<p>oh last thing I forgot:
The university’s econ department is full of Keynesians. While every school of thought in economics have flaws, Keynesians are the worst.</p>
<p>@rjk Bear has a point, but the thing is that all schools give scholarships to less than deserving kids, especially state schools because their function isn’t necessarily to admit the most qualified students but to serve the state in trying to give the underprivileged a boost in their education goals. Oh, and romangypsies basically will just resort to insulting anyone she can’t counterargue–whenever she makes a point, you will see a stunning lack of arguments or reasons to support her positions but plenty of anecdotal accounts, snide insults, and obfuscation. That’s the definition of a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:) </p>
<p>Nah, there are just some people you can’t reason with. 
I’ve been on here for a long time, Asian. I very rarely resort to personal attacks. It’s pointless. But when people clearly have an agenda and are consistently negative, I call 'em out on it. I tried using logic with bearcats for a while. Didn’t get anywhere. That’s when I gave up and started offering him puppies.</p>
<p>Oh, and like you’ve done several times before, you make no mention of that fact that SEVERAL people on this forum call bearcats a ■■■■■ and instead decide to single me out. You have called me a ■■■■■ several times before. In fact, in the several years I’ve been here, you’re the only one to have done so. Please move on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly don’t do that. Heck, I even turned them down once before because I liked other schools better. But I choose not to have a pessimistic outlook about EVERYTHING U of M related.</p>
<p>Wow, we get to read about Michigan’s inferior student body, racist agenda, lavish spending and shameless vagrancy, gimmick degrees, useless football coach and misguided-yet-nobel-worthy Keynesian Economics department …all in a thread that was supposed to be about the University’s latest fund-raising campaign. It is amazing how all those dumb@ss billionaires (you know, like the ones that manage Berkshire Hathaway and make multi-billion dollar real-estate deals) are clueless and throwing their money away on a corrupt and inferior university.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how football came into this… the athletic department is self-funding o.O</p>
<p>I just scrolled through the comments on the article (my mistake, I know), I’m honestly surprised by the huge backlash. Don’t want to give? Don’t! It seems really simple. I don’t understand why people throw so much negativity towards it. </p>
<p>I personally won’t be making any donations until I am very well off because there are other places I’d rather donate to- but I’m grateful that others are giving to U of M. Why on earth would people care what OTHERS do with their money? Oy!</p>
<p>Right, because all the criticism was in response to this thread… Oh wait it isn’t. My only response on this thread was to point out the hilarious hypocrisy in the university’s fund raising battle cry. </p>
<p>The only reason I then went point by point was because rjk went ahead to equate me to drew sharp. I went on to explain my disagreement with the university is well defined in scope and constant, backed by observable facts and statistics. But of course you do what you do best; misrepresent and ridicule any opinions that could be construed as negative for the university despite being factual, because obviously michigan is flawless and perfect and how dare anyone dissent from that opinion, seriously?</p>
<p>And then you of course illogically equate billionaires donating as them thinking the university is perfect. I am obviously in the 99th percentile when it comes to cumulative donation from an alumni below 30, but the university is obviously not without flaws in my eyes. Unlike you, my mind is not simple and binary. I can understand that something is good and bad at the same time. I am sure the billionaire that manages berkshire hathaway is capable of intellectual processing of this sort as well.</p>
<p>Well, at least we now know that Drew Sharp and bearcats are not one and the same. ;-)</p>
<p>Rjk see what you have done? ;)</p>
<p>“Right, because all the criticism was in response to this thread… Oh wait it isn’t. My only response on this thread was to point out the hilarious hypocrisy in the university’s fund raising battle cry.”</p>
<p>That’s the point bearcats, you never have anything positive to say about Michigan. All you do is complain about and criticize the University.</p>
<p>“But of course you do what you do best; misrepresent and ridicule any opinions that could be construed as negative for the university despite being factual, because obviously michigan is flawless and perfect and how dare anyone dissent from that opinion, seriously?”</p>
<p>Let us examine your facts shall we?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That Michigan is not as selective as its peers. You will have forgive me for now understanding what selectivity and academic excellence have to do with each other. And even if they were somewhat perfectly correlated, can you prove that Michigan’s private peers are honestly representing their admissions data in a manner that is identical to the way Michigan represents its admissions data? We have seen how those private universities creatively calculate their student to faculty ratios, and we have also seen CMC, George Washington and Emory get caught lying about SAT ranges. Private universities have so much as stake with rankings that they have no choice but to colorfully publish data. You will have to forgive me for not believing the data that private universities publish.</p></li>
