Greenpeace & its hypocritical advert

[StewartP]

Greenpeace hates 4x4s. They have a compaign currently running to parallel the British Motor Show. On the eite there is an advert showing a man being shunned, villified, sworn at, his coffee spat in.

His crime? Paedophile? Animal abuse? No. He owns a 4x4

The advert is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gasguzzler/index.html

[NeilC]

Not sure it's hypocritical.

Not very nice though.

Must remember not to drink the coffee if I go to greenpeace's office.

[Kotatsu]

Forgive my ignorance about Greenpeace, but which part of the ad and/or its message is hypocritical? Do they manufacture and/or sell 4x4s? Are Greenpeace members generally known to own more 4x4s than the population in general? Do they believe that no person should ever be shunned no matter what the reason? If they so dislike 4x4 (and, not being very interested in cars, I have no idea if I would find this dislike justified or not), why should they not have an ad advocating that message?

[Geckko]

Greenpeace hates 4x4s. They have a compaign currently running to parallel the British Motor Show. On the eite there is an advert showing a man being shunned, villified, sworn at, his coffee spat in.

His crime? Paedophile? Animal abuse? No. He owns a 4x4

The advert is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gasguzzler/index.html

Misguided, factually dubious, naive, maybe just plain stupid.

Not sure about hypocritical though.

[andyandy]

"What does your car say about you?"

how about

"What does your advert say about you?"

Answer - that your organisation is a joke.

[Cylinder]

Greenpeace does operate a deisel-assisted ship and gas-powered runabouts.

[BPSCG]

Misguided, factually dubious, naive, maybe just plain stupid.

Not sure about hypocritical though.In a nutshell.

Now this (http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200608/14/0DDC_local_news.html) is SUV-related hypocrisy. And the disclaimer at the end of the story notwithstanding, General Motors' web site does not include the GMC Envoy in their list of flexible-fuel vehicles.

[fuelair]

Let's just say that when the French bombed the Greenpeace ship(that's attached a bomb, not air assault - though I wouldn't care either way) I was not annoyed - sort of like if PETA offices were set on fire. Protest is fine, action against others as part of protest isn't so I have no problem when action protestors are appropriately responded (oh, wait, burning houses etc. to frighten others into acting the way the burners want is terrorism - I knew there was a reason I did not like Greenpeace and PETA ....I loathe terrorists.....EVEN THOUGH I LOVE ANIMALS AND BREATHEABLE AIR/DRINKABLE WATER, ETC.!!!)

[RyanRoberts]

Greenpeace have campaigned to ban chlorine, the 11th most abundant element in the earths crust. They ceased to be a scientifically based environmental organisation sometime in the 1980s. This advert doesn't suprise me in the slightest.

[DaChew]

In a nutshell.

Now this (http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200608/14/0DDC_local_news.html) is SUV-related hypocrisy. And the disclaimer at the end of the story notwithstanding, General Motors' web site does not include the GMC Envoy in their list of flexible-fuel vehicles.

Maybe Obama is a gear head. His Envoy would have come with either the LL8 straight 6 engine or, more likely, the LM4 5.3 Litre V8. He could have had it converted (or done it himself or maybe his people who sent the disclaimer did it for him) to E85 use by swapping parts from the L59 flex fuel 5.3 Litre V8. Both engines use the same sleeved Aluminum block.

Or maybe GM gave him a specially prepared Envoy that's not available for sale yet. Although, they could have just given him a flex fuel Yukon without going to all the work.

It's possible. Probably not. Man, that's a really dumb lie.

[DaChew]

Greenpeace have campaigned to ban chlorine, the 11th most abundant element in the earths crust. They ceased to be a scientifically based environmental organisation sometime in the 1980s. This advert doesn't suprise me in the slightest.

I heard they're going to try and ban Oxygen because you can't make carbon dioxide - the cause of global warming - without it.

[Darat]

Since the popularity of "SUVs" is at least partly fashion then I suspect Greenpeace's approach is more along the right approach if you wish to discourage people from buying and driving them then appeals to other intangibles such as "carbon emissions".

