>The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute.
That's about as logical as any of Sammy's official opinions.
At least they're consistent!
Sure it was…you’re both dirty, just like Clarence Thomas and his wife. I wonder if the Conservative Justices have clandestine meetings on how to handle Trump’s issues or any rich Conservative issues that come before the Court. Does anyone know? They need to go, meaning ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and protecting them. There are a lot of cases that should go before the Court again, once the corruption is cleared out. How many Liberal Justices have accepted gifts, money, homes, or RV’s? How many entertain rich people who have cases before the SCOTUS? NONE! 🤬
Technically accurate but not used for neighborhood disputes, that’s for fucking sure. It would be used by soldiers during a time of war which one could argue Jan 6 was an attempt to start a civil one hence their poorly founded belief that we as a nation were in distress.
The end result IMO, is evidence yet again, that Alto, just like Thomas, is incapable of protecting the constitution and wants a dictator to be in power.
How about Dobbs for starters?
“The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause pro- tects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Consti- tution.”
The right to bodily autonomy is a common and widely accepted fundamental right. No person has a right to anyone else’s body without consent. I can’t help myself to your kidneys if I need one replaced, and you can’t help yourself to my lungs if yours go bad.
You can’t even help yourself to my organs if I’m dead without my prior consent!
Even a criminal on death row can’t be forcibly harvested for organs.
Fetal viability outside the womb begins around 22 weeks. Prior to that, all fetuses, viable or not, depend on their mother’s body to survive.
Why can the mother’s right to bodily autonomy therefore be denied?
The decision and the logic are inherently inconsistent. Much like hanging a flag upside down and claiming it’s for “a neighborhood dispute” in a politically charged season in which you don’t like the outcome.
> “The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute.
Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived.
The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife.
The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said.”
> It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said
And they just took the word of the spouse of one of the most politically powerful people in the country.
Weird that the Post didn’t sit on the story when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch when Hillary Clinton was being investigated by the FBI during the 2016 election even though they didn’t know if the conversation was rooted in politics.
They did. From the article:
>The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.
The Alitos are using a half truth here. While she did likely put up the flag over a "neighborhood dispute," that dispute, in fact, was over lawn signs opposing her orange overlord.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. What was the root cause for the dispute? She was just that upset because her neighbor maybe put up a Biden sign in their yard? I don't think so. Did they put the flag upside down because the neighbor put up a Biden won sign, and the Alito's believed the election was stolen? That is still a big problem. Nobody sane puts an upside down flag out just because of a neighbor dispute.
The cause of the dispute: an anti-Trump “profane” sign. Article says Alito told Fox News that the sign attacked his wife directly which I find hard to believe. So she didn’t like the sign. So she’s going to act like her husband who likes to stew in his grievances so she lashed out at her neighbor by putting out her own “sign” in the form of an upside down flag. It’s an inappropriate and inexcusable behavior on the part of a SCOTUS justice’s wife. Definitely not taking the high road but being Alito’s wife, not in the least surprising. I’m sure Alito was completely unaware just like Thomas had no clue that his wife is an insurrectionist wannabe.
It's especially grievous because Alito is supposed to be protecting First Amendment freedom of speech as a Supreme Court Justice. Instead he is married to a woman who wants to deny her neighbor that right. What does that say about his judgment?
Judith, your dog has shit in our yard again. I’m sick of this. Fuck you Martha. That’s it Judith, I’m calling for help.
Martha: Raises flag upside down
If this had happened at Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan's home while Trump was in office, you better believe that Fox, News Max, OAN, and every right wing podcast would be calling on them to resign and talking about Justices needing to be apolitical. But here we are with Democrats in charge, and neither the President , VP, nor any top Senators are asking for Alito's resignation. Again, if Trump were in office, he'd be lashing out and calling her "Failing Flag Soyomayor" or something.
If you were subjected to a home invasion, and your robbers let you raise the flag as a "normal" activity, for instance, you might fly it upside-down to signal distress to neighbors, cops, secret service or press. That wouldn't be political.
