Why does this sound like a bad idea?

[Cykotic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm

[Danny]

They allready do that when you go on holiday to the u.s A:were do you think the idea came from and B: would seriously move form the country if i had to have my dna put on a database becuase i might be a rapist or something, call me picky but i find something offensive about that, go figure.

[MinionZombie]

That's well out of order, and that's another judge thrown into the bracket of "f*cking nuts".

It's already absolutely wrong that people proven innocent cannot get their details removed, that's so messed up, the reason for DNA being there is due to a crime being committed, if no crime has been committed - WHY THE F*CK DO YOU NEED SOMEONE'S DNA?!

This is yet another suggestion towards the already in existence dive into the world of Big Brother...and not the summer-long reality show which is perfectly harmless...no, I'm talking of a world of microphones hidden in lamp-posts and microchips in wheelie bins...oh wait, those already ARE here/being suggested! :eek:

GEEEEZ, freedom doesn't come with an all-knowing, manipulative government. Freedom carries with it danger, but the people are truly free - I know I'd rather have that.

But there's nout wrong with bobbies on the beat, what good is a camera on a pole gonna do when someone's bleeding to death in a doorway after they've been battered by a bunch of drunk eleventeen year olds?!

Cor I tell ya, if I was in power I'd be slapping every nob upside the face with a common sense spatula!

[Cody]

they will regulat how much air you breath next. ctimes gonna go down some. i cant believe even if you visit they take your dna

[MissJacksonCA]

I'd volunteer my DNA so the cops could identify my body... and because I dont plan to rape anyone or murder anyone I'm not too concerned about being falsely accused of any crimes...

I guess its still not such a big deal to me because they already have my fingerprints so heck why not my DNA? B'sides here they're so into my privacy they prolly sneak into my house and steal my DNA anyway... I mean they keep track of what condoms I buy, what milk I drink, and where I buy my gas... I wouldn't be suprised if they randomly began to pin prick people to nab their DNA...

But again... I look at it not as an invasion of my privacy as much as an aid to the police when my dead body gets found somewhere... its kinda like if I had kids i'd be fingerprinting them and keeping DNA of them on file somewhere in case they got kidnapped... its not a pleasant thought for most people to think about but frankly... in this day and age I think its a totally necessary...

If they did it in the U.S. among all our documented citizens it would be a plus because it could create a means for adopted children to find their natural parents and for sperm and egg donor recipients to find the fathers and mothers of their children in case they ever needed a transplant or something...

[Danny]

because its a sheer invasion of our human rights to be catalogued like zoo animals.:bored:

[Cody]

Agreed.

[Neil]

I have no problem with it... As long as it's used purely to put people away who should be put away fine...

The only problem I see is if the information starts getting used for other things (eg: Insurance) - Anyone who's see the awesome film 'Gattaca' will know what I mean...

[_liam_]

i dont know, why does it sound like a bad idea?

how on earth does it infringe on your human rights? zoo animals indeed!
which human rights act does it violate?

NONE! it's just hyperbole.

they could use your BCG skin samples to build a secret database if they wanted to, so one can assume they can be trusted.

how exactly is it an invasion of privacy, the police knowing a code that exists within your blood?

what embarassment does it cause you to have somebody know that code? in what way does it compromise you? it doesnt, does it? just think about it.

i know at first it SOUNDS icky and weird, but just.think.on.it.

surely it is no more or less private than your address, phone number, religion, ethnicity & birthdate - all of which they already have, and nobody complains.

i got arrested a while back, and the copper told me that there was a serial rapist who murdered one of his victims back in the 70s.

he was never caught, but last year they pulled over a drunk driver, who was then abusive to the police. so they arrested him & took his prints & dna.

two weeks later turns out he was the one who did it. they arrested him.

as much light as your characteristically sober reply sheds MZ, i need more rationalisation!

the reason why its useful to have innocent people's DNA is because ALL CRIMINALS WERE BORN INNOCENT.

you may think OMGWTF how orwellian is that for a statement, but i would ask you to WAKE UP. we live in a representative democracy under a government (think about what the word means). we have always been scrutinised, monitored and bossed about - it's because our society is not perfect and these things are regrettably necessary.

just by entering a room you (usually) leave low contact DNA, so many many crimes could be solved (potentially including the one you hypothesise whereby you are bleeding to death in a doorway), and more could be averted just because people know the likelihood of getting caught.

i think it's a good idea (lol)

[Neil]

Hey, I'm up for everyone having a chip in them to show exactly where they are... Imagine the huge drop in crime with that in place :)

The problem would be the mis-use of this information... But none-the-less an interesting premis!