[Geckko]

Since the popularity of "SUVs" is at least partly fashion then I suspect Greenpeace's approach is more along the right approach if you wish to discourage people from buying and driving them then appeals to other intangibles such as "carbon emissions".

That is the reason why it is stupid.

There is no inherint quality of a 4x4 per se that makes it less economic or a higher producer of CO2 than a family saloon, say.

[Darat]

...snip...

There is no inherint quality of a 4x4 per se that makes it less economic or a higher producer of CO2 than a family saloon, say.

Without offering support either for or against Greenpeace's position on the matter surely there is - SUVs mass more so putting the same engine in the 4 ton SUV and the 2 ton salon would mean the SUV would produce more CO2 then the family saloon over the same distance?

[BPSCG]

Without offering support either for or against Greenpeace's position on the matter surely there is - SUVs mass more so putting the same engine in the 4 ton SUV and the 2 ton salon would mean the SUV would produce more CO2 then the family saloon over the same distance?You have 8,000 pound SUVs?

[Darat]

You have 8,000 pound SUVs?

No idea - they were just simple figures to make my question & point as simple as possible.

[ponderingturtle]

Without offering support either for or against Greenpeace's position on the matter surely there is - SUVs mass more so putting the same engine in the 4 ton SUV and the 2 ton salon would mean the SUV would produce more CO2 then the family saloon over the same distance?


SUV is a very very broad group. For example a Forrester is classed as a SUV but gets better milage than a Outback classed as a station wagon.

[Darat]

SUV is a very very broad group. For example a Forrester is classed as a SUV but gets better milage than a Outback classed as a station wagon.

Ah you are getting into weird USA distinctions!

[ponderingturtle]

Ah you are getting into weird USA distinctions!

Not really, SUV is not a size, but more of a fuction/immage. You can have small SUV's that are no bigger than some cars. Are there cars smaller than any SUV, yes, but that is not a good comparison. The whole line of compact SUV's (the Rav4's the Element and CRV and the forrester are examples of this).

[StewartP]

The hypocricy is Greenpeace giving big advertisers a hard time for manipulating consumers and then using every slick advertising trick they can get their hands on.
The press release says: ‘Greenpeace took advice from advertising industry insiders before producing the film.’

[casebro]

You have 8,000 pound SUVs?

Ford's discontinued Excursion. Used primarily by soccer moms to take the kiddies 2 urban miles to school.

[varwoche]

The hypocricy is Greenpeace giving big advertisers a hard time for manipulating consumers Evidence?

Misguided How is it misguided to promote fuel efficiency? (add: it is misguided though to promote some of the behaviors shown in the ad, in case that's what you mean) factually dubious No facts were presented.
maybe just plain stupid No argument. Amusing though.

[JamesDillon]

Greenpeace have campaigned to ban chlorine, the 11th most abundant element in the earths crust. They ceased to be a scientifically based environmental organisation sometime in the 1980s. This advert doesn't suprise me in the slightest.

I know very little about Greenpeace, but did they campaign to ban chlorine, or to ban certain uses of chlorine? The latter sounds a lot more likely.

[RyanRoberts]

They want to ban all chlorine chemistry. Their first target was PVC, but they want to ban the manufacture of chlorine containing compounds.

Horses mouth (http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/reports/gopher-reports/chlora2.txt)


Chlorine is the common link in many of the world's most
notorious environmental poisons: dioxin, DDT, Agent Orange,
PCBs, and the ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all
based on chlorine. These and other chlorine-containing
substances dominate government lists of "priority pollutants"
that threaten health and the environment. But thousands of other
chlorinated poisons that cause similar harm are not regulated or
even monitored.

The global threat posed by the toxic "chlorine soup" now
present in the ecosystem is too complex to be solved by
addressing these chemicals one at a time. If we wish to preserve
the life-sustaining capacity of the planet, the root of the
problem -- the production and use of chlorine -- must be phased
out.

