Post #37,581
5/5/02 5:26:54 PM
|
Info requested
Is Brandi just a bleedin' troll?
These links reference the tail end of a couple of threads.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37556|Link1]
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37530|Link2]
They contain some truly astonishing logic....accusations
of lies when the links to said articles are provided
(with names of sources)......allegations that asking 1000
men their opinions as to what might have been unhealthy
when they were 15 are irrelevant..........
claiming that the laws of England are not relevant....even
if I would have had to be in England for seduction at 15.
He seems blissfully unaware that the woman was acquitted of any
wrongdoing by a jury of her peers....and yet he seems to revel
in pointing out a supposec lack of reading and comprehension skills.
What gives? Is he getting paid when someone replies to a post?
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,624
5/6/02 11:41:42 AM
|
Brandi is as Brandi Does
His debate style goes back a long way, and no you will not get the last word in.
thanx,
Bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #37,655
5/6/02 3:08:33 PM
|
I didn't expect to see you here.
I thought you would have understood that the entire "debate" was all about getting Mike to establish the criteria under which he thinks adult/child sex is "okay". Exactly as I stated in here:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37340|Whoa there, cowboy!]
And here:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37477|That be the case.]
I'm going to hold out one last hope that you understand the difference between "okay" and "legal".
|
Post #37,670
5/6/02 4:57:30 PM
|
Was only stating what I think your "style" is
Not commenting on the content of the thread. You have a unique and determined debate style, sometimes I agree with you, others not. In either case it is always worthwhile reading just to enjoy the responses you get.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #37,671
5/6/02 5:02:01 PM
|
Career change
Have you ever thought of becoming an attorney? I think you'd do well in court. Seriously.
Ray
|
Post #37,690
5/6/02 9:00:41 PM
5/6/02 9:24:55 PM
|
I fucking DARE YOU
>>establish the criteria under which he thinks adult/child sex is "okay".
Adult/Child sex is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER NEVER, NEVER okay.
Virtually everyone writing in this field draws a distinction between children (12 and under) and adolescents (12-18). You don't know this because you have done little or no reading of materials in this field (I have had to...but that's another story).
Anyway...your ignorance of the facts is not going to prevent you from arguing
to the contrary.... so have at it.
Soooooooooo what are we left with.....I guess sex between adolescents and adults.
(One more time.........its not okay right good or legal for adults to have sex with children. Got that? Hang on to it you'll need it later <grin>).
When is it okay for adolescents to have sex with adults?
1) When its okay with the authorities
AND
2) When its okay with the adolescent
AND
3) When its okay with the parents
On to your purile game.
I will once again play your pitiful game of absolutes.....which I supposedly
am afraid to do.......and then entreaty you to do the same.
(P.S. The answers below are pasted from the threads below...where I
supposedly didn't directly address the question.)
16 - 30
"okay"
with reservations about was meant by okay. If its legal behavior, I have
no right to take away that persons rights. Doesn't mean I like it.
Doesn't mean I would foist it upon the boy.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve.
15 - 29
Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent
could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve.
14 - 28
Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent
could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve.
13 - 27
Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent
could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve.
12 - 26
Not okay. Its illegal. If society decided to lower the age of consent
could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve.
Okay.......I've indulged you......haven't I?
Now your turn........15 year old boy, Pamela Andersen at various ages.
Do you see a problem with it? Why?
15 - 15
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 18
15 - 19
15 - 20
15 - 21
15 - 22
15 - 23
15 - 24
I fucking !!!!!!!!!DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!! to answer this. Why?
[link|http://eurochild.gla.ac.uk/documents/coe/reports/ereport/ereport_extent.htm| THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN:
EXPERIENCES BY PROFESSIONALS WORKING IN THE FIELD]
Extract:
As children may also been sexually abused and traumatized by an adolescent or another child experts do consider an age-discrepancy between her or him and another person, to draw a line between sexual appropriate and abusive acts.
