“There comes a time when every man will needs to stand up for what’s right and blaze a better path. Today we do that, today we say no thank you to any Republican. If you affiliate with the Republican Party you are not welcome into our store. We will not offer you service. If you come in anyway, I suppose you could sneak in but we will probably know. In fact, we can point out a Republican just from the way you look in person or in a photo. Once I tried doing this and realized I could. We put to a test and told 30 random people that we were guessing Republican or not and all 30 I was correct. You have an uptight, closed energy, negative aura to you… almost evil, and to be honest, usually evil. You also lack a psychic gateway to technology.”
—Billy Williams, owner of the Used Apple store in Derry, New Hampshire.
Signature significance: Billy is unethical, a bigot, a bad neighbor, a bad citizen, a bad American, and a toxic asshole. He is the kind of hateful hyper-partisan fool who is poisoning our culture, our communities, national politics and our public dialogue.
So is anyone who cheers him on.
Billy takes pains to point out that his bigotry isn’t illegal, so it must be OK. (See: Rationalizations List, #4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.”) He also doesn’t worry about backlash from any potential customers who might choose to direct their business to someone who isn’t working to divide the United States into divided camps, each discriminating against the other based on hate and contempt for their opinions. “If you’re in it for the right reasons, it doesn’t matter that someone isn’t gonna come to you with their money,” Williams said, courageously. .He then compared himself to Oskar Schindler.
You know, that’s exactly who I thought of! No, wait—it was Oscar Wiener….
I covered this increasingly common phenomenon here, of which the recent effort of anti-gun forces to boycott businesses into demonstrating hostility to the NRA is just a variation. I quoted that post in the process of ending this one, about Michael Turner, who said he wouldn’t sell propane to his freezing neighbors in Maine if they voted for Donald Trump. Then I wrote,
Despite the fact that the protests came from progressives, the attack on the restaurant is totalitarian in substance. What is being commanded is conformity of thought. Ah, but the persecutors are the good guys, don’t you understand? They know they are right, so they can rationalize hurting anyone who isn’t like them.
Just like Oskar Schindler.
Pointer: Arthur in Maine
71 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Derry, NH Used Apple Store Owner Billy Williams”
Since Billy Williams is likely as dishonest and incompetent as most demoRats I am glad to be warned off from his rathole.
Yes, fighting bigotry with bigotry is good.
Sure “Agreed.” But this is exactly what attitudes and conduct like Williams’ inevitably produce.
Which is why it’s so divisive and dangerous.
Which is why the vicious, personal level, “deplorables,” fascist-baiting, race-baiting, sexism-baiting, cop-bashing, hateful rhetoric of the resistance and Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, Colbert, Maher, Kimmel, Noah, Bee, The View, et al, that Republicans are sub-human. child-hating morons with blood on their hands who “want people to die” and want to take money from poor people and “give it” to billionaires, and who hate Mexicans who only come here out of love and who suspect Muslims who come here and would never hurt a fly, and who elected Donald Trump, proving they are fools, who traitorously conspired with Russia to steal the election and who is a sexual predator and a danger to civilization, all of which attitudes and beliefs were deliberately and cynically seeded and nurtured by the Obama Administration, Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Perez and Eric Holder—aided and abetted by equally cynical pundits and talking heads— to ensure their party of perpetual power,while wielding hate and encouraging bigotry, fear and intolerance rather than using fair and civilized methods, tactics and arguments.
I have been writing about this for more than a year. I saw this kind of thing as the result. I have pointed out, repeatedly, how destructive it is and how it is, and remains, the ethics story of the year, the decade, and probably the century.
And Chris jumps on “Demorats.”
First, you should be jumping on it too. “It’s not as bad” is a rationalization, as you know. I opened this post to leave a comment condemning the bigoted Republican-hating shop owner, but I was more taken aback by one of Ethics Alarms’ own engaging in the same type of bigotry. I would think you would be too.
Second, yes, some of the rhetoric you describe is genuinely awful, and produces the exact terrible results you describe. But your list also includes rhetoric *you yourself engaged in.* *You* said anybody who would vote for Trump is a fool. *You* said he is a likely sexual predator. I’m not sure how you can lump those conclusions in with some of the other over-the-top leftist talking points.
