What relevance is this one-eyed quotation? Jews expelled from Arab countries has what to do with Palestinians evicted from their lands in East Jerusalem and the west Bamk? Are you suggesting that a crime in one country excuses a crime in another?

This is exactly the point I have been making when other posters bring up Thaksin in the UK, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Nazi scientists, and all the rest when the subject matter is Afghanistan.

Great to see that we all still love each other....

And HC you are right about me mentioning US soil, yeah yeah technically Chuck is right by saying embassies are bla bla.

Anyway I returned last week from a long stay in a Muslim country and I can tell you that these people have no bad feelings about American people

or any other nationality, hence I work for an American company and that was no issue. But we did discuss some of the issues that are taking place and have. They were a bit surprised when I told them that I do not agree with those wars and these conflicts should have been solved differently.

They told me that they thought most Westerners did not like Muslims, you see propaganda is distributed both ways. Funny to see that when I am critical of some foreign policy it automatically must mean I am against the people of that country? A while ago I had a talk with an Israeli guy and he asked me why do people hate Israel so much. I told him that we having nothing against the people of Israel just some of them that happen to be in charge of foreign policy or decide on. The filth and hatred that came out of his mouth would classify him as an extreme racist so I asked him where he got his ideas from. He said it was part of history lessons in school and his own observations. Which lead to the following question: Where can we find true history? I am almost sure that today no school will mention the fact that BL once was working together with the US and other governments. Saddam was befriended as well with the US . I am sure that it is not part of history lessons in school how the British removed the population of an entire island to make place for a base on land leased by the US government from where a lot of these bomber missions where carried out. I am sure that they are not told some underlying fact's of why Panama was bombed and invaded.

The peasants like all or most of us will most likely never now the real truth about what is going on behind those closed doors where people in expensive suits decide what is the best for us without consulting us and will try to spin the main stream media into reporting and promoting their agenda.

I am looking forward to Chuck's thesis on why he believes it were the Russians that created this anti America (foreign policy) feeling.

Chuck has to think if his believes were not influenced in some way during his many years of military experience as he claims.

Have a good day all!

 Where can we find true history? I am almost sure that today no school will mention the fact that BL once was working together with the US and other governments. Saddam was befriended as well with the US . I am sure that it is not part of history lessons in school how the British removed the population of an entire island to make place for a base on land leased by the US government from where a lot of these bomber missions where carried out. I am sure that they are not told some underlying fact's of why Panama was bombed and invaded. 

I am not at school now.  BUt I certainly was taught about the forced depopulation of the 2,000 Diego Garcians.  And I am pretty sure that there has been enough reporting to know that we aided bin Laden against the Soviets, and that we aided Saddam against the Iranians.    Are these really all things which have been kept from the American public?

The media is pretty strong in the US, so I am not sure how much can really be held secret from the public.  BUt then again, I may be just naive on that.

Abraham Lincoln once made this statement and it applies to you.

"He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met."

I wonder whether the reply will be "ditto" or "I'm rubber, you are glue" this time.

What relevance is this one-eyed quotation? Jews expelled from Arab countries has what to do with Palestinians evicted from their lands in East Jerusalem and the west Bamk? Are you suggesting that a crime in one country excuses a crime in another?

This is exactly the point I have been making when other posters bring up Thaksin in the UK, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Nazi scientists, and all the rest when the subject matter is Afghanistan.

That is why I made that post Bonobo to show the irrelevance of saying that one of the reasons to invade Afghanistan was for the reason foreign countries/governments, harbored people that where responsible for killing innocent people.

 Where can we find true history? I am almost sure that today no school will mention the fact that BL once was working together with the US and other governments. Saddam was befriended as well with the US . I am sure that it is not part of history lessons in school how the British removed the population of an entire island to make place for a base on land leased by the US government from where a lot of these bomber missions where carried out. I am sure that they are not told some underlying fact's of why Panama was bombed and invaded. 

I am not at school now.  BUt I certainly was taught about the forced depopulation of the 2,000 Diego Garcians.  And I am pretty sure that there has been enough reporting to know that we aided bin Laden against the Soviets, and that we aided Saddam against the Iranians.    Are these really all things which have been kept from the American public?