This following age-difference by David Finkelhor (1979) is widely accepted among professionals:
Sexual acts have to be regarded as abusive if they occur between a child twelve or under and a person eighteen or over,
a child twelve or under and an adolescent under eighteen, but at least five or more years older as the child, or
an adolescent between thirteen and sixteen and another person at least ten years older than the adolescent.
Shove that anywhere of your choosing and smoke it.
I await your reply with baited breath.
You and Christian Conrad should be FUCKING ASHAMED of yourslves.
Not just for your attempts to wax lyrical armed with precious more
than uninformed opinion, but also for your fucking mindless attempts
to establish a credo that the fact that you couldn't find anything on
David Finkelhor was indicative of......anything. A more pitiful and coward-
like approach to debate I have yet to see.
David Finkelhor can be reached at David.Finkelhor@unh.edu
He has a homepage detailing his works. Find it by yourself you lazy twat.
I might post it if you beg me.
-Mike
P.S. You would suck as a lawyer. Good lawyers do research.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
Edited by Mike
May 6, 2002, 09:24:55 PM EDT
|
Post #37,696
5/6/02 9:49:24 PM
5/6/02 9:52:15 PM
|
You've demonstrated it once again.
15 - 29
Not okay. Its illegal.
If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes.
Doesn't mean I like it.
Reservations about homesexuality taking you outside the norm curve. Contrast this with your earlier statment: Once again the state tells us whats good for us.
Is this on the edge or what? The idea that I could have been abused at the age of 15 by a sexy school mistress is just absurd. At age fifteen I was a walking bag of hormones and semen waiting to explode on anything which was wearing perfume. I had mounted my mattress in every conceivable position possible and enjoyed the cigarrette afterwards. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37289|Has the world gone crazy?] So, a 15 year old and an older woman would not be "okay" (see the second line of this post). But a 15 year old and an older woman would be "okay" with you (see the second quote from you, complete with link to your post for context). From your quotation "proving" that I was wrong, I'll break it down into numbers. 12 (or under) - 18 (or older) == abuse ----------------------------------------- 12 - 17 == abuse 11 - 16 == abuse 10 - 15 == abuse 9 - 14 == abuse and so one ----------------------------------------- 13 - 22 (or less) == not abuse 13 - 23 (or more) == abuse 14 - 23 (or less) == not abuse 14 - 24 (or more) == abuse 15 - 24 (or less) == not abuse 15 - 25 (or more) == abuse 16 - 25 (or less) == not abuse 16 - 26 (or more) == abuse ------------------------------------------ There, Dr. Finkelhor's professional opinion is nicely laid out with numbers. I await your reply with baited breath. Reply to what? If you will recall, I wasn't asking what Finkelhor's opinion was. I was asking what yor opinion was. And, it seems that Dr. Finkelhor's opinion is that, at age 15, you would have been "abused" if you had sex with a woman age 25 or more. Which does seem to contradict your claims. But at least Dr. Finkelhor is willing to put his reputation on the line and not hide behind "legal". If society decided to lower the age of consent could I entertain the idea of it being tolerable? Yes. Hmmm, if society says it is "okay" and "legal" then YOU will consider it to be "okay"? Compare/contrast that with another comment from you from your initial post (Has the world gone crazy?). Once again the state tells us whats good for us. So, you will consider something "okay" only if the state says it is "okay" but you don't like the state telling YOU what is "okay".
Edited by Brandioch
May 6, 2002, 09:52:15 PM EDT
|
Post #37,699
5/6/02 10:15:39 PM
|
I know it's not for me to say
but could you take this to Flames?
On and on and on and on,
and on and on and on goes John.
|
Post #37,702
5/6/02 10:21:08 PM
|
Sure it is.
Anyone can do it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #37,707
5/6/02 11:24:52 PM
5/7/02 12:29:35 AM
|
I think that's fair....
....actually I think I'm all done now.
Apologies for any offence caused.
