Disqus - Latest Comments for stephenbuckley

Re: Flagship Report | Open Government Partnership

Stephen Buckley — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:08:57 -0000

First of all, I want to make it clear that I have been an active advocate of #OpenGov for many years before the birth of the Open Government Partnership. And since it was born, I have wanted, and worked towards, the OGP to be as successful as possible.

That being said, I am responding one of your "Likely Questions" in which you anticipate someone (like me) asking this:

"I want to give feedback on the overall report or a particular area which is not part of the September consultations. How do I do that?"

So, your answer is, basically, that if people think that you (i.e., anonymous OGP people) are missing something (like, oh, worldwide citizen frustration with 20th-century democracy, resulting in Brexit or Trump election), then they should send you an email ... period.

I'm sorry that I missed the September consultations, but does that mean that the only way to participate in an #open discussion on the direction of the OGP is to send a single email to an unknown person in the OGP and hope for the best?

If you have reached only *80* people during your September consultation, then I suggest that you continue your outreach until you are engaging at least 1,000 #OpenGov advocates! Eighty (80) is not enough! #OMG

I have ideas about how to improve that, but you need to respond to me here, in an #open way, for everyone to see that you are willing to consider, yes, a more #open and #participatory way of improving the work of the Open Government Partnership.

For a start: The actual names of OGP people behind this would be a good first step in improving the people's relationship with OGP. #transparency

Stephen Buckley
twitter.com@transpartisan
skype: opengov

Re: United States End-of-Term Report 2015-2017 - For Public Comment

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 25 May 2018 19:58:53 -0000

For the past 4 years, I have been participating (or, rather, trying to) in the U.S. Govt's #OpenGov Working Group, as representative of the U.S. Chapter (1400 members) of the International Association for Public Participation (established 1990).

I want to be clear that the comments that I made on the OGP's IRM Report on the U.S. OpenGov Report 2015-2017 are my own opinions, which may not necessarily be the same as any official IAP2-USA position. That platform for comments is located at http://ogp.civicomment.org/...

Anyone interested in joining a moderated email-group about Evaluation of #OpenGov, for deeper and broader information and discussion, can do so by sending any message to: opengovmetrics+subscribe@googlegroups.com

And/or you can follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/opengov...

Re: United States Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017 - For Public Comment

Stephen Buckley — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:09:30 -0000

I am the #OpenGov rep for the U.S. Chapter of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2-USA) at http://iap2usa.org . I just shared this RFC with the U.S. Open Government google-group. And if you want to share your thoughts beyond this page, you can also publicly post to OpenGovMetrics@googlegroups.com (without having to subscribe).

I am encouraged by this report because it recognizes that groups like IAP2, who want to share their decades of expertise in Public Participation, have been largely excluded from doing so (see pages 99-102).

The OGP's report says that the U.S. Government's OpenGov effort (started 2009) should be more open and inclusive in developing its next "National Action Plan" (NAP 4.0), especially with the organizations whose "business" is That Very Thing, i.e., how to engage people in open and public problem-solving in the matters that affect their lives.

That "Action Plan" is being developed right now (for delivery by the end of October).
See https://open.usa.gov . However, they appear to be repeating the same exclusionary practices that the U.S. team has been told by OGP to change, as evidenced in this report covering the previous plan (NAP 3.0) from 2015-2016.

Ironically, this #OpenGov program was supposed to get federal agencies to be better listeners to the people outside of government, because they know things that the government experts do not. But, over the last eight years, the succession of White House people put in charge of this "listening" program have VERY RARELY acted in a way that had shown they understand the need to "walk the talk" and admit that some people, outside of D.C., hold pieces of the puzzle that they do not possess.

Steve Buckley
https://twitter.com/OpenGov...
https://join.me/opengovernment
skype: opengov

Re: Special Counsel Issues Reminder That Agencies Cannot Gag Whistleblowers

Stephen Buckley — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 00:48:09 -0000

Well, I worked at 5 federal agencies, from HQ down to field offices, and I saw "government waste" quite often, but that doesn't mean each case qualified as a "scandal".