I’m gonna correct this before you accuse me of making a straw man or lying about your position:
If I recall now, you didn’t say anyone who would vote for Trump is a fool. You did use similar language to describe his supporters, as in people who actively wanted him to be president, not including those who voted for him as the lesser of two evils. Is that right?
If so, I apologize for misremembering your position.
Did I get the sexual predator part right?
Did I get the sexual predator part right?
I’m enjoying the schadenfreude at the Democrats heartburn over not properly addressing Bill Clinton’s conduct in the oval office. He pioneered making it OK for the president to be a sexual predator.
Anyone who’s never issued a public repudiation of Bill and Hillary Clinton and still adores those two are hypocrites to make an issue of Trump’s emulating conduct.
What part of “Sure, agreed” confused you, Chris?
I agree: I hate that crap. I also think the people who have consistently enabled and approved the conduct and rhetoric that spark it are the last people I care to hear screaming “Foul!”
I would not agree that I’ve “approved of and enabled” the behavior and rhetoric you describe. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you blame Democrats for “sparking” Mike’s comment while not ever making a similar allowance for Democrats. Could one not make an equally forceful argument that this shop owner’s bigotry was “sparked” by the behavior and rhetoric of Republicans? Once again it appears that liberals are the only ones with agency—we’re why Trump won, after all, not his actual voters.
Nope. Absolutely not. The degree of hate and vicious rhetoric directed at the Republican party and the President is absolutely unprecedented since the Civil War, as I have documented every single step of the way. No previous group of Americans were called “deplorable” for not choosing one party’s candidate. No previous elected President was protested as a fascist before he was sworn in. There has never been a” resistance” before. You can’t play the equivalence card here, though I’m sure you will try. What Democrats and progressives began after November 2016 is the greatest assault on national unity since the 1850’s, and the most irresponsible and reckless.
No previous group of Americans were called “deplorable” for not choosing one party’s candidate.
Ugh. That isn’t why Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters (a number which she later walked back) “deplorable,” and you know it. But you’re determined to mischaracterize Democrats at every turn all while complaining when you are treated the same. Your bias is astounding.
No, Chris. Your denial is astounding. Why she called them deplorable is irrelevant. That it was “half” is irrelevant. She called millions of voters for one party racists and sexists based on the fact that they didn’t want to vote for her. Tens of millions of people. No other major party candidate has called any proportion of a political party that for simply supporting the other party’s candidate. Spare me the spin: that’s a fact. That’s your party and its supporter: hateful and divisive. That’s what it has mutated into now. That’s where Billy Williams comes from. Go ahead: find me the colleges that riot and shut own liberal speakers because they don’t feel “safe.” Show me the businesses that won’t serve Democrats. Show me the social media platforms that take down extreme progressive posts and posters. It’s a pattern of viewpoint based bigotry, and if there are members of the Democratic Party or the progressive movement with ethical values and integrity, I expect them to speak out against it, not parse percentages.
Would you rather we used “democraps” or “dimocraps,” or maybe “demonrats?” It shouldn’t come as a surprise when someone fights fire with fire.
Just a reminder,
Albright: ‘special place in hell’ for women who don’t support Clinton
No, Chris. Your denial is astounding. Why she called them deplorable is irrelevant. That it was “half” is irrelevant. She called millions of voters for one party racists and sexists based on the fact that they didn’t want to vote for her. Tens of millions of people. No other major party candidate has called any proportion of a political party that for simply supporting the other party’s candidate.
So you gave a false reason for why she called half of Trump’s supporters deplorable, then said the reason she called them that doesn’t matter, then restated the false reason twice.
No, she did not call a large number of Trump’s supporters sexist and racist because they wouldn’t vote for her. How do I know that? Because if that was the reason, she never would have said half; she would have said 100%. The very fact that she said half of Trump’s supporters are good people means she wasn’t calling them sexist or racist because they didn’t vote for her! Your claim that “That is was ‘half’ is irrelevant” is thus ridiculous.
A large number of Trump’s vocal supporters during the campaign were explicitly sexist and racist. Denying that truly would be astounding.