[Ziggurat]

putting the same engine in the 4 ton SUV and the 2 ton salon

Why would you put an engine in your salon (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/salon)? I guess it might make a nice conversation starter, but it's a pretty odd place for it.

[BPSCG]

Why would you put an engine in your salon (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/salon)? I guess it might make a nice conversation starter, but it's a pretty odd place for it.I believe that's the British term for what we call a sedan.

[Darat]

p-off the pair of you! :D

[ponderingturtle]

They want to ban all chlorine chemistry. Their first target was PVC, but they want to ban the manufacture of chlorine containing compounds.

Horses mouth (http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/reports/gopher-reports/chlora2.txt)

Never, they can take my salt from my cold dead hands! Cold Dead Hands I tell you.

[Luke T.]

Evidence?

Greenpeace UK has just released a new video ad about SUVs in urban areas. "Using the language, style and production values of traditional car adverts, the film challenges the image portrayed by the advertising industry of 4x4 drivers escaping their urban environment for the freedom of the open road. Greenpeace took advice from advertising industry insiders before producing the film." Some might find the video a bit over the top, but considering that the auto industry spends more on marketing (especially for SUVs) than almost all other industries combined and that their adverts are often just as over the top in the opposite direction, we think it's only fair.

Article about Greenpeace press release (http://www.onedayvancouver.ca/news.php?type=2&id=179)

Same article repeated on treehugger site. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/greenpeace_video.php)

Another quote from the press release:

The film urges car buyers to think about the consequences of their choices and not be suckered by car industry advertising.

[BPSCG]

Article about Greenpeace press release (http://www.onedayvancouver.ca/news.php?type=2&id=179)From that link:...
many of the SUVs on Britain’s roads:

Consume around 300% more fuel than an efficient family car
This is demonstrably a lie.

Question: If an efficient family car takes ten gallons of fuel to go 250 miles, how much fuel does an SUV that consumes 300% more need to travel the same distance?
Answer: Forty gallons.

Question: How many miles per gallon does that translate to?
Answer: 250/40 = 6.25.

Question: Anyone know an SUV that gets only 6.25 miles per gallon?
Answer:

[Psi Baba]

Another quote from the press release:


The film urges car buyers to think about the consequences of their choices and not be suckered by car industry advertising.
Damn, I was beginning to be sold by all the advertising for hybrid vehicles. That settles it, no way am I going to be suckered by car industry advertising. They just want me to buy their hybrids so I can't haul anything home back from The Home Depot and have to pay for some huge-ass truck to bring that lumber to my door. Yeah, that'll save the planet!

[EBU]

"Question: Anyone know an SUV that gets only 6.25 miles per gallon?"

Well, my efficient family car gets 35 mpg, so an SUV that uses 300% more fuel than that would get 8.75 mpg. Or perhaps they were thinking of an efficient family car that is a hybrid, getting, say, 50 mpg. Then an SUV that uses 300% more fuel would get 12.5 mpg? Is that more plausible?

Not that all this interesting play with numbers has anything to do with the hypocrisy/misguidedness/stupidity of the original ad.

[Terry]

BPSGC, I question whether 25 mpg counts as an efficient family car.

[Diamond]

Most American cars are much less fuel-efficient than their European or Japanese counterparts because they're heavier. The most recent car I hired in the UK got 45-50mpg.

Anyone know what the fuel efficiency of Rainbow Warrier is? I suspect it would be a lot worse than a Hummer.

[DaChew]

OK. The Hummer H1 Alpha (the civilian version) weighs in at 8114 lbs. So there's your 4 ton SUV though, the H1 is not your typical SUV.

The 6.6 L turbo diesel gets about 11 miles per gallon. It has two fuel tanks totalling 51.5 gallons and has cruising range of an estimated 570 miles.

[daredelvis]

From that link:...
This is demonstrably a lie.

Question: If an efficient family car takes ten gallons of fuel to go 250 miles, how much fuel does an SUV that consumes 300% more need to travel the same distance?
Answer: Forty gallons.