So, therefore, a total lack of "scandals" under Obama doesn't mean there was a total lack of "waste, fraud, and abuse".

I'm glad if your corner of the bureaucracy operated at 100% efficiency, but that would be the exception.

Re: United States End-of-Term Report for Public Comment 2014-2015

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:55:11 -0000

I am with the U.S. Chapter of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2-USA), acting since May 2014 as official liaison to the White House's Interagency Open Government Working Group, after having followed and participated in the #OpenGov effort under President Obama since launching it on his first full day in office, January 21, 2009 - https://obamawhitehouse.arc... . Before that, I was a U.S. government employee working in Public Engagement (e.g., related to environmental programs) at five federal agencies during my 25 years in Washington, D.C. (In other words, "Open Government" has been around for a long time.)

This is not an official statement from IAP2-USA but, based on my experience over these last 8 years, I have NOT seen ANY objective evidence (except for anecdotal) that there has been anything resembling a "Major" step forward in Public Participation (see page 5) by federal agencies of the U.S. government. Nor have I met anyone with a background in Public Participation who believes there has been such a "Major" improvement in Open Government.

So, therefore, I was very much taken aback that this End-of-Term Report (on page 2) uses our "IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation" to offer that, in developing the U.S. OpenGov Plan (NAP) the level of Public Consultation had achieved the "Involve" level (i.e., "To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered").

"Civil society" organizations (i.e., non-governmental organizations) are a very, very small part of "the public". So, of course, involvement by only a relative handful of organizations ("the current civil society coalition", p. 2) should NOT be equated with the level of the broader, more open "Public Consultation" that is required by the Open Government Partnership of its member-nations.

On many occasions, not just during 2014-2015 period of this Report, the IAP2-USA has not been invited to OpenGov discussions with "civil society" on the topic of improving Public Participation, even though they knew THAT has been IAP2's primary goal for over 25 years, more than any other organization in the world!

For instance, how can one develop "best practices & metrics" for Public Participation (see page 8) and NOT invite input from the world's premier organization on that very topic ... until the very last month (December!) of a Two-Year plan ... when they were specifically advised, and were promised, to be involved in a TIMELY manner (which, BTW, is a "best practice", i.e., Core Value of IAP2)!

And, what of this comment period for this Report, right now? I only know about this Request-for-Comments because I stumbled across it, just a few days ago, while I was looking for something else on the OpenGov Partnership website. So now I'm scrambling to write this up because we weren't notified .. at all. At the very least, you should have posted your Request-for-Comment to the White House's (open) email-group on Open Government (400 susbscribers; see link, above). I see the author of this Report just posted something else there (Jan. 17, 2017), so it's curious that you only posted this somewhere your website and left it at that. (Comment: Not a "best-practice", either.)

BUT, it's not too late for us, the advocates of #OpenGov to discuss "Lessons-to-be-Learned", even if it's after some some arbitrary Report deadline that the OGP has. If OGP is willing to collaborate, in a more open manner, the IAP2 (and similare orgs) can help you engage these, the "forgotten people" of the Public Participation/Engagement community.

For example, we can screen-share the Report with an open, moderated discussion at https://join.me/opengovernment (so that no one has to be in Washington, DC to participate). Anyone else interested is participating is invited to respond here, also.

best,

Stephen Buckley @OpenGovMetrics
IAP2-USA liaison to White House's Interagency Open Government Working Group
International Association for Public Participation - U.S. chapter
http://www.iap2usa.org

P.S. In case you missed it (because many still don't know): The #1 indicator of a Trump supporter --> "People like me have no say in government." --> https://twitter.com/OpenGov...

NOTE: This message may not necessarily reflect the official position of the IAP2-USA.

Re: TransparencyCamp

Stephen Buckley — Thu, 29 May 2014 02:42:08 -0000

Yes, I recently heard Ellen Miller speak about Sunlight discovering "human-centric" design instead of "data-centric" or "tech-centric". Twenty years ago, we were talking about "citizen/customer-centric", even though we were really hyped about what would happen (i.e., civic-tech) when everyone got on the Internet.

https://twitter.com/transpa...

