Conference 7.286::digital

    
	First off, the things that were done to your property, especially
	the coffee cups, were at best uncivilized. There's no argument
	there. I would just like to ask about the following:

>    I discovered that there were several unethical acts being perpetrated
>    against the management from back East, one of which was possibly
>    illegal (secretly taping phone conversations with the management back
>    East, in an effort to trip them up later).  

	Why would you care if (do I understand this?) someone was taping
	conversations made with your manager-to-be? 

	-PHiL	

    Re: .1
    
    That's a good question, "Why would I car if someone was taping
    converstaions with my manager to be?"  
    
    Because despite the feelings from my former co-workers, my new manager
    is a decent fellow, who was trying to treat them with respect and
    dignity.  Their secretly taping his conversations with them was an
    attempt on their part to gather the legal ammunition against him and
    ultimately Digital, for a law suit of huge proportions.  I felt that if
    they were goimg to play hardball with him in that fashion, that he
    deserved to know about it.  By the way, that manager refused to give
    his permission to let them tape, and they did it anyway.
    
    
    Bill

I see, but what could anyone say in an interoffice call
that could be used against him? Seriously. I mean anyone
can file a suit, but I don't see how this particular suit could
have had any merit.  I don't get it.

-PHiL

Well, I would hope that the perpetrator's status would be changed from TSFO to 
Fired with no remuneration.

That sort of behaviour is totally unprofessional.

-1

I agree. The vengeance was ugly. I guess I should start
a separate topic about taping conversations---because I
still don't see what's wrong it.

I doubt that within a business conversation
anyone is going to mumble, "OhbythewaylastnightIcheatedonmywife,"
so what is the problem? A person should be as good as his or
her word, so why not record the word?

-PHiL

I, too, was treated in many of the same ways last year
when I accepted a move from the field to Nashua.

The abuse and harassment followed me out here.

Local personnel worked HARD to make the abuse stop, and
from an outward appearance, it did.

But the final word was that I was a troublemaker, and
could have no more contact with my fellow workers or
accounts I left.

I tried to obtain LEGITIMATE and NECESSARY information
unique to my old account group and a brick wall was
erected.

In Digital, there ARE NO CHECKS AND NO BALANCES against
abuse unless you are a woman or a minority.  While these
checks and balances SHOULD exist (for women and minorities)
other abuse CAN and DOES occur.  It is sanctioned by
Digital as a way to keep the power structure in place.

DN

    I was in a similar situation last year at this time, but my experience
    was much better. I was working in DLO, on a project with nearly 50
    employees and contractors. When things took a bad turn, management
    encouraged the employees to look for other positions. Most of the
    contractors were terminated. There was still some chance that the
    project might survive in some form, but I felt it was prudent to begin
    looking.

    Over the next several weeks, most of the other employees were also
    terminated. The only ones who remained were those of us who had managed
    to find other positions. It was a difficult time, watching friends and
    colleagues go, dealing with the guilt of survival. While people were
    very upset, they bore no ill will against each other. We held an
    informal series of wakes, sending each new group of people off.

    We had a good team of people. Despite the inevitable conflicts that
    arise when so many people are attempting to work together, they always
    maintained respect for each other. My perception was that everyone
    realized the management team had made a sincere and concerted effort to
    keep the project going, but events and the general state of the company
    conspired against them.

    Perhaps the people who left no longer have such noble feelings, and I
    speak naively from the perspective of security in my position (at least
    for this past year). But I am proud to say that all the people I worked
    with behaved with dignity, professionalism, and compassion for their
    peers. I sympathize with Bill and the others who have suffered
    abuse from their former colleagues, and with those whose bitterness and
    frustration have driven them to such abuse. I fear that the situation
    will only get worse as long as we remain in this unstable state. Yet we
    must give people the benefit of the doubt, and not start to treat them
    as a vicious and vindictive rabble. Prudent caution is warranted in the
    best of times, but paranoia can only make things worse.

    Steve Branam

    re: .5
    
    Well, I *thought* that taping anyone's phone conversation without
    their knowledge/permission was illegal.  If it is, I certainly
    hope it applies to DTN conversations as well as external ones.
    
     Something that has made me wonder if it really is illegal, though,
     is the taping that one of Father Porter's alleged victims did of
     a phone conversation with Fr. Porter.  That tape has been aired a
     lot without any mention of illegality.  Maybe the taped person has
     to press charges or something... I don't know.
    