Question: How many miles per gallon does that translate to?
Answer: 250/40 = 6.25.

Question: Anyone know an SUV that gets only 6.25 miles per gallon?
Answer:

25mpg does not an efficient family car make (not even close). That being said, I also hate it when demonstrably inaccurate numbers like that are thrown around. %200 more sounds more like it. I could believe 11-13mpg vs. 33-39mpg.

[Luke T.]

From that link:...
This is demonstrably a lie.

Question: If an efficient family car takes ten gallons of fuel to go 250 miles, how much fuel does an SUV that consumes 300% more need to travel the same distance?
Answer: Forty gallons.

Question: How many miles per gallon does that translate to?
Answer: 250/40 = 6.25.

Question: Anyone know an SUV that gets only 6.25 miles per gallon?
Answer:

That's a good catch.

The press release devotes space to slamming the Land Rover.

According to this site (http://www.edmunds.com/new/landrover/index.html), the Land Rover gets 13-14 MPG in the city, and 18-19 MPG on the highway. So an "efficient family car" would have to get 52 - 56 MPG in the city, and 72 - 78 MPG on the highway.

[Luke T.]

And...

The 300 percent claim is from an article on Greenpeace's site written by Dr Peter Wells of Cardiff University's Centre for Automotive Industry Research.

You can read Offroad Cars, Onroad Menace for yourself here (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7504.pdf).

It's all about the Land and Range Rovers.

It details how vehicles designed for offroad terrain consume 300% more fuel, emit 300% more pollution and, in an accident, are three times more likely to kill a pedestrian than an ordinary passenger car.

[Luke T.]

If an SUV is three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in an accident, are you three times more likely to survive hitting a tree?

Which happens more often? Cars hitting trees, bridges, and other hard objects, or cars hitting pedestrians?

[demon]

That's an incredibly silly advert - totally denuded of context, insight, politics etc. It's the very form of advertising that is the problem here: they want to disseminate their message of short, sexy clips that necessarily try to pander rather than challenge. In fact, the intention appears to be to encourage would-be environmentalists to feel smugly superior with the vain hope that they will sign up for or donate to an organisation that makes them feel like that.
It's a miserable debasement of the issues.

Change the last scene, he drives off into the sunset, and make the extras less attractive and hey presto you’ve got yourself an advert +for+ "off road vehicles".

[fuelair]

Does anyone know if these truds(in case rule 8) have gone after DHMO yet? Given its' clear dangers...........



Obviously, I could check myself but I don't want to go to trash websites (or worse get cookied there).

[Rob Lister]

It appears that someone in greenpeace.uk hired some senior-level marketing exec from PETA.

If there's one thing PETA excels at, it's being over the top and getting press. This move looks exactly like something PETA would do.

[BPSCG]

BPSGC, I question whether 25 mpg counts as an efficient family car.
25mpg does not an efficient family car make (not even close). That being said, I also hate it when demonstrably inaccurate numbers like that are thrown around. %200 more sounds more like it. I could believe 11-13mpg vs. 33-39mpg.I was going on the basis of my little Hyundai Tiburon, a 4-cylinder sports coupe that seats two adults and two children. You couldn't call it a true family car unless your family is physically small. I get about 27 mpg combined, 32 highway with it. So I figured 25 mpg combined for the likes of a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Ford Taurus, cars that can carry an actual family.

But regardless, that 300% figure is ridiculous.

[Mycroft]

I don't think this technically makes Greenpeace hypocritical, but since I really enjoy threads that bash Greenpeace, I’ll let it slide. :)

[steverino]

I have this fantasy of being a rich Hollywood type or Congressman who flies around the country in my private jet to preach the gospel of fuel conservation. Actually I kind of admire Elvis who flew from Memphis to Denver on his private jet just to procure a peanut butter and jelly and bacon sandwich from his favorite chef, then flew back. That's living!:)

[Darat]

That's a good catch.

The press release devotes space to slamming the Land Rover.

