a programmer for a small (and struggling) game company. But I use Google a lot and I happen to be an American, so I have a vested interest in keeping the system as honest as I can.
Oh yeah, and as the mail server admin I hate spammers. I mean that. When I was a kid a neighbor once threw a dog turd at me, and I still bare him less malice than spammers. Also telemarketers. And push pollers. And jerks in general.
*smile* So I'm shining light on these pinheads for the purely personal joy of doing the right thing, of having all my motivations line up on the same side of an issue and being able to act on it.
Then you should be like myself and many of my friends. We're all ex-Republicans. And we all reside in what used to be a deep red state. (I say used to be, because I only know 2 admitted current Republicans out of 30 or so colleagues. The rest go from currently independent to massively anti-republican. Note that neither means "democrat".
I suppose I'm just to damned stubborn. I didn't change, the party changed, and I am to change it back. Quixotic, I know, but just because the Democrats let them get away with nonsense doesn't mean I'm about to.
It's what Barry would have done.
--MarkusQ
P.S. As a friend of mine put it "Washington knows no furry like a fiscal conservative scorned."
P.P.S. Or "A Democrat controlled congress wouldn't be bad. a Republican controlled congress would be even better. But either one of them would be an improvement over what we've got now."
The Swiftboat ads involved people who actually served during the time that John Kerry did and desired to state their opinion of the illegitimacy of his military decorations and military service in general - exactly who do you think such statements should be coming from?
The whole point is, the ads didn't come from such people, though they were designed to appear as if they had. That's what astroturfing is all about.
The Republican party does not value someone like you. Virtually everytime a Candidate appears to be someone like you, the GOP pushes them to the side and or dumps them entirely from the party. Moral and ethical behavior is not a core value in the leadership of today's Republican Party. You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the GOP for that course change.
It wasn't always that way. I keep hoping that someday it will change back. Of course, the first step is for those of us who still remember what values look like (not the word "values" printed on a campaign button, but actual values) to become a million little hammers, pushing back on the slime buckets that hijacked our party, making it increasingly uncomfortable for them to stay. There are certainly enough of us, though you wouldn't know it from the antics of our party's leaders and their morally bankrupt cheerleading squads. (Who knows, maybe they'll get sick of us and go join the Green Party.)
Apparantly you equate the legal practice of lobbying with the illegal one of corruption, such as kickbacks, hiring favors, passing legislation for campaign contributions, etc.
No, but I hold DCI responsible for the illegal activities (forgery, electioneering, fraud, money laundering etc.) that they have done, as well as for the possibly legal but clearly unethical stuff (e.g. the penguin movie and the spam). I'd have little or no objection to them if all they did was lobby, straight up and honestly. But that's not what they do.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I also note that DCI has been tied up in some of the crimes you mention as well.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing "as if" about it; when you short a stock, you actually sell shares of that stock. The only difference is that you haven't bought them yet. The person you borrowed them from doesn't care (since you've already put up the money to replace them whenever their needed) and the market doesn't care (all the market sees is the sale, which exerts a downward pressure on the stock. This is why people (especially people who are hawking overvalued stocks like SCO) hate short sellers.
And, IMHO, why the world needs more of them. Skeptics who are willing to risk their own money to call out frauds and charlatans should be welcomed by everyone--except of course the crooks.
The expression refers to the buying (not selling) of a lightly traded stock at the very end of the day, in an effort to raise the price leave it on an up-tick at the end of the day. This was more effective when more people got their stock prices from the papers, which only print the closing price and a few other statistics. Nowadays, it's pretty obvious when someone tries it, sort of like being able to stand behind a stage magician.
--MarkusQ
You haven't been able to short SCOX for years. There simply haven't been any shares available to borrow for the past three years or so, and the price is well bellow $5/share, so your explanation doesn't hold water. That, and the consistency of the pattern, is why people say it's being painted up. This does not mean that it is SCO doing it (though I wouldn't put it past them); trolls can be found under almost every rock, and there are stock trolls who do just this sort of thing (and send spam about it).
And in any case (and in answer to your question) a large number of short sellers would drive the price down--the market doesn't know or care who is trying to sell a stock, or why, just that they are. So even if your "lol theory" held water, it wouldn't float.
--MarkusQ
I enjoy reading your comments, but your sig bugs the tar out of me. The line should be "Kinky is when you use the whole chicken." I've also seen it as ""Kinky is using a feather -- Perverted is using the whole chicken."
But "exotic" (which basically means "foreign" or "not native to this area") makes no sense and kills the joke. I know it looks like "erotic" but it's a completely unrelated word.