I agree that the behavior of campus protesters toward conservative speakers has been despicable. I’m not going to blame the conservative speakers for the liberals’ actions.
Would you rather we used “democraps” or “dimocraps,” or maybe “demonrats?” It shouldn’t come as a surprise when someone fights fire with fire.
I’d rather the conservative commenters here speak as respectfully about liberals as the liberal commenters here speak about conservatives. No frequent liberal commenter here uses language like “conservatard” because it’s uncivil, unethical, and dumb. They’d also likely be banned instantly. You wanna talk like that, that’s what Breitbart is for.
“Fighting fire with fire” is a rationalization, and another way of saying “They started it!” or “I’m gonna make myself look as dumb as the worst people on the other side.”
You can list off the right wing side that goes down that road. Rush Limbaugh pioneered the idea of vilifying and mocking the opposition. He’s been joined by Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage (Liberalism is a mental disorder), and Mark Levin.
“ Rush Limbaugh pioneered the idea of vilifying and mocking the opposition.”
Really? This never happened until Rush -fricken- Limbaugh??!?”
(think I’ll make ‘fricken’ my word of the day… my wife the teacher will be thrilled)
Wow. Talk about industrial grade fact proof blinders.
It certainly happened, but I think Rush was the first to make it into the big business it is today. You had writers and cartoonists demonizing the opposition from the beginning of American politics, and they were just as nasty as anyone else today. But Rush turned it into not just an industry, but a thriving one.
Rush is never hateful. He never uses vile rhetoric about Democrats (although Levin and Savage do). He describes them in critical terms, and hard terms, but never anything like accusing them of murder. His theme is that they want power.
90% of the people who attack Rush never listen to him. He’s invariably civil, and most of all, primarily an entertainer. I’d match him to Maher or Colbert, except that he’s far less nasty than either.
The man accused Obama of sending in troops to “wipe out Christians in Uganda” based on his believing pro-Lord’s Resistance Army propaganda, literally siding with a terrorist organization over the president. He never corrected the record on this. He also routinely referred to the Obama’s wife as “Moochelle” and once called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. That’s not “hateful?” You’re joking. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface.
That’s your first and best shot? Moochelle? That’s “hateful?” Oooooh
The guy talks spontaneously for hours a day, and absorbs an astounding amount of material. He makes mistakes. Not correcting a mistake is not “hateful.” “Once called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog” is a single, mean, ad hominem attack, not a characterization of an entire group. (Yup, his critics routinely call him fat and a drug addict, and occasionally he yields to the urge to strike back in kind. The fact that whatever source you used to dredge up the Chelsea slur had to go back 20 years is revealing. This is whataboutism squared. Rush is a talk show entertainer. He is not a political party. His worst comments are mild compared to what Trump has been subjected to. He has never called a Democratic woman a “cunt.” He never called Obama a “cockholster” or anything close to that vile, and anyway, he is one radio host, not a political party or the progressive movement, or an elected official, or even a journalist.
This is like arguing with a child.
That said, it’s interesting to me how far Rush Limbaugh’s star has fallen over the past few years. It seems like not that long ago he could have been considered the de facto leader of the Republican Party—remember when Michael Steele was afraid to criticize him? Now I never hear about him. Liberals don’t even spend time complaining about him anymore. Even Ann Coulter gets more attention.
I wonder, did this coincide with the rise of Trump? With such a Limbaugh-like figure ascending to the presidency, maybe Limbaugh’s schitck stopped bothering liberals and motivating conservatives. And Trump is more outrageous and less articulate than Rush.
That’s your first and best shot? Moochelle? That’s “hateful?” Oooooh
This is very immature. Yes, that is hateful. It was part of his constant implications that Michelle Obama was fat. I have little doubt that if any left-wing entertainer referred to Melania in such terms, you’d call them hateful. And you’d be right.
The guy talks spontaneously for hours a day, and absorbs an astounding amount of material. He makes mistakes. Not correcting a mistake is not “hateful.”
Believing terrorist propaganda and falsely accusing the president of “wiping out Christians” is hateful, and again, I have little doubt that if a left-winger did it, you’d call it hateful. Your bias is getting crippling at this point.