<li><p>That Michigan has a racist agenda. While I do not agree with Michigan’s approach to admitting diversity, I do not think the problem is racist in nature. </p></li>
<li><p>Misuse of resources. This is not fact, it is opinion. Universities, private or public, are non-profit organizations. I do not think (and this is my opinion) that the University should be expected to turn a profit. As for increasing tuition and raising money, how is that different from what other universities do? Even in the private sector, the price of goods and services are constantly increasing.</p></li>
<li><p>Monetization of brand. In many instances, Michigan has some valuable and interesting interdisciplinary programs, but I must unfortunately agree that this latest Business School graduate program is gimmicky.</p></li>
<li><p>Brady Hoke. I have to agree, he is not head coach material. The man has integrity, and he can recruit, but his nepotistic loyalty to his OC and OL coach will be his undoing. We will finish the season 7-5 at best this year, which is not enough to get him fired, but when he insists on keeping Borges and Funk next season, and we have another 7-5 season, he will be fired.</p></li>
<li><p>Keynesian economics. This is obviously a question of ideology. Is there a perfect (or even better) system? Try telling the Nordic states of Europe that big government doesn’t work. Their employees and companies are among the most high-earning/profitable on earth, unemployment is under control, population living below or at the poverty line almost non-existent, very little corruption, unfairly high salaries curbed (very few unjustified bonuses or criminally high CEO salaries) great medical and education systems available to all, long life-span, low crime rates, overall happy populations etc…</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“And then you of course illogically equate billionaires donating as them thinking the university is perfect. I am obviously in the 99th percentile when it comes to cumulative donation from an alumni below 30, but the university is obviously not without flaws in my eyes. Unlike you, my mind is not simple and binary. I can understand that something is good and bad at the same time. I am sure the billionaire that manages berkshire hathaway is capable of intellectual processing of this sort as well.”</p>
<p>I am illogical? But it is logical to donate $300 million or $110 million to a university that you do not believe in? Ross and Munger are donating their money to Michigan because they believe in its mission and vision. No university is perfect, but as far as they are concerned, they are very proud of their alma matter.</p>
<p>If they’re spending money on blowing having people blow a single leaf off of the sidewalk (I saw this yesterday) and “light shows” and not on more parking they’re misusing money. </p>
<p>Michigan, we need more parking! Get on it! </p>
<p>They also allocate parking really stupidly. For instance, they changed the IOE/Cooley Blue lot from 6-5 to 6-8? Why? There was no reason. All you see now is that the lot sits mostly empty from 5:30 until 8. Is it just an obnoxious ploy to get more revenue from tickets? And making that lot by Stamps 24/7 Blue? Again, why? No one’s parking there on Saturday night. And why do these start at 6am anyway, no one’s there at 6am. I once went to move my car at 6:20am thinking it’d be fine. Nope. I see 3 cars in the entire parking lot and a ticket on my car timestamped at 6:11 am. Not cool Michigan.</p>
<p>Fix parking!</p>
<p>I want to see a $20 million of this specifically earmarked for parking. </p>
<p>Now that my parking rant is done, I don’t see the problem with monetizing the brand though. Isn’t that what good businesses do? Is the worry that it will diminish the perceived quality of the university or something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please. Have you ever looked at who the university awards merit scholarships to? Here are a few examples, from the Office of Financial Aid webpage:</p>
<p>Alumni Association of Taiwan Scholarship: awarded to “students who attended high school or college in Taiwan.” Hmmm . . . no implicit racial preference there, right?</p>
<p>Georgia Babledelis Student Aid Endowment Fund: awarded to “students with financial need from the Upper Peninsula.” Given that the UP is 95+% white, one might think there’s an implicit racial preference there. </p>
<p>John H. Barrett Memorial Scholar: awarded to graduates of Newberry, Ishpeming, or Negaunee High Schools. Ditto Babledelis.</p>
<p>Cara and David M. Cassard Scholarship: awarded to “business students from Kent County, Ottawa County, or the West Michigan Region” [an uncommonly white part of the state].</p>
<p>Conrad Family Toledo St. Francis High Scholarship: awarded to “graduates of St. Francis HS,” a predominantly white HS in Toledo, OH.</p>
<p>Elwood Croul Scholarship; awarded to “graduates of the Westminster School in Simsbury, CT,” a predominantly white New England prep school.</p>
<p>Robert J. Delonis Memorial Scholarship: awarded to a “graduates of UD Jesuit High School in Detroit,” an all-male, Catholic, predominantly white high school in Detroit.</p>