[MinionZombie]

The DNA database is there to catch criminals, if you've done nothing wrong, why should you be slapped into this database, I feel it's unnecessary and is another step towards the "too much information" state.

I see nothing wrong with collecting the DNA of criminals, because you have serial offenders. In the case of the drunk who was abusive - well, he'd committed at least two crimes right there, drink driving and abusing an officer of the law. You do something wrong - you go in the database, simple & fair.

But why on earth should anyone who's done nothing wrong be slapped into the database of DNA alongside actual criminals? And I remain by the point that it's wrong to keep the DNA of someone who is proven innocent.

If someone is suspected of a crime, by all means, take the DNA and compare it - but if the person is found innocent, destroy the samples and let the person go with none of their spit-n-spoodge left in some sticky & moist computer somewhere. :D

It's about respecting your people, it's about providing people who've done nothing wrong with peace of mind, to live as 'unregistered' as possible.

Criminals are the ones who should be profiled and recorded in data banks, not the innocent.

Perhaps, AT MOST, a measure whereby if someone is identified to be of high risk of committing a crime (e.g. if they see a shrink and it's determined they are likely to offend in the future) and keep the data either forever or for say, 10 years. Also, pretty much anyone on an ASBO should get the swab, because people with ASBOs are deemed criminals, right? Ergo - database.

As for Joe Public who's done piss-all wrong, dragged in off the street into a cop shop or swab truck and crammed into a database for no good reason other than "all your info's are belong to us", no-no-no.

Whatever happened to choice? If someone innocent wants to put their fluids into the big gubment PC, fine - but why should the innocent have no choice in the matter? Isn't that what a free society is based on? Freedom of speech and of choice? :rockbrow:

If we have no choice, then how are we ultimately free?

*walks off, stroking beard in thoughtful manner, goes to thumb through some dusty old books...but gets bored and returns to DVD shelf* :D

[_liam_]

the point in taking innocent people's DNA is that if they commit a crime, they will be caught within 2 weeks, and undesirable outcomes like a criminal walking free or an innocent person being charged will not occur.

you see what i mean?

i can see what you mean about the invasion of privacy, but it's such a nitpicky thing to object over when rapists, murderers and paedophiles could be caught with minimum fuss simply due to a small saliva swab.

nobody is going to be dragged off the street into a swab truck :lol: what gave you that impression? - you really should write for the daily mail mate, you have a well honed skill for putting together a good bit of alarmist hyperbole/rhetoric.

they'll just take a swab of infant's mouth at birth. it doesnt hurt, it takes literally 2 seconds, i've had it done.

we dont have freedom of choice, we never have.

i'm not free to download music for free, im not free to murder, to smoke weed, etc etc - it stretches down to more mundane things such as having a passport, paying tax/national insurance - and, i believe, letting the government know who i am & what i'm about so they can run the country for me more efficiently.

[Neil]

If me having a block of data in a database can mean sick ****s and criminals are far more likely to be locked away, I'm up for it!

For it to work everyone has to be on it...

[_liam_]

indeed. for that reason i think being opposed to it is like saying "its intrusive for the government to have a photograph of me & my birthdate/place and home address - i should be able to cross borders without a passport"

my mind is open though, if someone can rationalise it enough for me

[MinionZombie]

If me having a block of data in a database can mean sick ****s and criminals are far more likely to be locked away, I'm up for it!

For it to work everyone has to be on it...
But everybody won't be "up" for it, so it's already deemed useless.

And f*ck the Daily Mail (but equally, f*ck any Liberal-sucking Rag as well).


nobody is going to be dragged off the street into a swab truck

How else would they manage to get through 60+ MILLION people? They'd send trucks out to towns and cities across the country, like they do with Breast Screening. People would then have to go to these places and get poked. Just think about that too - 60 MILLION PEOPLE, how long would that all take, how MUCH would that all COST?