According to this site (http://www.edmunds.com/new/landrover/index.html), the Land Rover gets 13-14 MPG in the city, and 18-19 MPG on the highway. So an "efficient family car" would have to get 52 - 56 MPG in the city, and 72 - 78 MPG on the highway.



Ford Focus Worse Model = 30.4 Best Model = 60.1 (http://www2.fordconnection.com/fordconnection/multimedia/gbr_en/001/yyn/gbr_en001yynfuelspc.htm)



Rand Rover Worse Model = 17.7 Best Model = 25.5 (http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/New_Range_Rover/Specifications/Range_rover_engines_and_performance.htm#tableheadi ng2)



"Combined L/100km (Mpg)" figure of worse Range Rover (17.7) compared to best Ford Focus (60.1) is a a differnece of over 300% isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

If an SUV is three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in an accident, are you three times more likely to survive hitting a tree?

Which happens more often? Cars hitting trees, bridges, and other hard objects, or cars hitting pedestrians?

The answer is no. Many SUV type vehicles don't have a crumple zone, and they all roll much more easily. Despite the safety angle implied for them, they don't really make the driver any safer, and some claims are that they are less safe.

[Kotatsu]

The hypocricy is Greenpeace giving big advertisers a hard time for manipulating consumers and then using every slick advertising trick they can get their hands on.
The press release says: ‘Greenpeace took advice from advertising industry insiders before producing the film.’

Then I understand. Thank you.

[Darat]

The hypocricy is Greenpeace giving big advertisers a hard time for manipulating consumers and then using every slick advertising trick they can get their hands on.
The press release says: ‘Greenpeace took advice from advertising industry insiders before producing the film.’

Do the actually do that?

My impression was that they criticise the (in their opinion) way the advertising industry is used by companies to promote products and practices that Greenpeace believes harm the environment?

[BPSCG]

Ford Focus Worse Model = 30.4 Best Model = 60.1 (http://www2.fordconnection.com/fordconnection/multimedia/gbr_en/001/yyn/gbr_en001yynfuelspc.htm)

Rand Rover Worse Model = 17.7 Best Model = 25.5 (http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/New_Range_Rover/Specifications/Range_rover_engines_and_performance.htm#tableheadi ng2)

"Combined L/100km (Mpg)" figure of worse Range Rover (17.7) compared to best Ford Focus (60.1) is a a differnece of over 300% isn't it?All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"

And let me add to that, :confused: .

"L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.

"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.

Look at it again:
Ford Focus Worse Model = 30.4 Best Model = 60.1.
The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?

Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.

[brodski]

All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"

And let me add to that, :confused: .

"L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.

"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.

Look at it again:

The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?

Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.
It looks like Darat misread eth table, but only slightly, his conclusions are correct.
The table gives figures for both MPG and L/100km (MPG figured are in brackets in the table) The most efficient ford focus gets 60.1MPG which is 4.7 L/100KM (the worst is 30.4 MPG which is equivalent to 9.3 L/100 KM). Darat should have left the L/KMH descriptor out of his posts, as the numbers he referred to were MPG.

[Darat]

All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"

And let me add to that, :confused: .

"L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.

"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.

Look at it again:

The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?

Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.

Check the links - the figures quoted are a standard industry measure for fuel consumption. Officially this is given using metric units however in the UK we still tend to use imperial units so they also give the equivalent mpg figure. And since many of the readers of this forum will be from the USA I quoted the (mpg) figures rather then the metric ones. So the best figures for a Ford Focus shows a model that does 60.1 miles to the gallon (in that standard test) and the worse Range Rover model does 17.7 miles to the gallon.

[Geckko]

Ford Focus Worse Model = 30.4 Best Model = 60.1 (http://www2.fordconnection.com/fordconnection/multimedia/gbr_en/001/yyn/gbr_en001yynfuelspc.htm)



Rand Rover Worse Model = 17.7 Best Model = 25.5 (http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/New_Range_Rover/Specifications/Range_rover_engines_and_performance.htm#tableheadi ng2)



"Combined L/100km (Mpg)" figure of worse Range Rover (17.7) compared to best Ford Focus (60.1) is a a differnece of over 300% isn't it?