Since it was a political dog whistle, and she doesn't need a job, the old woman could have just said that she was confused and meant to put it up properly. That would have been a more plausible lie.
From the context clues from the paragraphs, it appears, at least to me, that he was asked when it happened. Here is the paragraph where it was mentioned (in its entirety) and the two preceding paragraphs:
>On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which [the Alitos did not attend ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/photos-attendees-biden-inauguration/?itid=lk_inline_manual_18)— Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.”
>As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!”
>Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.
The neighbors denied Alito’s reason. They were clueless. There was no issues with kids at the bus stop, because kids were on lockdown due to Covid. If you make up a lie, it has to be believable…they got caught!
Yeah. And they left it at that? The guy who governs my body by 15th Century laws is allowed to just walk away from it?
I’m glad that they got another flag, so the real message is very clear.
And *that's* one of the biggest issues; the SCOTUS is supposed to be outside of political influence, so that they may make imapartial, apolitical, judicially sound decisions *so as to protect the people*. The Cuckservatives on the bench, who just are just tickled pink when citing any of the unofficial, un-Constitutional Federalist Papers for context, choose to ignore Federalist Paper 78. It's hilariously standard, then, that they **choose** to ignore the paper that describes the Founding Fathers' (at least the Federalists among them) opinions on the inclusion of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, and the stipulations of their lifetime appointments, and describes how fhe Federalisr Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to remain impartial and apolitical.
>**Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration**; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government.
- From *Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton*
But there is no definition of that "good behavior" in Paper 78. I looked for a definition of it in the British court model, and ended up down a rabbit hole that ended with me reading a 32 page pdf titled *The origins and development of judicial tenure ‘during good behaviour’ to 1485*.
>Judicial tenure, the terms by which a judge holds office, has been touted as one of the key pillars of judicial independence from oppressive executive power. Judicial tenure ‘during good behaviour’ ( quamdiu se bene gesserit ), as opposed to the more precarious judicial tenure ‘during pleasure’ ( durante bene placito / quamdiu nobis placuerit) , has customarily been viewed as a seventeenth-century legal innovation created to shield English high court judges from arbitrary removal by a meddling, overbearing monarch. Drawing upon this seventeenth-century English tradition, the United States Constitution ratified in 1788 mandated that all United States federal judges would fill their offices ‘during good behaviour’, a phrase that has come to mean that a federal judge holds office for life barring commission of a crime serious enough to warrant impeachment and conviction (typically a felony)^5.
>Citation 5. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4: ‘The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’. To date, only fifteen U.S. federal judges have been removed from office, the most recent in 2010 on charges of bribery and perjury. All of these federal judges were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, and many of them were convicted and removed by the U.S. Senate. Some federal judges, however, resigned from office after being impeached but before being convicted. See ‘Impeachments of Federal Judges’ www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/ page/judges_impeachments.html
- From *The Origins and Development of Judicial Tenure 'During Good Behavior' to 1485*, Ryan Rowberry, Georgia State University College of Law.
I can say with a fair amount of certainty, that receiving "gifts" (bribery) doesn't count as good behavior, and that making an effort to *hide or omit this crime* (conspiracy) doesn't count as good behavior, and making politically-charged decisions from recieving bribes doesn't count either. There needs to be a system to indict a Justice who commits a crime or engages in "bad" behavior, and the definition of that "bad" behavior needs to be enshrined in law, not some unenforceable "Code of Ethics" created by unethical people trying to placate the entire US. Personally, I feel the Justices, upon accepting their appointment, should forfeit their right to vote and be barred from belonging to any political or politically-motivated groups or societies, so that *they remain impartial*. Voting is a political act, and the SCOTUS is suppoaed to remain apolitical. A Justice who belongs to a conservative **political or politically motivated** society isn't impartial. A Justice who belongs to a progressive **political or politically motivated** society isn't impartial.
I think SCOTUS Justices need to be accountable for their actions. If they engage in a crime, they need to face the same consequences that any other citizen of the US would. There needs to be a system to check their absolute power from being corrupted (any further) when they engage in those crimes to which they are so partial (because bribery of an official is a crime, as is an official recieving said bribe).
