How Dare Anyone to Make a Comparison?

| December 22, 2011

Don Surber did it.  I don’t think he actually juxtaposed the pix, but the buck has to stop somewhere?

Category: Geezer Alert!

Comments (50)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jonace says:

    thats just black and white.

  2. Ben says:

    It’s the first thing I thought of when I saw it.

    And the media cheered because they always do. They have no intention of reporting news. They push agendas and shape minds.

    I read somewhere that the chick won some kind of lottery to be the first one to kiss her sweetheart. Am I the only one who doubts this? Sounds like a setup.

    To be sure, both women are pretty attractive. One tactic of the homosexual movement is to portray homosexuality in a positive way. Good looking women are often face of homosexuality. I remember right after the Lawrence v. Texas case, one weekly magazine (Time, Newsweek, don’t remember) had a cover story: “Is Gay Marriage next?” Two women were on the cover, one holding a bouquet. They weren’t exactly male fantasy lesbians, but there were attractive women. Two men, or two butch chicks wouldn’t have been such an attractive advertisement, but it would have been more realistic. And because the magazine prefers advertisements to reality, they went with the two women.

    And then I see these two chicks locking lips down at the shipyard and I wonder if it’s really an accident. If two male sailors had been making out, people might have rethought this DADT thing. Or how about Chaz Bono and Rachel Maddow in full on bull dyke mode?

  3. UpNorth says:

    Thanks, Ben. That Chaz/Rachel thought ruined a perfectly good dinner.

  4. Doc Bailey says:

    I’ve never even heard of such a thing as “the first kiss off ship”. The pose did strike me as a little odd, and the fact that there’s only one person in the background. This almost looks staged.

  5. TexasFred says:

    I kissed a girl and I liked it maybe??

  6. Don Surber says:

    Sorry to ruin your dinner.

    When I was in the Army one of my buddies was a Navy CPO who when he had a few beers in him would boast that he joined the Navy to ride the WAVES.

    His wife didn’t like the line all that much.

    She had been in the Navy when they met.

  7. 2549 says:

    Different boats do it different ways. IIRC, it was the boat holding a raffle for First Kiss, I’ve heard of the Wive’s Club holding the raffle. It used to be a raffle with the proceeds going to the boats MWR or Rec Committee fund or something like.

    I wouldn’t put it past the crew buying tickets in her name. That is something we would have done. Stir the pot.

  8. arby says:

    What I want to know is how just who alerted the media and how did they do it? I mean, just how do you do something like that?

  9. OWB says:

    Just guessing here, but this first kiss thing has nothing to do with Victory Parades in NYC? Or the end of armed conflict (those things we used to call “war”)?

    From what has been said among the Navy folks posting here, it sounds like something a boat or ship might do whenever it returns to port. That doesn’t really relate in my mind to a guy grabbing a girl on the street in NYC (for which he was slapped, as the story goes) in celebration of the end of WWII.

    Oh, well. Just one opinion, among many.

  10. Brian says:

    To those of you who think that one or both of those skanky degenerates are “attractrive”, you need to get out more.

  11. Stacy0311 says:

    @Brian-hey after a 6 month WESTPAC, those “skanky degenerates” would be looking pretty good. Oh wait, their ship was only out for 80 days….

  12. Doc Bailey says:

    Brian, you know the Deployment hotness calendar. After three months you’ll go for a normally 6, and after 6 you’re going for 3’s and 4’s, 12 months in you’re going for any piece of ass no matter how mannish.

    As for this kiss, I stand by the belief that this is somehow staged. Even if it is a naval tradition (certainly not on Submarines, or if they are my mom and dad didn’t say word one about it) IT seems kinda funny just how fast this circulated. If this is such a tradition then the Navy certainly wouldn’t send their Photographers to every single one. and if this was some raffle, then the outcome couldn’t have been known too far in advance, and if it was someone screwed up big time for alerting the Media.

  13. Anonymous says:

    At least they’re cute.

  14. insipid says:

    @ Ben: That’s an awful lot of stupid you managed to pack in that post, Ben. I suppose i’ll start here:

    “One tactic of the homosexual movement is to portray homosexuality in a positive way. Good looking women are often face of homosexuality.”