But guess what? We now have 1000x as many people online and 1000x faster connection, but people are still hyped that just-a-little-more technology will make us all better collaborators. But the technology is not limiting us now, WE are the weak spot.

So it's a good to see others are figuring out that we should first discover what WE (the users) need, and THEN see what the various Tools/Data/Apps can do to fill that need.

Look for me at TCamp14. I'll be the one with a red shirt on Day 1.

Steve Buckley, http://twitter.com/OpenGovM...

Re: TransparencyCamp

Stephen Buckley — Thu, 29 May 2014 02:19:59 -0000

Five years ago, I suggested the same thing when Beth Noveck set up the White House's online Open Government Dialogue. I never got any feedback on the idea from White House/Noveck. Probably because standardized terminology is not fun when compared to hackathons for "killer apps".

http://ideascale.com/a/dtd/...

orginally posted here:
http://ustransparency.blogs...

But it is necessary, so I'm glad to see Noveck's minions at GovLab are coming to the same conclusion and I welcome the collaboration. http://ideascale.com/a/dtd/...

Let's connect at TCamp14 (look for the guy with Red Shirt on Day 1).

Steve Buckley, http://twitter.com/OpenGovM...

Re: Introducing the MyGov Account

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:21:39 -0000

You said:

"Agencies can create apps that, after authorization from a citizen, can access their profile, assign them tasks, send them notifications, and submit forms on their behalf."

Please clarify the part about agencies creating "apps that ... assign them tasks". (Who is "them" in that sentence? Citizens?)

Also: As a former fed at five agencies, I know that federal bureaucrats are not inclined to make their existing notices any more available to the public .. unless they are directed to do so by the White House. Is that going to happen? (I'm talking about something real, like a memo from OMB .. not another frothy speech or blog-post.)

Thanks,

Stephen Buckley @transpartisan @opengovmetrics

Re: Introducing the MyGov Discovery Bar

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:38:17 -0000

Dear TeamMyGov,

When I click on your link (above) to "sign up for the beta", I go to a webpage where I see this:

"Gone are the days of entering your name and address into forms over and over again."
"Tell us what matters to you, and we'll send you timely messages."
"Content and services from across government that matter to you."

Really? Well, ProjectMyGov matters to me, but the messages I get about it are not timely, even though I continue to fill in your forms over and over. Do you now see the irony here?!

I signed up for email-updates last May. As soon as it was offered, back in November, I requested an invite to be beta-tester and was told to be patient, as participants were being admitted "in waves". It's now been two months, and have received no invitation, nor any explanation of how this "beta-testing-in-waves" is working (e.g., how many "waves" have there been so far; how many people in each new wave; etc.) so that we can know what to expect.

BTW: I was the original proponent of "MyGov.gov" back in 2009 but, alas, I don't know how to "code", so any insight that I may have appears destined to become an afterthought. Anyone who has expressed interest (800-plus people?) should not have to learn to learn a new language (computer code) in order to join the collaboration on MyGov's development.

"Open, open, and open"? -- For most of us, Not yet. And I'd be glad to help you improve on that, as I've had more than a few years experience in online engagement and working in D.C. (Oh, wait a minute, I meant "decades".)

best,
Stephen Buckley, @transpartisan, @opengovmetrics

Re: 2Day in #OpenGov 11/29/12

Stephen Buckley — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:39:04 -0000

Alisha -- Most people don't use a news-reader, so they can't subscribe to this blog. If you want to engage those people, then I suggest you offer them the option of receiving it on *their* terms, i.e., email.

Re: The Truth Behind Transparency

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:26:09 -0000

Three years ago, I warned White House about charging forth without clarifying its goals so that we could agree on progress. But buzzwords are more fun and less work, so look what happened.

But it's not too late, we can clear things up, if we have the discussion that we should have had way back then. Unfortunately, a blog is not suited for the dialogue needed, so please leave your two-cents here and then join us via my tweet below.