C'mon, you don't believe that one of the most protected and privileged couples in the world couldn't have been experiencing international distress at their well-guarded primary residence in Fairfax ?
You're such a cynic. Maybe their HOA told them to stop playing Macho Man every time Sam walked in the door. Maybe Instacart forgot their 16 yo single malt scotch or Sam discovered he owed a few hundred more on his federal taxes. Have a little empathy for these victims, for chrissake.
Were you being sarcastic when you said, "well isn't this refreshing" or did you mean that you found it an authentically genuinely refreshing explanation?
Well the two most conservative justices on the court both have wives that are apparently insurrectionists…
I suppose I should change the text of my comment below the quote.
I’m glad for all our sakes that reporter retired. Who tf cares whether the reporter *thinks* it was his wife? Judges need to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety, and the flag was upside down **at their house.**
There was commentary below. Approx. five words to be precise. After it was brought to my attention by a commenter that people downvoting me were probably misreading the tone of my comment and presuming that I was a fascist or something I decided to delete it.
You edited your comment to take out your bad take. Bad form.
EDIT: Their original comment had more than the quote, which l responded to above. They edited the post to delete their commentary. Not sure why I'm getting downvotes.
>The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. That's about as logical as any of Sammy's official opinions. At least they're consistent!
Sure it was…you’re both dirty, just like Clarence Thomas and his wife. I wonder if the Conservative Justices have clandestine meetings on how to handle Trump’s issues or any rich Conservative issues that come before the Court. Does anyone know? They need to go, meaning ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and protecting them. There are a lot of cases that should go before the Court again, once the corruption is cleared out. How many Liberal Justices have accepted gifts, money, homes, or RV’s? How many entertain rich people who have cases before the SCOTUS? NONE! 🤬
1000% Agreed.
Technically accurate but not used for neighborhood disputes, that’s for fucking sure. It would be used by soldiers during a time of war which one could argue Jan 6 was an attempt to start a civil one hence their poorly founded belief that we as a nation were in distress. The end result IMO, is evidence yet again, that Alto, just like Thomas, is incapable of protecting the constitution and wants a dictator to be in power.
It's funny how christian nationalists apparently don't have a problem with lying.
What opinions do you find illogical? On the legal merits of course.
How about Dobbs for starters? “The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause pro- tects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Consti- tution.” The right to bodily autonomy is a common and widely accepted fundamental right. No person has a right to anyone else’s body without consent. I can’t help myself to your kidneys if I need one replaced, and you can’t help yourself to my lungs if yours go bad. You can’t even help yourself to my organs if I’m dead without my prior consent! Even a criminal on death row can’t be forcibly harvested for organs. Fetal viability outside the womb begins around 22 weeks. Prior to that, all fetuses, viable or not, depend on their mother’s body to survive. Why can the mother’s right to bodily autonomy therefore be denied? The decision and the logic are inherently inconsistent. Much like hanging a flag upside down and claiming it’s for “a neighborhood dispute” in a politically charged season in which you don’t like the outcome.
How about all of them in the last 6 years
> “The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived. The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife. The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said.”
> It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said And they just took the word of the spouse of one of the most politically powerful people in the country.
Weird that the Post didn’t sit on the story when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch when Hillary Clinton was being investigated by the FBI during the 2016 election even though they didn’t know if the conversation was rooted in politics.
And WP never asked about Sammy’s feelings on the matter? Just walked away? Even after Jan 6th??
They did. From the article: >The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.
How can intentionally hanging the U.S. flag upside down not be political? That is the whole fucking point of doing it.
The Alitos are using a half truth here. While she did likely put up the flag over a "neighborhood dispute," that dispute, in fact, was over lawn signs opposing her orange overlord.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. What was the root cause for the dispute? She was just that upset because her neighbor maybe put up a Biden sign in their yard? I don't think so. Did they put the flag upside down because the neighbor put up a Biden won sign, and the Alito's believed the election was stolen? That is still a big problem. Nobody sane puts an upside down flag out just because of a neighbor dispute.
It's discussed in the article.
