I opposed this for two reasons, one was that the evidence that certainly was provided was not at all convincing, so it seemed to me that it was an over-interpretation but the other was that in my own laboratory, or rather Zoltan Nagy laboratory, we had data which seemed to indicate absence of immune response in the absence of antigen processing. So, there was controversy between the proponents of the processing and our group that there is no processing. I must say they were right, there was processing and then the processing was one of the clues that led to the realisation of the difference between the class I and class II. But that took a while... some time, and ironically the best evidence that, of course, processing was functioning, not only that but that it was a way of explaining the immune response channelled through the class II antigens and the best evidence came from a laboratory which was part of our institute. That was Hans-Georg Rammensee and his collaborators provided an explanation, which was by then already considered but provided evidence actually that the peptides that are produced through antigen processing actually bound to the MHC molecules and that this is what the immune response recognises, the peptide as a foreign particle or antigen and the MHC as its own. So the dual recognition was there and that the difference between class I and class II was in that class I, which used... which was used in response to viral antigens for example was of that kind because the viral antigens infect the cells and the antigen is associating inside of the cell already... the antigen is inside of the cell, whereas for the class II  antigen was taken up from the outside and process so that turned out to be the whole difference between the class I and class II channelled immune responses. So Rammensee made a very important contribution to the elucidation of the dual processing... dual processing of immune response.