Stephen Buckley @OpenGovMetrics:

#OpenGov "Terms of (Mis)Agreement" just posted for your discussion, esp. wrt @GovExec mag cover article. #OGP #metrics https://t.co/WnsCdQnm

Re: The Rise of the Count(er) Culture: Notes on Transparency Camp 2012

Stephen Buckley — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:59:46 -0000

I attended Transparency Camp 2012, so it seemed appropriate to see a historical marker outside the nearby hotel where Kamal Jain and I stayed that, in effect, says "Internet invented here."
And with Micah's reference to the 1969 book "The Making of a Counter Culture", the marker's significance seems doubly so with respect to #Tcamp12, as the Internet was created (i.e., begun) as "Arpanet" in 1969. http://bit.ly/IC8fvM

P.S. to Micah: There were so many connections to be made that I didn't get to ask you for a contact at Consumers Union for advice on creating a ratings chart (like in the magazine) for ranking various governments' OpenGov efforts.

thanks,
Stephen Buckley
http://twitter.com/opengovm...

Re: August 17th: What's On Today's Show

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:36:57 -0000

I read and hear reports (like NPR's) that characterize the President's midwest trip as a "campaign tour".

However, the White House's calls his stops as "town hall meetings", as if this is some type of public discussion occurring there. (The term "town hall" is usually repeated, without question, by the mainstream media.)

But it is a very low quality of public discussion at these so-called "town hall meetings" (or in any forum) when one single person, out of hundreds, does 98% of all the talking:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/15/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-decorah-iowa

If I were a White House reporter, I would ask their "Office of Public Engagement" as to their minimum requirement for a "town hall meeting". (Would it only take one question from the audience to qualify as a "town hall"?)

For a follow-up question, I would also ask if it's possible for a genuine "campaign stop" could also qualify as a "town hall meeting".

We need higher-quality (not sham) "public engagement". Check out the resources at the non-partisan National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) at http://www.ncdd.org

Re: The First Debate

Stephen Buckley — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:24:13 -0000

Yay Sharyn! Wasn't NoLabels supposed to be an organization that played the role of a Moderator for civil debate? Co-founder Mark McKinnon once mentioned NL becoming a neutral referee. However, we have not agreed on the rules of civil debate, e.g., what is "below the belt".

Those of us who joined NL for the "civil dialogue" aspect have been disappointed that the subject has only gotten lip-service from NL leadership.

Re: Building a scalable open government process

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 27 May 2011 09:58:55 -0000

Okay, this would fall under "OpenGov Report Card", but how can we evaluate what a candidate is proposing for OpenGov, when we haven't even agreed on how to measure "what works"?

Let's see if I can use the "tool-kit" metaphor to explain a key tool that most people have been ignoring (and that I have been trying to explain for the past two years).

A tape-measure.

Yes, it is certainly more fun to just start banging nails and sawing wood. But, for those of you who do not actually own a toolkit, a tape-measure is the thing that a person uses to measure the hole in the wall (or whatever) that needs fixing. This is what should happen BEFORE nail-banging and wood-sawing!

See those lines on the tape-measure? Those are inches and feet. They are called "units of measurement" that are the standards that were accepted by everyone (wait for it) before you even thought of picking up a hammer or a saw.

Luke: Yes, people have been trying all sorts of things to see "what works" (I chalk it up to youthful exuberance). But guess what? They forgot to start off with an accepted way to measure the relative success of one approach or another. "Push-all-the-buttons-and-see-what-happens" is the approach most favored by impetuous teenagers (and, too often, adults as well).

For OpenGov over the past two years, we did not stop to agree on a baseline to tell us where we were starting from. It was like someone trying all kinds of diets and, oh wait a minute (duh), they forgot to figure out a method (or even the units) for weighing themselves in the beginning (or evern along the way).

Anyone interested in a serious and, yes, prolonged discussion (i.e., not just as comments to a single blog-post) can join the new email-group that I set up for TransparencyCampDC earlier this month. Warning: Don't expect to go there and find "The Answer"; this is about our collaborating for one. http://www.OpenGovMetrics.com

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://twitter.com/transpar...
http://twitter.com/opengovm...
.

