all i must thank you very much for your indulgence as i know that my predecessor blew through a lot of deadlines mistakes the case was originally dismissed and reinstated and so my client is very very grateful that the case is back and at least me to my first point which is not in my brief but i need to correct the jurisdictional statement because i know you have your own responsibility an independent duty to investigate jurisdiction and the brief opening brief states they act this is an appeal pursuant to rule three zero four eight and that is what the final order says it is pursuant to three or four a but the final order is quite incorrect because what i was looking through the appendix the first ruling by judge clinic and was a motion was an order on a partial summary judgment and then and then she led her to the case stay because this is a case involving whether whether southwest airlines is entitled to preemption came to the second amended complaint in and when you look at the record you see that her order says that that case was dismissed on a two six fifteen motion and and it was totally dismissed for a one to six fifteen although frankly i think it should have been don m to six fifteen because if there is preemption it's an affirmative defense but she just threw out the whole case the third invented complaint was also thrown out completely so there's nothing left nothing at all in those those are his words no but  statute applies when you're trying to hold the provider liable for the content of oh miscreants acts and we are not try to do that we are not trying to say southwest you are liable because you're employed because of these nasty things we're saying is southwest we know this spike you that you have a really good employee we told you he's doing the wrong thing and you have a duty to discipline him or supervise him and you're not doing that the first one and the providers second of all they're not a publisher we ok they're not they're not the publisher or speaker we're not trying to hold them liable for it for the speech if we were trying to hold the libel for the speech the there's only one case in the united states that anybody has all been cited that holds an employer as a provider and that's the delfino case that's the only case there's this is a case of first impression in illinois there's nothing like it in the seventh circuit there's nothing like it anywhere and really because now everybody has internet service if their provider i mean i know you want me to mostly speak for the publishing of their provider that if you have people in your house and you're using your wife by your provider everybody's a provider you know his service because that's you decide only if you have more than five hundred employees or five hundred people in your house you have to then to delineate where that would be but but in today's world anybody could be a provider that everybody uses the it's still there it's based on a phone call that he alleges that are actually why would they why would they say you can use any other kind of evidence but you can't use human occasion that goes over the internet to support a allegation of a negligent supervision make it out of the concerns that were the c d a was meant to uphold no i don't think so your honor i think that that the cases that are many the send button not been pushed it wouldn't have been a publisher because it would never have gotten absolutely mail absolute of course if the send button had been pushed there would have been no damages to the plaintiff either and this whole case would have arisen without the fact is that it was pushed and the question is whether there should be you know the southwest airlines to the extent that they fail to responsibly supervise their employee at least following do you no brief they talk about the possibility that he may have been rehired by southwest and you point out that there's no evidence of that but i'd like to focus on the fact that he was fired and to the extent that he was let go have this employee had several notification that he was down sending these terrible method just to all kinds of people and they did nothing to stop it so they've negligently they have been investigat sound reasonable i would think there's only one i speak and that's the act that the the company that providing the internet access southwest airlines simply providing a means to access the internet by having time whether the employer is to be determined to provide or they agree completely with your analysis of the situation that there's a there's a regular provider then you're making the employer provided i guess the only case that says the employer is a provider is california case investigation of the issue and whether he whether mr mcgrew denied ever doing it just was not relevant in terms of the decision below and the sit in the appeal is not based i don't understand how the situation where defendant keeps saying that this is