Please tell what was told to you and if you agree with these actions.

The media is pretty strong in the US, so I am not sure how much can really be held secret from the public.  BUt then again, I may be just naive on that.

The main stream media in many countries are owned by a few that have strong ties with their government or corporations.

We are not being told the real truth about most of things and you can see that by following the MS news on this alleged financial drama which is basically not more than a gigantic fraud and the greatest swindle in mankind history.

 I have two homes in the US, so I pay taxes there.  I pay income tax on money earned which is not taxed here.  

Technically

You would not be considered an expat if your calling a residence your home I would assume you also claim one of them as your primary residence.

Also the fact that you said you pay taxes on income suggests you are not staying out of the US for unbroken periods long enough to be considered an expat.

But to simplify it all.... I am saying it is not valid to say how a pie should be made if your not the one having to eat it...literally

YOU will agree with your cohorts no matter what they say.

Not true. All in all, they post factual, logical, and truthful material and are as polite as they can be when dealing with trash talking, raving loons.

I mostly concentrate on pointing out wild conspiracy theories, lies, half truths and dishonest posts and they mostly stay away from all that stuff. I find very almost nothing to not agree with. They are good honest men and darn good citizens.

You are wrong again....chuckd was proved to be a liar, so one of your cohorts does not post "truthful" or "factual" material. Not to forget that you have lied also. Furthermore, you alledge lies and dishonesty yet have never exposed one example of it.

Your post(s) reeks of sycophantic, narrow-minded fanatacism.

If chuck was consistant, he'd pull you up on the atrocious grammar.

I'm getting a little sick of this, Harcourt. I did not lie and I am a little tired of your use of the word. If I misspoke, then an apology is due. If you feel so strongly that you are on the right side, then you may take this as an apology for misspeaking.

You have done the same thing in the past so there should be no problem with it.

In the meantime, stop calling me a liar.

PS: You misspelled "consistent"!

Hilary "misspoke" when she outright lied. At the time I accused you of lying, you did nothing to defend it, and in fact conceded it by stating that you had no intention of doing the honourable thing.

Now you concede that you misspoke. Your getting closer.

chuckd was proved to be a liar

Not that I know of, but you on the other hand...

Of course you ignore anything critical of your cohorts. Chuck's lie was clearly exposed.

Me on the other hand....remind me, please, if you can, with actual proof, not your very biased opinion/interpretation. You have never been able to do that, so stop making false accusations.

I remember something about Mossad killing handicapped children in NZ for their identities. Since then we have learned from events in Dubai that isn't necessary.

You have a selective memory, whatsmore, a faulty memory.

I never said Mossad killed any child in NZ. So does that make you a liar? Using your logic, it does. I don't accuse you of lying though, because I can see you didn't remember it quite right.

Now, if you deliberately misquoted, then you would be deceitfull.

I posted a recollection that included some wrong information (I too have a faulty memory for things that occurred 20 years or so ago) and when I was corrected, I admitted I had made a mistake....that is not lying.

Hilary talking about dodging bullets....did she "misspeak" or lie?

There is a difference between recalling a news article from decades ago and recalling actual first hand events.

Me talking about Hilary "dodging" bullets, when in fact she never said "dodged" but "ducked" from bullets is not a lie either...it was my error of recollection that I didn't edit out here as a case in point. "Dodged" or "ducked", it makes no difference to the intent and context. Handicapped child or non-handicapped child, the context was that the Mossad agent used a dead child's i.d.

Abraham Lincoln once made this statement and it applies to you.

"He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met."

I wonder whether the reply will be "ditto" or "I'm rubber, you are glue" this time.

No, I don't think it appropriate to say "ditto" to him....at least he tries to have a discourse. Unlike you, so I would say ditto to you.

Great to see that we all still love each other....

And HC you are right about me mentioning US soil, yeah yeah technically Chuck is right by saying embassies are bla bla.

Anyway I returned last week from a long stay in a Muslim country and I can tell you that these people have no bad feelings about American people

or any other nationality, hence I work for an American company and that was no issue. But we did discuss some of the issues that are taking place and have. They were a bit surprised when I told them that I do not agree with those wars and these conflicts should have been solved differently.

