tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.comments2021-08-20T11:45:31.868-04:00ETHICS@FORDHAMUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger277125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-75382870333096891602013-12-09T10:55:54.135-05:002013-12-09T10:55:54.135-05:00This article is not only encouraging, but very hon...This article is not only encouraging, but very honest and eye opening. I really enjoyed reading this because it shows that there are still people looking to be genuine, and make the world a better place. Keshia Thomas is a special example of this because her actions were unplanned and instinctual. It shows a great amount about her character and her ability to make a rational decision, even in a chaotic situation. A story like this one proves that treating people with respect and kindness can have a great impact on those around us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974368820646728623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-75415264245107865362013-12-08T00:31:37.574-05:002013-12-08T00:31:37.574-05:00Goldman Sachs was one of the investment banks that...Goldman Sachs was one of the investment banks that received money from people who payed taxes to help the bank stay alive in 2008 and 2009. However, the bank is doing well now. The bank is now part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and it is one of the main components of the index along with Visa and IBM. In addition, the bank is expected to raise its earnings by 8$ next year (2014) and the year after that (2015) by 17$ cumulatively. If the bank received money from tax payers to help the bank stay afloat and to gain a good reputation different from the one they had at the time of the financial crisis, then a good moral action to make is to donate money back to the society who helped the bank stay alive. In the long run, shareholders will earn more money because of the customers the bank attracts from the good deeds the bank is doing like donations. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-29798634265591136422013-12-05T23:04:54.384-05:002013-12-05T23:04:54.384-05:00It is a surprise to me that Pope Francis could rel...It is a surprise to me that Pope Francis could relate all these scenarios to business ethics. The main occurring trend I see here is the topic of money. People are rather greedy and would love to get more of money. Which means that money is technically ruling our lives. It is a shock to learn that from this perspective, but I cannot see a way how we can prevent this from continuing further all at once with our current business statusNicholas Cheunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05994143045458698660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-82890358441918480372013-11-24T21:53:15.345-05:002013-11-24T21:53:15.345-05:00I think ethical training is necessary for bankers,...I think ethical training is necessary for bankers, but the methods/ training need to be implemented effectively. Online programs will not solve much, ethical training needs to be implemented in the company culture. It all starts from the top thus upper management should be targeted first. Then the company should incorporated real scenarios in order to train the employees. Online programs are only effective up to a certain point. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10729484244114411107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-91229253633663858132013-11-20T01:34:33.313-05:002013-11-20T01:34:33.313-05:00I agree the distinction that is made between the h...I agree the distinction that is made between the honest man and the man for whom honesty is the best policy because upon further analysis this distinction leads to what Richard said about morality being the best policy, What I mean by this is that in different situations the honest man, following virtue ethics, will act the way a virtuous person will act and make the right and just decision, which ultimately leads to the most honest decision regardless of how it may harm him. On the other hand, the man who believes honest is the best policy may, like it was said in the article, think that there are times or situations when "honesty is no longer the best policy," and this is when the virtue ethics of a person or persons comes into play. One has to hold the utmost morality when making decisions, whether business or personal, in order to respectably hold the title of being an honest man because even just one immoral decision causes a person to lose all their credibility and leaves them with nothing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-68568280165451994122013-11-18T15:49:06.495-05:002013-11-18T15:49:06.495-05:00I think this was an incredible act of kindness. Ke...I think this was an incredible act of kindness. Keshia Thomas made the right moral decision to save a man's life even though he was probably associated with the KKK. Keshia was strong enough not to conform to group influences and she was able to save a human life.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10729484244114411107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-84870481246855156542013-11-18T15:43:00.439-05:002013-11-18T15:43:00.439-05:00I think this was an incredible act of kindness. In...I think this was an incredible act of kindness. In this case Keshia made an important moral decision, as she probably saved the life a man who was associated with the KKK. This case is also related to situationism. It was difficult for Keshia to act against the crowd , as in some cases individuals would conform to group behaviors. Albeit this was an incredible gesture.