    Nancy

>    Well, I *thought* that taping anyone's phone conversation without
>    their knowledge/permission was illegal.  If it is, I certainly
>    hope it applies to DTN conversations as well as external ones.

	It depends on the state and/or country. Some tape recording of
	conversations is legal in the US if one party knows about it.


			Alfred

Traditionally, people tape conversations because something
illegal or comprimising is being discussed. But, if you aren't
doing or planning anything illegal, what difference does it
make if someone tapes your conversation? If they try to use
it in court it just makes them look bad. So I still don't get
why Bill had to warn anyone that their conversations were
being taped.

    Taping is so much feared, that I know of a university that won't allow
    its students to tape professor's lectures without written permission. 
    Violation of the rule can lead to expulsion.
    
    Dick

That's a completely different story. That has to do with
loss of intellectual property. 

    Baloney.  It has to do with students getting material for political
    persecution.  I had very few colleagues whose intellectual property was
    worth stealing (including my own).
    
    Dick

Cold-cuts indeed. If somebody wants to persecute a college
prof for un-PCness, they can learn shorthand or bring in
a stenographer. But granting your point, it still has
nothing to do with the basenote situation. 

-PHiL

    Taping without consent is illegal.  How would you like to find out that
    your conversations on the phone were being taped?  I personally dont
    like my privacy invaded.  Two things I HATE is a rubber-necker and a
    thief.  
    
    Rick
    

There is no such thing as a private business call, is there?

-PHiL

    MTWAIN::LEVY 2131.10           -< still don' get it. >-
                        
    >Traditionally, people tape conversations because something
    >illegal or comprimising is being discussed. But, if you aren't
    >doing or planning anything illegal, what difference does it
    >make if someone tapes your conversation? If they try to use
    >it in court it just makes them look bad. So I still don't get
    >why Bill had to warn anyone that their conversations were
    >being taped.
                                                                        
       I suppose you probably believe that it's ok for police to randomly
    pull cars over to search for drugs. "Hey, if their not guilty, what
    difference does it make?" Or it's ok for police to break down your
    front door to search for drugs. "Hey, if their not guilty, what difference
    does it make?"
      Maybe you just don't get it. This sort of think reeks of a Stalinist
    type of regime. I don't buy this notion of "Hey, if their not guilty, what
    difference does it make?" This even goes for the work place and
    especially in the case that was noted in in an earlier entry.
    What has this country become when this sort of thing is accepted and
    encouraged?
    
    -Tony
    
    

re: .10
                        
    >Traditionally, people tape conversations because something
    >illegal or comprimising is being discussed. But, if you aren't
    >doing or planning anything illegal, what difference does it
    >make if someone tapes your conversation? If they try to use
    >it in court it just makes them look bad. So I still don't get
    >why Bill had to warn anyone that their conversations were
    >being taped.
                                                                        
I guess then, that you wouldn't mind at all urinating in a bottle
so DEC can analyze it for drugs. After all, if your not using drugs
"what difference does it make"?

I'm sorry for digging up an old (and forgotten?) subject but, this 
same logic was presented in that discussion also.

- George

or have the rules changed while I was busy? Gentlefolk do not read other 
people's mail or listen to other people's conversations -- much less tape them. 

If the initiator wanted someone other than the addressee to see or hear 
the information, he or she would have arranged to have the information 
disseminated. If you haven't been invited to the party, don't crash it.

W.B. Yeats celebrates such civilized virtue when he says of Irish nationalist
leader, John O'Leary 

"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave."

That same John O'Leary wrote: "There are some things a man must not do, even to
save a nation."

Brian 

    hip-hip-hooray to the last 3 replies! I agree 100%.  So, you see, the
    majority does not feel it is okay to do that sort of stuff- only those
    that fear their own shadows!
    