They told me that they thought most Westerners did not like Muslims, you see propaganda is distributed both ways. Funny to see that when I am critical of some foreign policy it automatically must mean I am against the people of that country? A while ago I had a talk with an Israeli guy and he asked me why do people hate Israel so much. I told him that we having nothing against the people of Israel just some of them that happen to be in charge of foreign policy or decide on. The filth and hatred that came out of his mouth would classify him as an extreme racist so I asked him where he got his ideas from. He said it was part of history lessons in school and his own observations. Which lead to the following question: Where can we find true history? I am almost sure that today no school will mention the fact that BL once was working together with the US and other governments. Saddam was befriended as well with the US . I am sure that it is not part of history lessons in school how the British removed the population of an entire island to make place for a base on land leased by the US government from where a lot of these bomber missions where carried out.

The Times of London did a piece on Diego Garcia three weeks ago

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7052088.ece

 I have two homes in the US, so I pay taxes there.  I pay income tax on money earned which is not taxed here.  

Technically

You would not be considered an expat if your calling a residence your home I would assume you also claim one of them as your primary residence.

Also the fact that you said you pay taxes on income suggests you are not staying out of the US for unbroken periods long enough to be considered an expat.

But to simplify it all.... I am saying it is not valid to say how a pie should be made if your not the one having to eat it...literally

Mr. Flying:

Here is the Wiki short form definition of an expat:

"An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence..."

The key word here is "temporarily". One can maintain a permanent residence in the US, work overseas on a temporary contract or even reside overseas without working and still be an expat.

Further, there is no requirement that a US citizen remain outside the US for an unbroken period of time. Section 911 of the tax code states an individual must be outside the US, it's territories and possessions, for 330 days out of a consecutive 365 day tax year period to qualify for the foreign income earned exclusion. This exemption method is called the Physical Presence Test.

There is an additional way to qualify for the foreign income exclusion and that is the Bona Fide Residency requirement. This generally requires a US citizen to establish a tax residence in a foreign country. This in no way means you forfeit your right to have your permanent residence in the US for voting privileges.

The current amount of excludable income is $92,400 per year. By the way, the US is one of the very few countries that tax their citizens abroad. Most countries do not require their expatriate citizens to pay taxes on income earned abroad provided they meet their home country requirements of either physical presence or residency.

Now, if I might interject myself into your discussion with Bonobo with some pertinent details. I have worked overseas for nearly all of the past 36 years. I have two homes in Thailand and no permanent residence in the US. I do have a voting residence. During this 36 year period, I paid taxes when due and Social Security (FICA) constantly. What I received during this 36 year period in the form of a benefit from the US was a Passport, which I paid for myself. I must admit I have attended many social functions and golf tournaments at various US Embassies, if you wish to consider that a benefit. However, I also served as a US State Department Warden for the better part of 25 years in an unpaid capacity so perhaps that justifies the few free meals that State has laid on me and my wife. I have worked with the US military through two wars and the Iranian revolution and have maintained close ties through that venue. Unlike Bonobo, I was not called back into active duty to serve my country but, in my own small manner, I can only hope my efforts have contributed to the US effort.

I have a son who is a very successful business owner in the US and my daughter is married to a US Naval Officer so I still have a close relationship and interest in what is happening politically in the US. I am vitally interested in what this administration is doing for their sake as well.

Therefore, for personal reasons if no other, I disagree with your concept that an expatriate has no right to be critical. Even though I have not been back in the US since 1991, I feel I have earned the right to be critical when need be of any action that is taken by those politicians that have been chosen to represent me or my family.

The Constitution gives me the right to try and decide how the pie should be made, not where I hang my hat.

Therefore, for personal reasons if no other, I disagree with your concept that an expatriate has no right to be critical. Even though I have not been back in the US since 1991, I feel I have earned the right to be critical when need be of any action that is taken by those politicians that have been chosen to represent me or my family.

The Constitution gives me the right to try and decide how the pie should be made, not where I hang my hat.

I understand what your saying & as always it is just my opinion.

But a person who is temporarily out is as I said still a resident & by all means should vote.