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10729484244114411107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-80412635717252084402013-11-16T15:32:58.579-05:002013-11-16T15:32:58.579-05:00Anri: the point is not about whether dishonesty is...Anri: the point is not about whether dishonesty is morally correct. The point is that doing the right thing only because it is good business is a weak, a poor way to think about morality. Because doing the right thing may not be good business and then there would be no reason for doing the right thing. <br />Now, you write that "In the real world honesty does not count much". Could you elaborate on that? Could you please provide examples of situations in which you are MORALLY permitted to inflict harms on others "in order to protect ourselves"? I am truly interested in your examples because I am writing a paper on this topic and it has been hard for me to find good examples of permissible wrongdoing.... Thank you in advance.Miguel Alzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14866170637642349987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-13270662595225737012013-11-16T13:44:35.458-05:002013-11-16T13:44:35.458-05:00Sometimes in the business world honesty is not the...Sometimes in the business world honesty is not the best policy. An employee may be in a situation where he/she could be forced to act unethically; instead of potentially losing their jobs they would lie. In the real world honesty does not count much because if you lose your job then you will be unable to pay the bills, provide for your family or have an income. Therefore there may be instances when we will have to make an unethical or moral decision in order to protect ourselves.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10729484244114411107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-26497476875043258462013-11-12T02:15:48.954-05:002013-11-12T02:15:48.954-05:00I agree with Anthony's take on Professor Boudr...I agree with Anthony's take on Professor Boudreaux's argument about insider trading. I think that insider trading is morally wrong and is not legal. <br /><br />On the basis of insider trading being hard to find or difficult to prove, does not make insider trading a legal act. It is sometimes difficult to prove there is fraud in the financials of a Company, but it is well known that fraud is not legal by any means. It is wrong to do this although it may be difficult to prove. <br /><br />The fact that market prices are supposed to reflect all available information that is available to the public, makes a good argument for why insider trading is wrong. This is because of the fact that insider trading includes information that is not available for all the public to know; therefore, making the financial markets less efficient due to the fact that the market prices will not reflect all available information with insider trading. With excess information, those without it will be at a disadvantage. Thus, leading to the victims of insider trading. <br /><br />The victims in this case are all those whom do not have access to inside information. they are the victims because of the fact that they will be making financial decisions based on available knowledge and not on extra knowledge that can help them to make better decisions; therefore, insider trading creates an uneven playing field within the markets. This unfairness creates victims because those without insider information are harmed by the fact that the people with it can make better decisions within the markets and better themselves than the rest. <br /><br />Based on the views of utilitarian ethics, kantian ethics, and Rawls theory, we can see why insider trading is wrong. Through the eyes of a utilitarian, we see that insider trading causes much more negative consequences than positive ones because insider information is to the advantage of the very few whom have access to such information and those without it cannot make such well informed decisions within the financial markets. Based on Kantian Ethics, we cannot consistently will that we live in a society where insider trading is present because it will result in a self-contradiction. Meaning that if one was to consistently will such a society then it will ultimately not work due to the fact that people would continue to lose more and more confidence within the markets and soon enough damage the economy by not investing knowing that they cannot compete with the few that have insider information. Based on Rawls theory it is wrong because of the fact that a society with insider information present does not create the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of the society as opposed to a society without insider trading. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-85972229426546324402013-11-12T02:11:32.524-05:002013-11-12T02:11:32.524-05:00I agree with Anthony's take on Professor Boudr...I agree with Anthony's take on Professor Boudreaux's argument about insider trading. I think that insider trading is morally wrong and is not legal. <br /><br />On the basis of insider trading being hard to find or difficult to prove, does not make insider trading a legal act. It is sometimes difficult to prove there is fraud in the financials of a Company, but it is well known that fraud is not legal by any means. It is wrong to do this although it may be difficult to prove. <br /><br />The fact that market prices are supposed to reflect all available information that is available to the public, makes a good argument for why insider trading is wrong. This is because of the fact that insider trading includes information that is not available for all the public to know; therefore, making the financial markets less efficient due to the fact that the market prices will not reflect all available information with insider trading. With excess information, those without it will be at a disadvantage. Thus, leading to the victims of insider trading. <br /><br />The victims in this case are all those whom do not have access to inside information. they are the victims because of the fact that they will be making financial decisions based on available knowledge and not on extra knowledge that can help them to make better decisions; therefore, insider trading creates an uneven playing field within the markets. This unfairness creates victims because those without insider information are harmed by the fact that the people with it can make better decisions within the markets and better themselves than the rest. <br /><br />Based on the views of utilitarian ethics, kantian ethics, and Rawls theory, we can see why insider trading is wrong. Through the eyes of a utilitarian, we see that insider trading causes much more negative consequences than positive ones because insider information is to the advantage of the very few whom have access to such information and those without it cannot make such well informed decisions within the financial markets. Based on Kantian Ethics, we cannot consistently will that we live in a society where insider trading is present because it will result in a self-contradiction. Meaning that if one was to consistently will such a society then it will ultimately not work due to the fact that people would continue to lose more and more confidence within the markets and soon enough damage the economy by not investing knowing that they cannot compete with the few that have insider information. Based on Rawls theory it is wrong because of the fact that a society with insider information present does not create the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of the society as opposed to a society without insider trading. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-79520877568494752022013-11-10T22:19:42.622-05:002013-11-10T22:19:42.622-05:00The ethical training programs put in place by the ...The ethical training programs put in place by the banks are complete nonsense. These are public relation schemes executed in order to appease public perception and opinion. The truth of the matter is employee conduct will be driven by how they are rewarded and incentivized. It is clear that employees at banks are rewarded based upon the revenue they generate for the firm. Bank employees are rewarded huge bonuses based upon the revenue they generate for the firm. Alternatively, those that do not generate the expected level of revenue are fired. The work environment is extremely competitive. Therefore, employees are incentivized to do whatever necessary to make money for the firm, not only to justify their salaries, but also to maintain their jobs. Overall, all though these ethical programs may be in place their is no incentive for employees to act in a manner according to them. The article points out that the employees are expected to pass a certain test - yet it is important to remember that these are very smart, well educated individuals working at these banks. There is no denying that these people can pass these tests with ease. The true question is whether or not these employees will act ethically on a daily basis. Overall, the truth is that there is no incentive for employees to act ethically. The incentive is to generate revenue for the firm by any means necessary. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13786416302636919882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-15312484027897411272013-11-08T20:18:00.724-05:002013-11-08T20:18:00.724-05:00It is a sad truth, but many businesses make money ...It is a sad truth, but many businesses make money by lying. This is because the sole goal of the industry today is to achieve the greatest profit. Sometimes this is achieved through unethical procedures such as insider trading. There is too much of a gap between good, ethical behavior and profitable business. I believe that it comes down to a person's moral awareness. If enough people realize a wrong in the world, then they need to say "No." Too many people are turning a blind eye and saying "Yes,", because they know it will make them more money. I would argue the slogan to say that "Morality is the best policy." What is moral in this instance would be disclosing the entire truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-88983673716899184592013-11-07T23:47:56.157-05:002013-11-07T23:47:56.157-05:00I find Professor Boudreaux's arguments about i...I find Professor Boudreaux's arguments about insider trading unconvincing. I will explain my reasoning behind this by first going through each bullet in the summary above:<br /><br />1) Just because an act is undetectable or difficult to prove does not mean that it is not wrong. If someone steals, the fact that it may be difficult to prove or that it may be undetectable would not make the act of stealing moral or even acceptable.<br />2) Market prices are supposed to reflect all available information that is available to the public. The Efficient Markets Hypothesis fostered by Eugene Fama, which Professor Boudreaux is alluding to states very clearly that markets become inefficient as soon as insider trading occurs. When a retail investor or institutional investor gains access to insider information and trades on it, the market as a whole suffers. The argument that insider trades accelerate the process of relaying information to the rest of the market is unjustified because this information is not for the inside traders to know, let alone trade on.<br />3) Insider trading is a crime with many victims and these victims are the retail investors of the world. I do not mean to generalize, but it is easily observable that large institutional investors are those primarily being alleged and fined for insider trading. All that means is that the retail investors of the world like the neighborhood barbers, the taxi drivers, the teachers, and more, feel like they are at an even larger disadvantage in the market against institutional investors than they already are. This will result in a decrease in confidence in the market, and retail investors pulling their money out of markets because of the lack of confidence in a level playing field. To go one step further, the decline in retail investors in the world will severely shrink and damage the global economy with a decline in money circulation in financial markets.<br /><br />I do not think that insider trading should be tolerated. It does not matter if you analyze it through the eyes of a deontologist, utilitarian, or supporter of virtue ethics, insider trading is morally wrong. A deontologist would reject any "good" or "moral" motive an insider trader would use. A utilitarian would examine the overall negative consequences that can be caused by insider trading and deem it immoral. Lastly, one who endorses virtue ethics would not endorse insider trading because the trait associated with it would be one of deception or taking advantage of another's lack of knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-47997635220567608272013-11-07T11:59:00.092-05:002013-11-07T11:59:00.092-05:00Keshia Thomas' act of saving the life of a man...Keshia Thomas' act of saving the life of a man is truly commendable. Through this, she points out an interesting notion that "when people are in a crowd they are more likely to