Also, what about all the people living in this country illegally? There's loads getting in undetected, so already having a database of everybody in the country is absolutely laughable and unworkable. Annnnd - what about people under 18, do the parents have a say, do the kids get a say?

Also, what happens to the people who refuse to get themselves prodded by the little DNA stick? Are they eligible for ASBOs or criminal records or fines because they don't agree with a government-run scheme?

And "law and order" in general isn't a government run scheme, it's just obvious...so don't try and manipulate my words into some kind of idiocy like someone objecting to hospitals because they don't like them for some odd reason. This DNA thingy is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from a black & white issue.

It's like the proposed idea a few weeks back that some other nob'ed dreamt up that everybody in the country should be automatically pimped onto the Donor list, and for those who don't want to be on, they'd have to go out of their way to de-register (which would probably be a hassle-and-a-half, especially if it was even half-as-complicated-as filling out tax forms). I thought being a Donor was a choice?

Surely the best idea is to encourage people to sign up to the Donor list - that's the obvious, fair and simple answer to Donor shortages. You can't just assume control over everybody's body parts unless they fill out some complex form - and then what if they're told they're de-registered, but some computer cock up doesn't de-check their name, so after a car crash they get harvested anyway, against their personal wishes.

Think what you will of non-Donors, but the only person who should choose what happens to their organs, is the owner of the organs themselves!

My point being, this DNA database is basically the same situation and the same argument.

Encourage people to volunteer their DNA, but it should purely be a matter of choice of the individual. Like I said before, freedom does come with an element of danger.

As for making a copper's job easier, how about freeing them up from senseless amounts of paperwork that the police themselves are complaining about. How about getting more "bobbies on the beat". How about respecting the victim over the criminal, so that some people cannot make a mockery of the justice system?

Also, isn't DNA not 100% effective? How could this scheme be abused, how could it go wrong, could samples be switched, could the data be corrupted? There's a whole Pandora's Box-load of variables to this scheme.

...

This is also kinda like religious types who put the pressure on Stem Cell research and win, thus making it harder for scientists to do the necessary research which could save many, many lives and cure many illnesses. Surely that should be a case of the religious types shut up, they don't have to accept the treatment if they don't want to, but those who WANT the research done are free for it to continue and then accept the positive outcomes when they become available if they choose to. Otherwise those who want the vast, sweeping rule win and then everybody is in the same boat...which just isn't how life works.

You can't make a vast, sweeping rule, as in these 3 situations, to cover everyone - it's simply unfair, it removes choice.

And I resent the "alarmist" remark, it's merely your opinion, it's not fact, so it's a bit daft to throw around such terms. I could easily throw around some names, but it's silly and has nout to do with the topic at hand. I'm just trying to express my view and represent the opposing side to where you're coming from.

I'm not bitching, I just thought that was a bit unnecessary, even if it was a joke...because I think the Daily Mail suck ass-balls. Besides, a Daily Mail reader believes that videogames make people kill folk...which is absolute baby-sh*t moronity ... yes, I did just make up a new, super-awesome word. :D

But we're still cool...I bet the wall we keep banging our heads against is feeling like a dead horse. :lol:

Anyway, I'm not in the best of moods right now, got a long day of filming tomorrow and I'm in my pre-filming anxiety stage...it's all part of my process...anyway...back to Dead Rising!

*yanks cord on chainsaw, it ROARS into action ... goes off on a Willamette Chainsaw Massacre* :evil:

[_liam_]

But everybody won't be "up" for it, so it's already deemed useless.

And f*ck the Daily Mail (but equally, f*ck any Liberal-sucking Rag as well).



How else would they manage to get through 60+ MILLION people? They'd send trucks out to towns and cities across the country, like they do with Breast Screening. People would then have to go to these places and get poked. Just think about that too - 60 MILLION PEOPLE, how long would that all take, how MUCH would that all COST?

Also, what about all the people living in this country illegally? There's loads getting in undetected, so already having a database of everybody in the country is absolutely laughable and unworkable. Annnnd - what about people under 18, do the parents have a say, do the kids get a say?



you get swabbed when youre born, it gets put on your medical records whether you have been swabbed or not, so whenever you visit the doctor you get swabbed. you can volunteer to get swabbed, when you leave/enter the country you get swabbed, when you get arrested you get swabbed.

it's not that far fetched!



