Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 September 7

This can be done within 90 days of the event or this can be done 90 days after the event. Do these two phrases mean the same thing? Muzzleflash (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they mean the opposite. "Within an hour" means: not later than an hour after. "Within 90 days of the event" means: not later than 90 days after the event, i.e. not after 90 days of the event, wheareas "90 days after the event" means: after 90 days of the event. HOOTmag (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to muddy the waters a little, "up to 90 days after the event" would mean the same as "within 90 days of the event" (i.e. anytime from day 0, when the event finishes, to day 90). "90 days after the event" could mean only on day 90, or on day 90 or any later day. MChesterMC (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One amusing redundancy or malapropism which you sometimes here in movie or TV dialogue is something like "within 90 days if not sooner." Whatever the current moment in time might be, or any moment in time before 90 days from now, it is already "sooner" than 90 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! :) The latest one creeping in everywhere is "could/might potentially". Sheesh. If something "might" happen, then that in itself is an acknowledgment of its potential to happen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above answers. Let's use a specific event, Christmas Day on December 25, 2015. (A) "Within 90 days of the event" means "the event plus or minus 90 days". In other words, 90 days before Christmas all the way up until 90 days after Christmas (i.e., from September 25, 2015, up until March 25, 2016). Here is another analogy. Let's say that there is a contest and I have to guess your age. I win $100 prize if I can guess your age "within 3 years". If you are age 25, my guess must be "within 3 years" of age 25, for me to win the $100 prize. So, my guess has to be anywhere from "25 minus 3" all the way up to "25 plus 3". So, my guess has to be from age 22 up to age 28 if I want to win the prize. So, the "within" means on either side of the number (or event), to the plus side or to the minus side. So, the first phrase ("within 90 days of the event") refers to a 180-day period; it does not refer to simply a 90-day period. It refers to the 90 days before plus the 90 days after. Hence, 90 days + 90 days = 180 days. (B) Now, onto the second phrase: "this can be done 90 days after the event". This means the time span from Christmas Day (December 25, 2015) up until 90 days has elapsed after that date (March 25, 2016). (Note: I corrected my interpretation of Statement "B" in a subsequent post below.) That is my interpretation of these phrases. Do others disagree? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Strictly, as MChesterMC said, "90 days after the event" means exactly 90 days after the event: not 89, or 88, or 91. So it spaecifies a single day.--Phil Holmes (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! "This can be done 90 days after the event" means exactly on the 90th day (no sooner, no later). Back to my Christmas example, this phrase would mean exactly on the 90th day after Christmas (i.e., March 25, 2016). No sooner and no later. I thought (and still think) that the original question probably meant to say "This can be done within 90 days after the event". Where that one word ("within") makes all of the difference. In context, I suspect that the original question's second phrase was referring to a 90-day span, and not to one specific day (i.e., the 90th day). But, strictly speaking, without the word "within" in the second phrase, the above posts are correct. You are specifying one and only one date (namely, the 90th day after the event, or specifically March 25, 2016, in my Christmas example). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is the current moment, then - would "within an hour" - include also an hour ago? HOOTmag (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say that the current exact moment is 12:00 Noon (to make things easy). So, my hypothetical example is that you have to take a pill. You have to take that pill at 12:00 Noon today (the present exact moment). However, the pill can be taken "within an hour" of that deadline (for lack of a better word). So, the pill can be taken during a two hour window, from 11:00 AM today all the way up until 1:00 PM today. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HOOTmag: I think that this is the difficulty that you are having. There is (clearly) a big difference as to what time the statement is actually made. Let's examine the statement "within an hour" (of this exact moment, which is 12:00 Noon). If that statement is made prior to the time-line's beginning (11:00 AM in my example), then that statement refers to the two-hour window that I described (11:00 AM up until 1:00 PM). So, literally, the statement refers to two hours (not just one). However, if the statement is made right now, at this exact current moment (which is 12:00 Noon), then that first hour has already passed. So, by implication, we are ignoring the first hour (11:00 AM until 12:00 Noon), since that time has already passed. And we are only concerned with the second hour of the two-hour window (namely, 12:00 Noon until 1:00 PM), because that time frame has not yet passed. So, while the phrase literally offers you a two-hour window, we can ignore the first hour, if that hour has already passed (in other words, if the statement is made right now, at the current exact moment of 12:00 Noon). Hope my explanation makes sense? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the judge writes: "This verdict shall be valid within ten days of publishing it formally", does this include also ten days before the verdict is formally published? HOOTmag (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have three thoughts. (Thought #1) The word "within" means "on either side of". So, it means on "either side of" the date, or the number, or the event, or the whatever. The word "within" encompasses both the positive and negative spread (surrounding a number); the before and after spread (surrounding a date); etc. In effect, it "doubles" the quantity. So, "within six days" gives a twelve day spread. Likewise, "within eight hours" gives a sixteen hour spread. And so forth. The quantity is "doubled"' since the word "within" encompasses the quantity twice, one on either side of the starting point (number, date, etc.). (Thought #2) As mentioned in my above post, a lot depends on when the statement is made (i.e., its timing). That is, if it is made before, during, or after the timelines in question. So, the word "within" will (literally) encompass both the plus and minus sides of the starting point. But, if the first "half" of the time period is already gone at the time the statement is made, then you are (practically and implicitly) only dealing with the second "half" of the time period. Here is another analogy. Let's say that there is a contest that runs from January 1 to December 31, 2015. All of the contest submissions are due by midnight on December 31, 2105. A person has 12 months (365 days) to submit their entry. Now, if I make the statement on July 1, 2015, they still have 365 days to submit their entry. However, the first six months are gone and, so, they become moot or irrelevant. But that doesn't change any of the facts. If I make the statement on December 29, they still had 365 days to submit their entry (it just happens to be that 363 of those days have already passed and only 2 more are still remaining). But, again, that doesn't go "back in time" and change any of the facts. So, again, the word "within" literally means a circle of time "around" (before and after) the relevant starting point. But, the timing of when the statement is made (before, during, or after the timeline) will affect the practical (not the literal) interpretations of the statement. (Thought #3) I don't follow what the judge is saying in your hypothetical example. Please clarify, so that perhaps I can answer it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state: If the judge writes: "This verdict shall be valid within ten days of publishing it formally", does this include also ten days before the verdict is formally published? So, I need more specifics. For now, I will interpret the statement like this. The judge makes this comment on January 15. He formally publishes the verdict on April 15. The judge's comment literally means: a time period of ten days before and after April 15. Thus, his literal meaning is from April 5 until April 25 (a period of twenty days). That is his literal meaning. For practical purposes and practical interpretations, he most likely means the period from April 15 until April 25. In other words, he is "cutting out" the first "half" of the time frame. He is "cutting out" the time period of April 5 until April 15. The reason I say this is because there really is "no verdict" until April 15. So, there can't (practically speaking) be a verdict prior to that. Hence, the first "half" of the time frame is excluded for practical purposes. However, I can also see instances where the judge can and does mean the "first half" of the time frame. In other words, I can see a practical example where the judge can and does go "backwards" in time. Let's say that the "guilty" party (or "liable" party) owes me some money, with interest. The judge can say that he owes me the money as of April 5, with interest dating back to April 5, even though the verdict was not pronounced until April 15. So, that is a case where arguably the judge can be referring to time "in the past". Nonetheless, I am not sure what your exact question is. And I don't think a judge would make a statement like that exactly. And I'd need to know when he made it (in order to interpret it). Remember, any interpretation of any language (comment) is always based on context. You have not provided any context. So, please clarify the question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take your example: The verdict, written manually on January 15, and published formally on April 15, determines that Mr. Sanders owes you one million dollars. Additionally, it determines that: a) Mr. Sanders shall pay you a reduced interest rate of 10% - provided that the original amount is paid to you "within ten days of publishing the verdict formally", and that: b) Mr. Sanders shall pay you an interest of 20% - if he pays you the original amount later. Now, let's assume Mr. Sanders pays you one million dollars on April 10. Does he have to pay you the interest as well? Additionally, what if he pays you the original amount on February 1 ? HOOTmag (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are getting me all confused. Because I am not sure if this post is related to the above post? Or if this post is a completely new and different scenario? I will assume the latter, because you significantly changed the wording. In the earlier post above, you specified when the verdict becomes valid. In this later post, you specified when the interest is due. Those seem to be two different questions and different issues. So, anyway, I will answer this most recent post independently, as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the above post (about when the verdict becomes valid). So, to me, Part "A" means as follows. This concerns his eligibility to pay the lower interest rate. Literally: Sanders gets to pay me the lower interest rate of 10% if he paid me my million dollars anywhere from April 5 to April 25. That represents the 20-day spread of ten days plus or minus ("within") from April 