But for folks that stay out .....Personally I care nothing for their opinion on how to bake American pie

Nor do I care for their opinion on what should go into it...Why? Because they do not have to smell it cooking nor eat it like the rest of us who live here.

Lets face it & I in no way begrudge an expat his reason for leaving but....We could safely say most leave to seek a better

life/work/pay/standard of living than they can afford in their home country yes?

Why should they be allowed to vote folks into office that will have NO effect on their lives outside the US?

It a birth right to have a say in how the rest of us have to live while they live elsewhere?

I say citizenship while good for life should not include voting rights as a given. If you do not have minimum qualifications of residence here then you should not be allowed to vote on how the rest of us will live period.

Again my opinion is all this is.

Just a quickie question. Do you believe citizens should have to pay poll tax as well and provide proof of citizenship when they show up to vote?

It seems strange that you are so willing to disenfranchise some 20,000,000 US citizens of their voting privileges due to where they reside, even though they are under the same laws as you.

Again, our opinions differ but this time it is about whether non-resident cxitizens are covered by the US Constitution or not.

Actually, I came over for the sex, but that's another story best told over a cold beer.

Just a quickie question. Do you believe citizens should have to pay poll tax as well and provide proof of citizenship when they show up to vote?

It seems strange that you are so willing to disenfranchise some 20,000,000 US citizens of their voting privileges due to where they reside, even though they are under the same laws as you.

Again, our opinions differ but this time it is about whether non-resident citizens are covered by the US Constitution or not.

Actually, I came over for the sex, but that's another story best told over a cold beer.

No to almost any tax.... but I still say if you do not *maintain* your citizenship you still keep it for life but....voting for policy that has no affect on you but does affect those here? I think not.

Also I do not so much see a full time expat as being under the same laws as you say, as folks residing here full time.

My guess is we do not differ on the constitution as much as you may think.

As for the sex.....I would not say that is a bad reason at all.

Just a quickie question. Do you believe citizens should have to pay poll tax as well and provide proof of citizenship when they show up to vote?

It seems strange that you are so willing to disenfranchise some 20,000,000 US citizens of their voting privileges due to where they reside, even though they are under the same laws as you.

Again, our opinions differ but this time it is about whether non-resident citizens are covered by the US Constitution or not.

Actually, I came over for the sex, but that's another story best told over a cold beer.

No to almost any tax.... but I still say if you do not *maintain* your citizenship you still keep it for life but....voting for policy that has no affect on you but does affect those here? I think not.

Also I do not so much see a full time expat as being under the same laws as you say, as folks residing here full time.

My guess is we do not differ on the constitution as much as you may think.

As for the sex.....I would not say that is a bad reason at all.

Well, I guess a Texas Highway Patrolman would have a hard time giving me a speeding ticket in Thailand. Other than that I am answerable to the US government on any law which I might break that is a chargeable offense. IRS can still get me. Deadbeat dads are routinely swept up when they apply for passports or passport pages. I am also answerable to the Thai laws where there are NOT 15 million illegal aliens.

You seem to be saying one should only be able to vote on what directly affects them as well.

Let me point out one simple and verifiable manner in which policies of our government have a direct impact on me.

I receive part of my retirement in the form of a direct deposit into my bank account.

On 3 March 2009 the exchange rate was 36.18 baht per US dollar. The rate of exchange this month was 32.52 baht per US dollar.

This constitutes a drop of 3.66 baht per US dollar for a net loss to me of 10.12% and is directly attributable to the fiscal policies of this administration.

I feel I have every right to vote for anybody or any group that has a 10% per annum negative affect on my quality of life.

The main stream media in many countries are owned by a few that have strong ties with their government or corporations.

In some countries, sure.  But not the US.  The media makes its name, money, and awards by rooting out the truth, by exposing government mis-steps.  Just about every US government scandal in the last 40 years, at least, was brought to light by a crusading reporter.  Woodward and Bernstein, anyone?

 I have two homes in the US, so I pay taxes there.  I pay income tax on money earned which is not taxed here.  

Technically

You would not be considered an expat if your calling a residence your home I would assume you also claim one of them as your primary residence.