do things they would never do as an individual." This notion is a notion that I am inclined to agree with as I believe that an individual's judgement is impaired through the pressure of trying to do what is acceptable in society. Thus, if a group of individuals try to act in a certain way, another individual will be inclined to act in the same manner. <br /><br />Perhaps, this article can be related to situationism in the fact that individuals will be more inclined to do an act that others are doing. Earlier in the year, we studied experiments such as the "good samaritan" experiment, where an individual pretended to be hurt on the street to see if other individuals would come in his aid. In that experiment, we saw that individuals were more inclined to help if others were doing the same - instilling validity in the notion that others are more likely to do things (in a group) they would never do as an individual. <br /><br />It is important Thomas was able to recognize this notion, and was brave enough to act upon it as this article emphasizes the importance of morality - as morality in this case, was able to save the life of one man. Antonio Martelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434705587472211571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-20394300792382481292013-11-06T12:42:16.847-05:002013-11-06T12:42:16.847-05:00I would say that this act by CEO Tim Armstrong is ...I would say that this act by CEO Tim Armstrong is hard to determine, but overall not morally right. I say this because he embarrasses the employee and is disrespectful in the way he fires him. Armstrong definitely has the right to let go of any employee, but it would be more humane if he did not do it in front of the entire staff. As stated by the news staff, the man was simply just trying to do his job as a photographer so the immediate termination seems a bit unfair. Overall, it is not what Armstrong did but the way he went about the firing the employee that makes it immoral. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974368820646728623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-43220646101079746342013-11-06T12:24:16.993-05:002013-11-06T12:24:16.993-05:00The steps being taken to attempt to instill busine...The steps being taken to attempt to instill business ethics in banks are positive actions, but I feel that in the long run they might not work. These banks have been working for a long time in what seems to be an unethical way, so the chances these workshops and classes for employees will not have much of an effect. These banks are used to a harsh, competitive, survival way of doing business, which is hard to change. In order for this to be successful everyone would need to be aware of the goals and start working in more fair ways. This I just can’t see happening because it would be too much work for the banks, and could possibly be detrimental to the business. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974368820646728623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-50401334062928062532013-11-06T12:05:41.501-05:002013-11-06T12:05:41.501-05:00Reading this opinion that Summers has about pollut...Reading this opinion that Summers has about pollution and toxins is appalling. His thoughts about moving our pollution to less fortunate countries shows the entitlement some people feel because we live in the United States. What people from the US don’t realize is that we use the majority of the world’s resources, and produce a large amount of toxins yearly. Currently, the United States uses 30% of the world’s resources, and produces 4 billion pounds of chemical toxins a year. These numbers are noticeably high, and it would be very unfair to take our mess and move it to the “lowest wage” country. This action would not only hurt these less fortunate countries and people, but it also might cause Americans to feel their lifestyle choices are good. This would cause the production of more toxins and the usage of more resources, which is something that is unnecessary. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974368820646728623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-65099507946418360362013-11-06T12:03:05.922-05:002013-11-06T12:03:05.922-05:00What Keshia Thomas did in 1996 was incredibly cour...What Keshia Thomas did in 1996 was incredibly courageous. Her actions expressed the idea of Virtue Ethics. She manifested the idea of courage and righteousness through her actions and her response. She was courageous not to gain anything but out of pure benevolence. Another topic expressed in this article that we covered was situationist behavior. Keshia stated, "When people are in a crowd they are more likely to do things they would never do as an individual." This is one of the characteristics of situationist behavior. We explored situationist behavior in the beginning of the year and saw video clips that expressed how unusual and difficult it was for an individual to "do the right thing" or do something different when others/a crowd chose not to act that way. This makes Keshia's actions even more courageous than before. Although she does not want to be praised for her actions in the past she should be. Her actions were not only courageous and compassionate but they have had such a result on others its inspiring. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10968316100208476197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-90907115273059011942013-11-04T16:11:46.871-05:002013-11-04T16:11:46.871-05:00As others have already stated, Armstrong had every...As others have already stated, Armstrong had every legal right to fire Lenz for doing what he had been previously been warned not to do - take pictures and/or record meetings. However, Armstrong was morally wrong in firing Lenz in the manner he chose to do so. Armstrong easily could have discreetly fired Lenz instead of embarrassing him in front of 1,000 of his co-workers. While Lenz was wrong for disobeying previous demands, Armstrong was harsh in firing Lenz with no reason or explanation. Whether he should have been fired or not is not being debated, but the issue at hand is the way Armstrong handled the situation and I do believe Armstrong's actions were wrong. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500688187245631482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-50810891554967035242013-10-30T14:25:12.090-04:002013-10-30T14:25:12.090-04:00Although Tim Armstrong had every right to fire Abe...Although Tim Armstrong had every right to fire Abel Lanz for violating company rules, Armstrong's decision to fire Abel Lanz is ethically and morally wrong as he chose to fire Lanz in front of 100,000 workers. Not only did Lanz lose his job, but he was also humiliated in front of co-workers. <br /><br />It is essential to think of the pain inflicted by Armstrong towards Lanz. As quoted in a post above, Armstrong realized the mistake of firing Lanz in the manner that he did as he claims to have apologized to Lanz. Thus, it is essential that one must consider the implications of his or her actions in order to avoid actions that are morally wrong - and this article emphasizes that notion. <br /><br /> Antonio Martelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434705587472211571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-76880559946458592482013-10-29T15:07:08.405-04:002013-10-29T15:07:08.405-04:00I think bankers definitely need ethics training, b...I think bankers definitely need ethics training, but I do not think that large scale online programs are an effective method. In my opinion, the best way to train employees on making ethical decision making is to create a company culture based on making ethical decisions. These programs will do little, if anything, to deter unethical behavior if senior management is not following the ethical standards they expect their employees to follow. If anything, these online ethics training programs are creating accountability - if an employee makes an unethical decision, management can point to the training program and say that he violated the company's code of ethics. However, calling these programs "ethics training programs" is idealistic. Kevin Websterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06034135742269826916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-2312238174503944722013-10-26T19:34:12.317-04:002013-10-26T19:34:12.317-04:00This is definitely legal, as the employee Abel was...This is definitely legal, as the employee Abel was warned to not record confidential discussions, which the circumstances deemed as confidential. Armstrong handled the situation in an unacceptable way, which was morally wrong. Armstrong fired Abel in front of thousands of AOL employees, which was unacceptable for many reasons, one of which was causing Abel to lose an enormous amount of face. Granted, Abel should not have taken his camera, but no matter what, it was an unacceptable way for Armstrong to treat Abel. Armstrong could have fired Abel after the meeting, and that could have been a better option than firing in front of thousands of employees.Nicholas Cheunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05994143045458698660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-77596915056244149742013-10-25T15:40:47.787-04:002013-10-25T15:40:47.787-04:00Legally this is entirely ok, Armstrong had warned ...Legally this is entirely ok, Armstrong had warned the employee (Abel Lenz) not to record confidential discussions they were having and he continued to do it anyway. Directly disobeying your CEO is definitely a legal and contractual cause for firing, however the manner which Mr. Armstrong handled it was not exactly morally acceptable. Firing him in front of his co-workers was like a public shaming, something which he did not deserve and was not necessary for Mr. Armstrong to do. Mr. Armstrong even acknowledged his moral wrong doings and later sent out a memo to the Patch team saying:<br /><br />"I am accountable for the way I handled the situation, and at a human level it was unfair to Abel. I’ve communicated to him directly and apologized for the way the matter was handled at the meeting."<br /><br />I believe the action was morally unacceptable but that Mr. Armstrong handled it well , arguably in the best way that he could have. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672084465568431739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4397551923281836987.post-14746109853505807672013-10-20T21:43:56.399-04:002013-10-20T21:43:56.399-04:00The encouragement of the migration of "dirty&...The encouragement of the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries is a topic that is frequently debated by many individuals. In this article, Larry Summers states three reasons as to why it might be beneficial to encourage this migration. While these reasons may be valid to an extent, it is worth to note that Summers views the migration as an economical benefit and in doing so, he chooses to ignore the moral implications. <br /><br />As stated in a previous comment, Summers does not make a good moral decision based on the four stages of decision making. In addition, it may be worth to point out that in terms of teleology and Kantian ethics, Summers does not make a good moral decision as well. Teleologically, Summers is primarily concerned with the financial ends of the economy and firms within the "dirty" industries. However, he does not concern himself with choosing the action with the greatest pleasure over pain for everybody such as those who live and could be harmed in these less developed countries. Alternatively, in terms of Kantian ethics, Summers violates a categorical imperative in respect for persons. By choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries, Summers violates the respect for those who live in less developed countries by encouraging an action that will endanger the environment of less developed countries - thereby potentially endangering the health of those that live there. <br /><br />In conclusion, I do not think that Summers is right in choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries since his decision is morally flawed. However, it is worth to stress that Summers is an economist and as a result, may only view decisions in terms of economical benefits. Nonetheless, this article also shows why individuals must consider the moral implications of decisions, whether it is an economical decision, or that of another field.Antonio Martelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434705587472211571noreply@blogger.com