--MarkusQ
It is exactly that sort of thinking that keeps The Dark Side packed to capacity even in the off season. And it's such a simple logical fallacy; if The Good Guys try to "win" by becoming Bad Guys then it's no longer a struggle between "Good" and "Evil", but rather between "Established Evil" and "Nouveau Evil" -- and Good has lost before the battle is fairly joined.
For a prime example of how this plays out in practice, watch as our foreign policy implodes.
--MarkusQ
I'd give you both, but I don't have either at the moment, so I'll have to offer one of my home-brew mods, a +1 Sad But True.
At the rate we are going I would not be surprised to see that level of push polling being done in the next few years. If it hasn't started already.
--MarkusQ
You're probably correct. But it would certainly be an amusing failure mode if not (in an "Office Space" sort of way).
--MarkusQ
I sure hope you've got a air tight way to screen out telemarketers.
--MarkusQ
I did not say "be a good parent", I said to spend time with your kids on an ongoing basis and base your actions on what you learn from that interaction. Slashdot can not do it for you. No book can do it for you. Why? Because every kid is different, and they change over time.
What would you say if someone asked "My wife and I are thinking of buying some food. How would you suggest we cook it?"
Or what if they said "There's something wrong with my car. I'm not a mechanic and I don't know of any in my area. How should I fix it?"
For questions like these, even "Google is your friend" is too specific.
I already answered that. You may not like the answer, but there's very little anyone can do about that. Spend lots of time with your kids. Pay attention, and try to learn from the interaction.
--MarkusQ
Somehow I doubt it. But I'm pretty sure it's expressible as the sum of two primes.
And I'm positive that it's expressible as the product of twenty two or fewer primes.
--MarkusQ
P.S. And to answer the main question, I couldn't do without either. Just the thought of having all that productive time back gives me the heebie jeebies.
Interesting. I'm not sure she's as hardline as you make it sound...as I recall, she voted to let pilots carry. Can you source the claim that she carries a gun?
--MarkusQ
It's called parenting. It involves spending lots of time with your kids. Every day. Talking to them. Listening to them. And enforcing and adjusting the limits and boundaries based on that.
There is no other solution.
--MarkusQ
I can recall voting for quite a few Libertarians and Independents over the years, and at least one Green (I wasn't fond of his positions, but his opponent was a known crook--I'd rather an honest person I disagree with than a crook who tells me what I want to hear).
When Cobb and Badnark were arrested at the debates, I publicized the issue every chance I could, called and wrote letters to various officials, and gave to both of their campaigns.
I'm also a vocal advocate of alternative voting systems.
If you have any other ideas of what I should do, let me know.
--MarkusQ
Please note that the troll I was replying to above appears to have been removed/demoted.
The "you are full of shit" and the agravated tone of my post were aimed at the post I was responding to, not the post which now appears to be it's parent.
--MarkusQ
Sure thing. All I'll you need to do is help me find a few dozen people to vote for us.
And make sure they understand we aren't talking any of that weak kneed "one man one vote" stuff. These are some super charged Diebold votes we want to have them cast for us.
But don't go overboard. Two or three per state should do it.
--MarkusQ
When I am president, I promise, you will have your proof.
--MarkusQ (future winner of the 2008 presidential election, courtesy of Diebold)
I am comfortably over forty, thank you. And I vote for the best candidate, regardless of their party.
Why in the heck do you think I'm sitting here at my keyboard, trying to educate my fellow Americans, when it is a beautiful day out and I own a hammock? Why do you suppose I took the time to dig up all the links, submit the story in the first place, and then reply to as many of the comments as I could?
Ah, so all the Democrats stood with Murtha? Backed Finegold? Filibustered every stupid move that this administration made, sacrificing their careers for the good of the country?
I guess I missed that.
See above.
Grow up. There are millions of good and honest Republicans in this country. And there are millions of good and honest Democrats. Ignoring the dog catchers and such, we can count ourselves lucky if more than a few hundred of them are holding public office at the moment. The higher you go, the worse it gets.
And you will never fix this by punching the guy who happens to be next to you, just because he has a different color jersey than you do.
I'm assuming you're a Democrat, right? So rather than taking cheap shots at me, why don't you go rout out the bad apples in your party. Demand that the cowards step up to the plate instead of letting slide every time the forget and leave their spine at home. Vote in the primaries, for gods sake. For my part, I'll keep hammering on my own side, and maybe some day we can get back to having a real debate about who we want up there solving our problems instead of who we want up there causing them. I'll bet there are some good, hard working, honest Democrats out there, who are getting the tar beat out of them by the DLC and their corporate pals, or who have grown so gun shy that they start apologizing before the Republican noise machine has even warmed up. Why don't you go give them a hand instead of making snide remarks at people who, so far as I can tell, want the roughly same things you do?
It's just a thought.