Also, what happens to the people who refuse to get themselves prodded by the little DNA stick? Are they eligible for ASBOs or criminal records or fines because they don't agree with a government-run scheme?



nothing would happen to them.




And "law and order" in general isn't a government run scheme, it's just obvious...so don't try and manipulate my words into some kind of idiocy like someone objecting to hospitals because they don't like them for some odd reason. This DNA thingy is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from a black & white issue.



what? of course law and order is a government run scheme.

who drafts and implements legislation?
who devises & pays the police force?

the government.




It's like the proposed idea a few weeks back that some other nob'ed dreamt up that everybody in the country should be automatically pimped onto the Donor list, and for those who don't want to be on, they'd have to go out of their way to de-register (which would probably be a hassle-and-a-half, especially if it was even half-as-complicated-as filling out tax forms). I thought being a Donor was a choice?

Surely the best idea is to encourage people to sign up to the Donor list - that's the obvious, fair and simple answer to Donor shortages. You can't just assume control over everybody's body parts unless they fill out some complex form - and then what if they're told they're de-registered, but some computer cock up doesn't de-check their name, so after a car crash they get harvested anyway, against their personal wishes.

Think what you will of non-Donors, but the only person who should choose what happens to their organs, is the owner of the organs themselves!



yes, and if you choose not to be on the list, you can knock yourself off the list.

they want to save lives by capitalising on people's laziness, and FAIR PLAY TO THEM FOR TAKING SUCH BOLD INITIATIVE.




My point being, this DNA database is basically the same situation and the same argument.

Encourage people to volunteer their DNA, but it should purely be a matter of choice of the individual. Like I said before, freedom does come with an element of danger.



that's what it will be like, you can refuse a DNA sample at the police station and you wont get in too much trouble




As for making a copper's job easier, how about freeing them up from senseless amounts of paperwork that the police themselves are complaining about. How about getting more "bobbies on the beat". How about respecting the victim over the criminal, so that some people cannot make a mockery of the justice system?

Also, isn't DNA not 100% effective? How could this scheme be abused, how could it go wrong, could samples be switched, could the data be corrupted? There's a whole Pandora's Box-load of variables to this scheme.



it's far less inaccurate than more conventional forms of evidence though isnt it?

yes it could be abused, but so can the current system - and much more so!

more use of DNA testing would make prosecution more effective - you only state the negative sides of things, it seems you dont consider the postives because you dont want to





This is also kinda like religious types who put the pressure on Stem Cell research and win, thus making it harder for scientists to do the necessary research which could save many, many lives and cure many illnesses. Surely that should be a case of the religious types shut up, they don't have to accept the treatment if they don't want to, but those who WANT the research done are free for it to continue and then accept the positive outcomes when they become available if they choose to. Otherwise those who want the vast, sweeping rule win and then everybody is in the same boat...which just isn't how life works.



the bizarre thing mz, is that YOU are taking the same line as those religious people - you are rejecting a technological advance that could benefit our society in many many ways because it vaguely offends your morals in a nin grave fashion.





You can't make a vast, sweeping rule, as in these 3 situations, to cover everyone - it's simply unfair, it removes choice.



exactly so, you can opt out if you like, or failing that you can move to france or something






And I resent the "alarmist" remark, it's merely your opinion, it's not fact, so it's a bit daft to throw around such terms. I could easily throw around some names, but it's silly and has nout to do with the topic at hand. I'm just trying to express my view and represent the opposing side to where you're coming from.


yeah but the thing is you take an undeniably hysterical tone at times, which does resemble the alarmist tabloid style of writing, i'm sorry if that upsets you but it really is the way you come across, when i read your posts it reads like you are shouting and gesticulating wildly, and a lot of what you say is unsubstantiated rhetoric.




I'm not bitching, I just thought that was a bit unnecessary, even if it was a joke...because I think the Daily Mail suck ass-balls. Besides, a Daily Mail reader believes that videogames make people kill folk...which is absolute baby-sh*t moronity ... yes, I did just make up a new, super-awesome word. :D

But we're still cool...I bet the wall we keep banging our heads against is feeling like a dead horse. :lol:

Anyway, I'm not in the best of moods right now, got a long day of filming tomorrow and I'm in my pre-filming anxiety stage...it's all part of my process...anyway...back to Dead Rising!

