Again, at first blush when I read that I thought that made a lot of sense and that it's a well-drafted provision. What you're saying, however, is that there are ways of threatening somebody that don't involve their physical safety. Can you get into that and explain it to us? For example, if I threaten to burn your house down but you're not in it, then I'm not threatening your safety. I'm threatening your property, which is equally, to some extent, important because it's the whole value that you've created over your life.
Can you explain that for us?