Re: Magna Carta 2.0: a transparency research agenda - Sunlight Foundation

Stephen Buckley — Tue, 24 May 2011 23:03:01 -0000

Scott - Let's assume Andrew is sincere in his question to Dan (i.e., not being rhetorical). Please let Dan know that his blog-post has a comment that needs his response. Maybe I can make the question more clear:
Did the conference discuss anything about the adoption of accepted terminology or definitions?

Almost exactly two years ago, I raised that topic on the White House's "Open Government Dialogue" but it wasn't something that grabbed a lot of votes.

But I knew that, eventually, we would need to agree on our terms and defintions.
Click on link and Scroll down to:

4. Let's Be Clear on the
Terminology about "Public Engagement"
http://ustransparency.blogs...

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://twitter.com/transpar...

Re: SF Mayoral Candidates: An Open Government Pledge for San Francisco

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 18 May 2011 22:05:06 -0000

Be it politicians or just regular people, no one starts out -- in planning a journey -- with a "roadmap" already in hand. At this point, we are just trying to get them to agree to general Principles, not specific details (like what type of computer formats should be used).

Think of it this way: First you and your spouse agree Where to go on vacation, THEN you agree on the "roadmap" (e.g., itinerary) on how to go on that trip. -- If you can't agree on the first part, then the second part is irrelevant.

Re: OMB Watch finds progress on open government, long road ahead

Stephen Buckley — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:59:28 -0000

Alex,

I can't figure out where the quoted part of your posting comes from. Would you please show the link?

I'm interested because whoever is being quoted appears to echo the phrase that U.S. CTO Aneesh Chopra has been using for over a year, i.e., that he wants to "hard-wire" the culture-change towards openness in federal agencies.

As a former bureaucrat at five federal agencies, the idea that the relatively fleeting presence of political appointees (even at the White House level) can "hard-wire" federal employees into involuntary actions is both terribly amusing ... and sad.

Will someone (his wife?) please explain the concept of "passive-aggressive" to him (and whoever else believes that culture-change in any organization can be "hard-wired")?

What is really needed is "Leadership', i.e., show people how to act in the "new way", and then make it SAFE for them to do the same. (Maybe ask GSA what was their #1 Idea voted for OpenGov, because they took down the link to OpenGSA.Ideascale.com.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://twitter.com/transpar...
.

Re: No Labels Powerpoint Presentation

Stephen Buckley — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:06:52 -0000

What is the date on this presentation? That is, is it recent or from last year?

I ask because some of the slides show some stuff (e.g., Metrics of success) that I have not heard or seen on the No Labels website, nor during the Leadership conference calls.

Re: No Labels Repudiates Nazi Analogy In House Health Care Debate

Stephen Buckley — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:05:55 -0000

James, I watched the video, but it doesn't tell me what you mean by "the big problem with the whole yellow flag thing". (All I got out of the video was that the Adam Sandler character doesn't like to follow rules.)

Re: Citizen Leaders Issue a Call to Put the Labels Aside, Do What's Best for America

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:39:00 -0000

Farmer_Joe,

Thank you for acknowledging that the primary goal of No Labels does, in fact, have to do with improving the quality of problem-solving by government officials.

Secondly, you and I have been talking about the No Labels goals ... not my goals. I'm very interested in what they are attempting (even if there is only a small chance that it will be really successful).

But just because I'm interested in what No Labels is attempting (as are you, otherwise you would not be here) does NOT mean that I am a devoted follower of No Labels (as you just indicated when you equated the No Labels goal as being MY goal).

But it is a very good example of how we, as people, like to use the "us/them" mindset: "hmmm, he's not on my side, so he must be on the other side." Sometimes, as I pointed out earlier, people don't fit neatly into only two categories (left/right, good/bad, etc.).

I think you are being too pessimistic when you indicate that groups like No Labels will "inevitably" fail. Really? Such efforts will ALWAYS fail? Maybe you meant "frequently" or 'almost always". You have to watch yourself with absolutes, as they are easy to relatively disprove. And then one gets a reputation for exaggeration, even when it is not.