    Yeah, because Brokeback mountain starred two goodlooking women. Oh wait, no, it was two good looking men and your’e full of shit. And Dan Savage and Neil Patrick Harris and Elton John and Zachary Quinto, and Richard Chamberlain and Alan Ball and Bryan Singer- NONE of those are the face of homosexuality, it’s always two hot chicks. Really?

    Plus how often do you EVER see ugly folks in general making out in ANY media? The only ones i can remember was every so often you’d see Roseanne and John Goodman make out on their show. But generally speaking if you went by our media you’d think fat folks never reproduce.

    And this:

    “Two women were on the cover, one holding a bouquet. They weren’t exactly male fantasy lesbians, but there were attractive women. Two men, or two butch chicks wouldn’t have been such an attractive advertisement, but it would have been more realistic. And because the magazine prefers advertisements to reality, they went with the two women.

    And then I see these two chicks locking lips down at the shipyard and I wonder if it’s really an accident. If two male sailors had been making out, people might have rethought this DADT thing. Or how about Chaz Bono and Rachel Maddow in full on bull dyke mode?”

    First off, i don’t think Rachel Maddow is an unattractive person. Secondly i reject entirely your proposition that two attractive gay men would be seen as repulsive by most people. It depends on how the gay men looked. Thirty percent of the audience for queer as folks was straight women, 10% of gay porn purchases are to straight women.

    Thirdly, and most importantly, why do you feel that you have the right to take away MY rights because you find the idea of gay sexuality icky? Why must i subjugate my rights to the fact that you’re still prepubescent when it comes to gay sex?
    When i was 7 years old i thought the idea of kissing a girl was icky, when i found out how babies were “made” i thought it was gross. Then i grew up. You grew up to when it came to straight sex, but you have yet to grow up when it comes to gay sex. And it’s WAY past time you do grow up.

    Cause if there’s one thing that my occaisonal reading of this blog has shown me, it’s really not about anything other then you’re finding it icky. It’s not about religion or morals or defending marriage. It’s just that you think of gay rights and automatically think of someone having a 12 inch dick shove up their ass. Caus i’ve never once started arguing for ANY rights on this thread without someone lamenting how gross male sex supposedly is.

    It’s time you get over that. I’m not saying participate. But when I see a guy and a girl kiss, or even see a love scene featuring a guy and girl in the movies I don’t cover my eyes and go “EEEWWW!”. Why? Because our culture and our life is inundated with heterosexual imagery. Right now in Europe guys can hold hands and kiss right in public and it’s really not a big deal. Because they see it all the time. Someday photos like the one above will be common place. And it won’t bother people at all.

    I’m sorry but your desire to never feel uncomfortable is a poor excuse to take away the rights of others.

  15. Doc Bailey says:

    Insipid, don’t get but hurt, but news flash, some people think Homosexuality is NOT A GOOD THING.

    Personally I think it is counter productive, and while I’m sure its all about the “feeling good” I find it awe inspiring just how sensitive Gays and Lesbians get. If you are not showering them with praise or even mildly scornful, you are worse than Hitler. Really makes you wonder why you would want to live that way.

  16. insipid says:

    I’m a gay man living in Ohio. Do you honestly feel that is “news” to me?

    I honestly don’t give a flying fuck whether you think it’s a “good thing” or not. I don’t think being fat is a good thing either. I’d rather not see a fat fuck, i find them disgusting. But that doesn’t mean I want to write legislation taking away their twinkies or mandating that they go to the gym.

    I know you conservatives insist that being a fat fuck is genetic and being gay is a choice, but that’s not reality.

    The actual “awe inspiring” thing is how YOU get your panties in a twist whenever we assert ANY rights. The right to serve in the military, the right not to get fired for being gay hell even marriage rights are basically conservative values.

    Furthermore, you conservatives aren’t simply criticizing us or being scornful you’re trying to take away our rights or preventing us from gaining right. To pretend you’re just critical bystanders is dishonest. And i’ve noticed just how “sensitive” you all our when ever anyone even HINTS that maybe a smidgen of gun control MIGHT be a good idea. So don’t go talking to me about sensitive.