    Reg.

    i cant believe my own eyes, do people thing it is ok to tape someone
    conversations on the phone just because if they are not doing something
    illegal, then they should not mind it?

    what if someone talking to their doctor about a personal and private
    problem , or calling home to check with the spouse on something and 
    calling themselves those cute and personal names that they dont want 
    the whole office to know off? or calling the mortgage company to ask for
    more time to pay the monthly payment because the guy is broke but they
    dont want any one at work to know, or....etc.etc.

    even if it a call to you boss, it is a private call, and it should
    remain a private call.
    
    i mean just because one makes a phone call and they are not saying
    anything "illegal", that does not mean you can tape them?

    i cant believe this! makes me feel like iam living in Siberia or
    something like that. we might as well attach a loud speakers to our
    telephone and every time you speak , the conversation will be broadcasted
    all over the facilities via the loud speakers,  we  have can different
    channels too, you switch channels to lesson to you favorite telephone
    calls.

    gee whize.

    thank you,
    /nasser

Of all the speed-reasoning displayed in the last
several notes, I think Mr. Abbasi's is the silliest.
But let's take them all together. What if the police:

1. Stopped and searched your car.
2. Beat down your front door.
3. Opened your mail.

These acts, since they violate your own time and property,
are not acceptable.  That's a heck of a lot different
from taping a conversation that you are having at work.
It should be pretty obvious that what you say to someone
in a work-related conversation SHOULD be taped. If you are
saying something in a business setting that no one else 
knows about then you must be in business for yourself. 
Certainly you don't work here.

As far as the problem of people overhearing the funny names
you call your spouse: Any private nicknames that you cannot afford 
for anyone to hear should be phoned in from a booth at the local 
bar. Beside, don't you all, like me, work in a cubicle, where
everything you say is overheard by four or five people anyway?
Or are you one of the priveleged who works in an office with
a door and walls that go all the way to the ceiling?

PHiL

re: .22

Is that we have to convince people that this is wrong, no matter what
the situation.

- George

re .22

Don't you see a moral distinction between accidentally hearing
something, and deliberately going out of your way to hear something
*and* repeat the overhead information to others?   I certainly
do.

from PP&P Section 8.00


Employee Conduct - Employees are required to respect Company property, the
individual rights, privacy, and property of others, and to treat information
with the confidentiality that it deserves.

    .22

>several notes, I think Mr. Abbasi's is the silliest.

    in the strongest terms, i deeply protest that my reasoning by called the
    silliest , for my examples are common and normal every day lives ones,
    normal people do these things.

    why do think police must have a search permission to come into your 
    house to search it? they can just say why are worried about, if you have 
    do nothing illegal, then you should not worry it.

    then you would not mind going home, and find that someone was in it
    searching it? you should then not mind, because you are not doing
    anything illegal, right?

    when one walks/drives by people's houses, do they look inside them to see 
    what is going on? according to your theory , it seems ok thing to do, for 
    if they  are not doing anything illegal, people should not mind if others 
    looked into their windows.

    and please, dont call me silly again !!! i refuse to be so called !

    thank you,
    /nasser

Mr. Abbasi's temperature is cooling, I hope.

The police searching your house is nothing
like you taping your own business calls. It's
a false analogy. I think people in business
situations should tape their own calls. It puts everything
on record. If you begin to cross-examine and set up people
for problems later, they should tell you that you are being 
contentious.

As for the basenote, I have no idea why a
manager would want to speak interoffice with some guys
who were getting TFSO-ed. But that's the manager's problem.
As far as morality and good sense is concerned,
taping business conversations is fine, (though maybe against regulations).
Doesn't anyone think that a big problem in this company is that too much 
information is private, and shared amongst a too-precious few? Why would
they want to keep their information to themselves?

In the case of wages and intellectual property, this information is never
spoken of on the phone anyway, so it's a moot point.

-PHiL

re .-1

>I think people in business
>situations should tape their own calls. 

Ha, this is the funniest thing I've read in DIGITAL.NOTE for ages!
Thanks for the laugh on an otherwise-dull Tuesday.

    Re: .25
    
    Thank you.  Your quote from the orange book elegantly said what I felt
    about this whole mess.
    
    Regards,
    
    Bill
    

    .22 has no clue.  and said later that people should tape phones for
    themesleves to protect themselves. NIT: as long as the other person
    knows you are taping the call!
    
    Why is it so okay to tape a phone call in your belief?  and I hope I
    didn't read you right when you said it's okay for police to search your
    house.  Find a new country!
    
    Reg.