15. Practically: Again, the first "half" of the time spread becomes moot. It is impossible for Sanders to have paid me any money at all during the first half of the date spread (April 5 to April 15). (Unless, of course, we are dealing with some escrow account, where money was purposefully "put aside" for me at an earlier date in the event that it is needed at a later date. I don't think this question is asking about such a scenario.) So, bottom line, in practical terms, he has to give me my million dollars from April 15 to April 25, and then he is eligible for the lower interest rate. Part "B": If Sanders paid me at any point prior to April 25, he gets the lower interest rate, and Part "B" becomes a non-issue. If Sanders pays me on April 26 or later, he now gets the higher interest rate. Your other questions don't seem to make sense. (The April 10 and February 1 payment dates.) And I think you are mixing a lot of apples and oranges. How would it come to be the case that Sanders pays me before he is required to pay me? That makes no sense. And that is part of the context needed to interpret and to parse all these words. So, I would need to understand why Sanders is paying me money, when he doesn't ("officially") owe me any money at all? In reality, if I have been paid, there is no lawsuit to move forward. The issue is moot. The lawsuit is to address a remedy or a wrong. If he paid me, there is no wrong that needs to be remedied. So, again, we'd need some context. Namely, why he is paying me money "ahead of time". And, I also want to add, you are mixing too many apples and oranges. There are questions such as: (1) does he owe me any money at all; (2) how much money does he owe me; (3) when does he owe me; (4) does he owe me any interest at all; (5) how much interest does he owe me; (6) when does he owe me; and, on top of all that, (7) when does this verdict become "valid". You are confusing too many issues, and I don't think that your hypothetical statements from the judge cover all seven of these questions. In the end, this is all verbal gymnastics and interpretation of such will be in the context of the situation. If things are this complex, the judge will word his order very carefully (for that very reason). He won't give a general and generic wording, when the complex situation at hand demands specificity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've interpreted me correctly, i.e. my recent response has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous response of mine. As for your question about the circumstances: Mr. Sanders had borrowed one million dollars from you, and had promised to give it back on January 1, but he hadn't done that - so you took him to the court. The verdict was as I have indicated, and Mr. Sanders paid you the original amount on April 10. Does he have to pay you the interest as well? Additionally, what if he paid you the original amount on February 1? HOOTmag (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Within 90 days of right now means less than or equal to 90 days from now. After 90 days from now means greater than 90 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As per the above discussion. "Within" goes in both directions: 90 days plus and 90 days minus the central date in question. Let's say that today is September 7, 2015 (which it is). The time period within 90 days of today (September 7, 2015) is a 180-day time period. It starts on June 7, 2015, and it ends on December 7, 2015. Again, if the concept is verbalized as of this moment right now, then the first half of that time spread is moot and not under consideration. But, literally, it is within the 90 day time frame (which is literally a 180-day time frame).Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a specific context, which you seem to want to apply generally, which it doesn't. If a judge sentences you to a good behaviour bond of 6 months, meaning that you'll be jailed if you re-offend within 6 months, that re-offending cannot be taken to include anything that happened before the sentence was handed down. It can only relate to things that happen up to 6 months after the sentence is handed down. Sometimes a range either side of the correct answer is deemed acceptable, as in your example, but that is not the general case with the word "within". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned many, many, many times above that it all depends on context. (I mentioned it six times, to be exact.) However, as a general rule, the word "within" goes both ways (before/after, plus/minus, etc.). Clearly, the context can change that general presumption. However, let's say that there is absolutely no context whatsoever in a statement (for whatever reason). Then the general rule would hold: "within" creates an umbrella that looks both forward and backward, not just forward. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, that is why context is all-important. And by the way, Joseph, it's already 8 September where I live. Akld guy (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after I typed my statement, I realized that some parts of the world had changed dates already. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to check whether the advertised time when Queen Elizabeth becomes the longest reigning British monarch is correct? People often get these calculations wrong - in the Pirates of Penzance an apprentice born on 29 February and indentured till his 21st birthday discovered he was signed on for 84 years. No - one seems to have allowed for 1900 not being a leap year. There is a story that Russian athletes attending the 1900 Olympics arrived thirteen days late because they were on the Julian calendar. Is this true or is it an urban myth? In this thread there are miscalculations - 90 days before 25 December is 26 September and 90 days after 25 December 2015 is 24 March.

