It's important to get agreed upon items off the table, and so, what do you mean by that? >> What I mean, Barry, is that many times. There are two reasons. Number one is when you get something done. It may be a fundamental principle on which you're building your whole deal, so if that ever changes your whole deal, or your conception of where you want to go, can change. The second thing is, if you don't get them off the table, you'll never get a deal done because everything just keeps coming back. And I have two strategies for that. One is we get the big points up front between the principals down in a term schedule or something. And the second thing is, I sort of do this sort of thing in three meetings. So in the first big meeting you're getting to know the seller and in the second big meeting you're outlining the strategy of the deal. And the third big meeting, although there are those things in between, you're closing the deal. So on the second big meeting where you're getting the strategy of the deal done, get the big points down. They're principles, you don't change principles, you can charge term but not principles. So get the principles right in that second big meeting on what the deal is. And then on the last meeting when you're going over the last points, when there's a contract or big papers in front of you. What I do, is I actually do it, I have the deal on front on paper and I say, everybody got it? Let's go page by page. And the first page, go over it and then I always take the first page and turn it down. Never to be turned over again. And I ask people, is there anything else on that page? And then I do the second page and slam it down. And people know psychologically, they just sort of follow your rhythm and realize it would be terrible to ask to go back. And if you don't do that, people will go back. Sometimes they even say, well let's all initial that page and move forward. And that way you get the package, because sometimes-- >> It's clear that, okay this is done, done, done. And there may be some other topics that we're still working on, but this one. >> Exactly, exactly. And sometimes- >> And I can't go back and ask you about a question we've already talked because- >> Well what we'll do is we'll take those done pages and on page 17 when there's a real issue that's more complicated, we'll say, let's take page 17 and put it over here. >> Sure. >> And then you've got the big pile out of the way, the 102 pages, and you have page 17, page 28, and page 92 to review, and then you go back but all the other things are agreed. And it may be in many cases that you don't really care about those three other deals, so you've basically got your whole deal done, and now you spend your time arguing about things you may not care about. >> Okay. Is it right based on what you've told me that you try and resolve the big things first and little ones later as opposed to trying to resolve some little things early to get some momentum and save some of the bigger issues for later? >> Well, I believe in logic of deals, so I try to get the, it can be a big point I can do later, but it's the big principles I want to get right at the beginning. Because if we don't get the principles, we don't have framework in which we can create our own logic. So that's what I try to do. So I get the big principles- >> And what do you mean by a principle as opposed to, a term of the deal. >> It sort of, a principle is why we're doing the deal, has a benefit for both parties. So, if we were doing arrangement where we're going to bring a company internationally, it's that they want to go internationally and we have the capacity to help them. For example, that's a principle. So if they said, gee, actually we're only, later in the deal, our terms, no, we only want to invest $2 million in the international expansion, and they're a big company. So, hold it. One of the principles, we're going to do, either you're doing it or not, hence 10 million's the right number. And that's where it's a term in the future, but you're basing it off that initial principle. >> Well, let me just push you just slightly on this still. You could imagine that there's a question when you're buying a business, what's the price you'll pay and what's the employment arrangement for the person who's selling it? And you could think about the employment arrangement as the small one and the price as the big one. >> And- >> Yeah no I actually, I wouldn't, price may not be a principle. >> Okay. >> The principle is fair price. So obviously with a fair price, and since this is such a win win partnership, price becomes less important. There's many deals where I don't do a lot of real estate deals in terms of one off deals. Real estate deals are a little apart because there you've got a physical asset. You pay a price, you buy it. You know what you get. >> Mm-hm. >> In most deals there's a personal aspect. Where there's future things, which they might find more important than price. For example tax structuring. For example not laying off all their employee's. >> Yeah. We always go with let's get a fair price but let's make sure the biz is on. You want to go, in the other example, you want to go internationally, we have capacities in the internationally. The price becomes less important. So I don't view price as a principle, price is an important term and sometimes we can get to it in other ways. Recently, we looked at a deal with an Indian family. And there, we had a price in our mind. We brought that up very quickly, and that seemed to be something that's unresolvable. We knew that the principles of the deal on both sides were important, so they had a suggestion, not me. They had a suggestion, well why don't we get this expert firm to say, do an evaluation of that? And we said, well, they were valuing it at zero originally, we were valuing it at, let's say, $20 million. Let's see what the evaluator came with. And we thought we had some logic behind $20 million, and basically the evaluator came in at roughly $20 million. So that was a good example of saying fair price as opposed to the number. I made the mistake of mentioning them because I thought it was a good price. I probably should have said, lets get a fair price, and maybe I could have suggested it. But the fact that they saw my $20 million and what I believed is a fair price, which is true. They said well here's a way to get to that fair price.