    It is not clear to me what conversations were being tape.  Was a
    conversation between management and an individual being taped by that
    individual (because of some distrust that was is said will not be
    adhered to)?  Or was a conversation from the author of .0 and
    management elsewhere being taped by a third party?

    I can see where an individual who is being offered something via phone
    might want to tape that conversation to insure that the follow thru
    agrees with the verbal conversation.  Ideally all agreements done
    verbally should be followed up with a written document. Taping the
    conversation in this case would imply to me the individual does not
    trust the party on the other side of the conversation.

    If the conversation is between two other parties, what is being taped,
    and how is it done.  Is someone sitting in the next cubicle and taping
    one side of the conversation?  I would think it difficult to tape both
    sides (unless a speakerphone is involved) without having access to the
    telecom equipment.

    

    Taping a conversation, your own or one between others, without the
    approval and/knowledge of all parties is an example of crude and brutish 
    behavior.  This is a serious invasion of privacy and it is unprofessional 
    and impolite to say the least.
    
    Remember R. Nixon?  Ever hear of the Gestapo? 
    
    This is the same mentality that is causing people to have their
    property seized by the police even if they are not convicted of a
    crime.  It is the same mentality that allows cops to take your money if
    you happen to be carrying a lot of cash.
    
    Justifying this type of behavior in the name of security is one of  
    The attitude scares me.
    
    Marv
    
    best ways to assure no one will be secure in their private affairs   

re .31 by B_SHAW

>    I can see where an individual who is being offered something via phone
>    might want to tape that conversation to insure that the follow thru
>    agrees with the verbal conversation.  

That's what I meant. You can trust someone or not, still it helps to 
have a record of conversations in a business context. For the record.
Just for the record, folks. So you know what they said, word for word.
If you can take shorthand, fine, take shorthand. 

To sum up, keeping records does not mean you want to sue someone. It does
not mean that it is to be done secretly. It does not mean that you believe 
in a police state (I know I don't). It does not mean that the people who 
stole things from the basenoter are anything but thieves. 

Finally, if people say things over a phone in a business context and are 
afraid of being taped, then I can only envy them their super-spy status.
It must be a wonderfully exciting life, if not a slightly ridiculous one.
It is ridiculous to me that you would say something on a business
phone that you wouldn't like your colleagues to hear. I mean, if you are 
looking for another job, then use the phone in the bar across the street. 

Over n Out,

-PHiL
    

    re - how come ex-priest's call could be taped?
    
    Someone many notes back asked how the priest accused of child abuse
    could have his conversation taped legally.  It was legal because the
    person who did it called from R.I. to Minnesota(?); neither state has a
    law aginst one individual taping a call without the other's knowledge. 
    Had he done it from MASS, he would have broken the law.
    
    The individual who taped the conversation with the ex-priest is a
    Professional P.I.; he knows the laws and the loopholes.  He was careful
    to identify himself, the person he called, and the time and date during
    the call.
    
    It is interesting to note however, that this doesn't necessarily apply
    to an employer taping an employees conversations; at least as far as
    the U.S. Supreme court is concerned, anything you say on the phone in
    the workplace, or store on a computer, or transmit via computer or fax,
    can legally be monitored by your employer (acting in an official,
    supervisory capacity) and is okiedokie by them.
    
    The fact that it's easy shouldn't be the point, however.
    
    Actually, it's easy enough to be laughable.  Anyone with a PC, or a
    U*IX workstation, or acess to network monitoring gear, can read every
    mail message sent down their happy little wires.  It doesn't even take
    much skill to monitor X-Windows traffic (so I am told, never tried
    myself) being sent from one machine to another.  Of course, anyone with
    physical access to a CPU can break into it in the time it takes to
    reset it and issue a few simple commands.  Also, anyone with a
    shortwave scanner can listen to your car phone (without mod's) and your
    portable phones (yes, even one of those digital portables can be
    monitored, it's just more difficult).
    
    What it represents is an invasion of privacy; no better than peeking in
    your windows, snooping through your trash, tapping your phone lines,
    reading your mail, or following you everyplace you go.  And I would bet
    that some of those aren't illegal either.
    
    Welcome to the 90's; you voted for it, some of you rooted for it,
    now enjoy it.