I will tell you why this "anti 4x4" campaign is tripe of the highest order.

I drive a Volvo V70. That is an estate with enough room for all my famil plus luggage and the flexibility to take more than 5 people. It isn't a big engined car, but enough to maanage a full load safely in all driving conditions. Volvo list it as getting 30mpg combined cycle.

I could, if I wanted to be an EVIL person, castigated by Greenpox, buy a VOlvo XC90 (their 4x4). I could get a model with the same type of performance, but is listed as getting 34 mpg combined cycle.

You see, Greenpox should be spitting in my coffee, not that of the 4x4 owner who may be getting better mileage.

And THAT is why this campaign is nonsense.

[Darat]

Just looking at the tables again for CO2 emissions (g per km - sorry no ounces per mile listed ;) )

Best Ford Focus model = 127
Worse Range Rover model = 376

So in terms of CO2 emissions it also looks as if it isn't really wrong to say the SUV emits 300% more CO2 the the family car.

Of course there will be huge differences between all the many different makes and models of cars but the 300% figure does seem to be a supportable figure.

[Darat]

I will tell you why this "anti 4x4" campaign is tripe of the highest order.

...snip...

And THAT is why this campaign is nonsense.

That may well be the case but the point I was addressing was the skepticism expressed regarding the "300%" figure and as I've shown the figure can be verified.

Now whether it really makes any difference or is something that is important is or even if it is a red-herring is of course a totally different discussion.

[Wudang]

Just looking at the tables again for CO2 emissions (g per km - sorry no ounces per mile listed ;) )

Best Ford Focus model = 127
Worse Range Rover model = 376

So in terms of CO2 emissions it also looks as if it isn't really wrong to say the SUV emits 300% more CO2 the the family car.

Of course there will be huge differences between all the many different makes and models of cars but the 300% figure does seem to be a supportable figure.

Ah -no. 3 times the number is not 300% more, it's 200% more.

[Darat]

Ah -no. 3 times the number is not 300% more, it's 200% more.

Yes it is :o - what I did was think of it like this:

100% of 127 = 127
200% of 127 = 254
300% of 127 = 381

[Geckko]

That may well be the case but the point I was addressing was the skepticism expressed regarding the "300%" figure and as I've shown the figure can be verified.

Now whether it really makes any difference or is something that is important is or even if it is a red-herring is of course a totally different discussion.


I was really repsonding to other posters as well as your comment,s although they were the only ones I quoted.

But try this.

"A Man has an IQ 100 points higher than a woman"

Proof:

Men exhibit an IQ in the range 50-150
Women exhibit an IQ in the range 50-150

150 minus 50 equals 100.

QED

It pretty much amounts to the same approach as that used by Greenpox.

[Geckko]

Yes it is :o - what I did was think of it like this:

100% of 127 = 127
200% of 127 = 254
300% of 127 = 381

The actual term used is "300% more"

as in 100% of 127 is 127 (i.e. 1 times)
100% more than 127 is 254. (1+1 times)

300% more than 127 is 508 (1+3 times)

Think about when you go to the supermarket - "100% more at no extra price!" :)

[Darat]

The actual term used is "300% more"

as in 100% of 127 is 127 (i.e. 1 times)
100% more than 127 is 254. (1+1 times)

300% more than 127 is 508 (1+3 times)

Think about when you go to the supermarket - "100% more at no extra price!" :)

I know, I admitted it! You don't need to rub it in even more! :)

[Geckko]

I know, I admitted it! You don't need to rub it in even more! :)


Sorry :blush:

[BPSCG]

I know, I admitted it! You don't need to rub it in even more! :)I was ready to point it out much earlier this morning, but got into a conference call and then had to start a bunch of coding (work work work work work work...). Of course, if you weren't such a mean person, I would have blown off the conference call and the SQL coding and sent you a PM quietly pointing out the error to you so you could "catch" it and correct it publicly, thereby sparing you much humiliation. Be careful who you're mean to from now on... :)