<p>We could go on for pages like this. There are dozens if not hundreds of scholarship awards at the University of Michigan that systematically favor white applicants. Yet bearcats chooses to focus exclusively on financial aid favoring black applicants and black students.</p>
<p>The motive behind such a selective use of information speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Maybe the reason to support aid to the under-represented is that they’re systematically under-represented, i.e., that most of the resources tend to flow toward groups that are, in fact, well represented in the alumni base and in the established donor base, who are inclined to look out for their own.</p>
<p>Wow, all of those freakin IS scholarships…</p>
<p>Michigan’s priority is supposed to be to the citizens of Michigan. I don’t know why it ruffles feathers when a public state school caters to the instate students.</p>
<p>@bclintoink: Right. Do you happen to see the name in front of every scholarship you listed? That’s right. They are privately endowed, not paid out of the school’s general fund. If you are willing to pony up your own money, you can choose to benefit whatever group of your choosing. Look, if a lot of people want to endow a ton of scholarships for underqualified URM to attend Michigan, I have absolutely no problem with it. But when the university uses general fund resources to offer scholarship to URM with stats that are not only not scholarship worthy, but admissions worthy, to further its racist agenda, that’s what I have a problem with. I am sure you will come back and change the topic with the lame “more white students get the general university merit scholarship” excuse.
Of course, don’t blame the underperforming ethnic group, blame scholarships for being based on merit. THIS IS SO RACIST HOW DARE THEY JUDGE BASE ON MERIT</p>
<p>“1. That Michigan is not as selective as its peers. You will have forgive me for now understanding what selectivity and academic excellence have to do with each other. And even if they were somewhat perfectly correlated, can you prove that Michigan’s private peers are honestly representing their admissions data in a manner that is identical to the way Michigan represents its admissions data? We have seen how those private universities creatively calculate their student to faculty ratios, and we have also seen CMC, George Washington and Emory get caught lying about SAT ranges. Private universities have so much as stake with rankings that they have no choice but to colorfully publish data. You will have to forgive me for not believing the data that private universities publish.”</p>
<p>Burden of proof is on you to prove that every or majority of school systematically falsely report data. </p>
<ol>
<li>That Michigan has a racist agenda. While I do not agree with Michigan’s approach to admitting diversity, I do not think the problem is racist in nature. </li>
</ol>
<p>That is your opinion. I have my opinion drawn from facts. You have your opinion drawn from the same facts. My analysis/opinion is at worst equal to yours.</p>
<ol>
<li>Misuse of resources. This is not fact, it is opinion. Universities, private or public, are non-profit organizations. I do not think (and this is my opinion) that the University should be expected to turn a profit. As for increasing tuition and raising money, how is that different from what other universities do? Even in the private sector, the price of goods and services are constantly increasing.</li>
</ol>
<p>Right, and opinions are drawn from facts. Facts are useless unless you can process and analyse it. Universities are not expected to make profits, because there’s nowhere for profits to flow; but that’s completely besides the point. What I am getting at is that when the university needs money to spend, it simply asks for more, while the private sector counterpart would try to both raise price (revenue), but at the same time cut cost, due to the governance of the shareholders. The university has no incentive in doing so.</p>
<ol>
<li>Monetization of brand. In many instances, Michigan has some valuable and interesting interdisciplinary programs, but I must unfortunately agree that this latest Business School graduate program is gimmicky.</li>
</ol>
<p>Gimmicky is being nice. It’s predatory.</p>
<ol>
<li>Glad to see we agree. Great flip flopping on your part though. Mr. “Jury is not out on Hoke, he is clearly the right man for the job” Alexandre. I hope you will flip flop on your other points at some point in the future.</li>
</ol>
<p>“6. Keynesian economics. This is obviously a question of ideology. Is there a perfect (or even better) system? Try telling the Nordic states of Europe that big government doesn’t work. Their employees and companies are among the most high-earning/profitable on earth, unemployment is under control, population living below or at the poverty line almost non-existent, very little corruption, unfairly high salaries curbed (very few unjustified bonuses or criminally high CEO salaries) great medical and education systems available to all, long life-span, low crime rates, overall happy populations etc…”