          <<< Note 2131.34 by NECSC::ROODY "Do Defects save jobs?" >>>
                        -< think before you speak.... >-

    i agree in general this is a good idea to do, but you cant carry this
    word for word, i mean no one can think of what they are
    saying word by word, since words come out sort of from the subconscious, 
    try it yourself, you'll see what i mean, no one can speak and think 
    simultaneously, it is impossible, so what will happen if you want to 
    think and talk all the time is that you'll start babbling like this:

    i would , aaahaaa , like to , ahaahaa , express my , ahaahaa , feelings..
              ^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^                ^^^^^^^
              think               think                  think


    but without worrying about being recorded, the speech would be like this:

    aaahaa, i would like to express my , feelings..
    ^^^^^^^             
    think               

    you see the vast difference!

    i cant imagine a business conversation between 2 DECeee's going
    on using the continuous thinking/talking method for a long time without 
    one having a nervous break down .

    one cant work in place where you have to think every time before you say
    every word, because someone might be recording what you are saying, 
    it will be too stressful an environment , and will definitely lead to 
    permanent changes in your speech pattern.

    iam not a medical person, but iam almost sure this is how the brain
    normally works.

    thank you,

    /nasser

    I can think and speak at the same time. ;^)
    
    Reg.

    and chew gum too ...
    
    The brain is not a serial processor.  Think of it as an SMP Processor
    times 1m, and more reliable - in most cases.   ;^)
    

Taping conversations is totally inappropriate without the mutual consent
of all parties involved........

If you are concerned about the other individual complying with what is
agreed to via the phone, then you follow up the conversation with written
agreements......

Bob (hoping he never hear's "can you hold while I change my tape") Pace

RE: .10
    
    Phil,

>But, if you aren't
>doing or planning anything illegal, what difference does it
>make if someone tapes your conversation? 
    
    If it's illegal to tape it without their consent, that is reason
    enough not to do it!  Some here are arguing from the privacy point; my
    only point is a question of legality.  (I also think it's immoral, but
    agree with you that that is the problem of the taper, not the "tapee.")
    
    Nancy

After listening to the arguements of those who 'support' the taping of 
other people's phone calls under the dubious rationale that if you aren't doing 
anything illegal you shouldn't be concerned about it - 

All I can say is that the standards of behavior and privacy in a RATIONAL
society obviously are very different between the rest of the U.S and the
People's Republic of Massachutsetts.


It would be nice if we could isolate all the advocates of a police state 
someplace where they could live under the system they advocate, even if 
indirectly. 

That way perhaps the rest of us could be left alone.

I, too find it disgusting and frightening that ANYONE could condone let alone
SUPPORT the kind of invasion and infringements we are talking about here.


			Live free or die,
				R

re .39, Nancy,

I just think it's ok to tape your _own_ phone calls in a 
business context, but thanks for reminding me that the
person at the other end should be told of the taping.
(To regress to the basenote for an instant, that was
in fact the situation originally, where the manager
was asked if he wouldn't mind the conversation being
tape. Then apparently it was taped after he said no,
which was not right to do.)

-Phil

re Note 2131.40 by 38AUTO::LILAK:

> All I can say is that the standards of behavior and privacy in a RATIONAL
> society obviously are very different between the rest of the U.S and the
> People's Republic of Massachutsetts.
  
        Why this slam against Massachusetts?  This conference is
        accessed from around the world by the employees of a
        world-wide company.  (Yes, even New Hampshire -- which is
        where I sit.)

        Bob

Re : .42

It may be a bit unfair to tar all of Mass. with the same brush - but I can
say that in my travels I've found more people willing to trade their personal
liberty for security, or to look the other way on infirngements of personal
liberty, in people from the Bay state, than anyone else I've encountered.

It's either a statisical analomy - or a serious philosophic difference in the
role of personal responsibility and the proper role of government.


I'd be willing to bet it is the latter.


			R

    Oh, so you've only visited Boston, Mass.?

I guess where Mr. Lilak comes from, there are a 
lot more tangents to take, which makes life more
interesting.

-PHiL

    I don't get it.  In Mass, it's illegal to tape a private conversation
    without consent.
    
    How is this trampling on anyones personal liberties?  Are you saying
    that you have the *right* to tape a conversation either against
    someones will or without informing them?
    
    What you see as trampling on liberties, others may see as protecting
    liberties and privacy rights (or don't people have a right or
    expectation to privacy?).
    