The regulations of the Employment Tribunals require the originating application to be filed "within three months of the date of termination". If you are terminated on 25 December (maybe your employer is Ebenezer Scrooge) and you file on 25 March you are out of time. In Britain, by the Interpretation Act 1889 "month" in a legal document means "calendar month" unless otherwise stated. Previously it meant "lunar month", which is not what astronomers understand by that term but a period of four weeks.

In the Civil Procedure Rules there are time limits on filing documentation in the Court Office. A solicitor attended the County Court on the last day, which was Maundy Thursday, and found everyone had gone home early. He posted the documentation through the letter box and in the subsequent court case it was decided (1) that putting the papers through the letter box when the office is closed is as good as handing them over the counter and (2) in any event, if the office is closed on the last day for filing papers will be accepted on the first day thereafter that the office is open. Whether this applies to the Employment Tribunals I don't know. I believe there is a "definitions" section which covers the point. It certainly applies to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but then that is a branch of the High Court. 80.44.191.140 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Many of the examples above – including some by me – were "off" by a day. Let's use your example. So, you have to file paperwork "within three months of the date of termination". If you were terminated on December 25, then you have until March 24, not March 25, to file the paperwork. March 25 would be one day too late, while March 24 would be the last allowed date. In all of my examples above, it was easier to use dates that "matched" (e.g., December 25 and March 25). I did this because: (1) that was only tangential to the point that I was actually making; and (2) I did not want to add another element of confusion that was unnecessary. In other words, it wasn't "worth it" to distinguish March 24 from March 25. Even though March 24 was technically correct, March 25 served the example better and made it clearer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Sanders pays you on 1 February and you then sue him he can file a defence of "tender before action" which means basically that he offered you the money and therefore you get judgment but have to pay his costs as well as your own. However, if, as seems to be the case here, Sanders paid you and you accepted the money then he can counterclaim for the money he paid you, nobody gets judgment and you still have to pay all the costs. Of course, he may simply defend on the basis that as the account has been settled you have no cause of action and apply for the case to be struck out. Once again, you pay the costs.

The judgment means that if the money is paid before 25 April the lower rate of interest is payable. If the money was paid on 1 April Sanders pays the lower rate.

The original post assumes that every month has thirty days. Some people even think that February has thirty days. (It did once, in Sweden in 1712, but that's another story). Something like 31 September should jump out at you as wrong, as soon as you see it, but unfortunately for many people it doesn't.

A phrase like "Your decree nisi can be made absolute ninety days after pronouncement does not mean that you can only register it on the ninetieth day and if you don't you remain married. Conversely, if a bill of exchange matures ninety days after issue and you don't present it for payment on that day (allowing for any days of grace if the banks are closed on that day) the acceptor is not obliged to honour it. The rules were changed in 1969 when Saturday was made a bank holiday (in the sense that banks could close on Saturdays without incurring liability to their customers). If the maturity date is a common law holiday (Good Friday or Christmas Day) or a Saturday the bill is payable on the preceding business day. If it is a Sunday or Bank Holiday proclaimed or legislated under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 it is payable on the succeeding business day. (Disclaimer - don't take this as gospel as I am neither a lawyer nor a banker).