How did that work out for the awesome Nordic State of Iceland? Those junk Icelandic Bonds sure were trading at attractive yield. In fact, I was just pitched a bunch of Glitner claims a couple days ago. Let’s face it, every economy in the world are built on a deck of cards. btw, that balance budgets of Nordic states would not be so balanced without the implied military protection of NATO, backed by the US military out of the US budget. Basically all European countries maybe outside of France and UK are getting a free ride that would have been a significant weight on their budget. But then in return everyone recognizes the USD as reserve currency so the US can print out of the wazzu so I really don’t know who is the biggest beneficiary here. Again, deck of cards.</p>
<p>“But it is logical to donate $300 million or $110 million to a university that you do not believe in? Ross and Munger are donating their money to Michigan because they believe in its mission and vision.”
Again, smart people dont work in binary modes. I don’t know how much better I can explain that. In fact, they both earmarked their donations for specific causes to make sure the university don’t misuse their funds. I have donated plenty (in the form of PSD and to the COE), and I have my issues with the university. I am sure my donation as % of networth drawfs any of the other 2 who are parting way with small proportion of their networth.</p>
<p>“Burden of proof is on you to prove that every or majority of school systematically falsely report data.”</p>
<p>I have proven it bearcats. The student to faculty ratios are falsified. End of story.</p>
<p>“Right, and opinions are drawn from facts. Facts are useless unless you can process and analyse it. Universities are not expected to make profits, because there’s nowhere for profits to flow; but that’s completely besides the point. What I am getting at is that when the university needs money to spend, it simply asks for more, while the private sector counterpart would try to both raise price (revenue), but at the same time cut cost, due to the governance of the shareholders. The university has no incentive in doing so.”</p>
<p>And yet, the university has been cutting costs of operations for over a decade. Nobody can accuse the university of not trying on this front. </p>
<p>“Glad to see we agree. Great flip flopping on your part though. Mr. “Jury is not out on Hoke, he is clearly the right man for the job” Alexandre. I hope you will flip flop on your other points at some point in the future.”</p>
<p>We don’t agree and I did not flip flop. I never do. You believe Hoke is the problem because he cannot recruit and coach. I believe he is a good recruiter and a good coach…and has integrity to boot. The problem is his Offensive coaching staff. If Hoke fires Borges and Funk, and Michigan hires a good OC and OL coach with styles well-suited for the Big 10, Michigan will be back when it belongs. You are not going to find a better coach than Hoke. But his loyalty to Borges will be his undoing. I hope Hoke proves me wrong and does the right thing at the end of the season.</p>
<p>“How did that work out for the awesome Nordic State of Iceland?”</p>
<p>Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland seem to be doing just fine. Switzerland and Germany, also countries with big government and socialistic tendencies, are doing well. France is impossible to understand as they defy all economic norms, but yet again, France has far fewer societal problems than the US. </p>
<p>“Again, smart people dont work in binary modes.”</p>
<p>Thanks for the insinuation bearcats. Yet again, taking aim at my intellect I see. </p>
<p>“I don’t know how much better I can explain that. In fact, they both earmarked their donations for specific causes to make sure the university don’t misuse their funds. I have donated plenty (in the form of PSD and to the COE), and I have my issues with the university.”</p>
<p>We’ll have to disagree. From my experience, people donate money (especially when it is so significant in size) to causes that they firmly believe in. The fact that their donations were earmarked for specific purposes is perfectly normal. That’s how donations work. But the fact that they are giving back so much to Michigan means that they are proud of their university, that they feel that the University has been instrumental in their success and that the University is, by and large, headed in the right direction. Nothing is perfect obviously, and that certainly applies to Michigan, which is flawed in some ways to be sure, but clearly, those men, and the others that are donating tens of millions of dollars, clearly believe in the University’s vision and future.</p>
<p>“I am sure my donation as % of net worth drawfs any of the other 2 who are parting way with small proportion of their networth.”</p>
<p>I doubt it. Both have donated roughly 10% of their worth. Munger is worth $1.1 billion and he has donated $110 million to Michigan. Ross is worth $4.4 billion and has already donated over $300 million to Michigan. Are you telling me that you are donating so much more than10% of your worth so as to “dwarf” Ross and Munger’s donations bearcats? If you are, I take it all back. You may be a whiner, but your devotion to Michigan would be beyond contestation.</p>
<p>I know one hundred families who tithe, so I am not impressed with anyone giving 10% of their income to a cause. I’m especially not impressed when a large portion of that 10% goes to support “student” athletes instead of research.</p>
<p>“I have proven it bearcats. The student to faculty ratios are falsified. End of story.”