    The fact is the most overbearing in your face lifestyle Nazis are the religious right. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t do a war on gayness every fucking year, it’s always the war on Christmas. Oral Roberts Jr., Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson and others weren’t going on the air asking us if we “found” dick, they want to know about Jesus. And i’ve never had a gay person go to my house with a pamphlet about how gay can change my life.
    But even though i’m not crazy about religious nut-jobs either, i’m not trying to legislate away religious nutitude (although unlike homsexuality THAT is a choice).
    So if i can deal with fat-fucks and religious idiots, you can hang with the gay, mmm-kay?

  17. Doc Bailey says:

    See what I mean about getting your panties in a twist?

    As for religion, that’s mine. It give me a lot, and strangely almost all western morals are based on your Basic Judao-Christian values. But I’m not going to try to convert you in any way shape or form. for a non religious, purely secular argument, based entirely on biology. If these men are meant to be with men and women meant to be with women. . . why don’t the parts match up?

    Furthermore you tend not to understand a basic part of what it means to be conservative in essence we’re Individualists. We believe people should be left the hell alone. See its the LIBERALS who want to impose laws that you have to follow.

    Dude you keep spinning your wheels. Keep getting in a hissy, and you may not realize this you’re really not helping your case.

  18. Brian says:

    It’s Christmas. Yay!!!

  19. insipid says:

    I disagree with the premise that morals have anything to do with religion. In fact, it’s a lot more comendable to be a moral person without the belief that someone is watching you. I don’t need the presence of a god to convince me that i shouldn’t steal.

    Also, modern conservatism is FAR from being about individualism it’s about conformity. You don’t want gays to be gays, you don’t want a Muslim in the White house. This whole site is one “hissy fit” after another, either about gays or hippies or anyone else, besides yourselves asserting their individuality. In fact the whole uproar of this picture is over the fact that these two women aren’t conforming. You don’t believe in leaving gays alone, you don’t believe in leaving woman’s uteruses alone. The idea that conservatism is about individualism is a crock of shit.

    As far as biology goes, homosexuality exists in just about every species. Homophobia exists in one. Who here is being unnatural?

    I don’t know if you even realize how absurd you sound. I want freedom! Except fot the gays and lesbians and hippies! Your panties are in a constant twist over any differences. I mean that’s the premise of this site, right? We can see all the bad people coming for us and it’s hell? Rights for everyone! Well…just for us really….

    The KKK also say they want freedom. Come to think of it most of them would call themeselves “conservatives”.

  20. Brian says:

    #19 – FYI, There are species of plants and animals which
    have both male and female characteristics. Homosexuality
    per se exists only in neurotic humans. That’s the breaks.

  21. Brian says:

    BTW, speaking of “biological”, what you call “homophobia” is normal, natural, rational and logical. It goes to the issues of the survival of the species and the survival of the fittest.

    Your defensiveness is a natural reflex, too. In their madness, even rabid animals have an instinct for survival. (Perhaps not a tactful analogy. But one that makes my point.)

  22. Brian says:

    One more point: The seed of homosexuality will take root and grow only when it is planted in someone who is already neurotic. You rationalize the way that you do not because you are a homosexual, but because you are neurotic. Now, y’all have a nice day …, and, oh yeah, Merry Christmas, too.

  23. CI says:

    @17 – “Furthermore you tend not to understand a basic part of what it means to be conservative in essence we’re Individualists. We believe people should be left the hell alone. See its the LIBERALS who want to impose laws that you have to follow.”

    Why is it alleged Conservatives who favor laws prohibiting sodomy? This is but one of the many reasons I had to leave the GOP. Modern Conservatism doesn’t mean individual liberty anymore.

  24. Nicki says:

    Folks, you’re never going to get people to agree on whether homosexuality is a good or bad thing. That shouldn’t be what it’s about. These women volunteered to serve, and they (as far as I know) are serving their country honorably. They are our fellow servicemembers. Why are there people here getting themselves wrapped around the axle because two consenting adults in a relationship are sharing a kiss after being apart???

    I don’t care if it was staged. According to one story Gaeta bought $50 worth of $1 tickets in a raffle – a raffle benefiting military kids – for the privilege of having that kiss. Cut them a damn break!

    Stop rationalizing why someone is homosexual! Ultimately, it’s none of your business and in no way infringes on your rights and freedoms. Personally, I can’t imagine it is a choice. Why would anyone choose to be reviled by their families, called deviant, told they are going to hell, beat up in school, insulted and abused, and many times disowned by their loved ones. Why the hell would anyone choose this??