--MarkusQ
How dare you. Do you suppose that just because I don't blindly support my party and every crook that decides to cloak his perfidy under its mantel I must be lying? That the very fact that I care more about principles than I do about party affiliation means I'm not really a Republican? For your information, it galls me a hundred times more when Republicans lie, cheat and steal because they are dragging my honour in the gutter when they do it. But gauging from the tone of your post such concepts probably don't mean that much to you.
Odds are, I was voting for the Grand Old Party before you were out of diapers. And it's the sort of smear anyone you disagree with, win at all costs attitudes, from Nixon on down to people like you that have made the party what it is today. You do realize that the two main points of your post "He refuses to turn a blind to curruption, so he must not be a Republican" and "Voter shouldn't feel responsible for the people they put in office, or try to hold them accountable" are anathema to what used to be considered core Republican values--or even American values--for most of our nations history, don't you?
Where exactly do you think this new age "Morals are for suckers, tee hee!" form of civic pride is going to get you, anyway?
--MarkusQ
Your rebuttal chock full of internal inconsistencies; for example, when the subject is the officers who awarded Kerry his medals we're to assume that they "simply signed a document placed in front of them" but for the modified affidavits that the vets signed thirty years later, we're to assume that they carefully read them and agreed with any changes since "there is no legal requirement that one write the statement that one signs - only that one make an attempt to understand and agree before signing."
Or when the issue is DCI's involvement, on the one hand we are supposed to focus on the vets and not the company they hired (because it's the client that matters) but on the other hand, when the subject is who paid for the ads, we're supposed to ignore who paid for it because...it doesn't matter who the client was?
But the key problem here is that you are pointedly inverting the sequence of events. The vets didn't hire DCI, and then go looking for republican donors to pay for their ads. The republican donors hired DCI who (as part of the astroturfing campaign they were hired to perform) paid private investigators to search for vets who would be willing to participate in a smear job on Kerry's record. Then, based on what they were able to come up with, they put together the ads and started a program to create a "controversy" (which the Democrats stupidly went along with) so that they ads could get the maximum amount of free coverage. It was a very professionally put together PR campaign, and the vets were nothing more than props, added to make it look like it was coming from the grass roots.
That's the whole point of astroturfing in the first place.
--MarkusQ
*sigh* And after all the trouble I went to to provide links. This isn't some "gosh I think they may have done it" speculation. Tobin, for example, is presumably telecommuting from prison at this very moment, since he started his ten month sentence in May. And the other charges are likewise documented in the links I provided. At this point there's no reason for me to tell the authorities anything because they already know.
--MarkusQ
I can give them ulcers. I can vote in the primaries. I can hold them accountable (elephants are known for their long memories). And come election day, I can vote for the best candidate regardless of which party they're running for.
And I do. My name isn't Inigo Montoya, but I do my small part.
--MarkusQ
No, I'm a programmer for a small (and struggling) game company. But I use Google a lot and I happen to be an American, so I have a vested interest in keeping the system as honest as I can.
Oh yeah, and as the mail server admin I hate spammers. I mean that. When I was a kid a neighbor once threw a dog turd at me, and I still bare him less malice than spammers. Also telemarketers. And push pollers. And jerks in general.
*smile* So I'm shining light on these pinheads for the purely personal joy of doing the right thing, of having all my motivations line up on the same side of an issue and being able to act on it.
--MarkusQ
I suppose I'm just to damned stubborn. I didn't change, the party changed, and I am to change it back. Quixotic, I know, but just because the Democrats let them get away with nonsense doesn't mean I'm about to.
It's what Barry would have done.
--MarkusQ
P.S. As a friend of mine put it "Washington knows no furry like a fiscal conservative scorned."
P.P.S. Or "A Democrat controlled congress wouldn't be bad. a Republican controlled congress would be even better. But either one of them would be an improvement over what we've got now."
The whole point is, the ads didn't come from such people, though they were designed to appear as if they had. That's what astroturfing is all about.
They were, in short, highly sophisticated trolls.
--MarkusQ
It wasn't always that way. I keep hoping that someday it will change back. Of course, the first step is for those of us who still remember what values look like (not the word "values" printed on a campaign button, but actual values) to become a million little hammers, pushing back on the slime buckets that hijacked our party, making it increasingly uncomfortable for them to stay. There are certainly enough of us, though you wouldn't know it from the antics of our party's leaders and their morally bankrupt cheerleading squads. (Who knows, maybe they'll get sick of us and go join the Green Party.)
--MarkusQ
No, but I hold DCI responsible for the illegal activities (forgery, electioneering, fraud, money laundering etc.) that they have done, as well as for the possibly legal but clearly unethical stuff (e.g. the penguin movie and the spam). I'd have little or no objection to them if all they did was lobby, straight up and honestly. But that's not what they do.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I also note that DCI has been tied up in some of the crimes you mention as well.