Doing what you do best again? Changing the topic. We were talking about student body quality, of which “student to faculty ratios” have nothing to do about. None of the universities you listed are any that you would consider Michigan’s peer. Do you have proof that a significant number of schools you consider Michigan’s peer falsify their information? As a quant, I deal with data error all the time. A few data point out of over 100 data points is not sufficient to invalidate a whole series; and yet, you don’t even have conclusive evidence on several school that you often list as Michigan’s peers.
All that aside, do you seriously believe Penn and Brown admit the same caliber students as Michigan as measured by objective, meritocratic stats such as the SATs?</p>
<p>"And yet, the university has been cutting costs of operations for over a decade. Nobody can accuse the university of not trying on this front. "
Anyone who has been at the university can tell you that these “cost cutting” measures don’t even come close to being sufficient and the university runs nowhere near a private enterprise when it comes to efficiency. One simple example: Just browse umsalary.info and check out the um hr benefits page; faculties aside, the amount of pay and the benefits offered to some unskilled workers are ridiculous. You don’t pay an IT desktop support guy or an office assistant 100k+ just because they have been there for years and have been getting automatic raises ever year (do a search, you will be surprised). The same person going out to the market place probably wouldn’t get half the same pay. An efficient organization pays market rate. You go to the person and tell him/her to accept market rate or walk. But of course, where’s the incentive for the university to do so? They are used to just asking for more without looking into itself.</p>
<p>“We don’t agree and I did not flip flop. I never do. You believe Hoke is the problem because he cannot recruit and coach. I believe he is a good recruiter and a good coach…and has integrity to boot. The problem is his Offensive coaching staff. If Hoke fires Borges and Funk, and Michigan hires a good OC and OL coach with styles well-suited for the Big 10, Michigan will be back when it belongs. You are not going to find a better coach than Hoke. But his loyalty to Borges will be his undoing. I hope Hoke proves me wrong and does the right thing at the end of the season.”</p>
<p>I never said he can’t recruit. I said he can’t coach. And his game plans versus any opponents with a pulse proves that. Have you seen his atrocious timeout management in just about every game? His hiring of assistants and coordinators that can’t do a job prove that. You can’t say he is a good coach but he hired bad coordinators and staff. The biggest part about being a good coach IS hiring the right people for the assistant/coordinator jobs, this is especially true for a hands-off style coach like Hoke. He doesn’t bring any technical specialties to the table as he is obviously no genius; so his value is being an effective CEO for the program, which he is failing at.
I am not going to find a better coach than a career sub-500 hoke? Lol I hope you are kidding.</p>
<p>“Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland seem to be doing just fine. Switzerland and Germany, also countries with big government and socialistic tendencies, are doing well. France is impossible to understand as they defy all economic norms, but yet again, France has far fewer societal problems than the US.”
Any country that runs a balanced budget with implied military protection so that they barely havve to spend a dime on defense is nothing to be amazed at. Look at Hong Kong, 15% tax rate and run a surplus every year.