Ninety days means ninety days, so please don't feed false information to the readers. If you think that something which is wrong looks better than something which is right it is better not to refer to it at all. In normal circumstances ninety days after 25 December is 25 March. It's just unfortunate that in the case you quoted, 25 December 2015, that doesn't hold good. 78.145.16.246 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination by race is called racism. Discrimination by sex is called sexism. What is discrimination by religion called? Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religious discrimination, as you stated in the heading of your posted question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I assume then there is no single word?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Not that I can think of. But that article does give some specific examples in the "See also" list (e.g., antisemitism, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find "creedism" (e.g. at the Old Dominion University's own "Diversity Institute"), but not in dictionaries (yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a short and likewise uncertain discussion from 4 years ago on another site:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Above, "racism is a mindset." That's one use of the word. Racism can also mean (2) an overt racist doctrine or (3) a system of racial oppression. Overt racist doctrine is so unpopular not (we've all heard plenty of "I'm not a racist, but... insert incredibly racist remark") but it's not that long (decades some places, a century or so in others) that it was a widespread overt position. In the 19th century (and well into the 20th), a lot of people who thought they were simply being anthropologists were syntheisizing their prejudices into a pseudo-science of race. As for "system", there are those who would argue that individual attitudes and acts are simply race prejudice, and reserve the term racism for something more systemic. In particular, they would state that it is not necessary for any individuals to be "racists" in order to have a racist system. For example, a racist result may come simply from racially privileged people acting unreflectively, or even from people in an oppressed group behaving in accord with internalized oppression. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism, although that tends to be used for discrimination or conflict between people following different versions of the same religion. Iapetus (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Antitheism. 80.44.191.140 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Anti-clericalism for opposition to clergy (without recesarily opposing religious belief). Iapetus (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue

Is it really correct to say that discrimination by race is the same thing as racism? That discrimination by sex is the same thing as sexism? Yes, I understand that they are very closely related. But, in my mind, they are two different things. For example, I can be racist, but not necessarily discriminate against someone, no? I guess it's all semantics. But I can picture a person who is a racist, but never (actively) discriminates against another race. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is a mindset. Discrimination is behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes. That is a good way to state it. So, the two are, indeed, not the same. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can be a vegetarian but still sometimes eat meat. One can be a carnivore but still sometimes have meals devoid of meat. People seem very ready to tar others with the epithet "racist", when maybe all that's happening is a thoughtless remark that does not mean the person is habitually and wilfully discriminatory of others based on their race. A single action can be racist, but for a person to be racist takes a lot more than a single action. Otherwise, we'd all be liars and thieves and lacking integrity. The expressions "I am", "You are", "He/she is" and "They are" have a lot to answer for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "One can be a vegetarian but still sometimes eat meat." Is that actually correct? I thought that the definition of "vegetarian" is one who eats no meat. Am I incorrect about that? If I am correct, then one cannot be a vegetarian but still sometimes eat meat. The "sometimes eats meat" nullifies the definition of "a person who eats no meat". I don't know much about being a vegetarian. But, I do not believe that it means "a person who mostly does not eat meat, but occasionally will do so". But I could be wrong. I am not that familiar with the topic. I am just applying my layman's knowledge. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just quickly scanned the Wikipedia article on vegetarianism. And there are a lot of semantics being thrown around as to what "really" constitutes being a vegetarian. It seems that within its own community of vegetarians, there is no agreement as to what the term really means (i.e., how much meat, fish, etc., is or is not allowed, in order to use the word "vegetarian" correctly). In other words, the word "vegetarian" means different things to different people. How convenient. As a general rule, people see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and can rationalize anything to fit their needs. So, we can have a person who eats meat and yet claims to be a vegetarian through his own definition of vegetarian. LOL. This conversation reminds me of Rachel Dolezal and Bruce Jenner (and Chelsea Manning and Chastity Bono). Those cases are the exact opposite of the old Shakespeare saying "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In other words, just because I call something a rose, does not make it in fact a rose. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many fingers do most people have? Should we count the thumbs? Akld guy (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you channelling Elizabeth Barrett Browning: How do I love thee? Let me count the ways (Sonnets from the Portuguese, No.43)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you call a bird a dinosaur, does that make it one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been incorrectly thinking a bird wasn't a dinosaur, do you become right just because you thought it before you learned of the evidence that it was? --Jayron32 09:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]