So, let's see what happens with No Labels. If it looks like my advice might make them even a little bit successful, then I'll do that. And I 'm not a blind follower, either. So I'm reserving my ultimate judgement for much later. It's too early to pronounce the patient as terminal.

Re: Citizen Leaders Issue a Call to Put the Labels Aside, Do What's Best for America

Stephen Buckley — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 00:39:53 -0000

Farmer_Joe,

I'd love to help you understand the difference between Poor and Better problem-solving by government officials (since I have some experience in that area).

But, before we go there, please show me that you are respectful enough to respond to my direct and sincere question about your original statement. Here it is (for the 3rd time):

Do you think that the No Labels group (even if it's apolitical) does NOT have a goal of 'improved problem-solving"?

Re: Citizen Leaders Issue a Call to Put the Labels Aside, Do What's Best for America

Stephen Buckley — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:15:47 -0000

Farmer_Joe,

It's taken me several decades, but I've noticed that when I want people to listen to me, i.e., *really* understand what I'm trying to convey to them, that it works much better if I don't get impatient or upset when they ask me for clarification.

So, please take my questions as a sincere attempt to get a better understanding what you are trying to convey to the readers here. I am not trying to (as you put it) "devolve into semantic nitpicking".

Perhaps it would be easier if I only asked one "Yes-No" clarification at a time. So here goes. You said in your previous post (see its next-to-last paragraph):

"Now this: "And, because you say "assuming [No Labels is] not a trojan horse", then I assume we basically agree that the primary goal of No Labels is to improve problem-solving by politicians (and other government officials). " We do not agree on that. I am conceding that point provisionally for the purpose of this discussion.

Okay, then --> just for the purpose of this discussion -- let's assume that No Labels is NOT a "trojan horse" (your term) that is hiding people with other politicial motives.

But after saying that you disagree with that statement, you don't go on to explain what part of the sentence you disagree with. So I'm left to wonder: what part doesn't Farmer_Joe not agree with?

The only remaining part of the statement is about the No Labels goal to "improve problem-solving". So I'm still fuzzy on what you disagree with. So it really comes down to this question:

Do you think that the No Labels group (even if it's apolitical) does NOT have a goal of 'improved problem-solving"? (Either way, please say why.) Thank you.

Re: Citizen Leaders Issue a Call to Put the Labels Aside, Do What's Best for America

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:54:27 -0000

Farmer_Joe,

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but let me know if this is what you are saying:

"A group like No Labels (i.e., people with a goal of improving the process of political problem-solving) cannot and should not be successful."

Maybe you have a better word than "survive", but would I'm assuming, by your use of "survive", that you mean a group would continue to operate because it is having some success in achieving its goal.

And, because you say "assuming [No Labels is] not a trojan horse", then I assume we basically agree that the primary goal of No Labels is to improve problem-solving by politicians (and other government officials).

Of course, if' that's NOT what you meant by "survive", or you think that I mis-stated No Label's basic goal (of improved problem-solving), then please let me know.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but if you are more clear, then more people will understand the point you are trying to make. And, so, the better that we understand each other's perspective, then the better we can understand what, if anything, we do and don't agree on.

Re: Citizen Leaders Issue a Call to Put the Labels Aside, Do What's Best for America

Stephen Buckley — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:01:32 -0000

Although your example is a little convoluted, it is similar to my example in that we both used the term "common ground" to describe an *opinion* held in common. That, of course, is not the same as an *action* that everyone then agrees should be taken.

Sometimes people don't agree .. and they don't have to. Just because some friends each like ice cream doesn't mean they HAVE to agree to buy some. Just because two people are fans of the same football team doesn't mean they HAVE to agree to go the same game.

So, yes, I agree with your Observation #3: Although there can be "common ground" on a desired end (e.g., eating ice cream), there does not HAVE to be "common ground" on the How-to-Do-It (e.g., where to go, how much to spend, etc.).

But this is not a ground-breaking observation about group-decisionmaking, so is there a larger point that you are trying to make?

P.S. If you are, then I would suggest that you start a NEW discussion thread about that, because this one has strayed "off-topic" from Motorhead's original statement.