”Once called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog” is a single, mean, ad hominem attack, not a characterization of an entire group. (Yup, his critics routinely call him fat and a drug addict, and occasionally he yields to the urge to strike back in kind. The fact that whatever source you used to dredge up the Chelsea slur had to go back 20 years is revealing.
It’s called memory.
This is whataboutism squared.
No, it isn’t. You wrote a whole blog post explaining what whataboutism is, and now you get it wrong. Michael brought up Rush, not me, and Michael is a conservative. I did not deflect to Rush to absolve or rationalize the bigoted shop owner; I simply agreed with his characterization of Rush and provided support for it. That’s not whataboutism.
Rush is a talk show entertainer. He is not a political party.
How does that in any way challenge my characterization of him as hateful?
His worst comments are mild compared to what Trump has been subjected to. He has never called a Democratic woman a “cunt.”
That was a hateful comment by Maher.
He never called Obama a “cockholster” or anything close to that vile,
That was a hateful comment by Colbert.
and anyway, he is one radio host, not a political party or the progressive movement, or an elected official, or even a journalist.
This is like arguing with a child.
You don’t even know what it is you’re arguing with. I did not say that Rush was more hateful than the current Democratic Party. I agreed with Michael that he was one of the first to make nastiness toward the opposition into a thriving industry. You are the one who brought up comparisons to progressive figures—comparisons I haven’t even challenged! You continue to accuse me of misrepresenting your positions while constantly doing the same to me. I’m sick of it, Jack.
That may be the longest sentence I’ve ever seen you write. Well done!
I stopped reading too soon last night.
Jack should be awarded “Train Wreck Whistleblower of the Millennium.”
Jack deserves a COTD for this one.
For Mr. William’s sake, I hope he was at least smart enough to obtain a license from Apple over use of their trademark, else he’s in for a ruder awakening than “Pirate Joe’s” (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/09/532259937/its-checkmatey-for-pirate-joes-canadian-grocery-reseller-lowers-its-sails) with all the national publicity coming his way.
I kinda hope he wasn’t smart enough to do that.
Heh. I find myself in rare agreement.
Would New Hampshire be a good place to boost a nationwide movement for legislation that adds “political affiliation” to the list of illegal bases for discrimination in public accommodations? Somebody should go to a state or federal court and obtain an injunction against Williams and his business. Civil lawsuits should be mounted until the business fails. Williams is more than just a political partisan bully; he is prosecuting war by other means. He and his forces must be fought relentlessly and defeated thoroughly (for now, I’ll withhold “by any means necessary”).
I agree that this type of discrimination should be illegal.
My reflex is to agree, but… that implicates free speech, and that’s where I have to plant my flag.
I’m not sure I want to follow California’s lead and make ideology or political belief a protected characteristic. Rather, I’d like to see this sort of bigotry fought out in the marketplace of ideas. If they guy wants to be a bigoted asshole and exclude Republicans, I’m for letting him while pointing out his douchebaggery at every available opportunity.
I think it’s useful to have examples like this, and say, Westboro Baptist, to point at as examples of what not to do.
“Rather, I’d like to see this sort of bigotry fought out in the marketplace of ideas.”
The problem with that is that when the bigotry is a big enough majority, or even, just a big enough minority, the “marketplace” is rigged, corrupted. Competing ideas are suffocated. Witness the campus environment at many colleges and universities. Anti-discrimination forces must secure a “club” to legally “beat” (or, beat back) such suffocating bigotry.
I feel encouraged that Chris and I agree on something.
On a side note, given what you just described… what the hell is wrong with New England? Something in the water up there that makes business owners lose their (fricken) minds?
I mean, in Texas this dude would be out of business, regardless of progressive or conservative.
What happened to “Live Free or Die!” in NH?
I figure I’m holding together what’s left of Western Civilization for about 200 whack jobs spread over 6 continents. So, yeah, not surprising that my aura’s a little uptight.
You know, it’s really funny how I was able to earn a Master’s Degree in Computer Science and have a 20+ year career in the industry, all the while lacking “a psychic gateway to technology.”
Authentic Frontier iGibberish
You know, I’m pretty sure most of the engineers and computer scientists I’ve met lack a psychic gateway to technology. They seem to be okay with using a keyboard instead.