France has fewer societal problems? Depends on what you want in your society. I want a system where performers do very well and underperformers get what they deserve, with the potential for people who reach the top of the ladder to do extremely well to serve as incentive for people to strive for excellence. I want a system where outside of the real essentials such as police/firefighters/road infrastructures, people for the most part pay for what they get and don’t subsidize deadbeats in the society. Europe has serious societal issues in my mind relative to my framework.</p>
<p>^That’s about as bad a societal problem you can have in my mind. btw 75% tax rate on 1million euros of earnings? That’s 1.3mm USD. I have a chance of reaching beyond that in my career trajectory. Glad I don’t live in France wow.</p>
<p>“I doubt it. Both have donated roughly 10% of their worth. Munger is worth $1.1 billion and he has donated $110 million to Michigan. Ross is worth $4.4 billion and has already donated over $300 million to Michigan. Are you telling me that you are donating so much more than10% of your worth so as to “dwarf” Ross and Munger’s donations bearcats? If you are, I take it all back. You may be a whiner, but your devotion to Michigan would be beyond contestation.”</p>
<p>Let’s see. Since graduating I am probably cumulatively at around 15k in PSD and 10k to COE; with company matching I am at 30k in PSD and 20k to COE. My networth is sub-200k, so that works out to be a good >25% on a pretax basis. You need to remember I started working 2 years ago about 100k in the hole, so I am your typical high cashflow low networth grad, similar to the fresh medical school grad.</p>
<p>“You may be a whiner, but your devotion to Michigan would be beyond contestation.”
I am not a whiner. I am someone who’s capable of objective analysis not through maize and blue glasses. You on the other hand are a coolaid drinking slappie</p>
<p>“Doing what you do best again? Changing the topic. We were talking about student body quality, of which “student to faculty ratios” have nothing to do about. None of the universities you listed are any that you would consider Michigan’s peer. Do you have proof that a significant number of schools you consider Michigan’s peer falsify their information? As a quant, I deal with data error all the time. A few data point out of over 100 data points is not sufficient to invalidate a whole series; and yet, you don’t even have conclusive evidence on one school that you often list as Michigan’s peers.”</p>
<p>If private universities lie about faculty ratios, it calls all of their data into question. I expect all their data to be audited for consistency and accuracy. As far as I am concerned, we are comparing apples to oranges. Who knows how they calculate their SAT/ACT ranges. Until that happens, do not bother me with inconclusive data. And I do not make up my own list of peers. I go by what many (if not all) recognized reputational rating show; Michigan’s peers are schools like Cal, Cornell, Northwestern, Penn, UCLA, UVa, Wisconsin-Madison etc…I am still not sure what selectivity has to do with academic peers. </p>
<p>“I am not going to find a better coach than a career sub-500 hoke? Lol I hope you are kidding.”</p>
<p>Only Hoke is 0.714 at Michigan. But I agree that a coach is responsible for the coordinators, and if Hoke insists on keeping Borges, he should be fired. </p>
<p>“France has fewer societal problems? Depends on what you want in your society. I want a system where performers do very well and underperformers get what they deserve, with the potential for people who reach the top of the ladder to do extremely well to serve as incentive for people to strive for excellence. I want a system where outside of the real essentials such as police/firefighters/road infrastructures, people for the most part pay for what they get and don’t subsidize deadbeats in the society. Europe has serious societal issues in my mind relative to my framework.”</p>
<p>What about Germany? Switzerland? Even France. Like I said, France is an oddball. While it is fiercely socialistic, it also has the second largest GDP in Europe, second to Germany, which is only larger because its population is 20 million stronger. Paris’ GDP is the largest single-city GDP on earth, and France has more Fortune 500 companies than any country in Europe, including Germany…and those companies are, on average, just as profitable as their British and German counterparts. Finally, French employees are among the most productive (per hour worked) in the world. And what I mean by fewer societal problems is simple; lower crime rates, long life span, fewer people living in poverty, better access to medical care, better access to free education etc…</p>
<p>“Let’s see. Since graduating I am probably cumulatively at around 15k in PSD and 10k to COE; with company matching I am at 30k in PSD and 20k to COE. My networth is sub-200k, so that works out to be a good >25% on a pretax basis. You need to remember I started working 2 years ago about 100k in the hole, so I am your typical high cashflow low networth grad, similar to the fresh medical school grad.”</p>
<p>Then I take my hat off to you bearcats. Perhaps you can shower Michigan with as much praise as you do criticism. Like I said, I do not object to criticism, but on this forum, all you seem to do is criticize the University. </p>
<p>“You on the other hand are a coolaid drinking slappie”</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>