    But again, that’s not the issue here. The issue here is two people who obviously care about one another shared a kiss after being apart. Why can’t we just let it be?

  25. Old Trooper says:

    @23; I disagree. Conservatism still stands for individual liberty. The problem is the perception that the leftists keep forwarding in their analysis of what conservatives are. A prime example is what insipid has been belching in this thread. I don’t give a flying rats ass who takes it up the ass or who yodels in whose cave, however, I get my own undies in a twist when someone tells me I must accept them or else I’m intolerant and homophobic (phobia being a fear and I’m not afraid of them, so the homophobic bullshit label is really just their way of trying to make us feel guilty) and that everyone else needs to celebrate their choices or they are all intolerant bigots. Really? I don’t have to do shit. All I HAVE to do is die and pay taxes. In reality, they are being far more intolerant of me than I am of them, but they want to be the victim, so we endure people like insipid telling us what it is to be conservative.

  26. OWB says:

    Well, Nicki, it is none of my business until it is put into my view. THAT is the issue for me. The only issue.

    Each of us should have the freedom to associate with whomever we choose. We should each have the freedom to make choices, as long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of others.

    Notice, that I did NOT say anything about rights here. No one has the right to impose their values upon me.

    Are there situations where persons’ freedoms conflict with the freedoms of others? Of course. It happens every day. Always has. And that will be an issue in a free society as long as the society remains free.

  27. CI says:

    @25 – I can’t speak for Insipid or leftists. Conservatism to me breaks down to not stealing, harming or depriving citizens of liberty. When a person, group or party is not content with living by their personal standards of consensual, non-violent activity…but presumes to impose those standards on others… defies Conservatism. You don’t have to accept anything…neither do I.

  28. Nicki says:

    OWB –

    “Well, Nicki, it is none of my business until it is put into my view. THAT is the issue for me. The only issue.” — The Constitution protects all our freedoms, but there’s no freedom to not be offended or insulted by what you see.

    “Each of us should have the freedom to associate with whomever we choose. We should each have the freedom to make choices, as long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of others.” — I absolutely agree. 100 percent.

    Rights and freedoms are simultaneous. That means everyone has the same rights and freedoms, and the exercise thereof does not infringe on the same rights and freedoms of others. If everyone has the right to associate with whomever we choose, then it stands to reason that the fact that some of us are squicked out by said association shouldn’t entitle us to limit it by claiming offense.

    No one has the right to impose their values upon you by force. Absolutely not. Nor would I EVER claim that.

    Personally, I’m happy for these women. Not something I’d engage in, but hey… to each his own. 🙂

  29. Old Trooper says:

    @27: That’s what I’m talking about. I am a conservative and have been for a very long time (even before the Reagan revolution), however, I don’t consider myself a republican. Not because of the same reasons that leftists think that conservatives have are (the whole religion aspect, etc.), but because I have stood in the same place while the party has shifted to the left. Just as Reagan said about the democrat party “I didn’t leave the democrat party; they left me”, I say the same about the republican party. I was a vocal opponent of the “moral majority” back in the 80’s simply because they were attempting to use the republican party and conservatism as their backers in their version of morality. They weren’t a “majority” and they weren’t ascribing to the things that the Constitution lays out in that we have the freedom to believe and do what we want as long as we aren’t trampling on other peoples rights in doing it. The democrats and the left are doing the same thing with “gay rights” now, but they don’t see it that way.

    I have had the misfortune of having to watch a gay pride parade and I can tell you that the actions and attire of the participants wouldn’t be acceptable had they been heterosexual, because pretty much every public decency law was being violated, but everyone is afraid to say anything for fear of being labeled a “homophobe”. I have gay friends and a gay relative and they don’t stand for those kinds of displays, either, but because they aren’t militant about showing their gayness and telling everyone else they must accept them, they don’t get any press or support from the alphabet organization (GLBT) or alphabet networks.

  30. CI says:

    @29 – I think I understand exactly where you’re coming from. I was a fervent member of the GOP until about a decade or so ago.

