a motion for reconsideration i specifically pointed out to the district court this court's concern about basically unarticulated reasons for reunion and all i got back eight months later i might add addressing judge wright our concern about late in these cases is a district court statements and says the plaintiff is asking us to rethink what we've already thought well that doesn't tell me much if i don't know what the court already thought in the first place in so that's where i think this knows how much farther down the road he administered it launches can at least say ok here's what the court is telling me i did wrong and that's why i have to take actions x y and z i want to play something we can use to treat this for namely vocational expert testimony is what we have here and so it's very hard to understand why the proposed rini and order that the district court essentially signed off on  are part of your hypothetical questions and let's look at the totality of the answers to those hypothetical questions and those resulted in vocational expert testimony that a person so limited could not work  so there's one other thing i would want to point out and then absent further questions i'm going to skip them one of the things that i thought was troubling in reading the commissioner's brief and i'm sure you're going to read it as well is the commissioner still seems committed to in the decision ignored it didn't say i'm rejecting it didn't say here's what's wrong with it and it really comes back to my same point you know that barney is all about getting it right at the first time ok now you and what is your how do you respond to that question of whether there is an inconsistency and whether that therefore makes it less reasonable or unreasonable to issue a decision and we don't remember to do redos because that's what varney was talking about my second answer is that if you do remain further administrative proceedings unlike the proposed remains order and they don't you know you're still not really getting the question which testimony person with very little insight isn't going to go in and give a clear picture to the examining psychologist and i think that's something that has to be taken into account when you when you look at those kinds of statements as well i think dr uranium did a much better job of scenes through that lack of insight and seeing what the underlying problems were when even document komo insults as well there's a lack of insight here that something has to go into the detail as to what you're looking at when you're looking at his opinion ability to deal with the public that was his most significant the most significant limitation he indicated and that's when sixty five to one sixty eight of the record your honor we have t assessed moderate to moderately severe mental impairment in almost all areas of functioning so each and every one of these six opinions is conflicting but he  applied for disability insurance benefits and the now and how he was many years ago what's left is to reconcile all of these inconsistent opinions start there's no reason why dr your own there's no reason articulated in on the face of this decision why doctor your arm or even the record why would doctor you're being channeled to more weight than any other physician no it doesn't tell us anything but we might find out from the motion i will tell you that when you read the motions you will be word for word what this order says i'll stick my license on it the only other thing i want to under the social security act these two seven year olds are not children this defies the plain language of th