Also the fact that you said you pay taxes on income suggests you are not staying out of the US for unbroken periods long enough to be considered an expat.

But to simplify it all.... I am saying it is not valid to say how a pie should be made if your not the one having to eat it...literally

My permanent residence for almost everything is in Thailand (banking, the VA, the military, registrations, etc.).  I just keep my California address alive for voting and tax purposes.  And since I am a US citizen, I have to pay taxes on all income not taxed by another  country.  No choice in that matter.

But be that as it may.  The label expat is not important to me.  I was just wondering about your post.  I understand fully your American pie-somtam statement, but not the part about what our government does not affecting expats.

Therefore, for personal reasons if no other, I disagree with your concept that an expatriate has no right to be critical. Even though I have not been back in the US since 1991, I feel I have earned the right to be critical when need be of any action that is taken by those politicians that have been chosen to represent me or my family.

The Constitution gives me the right to try and decide how the pie should be made, not where I hang my hat.

I understand what your saying & as always it is just my opinion.

But a person who is temporarily out is as I said still a resident & by all means should vote.

But for folks that stay out .....Personally I care nothing for their opinion on how to bake American pie

Nor do I care for their opinion on what should go into it...Why? Because they do not have to smell it cooking nor eat it like the rest of us who live here.

Lets face it & I in no way begrudge an expat his reason for leaving but....We could safely say most leave to seek a better

life/work/pay/standard of living than they can afford in their home country yes?

Why should they be allowed to vote folks into office that will have NO effect on their lives outside the US?

It a birth right to have a say in how the rest of us have to live while they live elsewhere?

I say citizenship while good for life should not include voting rights as a given. If you do not have minimum qualifications of residence here then you should not be allowed to vote on how the rest of us will live period.

Again my opinion is all this is.

OK, I understand your point now.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand what you are writing and why.

Even while living in Thailand, I am affected by the VA, by the IRS, and the Social Security Administration.  I am affected by California propositions and how my  town determines property taxes.  Heck, while I am now officially retired from the Marine Reserves, I could still legally get called back up should we get embroiled in another conflict.  I do care about the current health care issue.

So even if I am in Thailand, I believe I have the vested interest to vote for national, state, and local politicians who can best reflect my positions, and to make sure my vote is tallied on local and sate propositions. 

Therefore, for personal reasons if no other, I disagree with your concept that an expatriate has no right to be critical. Even though I have not been back in the US since 1991, I feel I have earned the right to be critical when need be of any action that is taken by those politicians that have been chosen to represent me or my family.

The Constitution gives me the right to try and decide how the pie should be made, not where I hang my hat.

I understand what your saying & as always it is just my opinion.

But a person who is temporarily out is as I said still a resident & by all means should vote.

But for folks that stay out .....Personally I care nothing for their opinion on how to bake American pie

Nor do I care for their opinion on what should go into it...Why? Because they do not have to smell it cooking nor eat it like the rest of us who live here.

Lets face it & I in no way begrudge an expat his reason for leaving but....We could safely say most leave to seek a better

life/work/pay/standard of living than they can afford in their home country yes?

Why should they be allowed to vote folks into office that will have NO effect on their lives outside the US?

It a birth right to have a say in how the rest of us have to live while they live elsewhere?

I say citizenship while good for life should not include voting rights as a given. If you do not have minimum qualifications of residence here then you should not be allowed to vote on how the rest of us will live period.

Again my opinion is all this is.

OK, I understand your point now. I don't agree with it, but I do understand what you are writing and why.

Even while living in Thailand, I am affected by the VA, by the IRS, and the Social Security Administration. I am affected by California propositions and how my town determines property taxes. Heck, while I am now officially retired from the Marine Reserves, I could still legally get called back up should we get embroiled in another conflict. I do care about the current health care issue.

So even if I am in Thailand, I believe I have the vested interest to vote for national, state, and local politicians who can best reflect my positions, and to make sure my vote is tallied on local and sate propositions.

Excuse me for butting in to a conversation that does not concern me.....whilst I can see where Flying is coming from, and agree to a point, Bonobo has valid points also.