    I have zero affection for what I believe to be a minority element in the ‘gay community’. I can somewhat understand frustration and backlash, but now as gay Americans receive parity, if those events continue, it’s going to be top their detriment. Political correctness has absolutely been at play by the left, but it also exists in corners of the right.

    You may or may not agree, but I firmly believe that if Conservatives by and large took a civil libertarian view towards homosexuality, it would sabotage the push from the left.

  31. Brian says:

    24/28 – All that I read there were specious arguments. You aren’t supporting them. You are contributing to their delinquency. Tell me the truth. Did you vote for Obama?

  32. Nicki says:

    @32 – You’re an idiot. Truly. Ask TSO if I would ever vote for Obama. He’s known me for years.

    Because I don’t think gays who volunteer to serve their nation should be treated as 2nd class citizens I’m necessarily a liberal?

    And speaking of not supporting your arguments… how about some documentation supporting your specious claim that homosexuals are somehow on the whole created by a bad daddy complex? Preferably something that isn’t manufactured by some nutty organization like WND.

  33. Joe says:

    #20, Brian – you’re just flat wrong on that one.

  34. Brian says:

    #33 – LOL All that I read there was smoke, mirrors and BS. No substance. No facts. Just a lame attempt to safe face. I didn’t even mention the extraneous and irrelevant issues which you raised in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. LOL

  35. Nicki says:

    #35 – keep showing your ass. It’s quite amusing. Kind of like watching a monkey hurl excrement in impotent anger.

    Have a nice day.

  36. Brian says:

    #34 – You’re entitled to your opinion.

  37. Brian says:

    #35 – Amusing, huh? But, but, but you’re not laughing.

  38. Old Trooper says:

    @33: Volunteering to serve should be the equalizer, but, unfortunately, that isn’t what’s at work for the most part. Those that put their religion, sexual preference, ethnicity, or skin color in front of their service are the ones that are being forwarded and that is wrong. If being gay is your priority over serving, then you aren’t fit to serve.

    As others have wondered; how many times is a “first kiss” from a returning ship photographed and plastered across the media? What war was won that precipitated the photographers being there to record the embrace? They put sexuality before service. Why? Because it wasn’t about service, it was about forwarding an agenda.

    Just as we are supposed to celebrate diversity, which has actually done more to divide us than unite us. I don’t consider myself a German-American Veteran, I consider myself an American Veteran. America used to be a melting pot, but with the gradual, and sometimes militant, introduction of “diversity”, we have become a hyphenated nation where you are an American second. The same is being implemented in the military with the introduction of the “gay-soldier, sailor, airman, or marine”. Now, contrary to civilian understanding of the military, it isn’t supposed to be a celebration of diversity where being a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine comes second.

    That’s my opinion and YMMV

  39. Nicki says:

    OT – I actually agree with you that those who put their sexual preference over service don’t deserve to serve. I think, though, that MOST gays just want to serve and not worry about being drummed out of the service if someone finds out they’re in a relationship with someone of the same gender. To me, it’s just not important.

    As for the first kiss – it’s a media thing. Seriously. It’s a “first” — something that hasn’t happened before (and wouldn’t have without UCMJ action), so they cover it. I doubt there is a more nefarious purpose than that.

    I could give a crap about diversity, honestly. I’m an American. I’m an American veteran. I don’t care what anyone else is, as long as they shoot straight and can back me up when SHTF. The only thing I DON’T want to see is people who legitimately want to serve their nation, who are willing to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, who serve alongside us, be persecuted for loving someone of whom we don’t approve.

    Know what I mean?

  40. Old Trooper says:

    @40: “Know what I mean?”

    Yep, I do.

  41. Just Plain Jason says:

    What’s the similarity? A sailor kissing someone?

  42. UpNorth says:

    “The right to serve in the military”, in #16. Kindly enumerate where that “right” is set out?

  43. Best Military Quote:

    “When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it
    became optional, and now it’s legal. I’m getting out before the
    Democrats make it mandatory.”

    Gunnery Sgt Harry Berres, USMC

  44. CI says:

    That is funny!

  45. re my #44;
    You really have to worry when your rater asks “How bad do you want that promotion?

  46. Doc Bailey says:

    @19: You are free. Free to do all the carnal acts you want. I am free to tell you I don’t want to know about it. You’re free to make how you have sex part of your identity, and I’m free to tell you its pretty insane to make your whole identity in life revolve around sex.