We tend to tilt conservative, too. That whole ‘critical thinking’ thing they pound into us (at least the older ones) and all.
I hope Apple’s Psychic Technology Gateway (iPTG?) works better than their fingerprint scanners.
Imagine the outrage if someone photographed all the clients of this store and created a website with their images saying these people supported such ideals. Then they were summarily banned from all stores that disagreed with this fellows position.
The alt right is listening
This recently coalesced in my mind, but I must first exorcise relevant Simpsons demons which I raise at every appropriate time.
Ned Flanders (mediating a dispute between school administration and the teachers): “well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.”
Principal Skinner: “I can’t agree to that.”
Edna Krebapple: “Neither can I.”
The ability to agree to disagree is a good thing in the majority of circumstances. Live and let live. Slavery was an issue where we could not agree to disagree. Abortion might be another. The problem is that, if you are willing to boycott me or my sponsors because you disagree with me, you are not able to agree to disagree.
Sadly, the tolerant left seems less able to agree to disagree. This is probably they think all politics is local, the personal is political, and you should think globally and act locally. On the other hand, the intolerant right is usually too individualistic to want to bother getting together to form a boycott.
Regardless: if I disagree with me, and that makes you want to boycott me, you fundamentally disagree with the idea that we can agree to disagree. And, if we can’t agree to disagree, social discord is not far off.
If I disagree with me? I always disagree with me, you dumbass! What’s your point, Mr. Tautology?
Just shut up.
Sadly, the tolerant left seems less able to agree to disagree.
That’s probably the most succinct dividing line between liberalism and progressivism. The modern Democrat party is being run by progressives. The mainstream media news organizations are run by progressives. What I can’t figure out is if the rank and file voter also has left liberalism behind and embraced progressivism.
If they have not, and we still have liberals, then I have hope. If they’ve all converted too, we’re doomed as a unified country.
Then I expect to hear the liberals, if they exist and have any integrity, appropriately condemning the conduct and rhetoric of progressives. I see it a little bit on EA, but not nearly often enough.
The resounding silence of these hypothetical liberals leads me to conclude they may be extinct.
Much like true conservative are headed that way. Many of us have given in to frustration and gone alt right ends-justify-the-means tit for tat Alinsky tactics users.
Yes, it gets to me when an old fellow traveler forgoes principle to get a win. We just have to right the ship, they say, and then (when we have taught progressives a lesson) we can go back to a civil society (like when? Any student of history knows that politics have always been uncivil… but I digress)
The past year has convinced me that progressives CANNOT return to civility, if they were ever so, and using their tactics against them, even if it works, will taint a conservative’s soul such that he or she will always have that option in their toolbox. Every time one uses that tool, it gets easier for the next occasion. It is corrosive, destroying personal ethics and morals in the pursuit of righteous anger and retribution.
One such, in my opinion, will not be suited for power if or when they win it.
They have then become the enemy by that point.
We have become so polarized, so tribalized, so fricken frustrated with our opponents that we cannot see this basic truth.
Among the regulars here, I’d call Charles, Spartan, and even Chris on his lucid days, liberals more than porgressives.
Charles, certainly. A worthy opponent and likely good friend to bend an elbow with. Spartan, maybe. My take on her is more feel good mushy and very protective mom than progressive (luv ya, Sparty… no offense)
Chris is as progressive as the day is long… he just doesn’t swallow ALL the kool-aid.
Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it…
Among the regulars here, I’d call Charles, Spartan, and even Chris on his lucid days, liberals more than progressives.
So that’s what Billy Williams has been up to? A used apple store. (Wouldn’t that involve apple sauce or apple butter?)
What Billy Willams tells me is that he probably doesn’t get much business and thinks by bullying Republicans he will be honored by all the Republican haters. And I do not believe anyone can look at a person and know that person’s political party affiliation. I am the opposite of everything he said about Republicans yet that is my party affiliation. But, that does not define me as a person. There are some good and some bad in all political parties and I turn a deat ear to those who argue that the other side is worse theirs. It is very sad to see the condition our country is in. Also, in the Gospel of Matthew 12:25, KJV: 25 “ And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:” … The “house divided” phrase was used by Lincoln in 1843.