*yanks cord on chainsaw, it ROARS into action ... goes off on a Willamette Chainsaw Massacre* :evil:

well that's ironic, because when it comes to issues of immigration, government legislation etc you are VERY closely aligned with the DM in your opinions, sorry to break it to you ;)

but aye it's good that we argue, we keep it largely civil, and it keeps one sharp, it simply wont do to surround ones self with people who agree with you, because your arguments get soft and it damages your ability to stand up for what you believe in.

[darth los]

I'd volunteer my DNA so the cops could identify my body... and because I dont plan to rape anyone or murder anyone I'm not too concerned about being falsely accused of any crimes...

I guess its still not such a big deal to me because they already have my fingerprints so heck why not my DNA? B'sides here they're so into my privacy they prolly sneak into my house and steal my DNA anyway... I mean they keep track of what condoms I buy, what milk I drink, and where I buy my gas... I wouldn't be suprised if they randomly began to pin prick people to nab their DNA...

But again... I look at it not as an invasion of my privacy as much as an aid to the police when my dead body gets found somewhere... its kinda like if I had kids i'd be fingerprinting them and keeping DNA of them on file somewhere in case they got kidnapped... its not a pleasant thought for most people to think about but frankly... in this day and age I think its a totally necessary...

If they did it in the U.S. among all our documented citizens it would be a plus because it could create a means for adopted children to find their natural parents and for sperm and egg donor recipients to find the fathers and mothers of their children in case they ever needed a transplant or something...


Good to see you're views haven't changed. :lol: i go away for a while and you haven't missed a beat.


That's the same rationale people use to justify illegal wiretaps, the suspension of habeus corpus among many other wonderful suprises one finds when they read the patriot act. It's defenders say, "If you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a problem with it." That's not the point, it's the principle.

No one seems to be too concerned about the handfull of u.s. citizens who are/have been held at gitmo without charges. They say "if the gov't labels them terrorist or unlawful enemy combatant then they must be guilty of something or atleast bad peeople." The problem with that is the republicans have already called those who vocally oppose our foriegn policy as "aiding and abetting the enemy." It's not a far jump from that to being accused of treason. Theoretically the president could pick you off the street, label you an enemy combatant and hold you indefinitely without charges. I wouldn't be so cavelier about giving away your civil liberties in the name of security or because it's a more efficient way to catch or keep track of criminals.

[Marie]

Hey, I'm up for everyone having a chip in them to show exactly where they are... Imagine the huge drop in crime with that in place :)

The problem would be the mis-use of this information... But none-the-less an interesting premis!

Not to mention the drop in strip club attendence, and in some cases pub and bar revenues.

There surprising number of things people want to keep to themselves that are perfectly legal.

M_

[_liam_]

Not to mention the drop in strip club attendence, and in some cases pub and bar revenues.

There surprising number of things people want to keep to themselves that are perfectly legal.

M_

you talk like it would be broadcast on tv if you went to a stripclub.
people on the street see you walking into those places, as do the clientele & staff, as do the people who do your credit card bills, as do CCTV cameras, and it doesnt put people off.

you know just because the government would have the power to monitor you as you went for a dump, doesnt mean they necessarily would.

the police have the power to make you do all sorts of things at their whim, but they dont, because they do actually have a job to do and targets to meet.

similarly, chip tracking operators would actually be busy tracking people WORTH tracking, rather than spotting mr smith going to a tittybar and telling his wife.

its not like they could have one tracker operator per person, or even per hundred thousand people. it just wouldnt be feasible.

always treat governments with healthy suspicion, but there is a point where suspicion becomes paranoia

[darth los]

If you can't tell people about it then maybe you shouldn't be doing it. :confused:

[_liam_]

i dunno if youre being sarcastic, but thats bollocks, you should be allowed to dress up as little bo peep and have a pvc clad dominatrix force feed you frankfurters without anyone else having to know

[Marie]

you talk like it would be broadcast on tv if you went to a stripclub.
people on the street see you walking into those places, as do the clientele & staff, as do the people who do your credit card bills, as do CCTV cameras, and it doesnt put people off.

Those people don't usually have the ability to identify you. Natural paranoia will keep people away and those nice nekkid ladies will be out of work.


always treat governments with healthy suspicion, but there is a point where suspicion becomes paranoia

Ideally governments are securely under the control of the people. The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates to me that in your view at least this is no longer the case. The solution is to change the government until it is again under control of the people, not implant us all with chips like pets.