    In fact I’m usuing my rights right now to explain that the only “homosexuality” in “almost every species on the planet” is actually not for the purposes of sex, pleasure etc, but dominance. Except for dolphins, those horny fuckers have been known to rape anything that moves. In fact I know of only three mammalian species that do anything resembling homosexuality: Dolphins, Chimps and humans. And those three species only Humans would only have sex with the same sex.

    Now you could make an argument for transgenderism based on the animal kingdom, but again this would be a flawed analogy. The Shepard fish is known to change its sex depending on the local population. If there are too many males, the smallest males will become female if there are too many females the largest Female will become male. But again this is a flawed analogy, because their way of fertilization takes place outside their bodies. You could also use the Lantern fish. The Females have big scary teeth, and a lantern out in front of them. Really nightmare creatures. the males are barely the size of your pinky toe. When the males find the females they litterally bite onto them and a (VERY) strange process begins where in the male becomes part of the Female and essentially becomes nothing but a large sperm sack, after fertilization he shrivels up and falls off (would that make him a dickhead?) here’s the thing though whatever sex they end up as they started off the opposite. But even those two examples are highly flawed as a rational explination for Transgenderism, BECAUSE HUMAN TRANSGENDERS CAN NOT EVER HAVE CHILDREN

    You want you’re “rights”? show me where your rights are being infringed? You want to get married? Have you forgotten that Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, and practice? Though almost all major religions have similarities, there was no such thing as marriage before religion. Protohumans, and even our pre (and in some cases post) stone age ancestors were NOT monogamous by any stretch of the imagination.

    The only civilization I know of that embraced homosexuality with open arms was the Greeks. But they were pretty weird about it, and ultimately Athens got so much shit for NMBLA style stuff that they changed their minds and said that it’s probably better to have lusty sex with the opposite sex. Even when they were full on Gay, it was expected that you have a wife and children, and that you were really odd if you didn’t. Hell half the reason they put Socrates to death was because he was not having enough sex with women.

    Actually if we’re speaking purely on evolutionary terms, species have a vested interest in not allowing the sick, or weak, or those that might pass on genetic deficiencies to procreate. so Brian does have a point in #19, and 20

    Lastly Religion: you say wouldn’t a man be more commendable if he was moral without something watching over him? I answer: no. there are certain times Morality must be in absolutes. Sure religious people make mistakes all the time, and the first sign you’re doing wrong is that you’re rationalizing it. But a house without a firm foundation is doomed to fall. Tell me do you believe “though shalt not steal” or “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (husband in your case I presume)” or “Thou shalt not commit adultery” are good moral laws? Well OWS is trying to violate the first and we have seen time and again “moral” men who are not in fact very religious (despite claims to the contrary) violating the second/third all the time. The result is our society is a wreck. We have “moral” men making rationalizations for all manner of heinous behavior and getting away with it. PFC Manning, NAMBLA, Willie Horton, the NSDAP (National Socialist Party), the Soviet Union, the list goes on and on, all full of “moral” men making rationalizations that cause unthinkable damage (willie Horton is a great example of why you can not trust a Democratic Governor). So no. You may want to congradulate yourself on your “moral” stances but unless it has some firm base, you might as well be pissing into a fan

    Thus concludes the lesson for today.

  47. Al says:

    #47 The thing is with marriage is that it is no longer just a religious ceremony. It carries with it a legal precedent to your domestic partner. That is what LGBT community is fighting for.

    As for the example you used about animals and homosexuality. I would like to see some links to those findings. I have never heard that arguement to homosexuality before.

  48. Doc Bailey says:

    @47 please be more specific as to which arguments you want links to?

    As far as your first point, I could believe it was simply about wanting equal rights if the “movement” in my home stater weren’t so set on throwing their lifestyle in the faces, of everyone that doesn’t agree with them. California was not a good place to be when prop 8 passed.

  49. Brian says:

    #49 – When they ask for links, that is just a diversion.

    You can give them 50 links, and they won’t Google any of them. I know. I’ve been down that road many times. No more.

    Besides, if they want to disprove your comments, let them research it. That is [not] your responsibility, especially since you will be spinning your wheels and wasting your time with them anyway.