our russian at dinner that it does we're talking about a actually it was with regard to stuff i help we're talking about a series of publications that begin with the financial times article cited in the amended complaint and in the briefing then we go to the article that was published by mr andrew and that article was published in february then we go to the wall street journal article that a series of articles that were all published that then of promoted her contracts and business expect to see these it did do you have something with any more factual specificity to but i mean that i'm not trying to make a decision here but some might say that somewhat conclus state it but it is a thing closure that you are stating and what we're looking for other specific facts that would support the conclusion other than you s dig into your additional time you can do so or you can save it and bring that back up when you come back yes sir i think that's what i'm going to do thanks judge that we will move to hear from the i think that the grounds for being within the statute are twofold one the rd party tweets and i don't want to talk about that right now and the other is the republic ation the on hype it maybe that's not maybe that's a conclusion but the use of the hyperlink of that same article in a in a subsequent article if you if you could address that please i mean yes i can appreciate your position party tweets and how that you know you don't have any control over that but when you elect to run a nd article with a hyperlink that you know is an effect the entire article right they are why aren't you exposing yourself to at least to be within the statute of limitations when you do that sure so you are this case actually presents a good example of why that shouldn't be the case and so what we have here is we have it and i'm not saying just the family tory at all i don't know that i'm just talking about statue of limitations in your say and referring back well that maybe that's what you say but it's a hyperlink that actually places the article within the article so i mean that that seems different to me then a reference back for what it's worth you know a number of courts including the th circuit in cork in the earth circuit  philadelphia newspaper employee or agent mike yeah it might my issue the question is to me it least subject to the sanchez case i mean are there facts that employer could do to kind saying i mean i think you're right that you have to have an underlying tort i agree with that are you saying that the tortious interference aside from the knowledge of your client that fails on the merits or fails on the statement that was outside of one here but would you get the benefit of that one year statute limitation for defamation if the claim is tortious interference and has a longer statu that let's let's do it this way i think i want to make sure we give you the full benefit you time you do have these three minutes and so we've discussed the the the the the initial appeal and then there's a sanction so why don't you go ahead and take a less you feel like you've now exhausted if the same thing which is fun but chip three minutes left we can use for both of you want to just in general so would you just prefer to say that not allow for response to come now i don't like they are all on the enter net they are yes initially subject to the actions that they have no control over rd parties can get their stuff in it seems to me there's a big difference in that type of a situation and the dip that the defended itself republishing judge it's a question of accountability it's a question of who is responsible for putting this into the stream of commerce and the they consistently put out false misleading defamatory information and then at the bottom say read tweet and there are millions of followers who we reach we need it is those that just theoretically could sue a bunch of people you didn't sue and avoid the statute but whether you can avoid the statute but that applies to the original publisher based on conduct of rd parties i think let me stop you there i am i'm a little surprised that your go in there i mean maybe maybe maybe if you can correct me but i'm out you're right i think we've heard does say did if it's both the independent it and an form you are it's mostly in the just what we're asking is that the court send but the district court oh order is without prejudice that ends and the district court specifically said if this continues in post litigation then perhaps the district court when we visit it so how how can we intervene now you can