You may be correct. This may be semantics but I just dislike the fact that further language was put forth connecting dots that may not be there. Don't draw lines between things that don't exist. It was sufficient to mention a 40% reduction regarding PDSG. That in of itself demonstrates measurable action by the company to reduce exposure to non-producing assets. I see no point in further mentioning a "need to preserve cash resources." I would like to believe Opty's theory but we don't have any concrete information to give it credence. At some point one would like to believe Alliacenses PR's regarding licensing fees now being to expensive for lump sums. I just hate to see Patriot use this language because it makes me go back and question Alliacenses information. You may also be correct regarding the context of the CDX language, however, if one doesn't know anything about the MMP portfolio the PR will lead you to believe that Patriot is relying on CDX to be the sole revenue drivers. It just seems like everytime we take a step towards better transparency, Patriot smears a little mud on the windshield. It makes it hard to figure these guys out. I think they like it that way. IMO.