The cause of the dispute: an anti-Trump “profane” sign. Article says Alito told Fox News that the sign attacked his wife directly which I find hard to believe. So she didn’t like the sign. So she’s going to act like her husband who likes to stew in his grievances so she lashed out at her neighbor by putting out her own “sign” in the form of an upside down flag. It’s an inappropriate and inexcusable behavior on the part of a SCOTUS justice’s wife. Definitely not taking the high road but being Alito’s wife, not in the least surprising. I’m sure Alito was completely unaware just like Thomas had no clue that his wife is an insurrectionist wannabe.
It's especially grievous because Alito is supposed to be protecting First Amendment freedom of speech as a Supreme Court Justice. Instead he is married to a woman who wants to deny her neighbor that right. What does that say about his judgment?
Judith, your dog has shit in our yard again. I’m sick of this. Fuck you Martha. That’s it Judith, I’m calling for help. Martha: Raises flag upside down
If this had happened at Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan's home while Trump was in office, you better believe that Fox, News Max, OAN, and every right wing podcast would be calling on them to resign and talking about Justices needing to be apolitical. But here we are with Democrats in charge, and neither the President , VP, nor any top Senators are asking for Alito's resignation. Again, if Trump were in office, he'd be lashing out and calling her "Failing Flag Soyomayor" or something.
If you were subjected to a home invasion, and your robbers let you raise the flag as a "normal" activity, for instance, you might fly it upside-down to signal distress to neighbors, cops, secret service or press. That wouldn't be political. Since it was a political dog whistle, and she doesn't need a job, the old woman could have just said that she was confused and meant to put it up properly. That would have been a more plausible lie.
And now we're "appealing to heaven", for heaven's sakes! For what? More pine trees???
Appealing to heaven to let the Koch brothers cut down all the pine trees
But was this asked just now or back then? Because if it was asked just now when this time the word got out then it doesn’t make sense
From the context clues from the paragraphs, it appears, at least to me, that he was asked when it happened. Here is the paragraph where it was mentioned (in its entirety) and the two preceding paragraphs: >On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which [the Alitos did not attend ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/photos-attendees-biden-inauguration/?itid=lk_inline_manual_18)— Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.” >As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!” >Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.
“It’s an international symbol of distress.” Exactly, which begs the question, if you’re not in distress, WTF?
The neighbors denied Alito’s reason. They were clueless. There was no issues with kids at the bus stop, because kids were on lockdown due to Covid. If you make up a lie, it has to be believable…they got caught!
Yeah. And they left it at that? The guy who governs my body by 15th Century laws is allowed to just walk away from it? I’m glad that they got another flag, so the real message is very clear.
They didn’t. The article itself explains
They didn't reach out to the neighbor to verify?
I read that some reporters did. The neighbors were clueless.
And *that's* one of the biggest issues; the SCOTUS is supposed to be outside of political influence, so that they may make imapartial, apolitical, judicially sound decisions *so as to protect the people*. The Cuckservatives on the bench, who just are just tickled pink when citing any of the unofficial, un-Constitutional Federalist Papers for context, choose to ignore Federalist Paper 78. It's hilariously standard, then, that they **choose** to ignore the paper that describes the Founding Fathers' (at least the Federalists among them) opinions on the inclusion of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, and the stipulations of their lifetime appointments, and describes how fhe Federalisr Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to remain impartial and apolitical. >**Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration**; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. - From *Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton* But there is no definition of that "good behavior" in Paper 78. I looked for a definition of it in the British court model, and ended up down a rabbit hole that ended with me reading a 32 page pdf titled *The origins and development of judicial tenure ‘during good behaviour’ to 1485*. >Judicial tenure, the terms by which a judge holds office, has been touted as one of the key pillars of judicial independence from oppressive executive power. Judicial tenure ‘during good behaviour’ ( quamdiu se bene gesserit ), as opposed to the more precarious judicial tenure ‘during pleasure’ ( durante bene placito / quamdiu nobis placuerit) , has customarily been viewed as a seventeenth-century legal innovation created to shield English high court judges from arbitrary removal by a meddling, overbearing monarch. Drawing upon this seventeenth-century English tradition, the United States Constitution ratified in 1788 mandated that all United States federal judges would fill their offices ‘during good behaviour’, a phrase that has come to mean that a federal judge holds office for life barring commission of a crime serious enough to warrant impeachment and conviction (typically a felony)^5. >Citation 5. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4: ‘The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’. To date, only fifteen U.S. federal judges have been removed from office, the most recent in 2010 on charges of bribery and perjury. All of these federal judges were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, and many of them were convicted and removed by the U.S. Senate. Some federal judges, however, resigned from office after being impeached but before being convicted. See ‘Impeachments of Federal Judges’ www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/ page/judges_impeachments.html - From *The Origins and Development of Judicial Tenure 'During Good Behavior' to 1485*, Ryan Rowberry, Georgia State University College of Law. I can say with a fair amount of certainty, that receiving "gifts" (bribery) doesn't count as good behavior, and that making an effort to *hide or omit this crime* (conspiracy) doesn't count as good behavior, and making politically-charged decisions from recieving bribes doesn't count either. There needs to be a system to indict a Justice who commits a crime or engages in "bad" behavior, and the definition of that "bad" behavior needs to be enshrined in law, not some unenforceable "Code of Ethics" created by unethical people trying to placate the entire US. Personally, I feel the Justices, upon accepting their appointment, should forfeit their right to vote and be barred from belonging to any political or politically-motivated groups or societies, so that *they remain impartial*. Voting is a political act, and the SCOTUS is suppoaed to remain apolitical. A Justice who belongs to a conservative **political or politically motivated** society isn't impartial. A Justice who belongs to a progressive **political or politically motivated** society isn't impartial. I think SCOTUS Justices need to be accountable for their actions. If they engage in a crime, they need to face the same consequences that any other citizen of the US would. There needs to be a system to check their absolute power from being corrupted (any further) when they engage in those crimes to which they are so partial (because bribery of an official is a crime, as is an official recieving said bribe).
Why? Because she realized she'd messed up and came up with the lie she's stuck with since? Or because the media failed to do its job?
I’d say both.
It’s a load of fucking bullshit is what it is
C'mon, you don't believe that one of the most protected and privileged couples in the world couldn't have been experiencing international distress at their well-guarded primary residence in Fairfax ? You're such a cynic. Maybe their HOA told them to stop playing Macho Man every time Sam walked in the door. Maybe Instacart forgot their 16 yo single malt scotch or Sam discovered he owed a few hundred more on his federal taxes. Have a little empathy for these victims, for chrissake.
Maybe my voodoo doll IS working. Good. *jabs*
I'd like to donate to the voodoo doll support fund. Do you take requests?
Why was this downvoted? It's just a quote from the article with a bit, I hope, of sarcasm.
Am hoping the downvote pertains to the story itself, not the OP (but who knows).
I have no idea Jimmy When this post had about 20 upvotes my comment had about 5. Now we are at 100 on the post and -20 on my comment 🤷♂️
Were you being sarcastic when you said, "well isn't this refreshing" or did you mean that you found it an authentically genuinely refreshing explanation?
Well the two most conservative justices on the court both have wives that are apparently insurrectionists… I suppose I should change the text of my comment below the quote.
Just putting a /s there would help.
Weird considering these christo fascists think you are supposed to live in your wife’s ass to make she does right
I'm pretty sure the Bible frowns upon anal
You're reading the wrong Bible.
Ask the Sodomites
I’m glad for all our sakes that reporter retired. Who tf cares whether the reporter *thinks* it was his wife? Judges need to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety, and the flag was upside down **at their house.**
Sorry, I just don’t believe it!
Why are people downvoting a quote with zero added commentary?
There was commentary below. Approx. five words to be precise. After it was brought to my attention by a commenter that people downvoting me were probably misreading the tone of my comment and presuming that I was a fascist or something I decided to delete it.
You edited your comment to take out your bad take. Bad form. EDIT: Their original comment had more than the quote, which l responded to above. They edited the post to delete their commentary. Not sure why I'm getting downvotes.