    Boy, has this note gone off on a tangent.....

re Note 2131.43 by 38AUTO::LILAK:

> It's either a statisical analomy - or a serious philosophic difference in the
> role of personal responsibility and the proper role of government.
  
        Well, there are a number of other possibilities.

        One is that we tend to see what we expect to see.

        You certainly have come to a judgment contrasting
        Massachusetts with the rest of the world.  Perhaps it was a
        pre-judgment?

        Bob

From the Portland Maine NYNEX Phone Book - which may have applicability whether
or not DTN is considered a private network because DTN does use a public carrier
in many places - and would apply I suppose to any public network call ..IMHO!...

Recorded calls require a beep tone:

If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons you will
hear a beep tone every 15 seconds. Use of a recorder without a recorder-connector
containiig a beep tone warning device is not permitted, except on emergency
reporting systems, including police amd fire department lines, or pursuant to
court order.

Unlawful wiretapping is subject to prosecution:

It is a crime under federal and state law for any person, including a telephone
subscriber, to wiretap or otherwise intercept a telephone call, unless that
person obtained the consent of one or both of the parties actually participating
in the call. Properly authorized law enforcement officers can engage in
interceptions without the consent of either party when proceeding under court
orders issued pursuant to applicable provisions of federal law. Under federal
law, the penalty for illegal wiretapping can be imprisonment for five (5) years,
a $10,000 fine, or both.

IMO - the information received from the activities alluded to in the base note
would be for political harassment rather than legal prosecution: if used
legally, I suspect such information would be considered tainted and subject to
criminal counter-suit. 

    Federal law requires that one of the parties involved in a telephone 
    converasation be aware of the recording.
    
    Massachusetts state law, requires that both (all) parties be informed
    of any recording of a telephone conversation
    

>If your conversation is being recorded for business or other reasons you will
>hear a beep tone every 15 seconds. Use of a recorder without a recorder-connector
>containiig a beep tone warning device is not permitted, except on emergency

    that is a good idea, i think thought that 15 seconds is far too 
    on the non conservative side , for one can say many unintelligent and
    stupid things in the span of 15 seconds that will get them in deep trouble
    which they would have other wise have not uttered because they would
    have given this whole affair more depth in thought have they known they
    are being recorded. 
    I henceforth suggest the time slices to be more closely attached, more
    like every 3 seconds no more, this will limit someone to self
    incriminate themselves under undue personal inducement.

    /nasser

Let the tape then consist of nothing but beepings sounds.

Anyway, the basenoter is correct: the vengeance against
him was uncivilized and intolerable, especially someone
messing around with his coffee cups. That's disgusting.

    
    	The taping of celluar telephone conversations (at least in Canada)
    has recently been ruled as legal, and admissible as evidence.  It was
    judged that the airwaves were accessible (via scanners) by anyone who
    desired to eavesdrop on celluar phones.
    
    	This judgement now allows for prosecution of individuals currently
    facing drug charges and had their conversations monitored.
    
    	Not that this has a darn thing to do with the basenote, but 
    is an interesting twist to the rathole...

    Yeah, we're a revolutionary bunch of so-and-so's down here in the old PR
    of M. Nary a day goes by that I don't hear talk of dragging a few
    Republicans down to Walden pond and making them eat squid eyeballs.

    Steve "who's-wife's-cute-name-for-him-is-unprintable" Branam

    P.S. - If you want something publicly known, you establish the context
    in which it is disseminated. You control the information. If someone
    else does it, particularly with malicious intent, they can take it out
    of context and manipulate the meaning. They can edit the information and
    claim that the edited content was your original content. For a current
    example, just turn on the TV and wait for a presidential campaign ad.

    To go back to the base note, and Mr. Levy.
    
    I believe the "incident" of taping by the soon to be TFSO'd 
    employee was to ask a question in such a manner as to get a 
    twisted answer from the manager they were talking to.  Thus 
    providing ammunition for a suit.  In other words the TFSO'd
    person was "setting up" the manager. That is called blackmail,
    and fraud over airwaves ETC.  This is against FCC regs.
    
    Not to mention it is not too smart.
    
    MP

MP, yes you are probably correct. What in the heck was
he doing talking with them? My point is just that,
in a business context, why would anyone say 
anything that they wouldn't repeat in public?

Naively yours,
PAL