M_

[MissJacksonCA]

I really can't imagine strip club attendance would go down just because a chip would tell the government where you're going simply because hey... choicepoint is already telling the government where you're going and what stripper you spend your money in in the champagne room. At least if you're an American that's what's being done... People are going to do what they want to do regardless of the possibility of getting caught because hey the odds of it ever becoming an issue are slim to none. I'm the most paranoid person I know and i'm not really concerned at all by this so its funny that y'all are so up in arms over it. But meh... I do nothing behind closed doors I wouldn't show the world so go figure

[darth los]

i dunno if youre being sarcastic, but thats bollocks, you should be allowed to dress up as little bo peep and have a pvc clad dominatrix force feed you frankfurters without anyone else having to know


I see that you have the photos. I knew taking those pics were a bad idea. So how much do you want? :shifty:

[_liam_]

Those people don't usually have the ability to identify you. Natural paranoia will keep people away and those nice nekkid ladies will be out of work.


CCTV cameras and credit card bills dont have the ability to indentify you?

yes they do.



Ideally governments are securely under the control of the people. The fact that we're even having this discussion indicates to me that in your view at least this is no longer the case. The solution is to change the government until it is again under control of the people, not implant us all with chips like pets.

M_

ideally yes, but that is not the way it works, nor has it ever been. no government of any size worth noting has been under the control of the people.

the solution is to remove the fundamental ativism of mankind and have no need for a government, but that is not going to happen anytime soon, so the solution is to take measures against the problematic eventualities that arise from having a vast, globally networked group of supercivilisations that are nevertheless comprised of millions of vicious, selfish, impulsive & highly intelligent creatures.

Our society has become so intricate that it is almost impossible to maintain a standard of safety or security. Someone could mug you at any time, someone could fly a plane into one of your buildings etc and you wouldnt see it coming. What is to be done?

We can either choose to confront the storm of unfettered human activity that confronts us and try to maintain some degree of order & safety so that we can proliferate further whilst retaining this civilisation & it's achievments, or we can presume that everything will work out and take our chances with the many conflicting idealogies and selfish individuals who want to screw things up

Ordo ab chao, right?

[Marie]

Ordo ab chao, right?

With any luck, but it's a crapshoot.

M_

[MinionZombie]

but aye it's good that we argue, we keep it largely civil, and it keeps one sharp, it simply wont do to surround ones self with people who agree with you, because your arguments get soft and it damages your ability to stand up for what you believe in.

Aye, and that's why I still like you, we have opposing views on certain issues, although we only know each other through this 'ere forum thingy, so you probably think I'm way more right wing than I actually am (I maintain I'm Liberal-Conservative, and that I'm never done considering my opinion on topics - like I STILL don't know what my opinion of the the Iraq war is...and I've tried to come up with an answer many times)...and likewise, I probably think you're more left or possibly socialist than you actually are (but don't read the use of "socialist" in a negative light, you might not even be of that way-of-swaying, I duno...but that's kinda the point I'm trying to make I guess).

Ultimately we don't really know each other, well we don't beyond the world of HPOTD anyway...

So I guess what the main point is, actually I can't even figure out a way to word whatever it might be, see...this is what I mean by an ever-changing view of things. I try very hard to express my opinion as even-handedly as possible (because I believe in being fair and even-handed and such, and I'd consider myself a bit of a realist in part and...it's hard to explain without the third dimension of allowing people to really "get" you, i.e. in real life...like, there's the way things "are" and there's the way things "should" be...or the way things you'd "want" them to be...)

I think though, that part of your possible view of me in such threads, comes down to my way of presentation...I do like to add a bit of drama here and there, or paint a picture - but it's always more from a Jeremy Clarkson perspective...basically, if you could hear me saying the words, it'd be funnier than how it appears in mere text :D ... that's kinda my intention...to try and also help with struggling to comprehend my own thoughts on the complicated goings-on in this world...

Hmmm...that's far-too-deep for this time of the mor...wait...afternoon (gimme a break, I'm "car-lagged" and "London lagged" from yesterday :D)...what, oh I've lost my mind & place...yay...the BASEketball DVD...:)