understand where you're going with that and i would submit in the practical reality of this situation and the act with your theory and was the party that drafted this unusual contract and now was the one seeking to be re the day before the complaint was filed and so we haven't had discovery and so whether that visit was you know with the intention of trying to trigger the new boat so i wanted to enforce against her under you know basically what you have here is something the change provision sets up an opportunity for acceptance  conduct so that if someone keeps using the services and so forth that that's going to signify that they accept the new terms and they're free to not continue using and i set the new  here where someone just you know they made the one visit but didn't after you know if she looked at the terms than didn't actually continue doing anything that would indicate acceptance then it's hard to imagine of the contract i'm not understanding i don't think that's clear at all whether she did but i think that you know ordinarily if someone under those terms has the opportunity to do it consumer reports and consumer disclosures is not the same thing as the credit score that she's suing over but of course the whole premise of her suit is that she knows exactly what a credit score is supposed to be and is suing us for providing her with something that she says is not what a credit score as opposed to be so the notion that she couldn't or wouldn't have known the credit scores are not the same thing is credit reports or disclosures really doesn't hold water i think that it's also you know counsel talks about dictionary definition cases including i think one of your own opinions i believe your honor was on shaw and you know it it's well understood what those things are this is a provision trying to carve out something that doesn't have anything to do with the service provided here which is selling people credit scores credit monitoring and cetera it's carving out people who have lawsuits over their credit reports where  they believe they're in accuracies and obviously there are a lot of s t r a that sort of the run of the mill s c are a lawsuit in any event it's notable though that the plaintiff is not able to come up with a single example from anywhere or you know whether a case regulatory colloquial anywhere that refers to a credit score as  a credit report or as consumer disclosure the last thing i want to mention is that you know brings up the notion that  this is all drafted by the company and so i think the suggestion is that it ought to be construed against the company i mean our position is it's not at all i'm big u s but even if it were i think even if you of something being within the scope of arbitration the case that i'm thinking about in particular in their in their briefs is san quest on page twenty seven which is  but there is a lot of cases saying that you know where the scope of the arbitration agreement is in doubt you're going to construe it in favor of arbitration city if there are no further questions  not stand for that proposition and it in fact continuing conduct is not really the issue the issue in the cases cited by the parties is