I will mention a definition of a tax law of NZ (I realise NZ tax law is not pertinant to you guys, but this regulation does have bearing on what youy guys are talking about)...I have recently accepted a job to work in Afghanistan. The pay is tax-free, in US$. So I investigated the implications of "tax free", and came upon this interesting definition made by the NZ IRD. "Enduring relationship with NZ". According to Inland Revenue, if I work overseas, and have an "enduring relationship" with NZ (a house, close family etc), I am liable to pay tax on what I earn (double taxation exemptions etc excluded).

I think the term, "enduring relationship", and what it implies, is somewhat pertinant to what you are talking about.

Also the fact that you said you pay taxes on income suggests you are not staying out of the US for unbroken periods long enough to be considered an expat.

Excuse me for being pithy, but US citizens with a decent income have to pay taxes no matter where in the world they reside. Not living in the U.S. does not mean that you are anything less than someone who does. Your argument is downright silly.

No, the Taliban government in Afghanistan had no direct role in the 9/11 attacks. BUt they sheltered and gave succor to those who did plan and carry out the attack. The US led forces gave the Taliban government a clear choice. Capture and prosecute the terrorists, or we would come do it ourselves. The Taliban government replied that they would not take action, and any action by us to take care of the situation would be considered an act of aggression and dealt with accordingly.

If Afghanistan had arrested and prosecuted Bin Laden and his organization, the Taliban would still be in power. If the Afghanistan forces had just stood by and let our forces prosecute BIn Laden, then they would still be in power. But not, they chose to fight. Their choice.

Not only did the Taliban shelter the planners of 9/11, they also allowed them to openly train terrorists who had vowed to terrorize the United States. They pretty much asked for what they ended up getting.

Nah, just came home hoping to read Chuck his thesis on why he thinks it were the communists that are to blame for this anti Americanism and there is not a thing.

I guess we have different sources of info about the Taliban rejecting the capture of BL and handing him to court.

I have been told and read that the Taliban offered twice to capture him and bring him to court.

Which one is the correct version?

Edit: Here a link http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5

They demanded that we "prove" his guilt to them first. Trying to prove that a terrorist committed a crime in the US to the Taliban would be about as easy as getting Harcourt to admit that the USA is not as evil as the Great Leap Forward was.

Thanks Endure for the link on the Diego Garcia story.

This one example just shows how "others" use these kind of facts to show how inhumane some of those foreign policy's or actions or whatever it is called are.

This story has been kept well hidden for the public, and I think the majority of people would not care a thing even when told and that is the sad thing.

It seems most people do not care about anything unless it affect themselves negatively.

A snip from the article:

"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty"

Who are the we and what evidence did they had but did not or refused to show?

The Afghanistan government made in my opinion a reasonable request. Please stop the bombing for a while so we can capture the guy you are looking for and meanwhile you can collect the evidence that is needed to show he is guilty so he can be brought to court.

For your information again UG, Why is the 9/11 attack not stated as a reason to prosecute/capture BL on the FBI site that shows the most wanted?

Ask the FBI.

My question is directly to you UG.

Why does the FBI not include 9/11 as a reason to capture dead or alive Bin Laden.

Why?

Your reply shows you have no idea, but you insist BL was directly involved in those attacks. What other information do you have that the CIA and FBI have not?

Have you been involved in those attacks and therefore can claim some kind of inside knowledge?

Nah, just came home hoping to read Chuck his thesis on why he thinks it were the communists that are to blame for this anti Americanism and there is not a thing.

Relax, Alex. You have survived all your life without my thoughts on the subject. If it takes a 2-3 more days, what's to worry about?

I have a life outside this forum, you know.

Edit in:

As I recall, the Taliban agreed to hand OBL over to a neutral third party country once proof was provided, assuming they believed it of course.

Iran was mentioned.

Here is what the FBI says about OBL:

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Please read the last sentence to clarify your question. They have included 9/11 and other terrorist attacks with that caveat.

It is OK Chuck, I like your presence here and your contributions. And having here someone that could give a bit more insight from your (military) point of view and your personal experiences would be helpful.

Chuck, their last sentence have been changed/added, you know it.

I have asked the question and they still did not reply.