No, no, I understand.
I outlined what was being proposed, simply because of the time as well as the substantial delay. As you know, the chair is asked to coordinate a process, taking into account knowledge and information about our proceedings and how they may go. It was clear that when you had three different campaigns but in fact six witnesses, and one official agent not able to attend, you would get a lot of duplication in those opening statements. It was my judgment that the best thing to do was to get on with the questions, which were fairly straightforward given the nature of the motion. However, should there be anything that wasn't covered or if a witness made an error in a statement they had made, they should have an opportunity to correct it. This is fairly standard.
So that was my ruling earlier. If you would like to challenge that ruling and make a motion to do something else, then that is your right, sir.