Let’s face it, Billy Williams is a huge bigot who has some issues going on here.
Just because he doesn’t worry about the backlash, doesn’t mean he might not be affected by it. Maybe he’s thinking all his customers are Democrats anyway, or that the area (have no idea) is so heavily predominant Democrats that he hopes to gain more then he can lose. I think a lot of people are put off by this though, on both sides. The average Democrat doesn’t want to be involved in something like this (much like the average Republican doesn’t want to in reverse scenarios). It questions the moral fabric of the person. He may gain a couple of extremes on the left, lose any on the right, and make everyone else question why they do business there. (Unless he’s by far the cheapest in town, in which case almost everyone will go anyway, whatever their party)
Having founded, fully owned and operated a business for nearly three decades, I have done and continue to business with people whose political views I despise.
Why? They are competent, responsive and competitively priced which is what my business model and clients demand.
How do I know their politics? They wear it on their sleeve and are constantly probing for my reactions. Which, unless excessively provoked, I do not give.
Whatever I may think of them politically or personally, my duty is to serve my clients as efficiently and effectively as possible. This means putting on ear muffs and blinders more often than I would like. If Mr. Williams thinks it’s a solid business strategy to do what he is doing, good for him, as long as he recognizes he’ll likely receive similar treatment from some in retaliation.
When tolerance leaves, even when it comes to profit, what remains?
“How do I know their politics? They wear it on their sleeve and are constantly probing for my reactions. Which, unless excessively provoked, I do not give.”
I get that every now and again, and it’s such a foreign concept to me. Why would you WANT someone turned off your business by your politics? The point of business is to get the most utility from scarce resources, not to collect a Rolodex full of appropriately virtuous sycophants.
I gather their political opinions are very important to them and suspect they are trying to determine if I am friend or foe for the future.
On few occasions have these people ever referred potential clients to me. They do, however, seem quite happy to bill my existing clients.
“Psychic gateway to technology”
I want one, where do I sign up?
My wife was certainly born without her psychic gateway to technology. I have to straighten out her Kindle pretty much daily.
Bake me a cake, Billy.
Wonder what happens when a Republican who happens to be gay gets discriminated against. Surely Mr. Williams cannot tell sexual orientation on sight like he claims to with the GOP?
This is in a lot of ways the same ethical problem as the gay wedding cake, and it’s heartening to see that there are a lot of people who are standing on the same principles they do during those discussions.
How many Republicans do you figure this guy does business with, anyway? He’s selling used Apple computers in New Hampshire. That Venn diagram with Republican voters has very little overlap.
This is virtue signaling at its worst: he knows it won’t cost him much existing business, because his customers aren’t Republicans already. If you really want to make a statement, do something that will actually have some personal consequences associated with it. Being an asshole sometimes has a purpose, but this is just being an asshole solely because you can get away with it.
Hah. You’re right, Jeff. I doubt there are many registered Republicans in New Hampshire who have those annoying, virtue signalling Apple decals on the back windshield of their Subarus.
I thought it was Vermont, not New Hampshire, that had the low numbers of Republican voters, and NH is where the license plates say (or used to say) “Live Free or Die” (not a slogan to expect a progressive-dominated state to tolerate). Nowadays, it would be more like, “Live the Way You Want, Or Else, Have the Deep State Annihilate All Who Get In Your Way.” But of course, that wouldn’t fit on a license plate. But it might fit on a motor-voter license. Guess I’d better plan a trip to New England to get caught-up with how it has changed…unless Arthur in Maine speaks up here, and saves me the trip.
I just checked – what I recalled – Trump and Hlary voters were almost dead-heat divided in NH in 2016, with the slightest edge to Hlary. So Williams is daring to lose a fair number of his customers, I reckon.
Nah, Republicans buy Dell and HP, maybe the occasional Lenovo. Mac users are almost always Democrats (with a sprinkling of Green party thrown in for variety).
Additionally, I would confidently wager that this isn’t the first time this ass has spouted off about politics in his store. He probably already chased off the scant handful of Republicans that might have shopped their a long time ago with a combination of toxic personality and aggressive political loudmouthing.
WWJD? (What Would Jobs[Steve] Do?)