-Mike
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
Edited by Mike
May 7, 2002, 12:07:51 AM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 7, 2002, 12:29:35 AM EDT
|
Post #37,704
5/6/02 10:47:51 PM
|
I await with trepidation
The day Brandiich/Kahsim ever admits to an error, let alone an admission of strawmanning. I have followed this group for many more years than I contributed. I may be wrong, but I will wager money that Brandi has never made the proviso I did at the beginning of this sentance. Can't remember a single time that the possiblity of a mistaken assumption was ever acknowledged.
I will readily admit that Brandi has an effective debate style (more like an attack style), but after who knows how many years (10/15?) of following this gruop of malcontents, I honestly never remember Brandi ever admitting to a mistake, a wrong interpratation or even an incorrect inference.
Admit it Bran/Khas, you have an argumentative defect. You can not acknowledge another's point as sound (in the precise logical sense of the word) without a rebuttle of some smaller portion of the opponents argument. This is, of course, quite effective as a depating tactic. But aren't debating tactics a bit over the top?
Don't blame me. I voted with the majority.
|
Post #37,712
5/7/02 12:03:55 AM
5/7/02 12:27:56 AM
|
Thanks for the info
...I didn't know Brandi was Khasim :-)
>>This is, of course, quite effective as a debating tactic.
I'm not so sure. I mean christ......
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37680|Link ]
>>#5. Yes, I do believe that Mike lies. Why discuss/debate with someone who lies?
I mean this is pretty weak stuff...isn't it?
Would this pass muster in ANY academic/professional setting?
I don't think so. Maybe that's not what the expectations are
here...not really sure.
I like to learn from the people here.
(I've said before that more neuron-firing goes on in here than in
my entire company.....okay perhaps a bit unfair).
But it seems that to maximise learning...you have to drop the concept
of "WINNING" as the yardstick which measures all contributions.
If your sole (or primary) goal is to find your opponent's weakest argument, or
assign one to him, I'm inclined to think that learning is suspended.
(Yeah been a culprit).
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
Edited by Mike
May 7, 2002, 12:05:09 AM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 7, 2002, 12:25:43 AM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 7, 2002, 12:27:56 AM EDT
|
Post #37,722
5/7/02 1:49:16 AM
|
The secret is knowing what you know.
Can't remember a single time that the possiblity of a mistaken assumption was ever acknowledged. That's because I tend to skip discussions that I'm not informed about. When I lack sufficient facts, I will attempt to gather them. As in the discussion here. Admit it Bran/Khas, you have an argumentative defect. You can not acknowledge another's point as sound (in the precise logical sense of the word) without a rebuttle of some smaller portion of the opponents argument. Actually, I usually do that by not commenting on the post in the first place. Such as your Islam post in this forum. I don't see any problems in your reasoning so I don't comment on it. If I see a glaring error or if I need more clarification/criteria, I will seek that. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Re-read my first few posts to confirm that.
|
Post #37,745
5/7/02 9:14:37 AM
|
Re: The secret is knowing what you know.
>>If I see a glaring error or if I need more clarification/criteria,
>>I will seek that.
Bollocks. Your technique is ......
1) Raise a scenario which is problematic for the persons position.
2) Get the person to EITHER defend the scenario OR acknowledge that you have committed a coup.
3) If scenario appears to fail.......extend scenario or replace with new scenario.
You don't start off with "could you clarify something because
I may have misunderstood........".
If someone says "I don't think I would have been traumatized at 15 with a sexy
schoolmistress" and you follow that with
a) "so you think its okay for adults to fuck children"?
b) "so you think its okay for 15 year old boys to fuck 30 year old men"?
I mean....you're not really in a discovery process here ..... are you?
You are being entirely to kind to yourself.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,705
5/6/02 11:03:15 PM
5/6/02 11:41:59 PM
|
Doesn't get much sweeter than this.
>>And, it seems that Dr. Finkelhor's opinion is that, at age 15,
>>you would have been "abused" if you had sex with a woman age 25 or more.
>>Which does seem to contradict your claims.
The schoolmistress was 24 when she had sex with the boy.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
Edited by Mike
May 6, 2002, 11:05:03 PM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 6, 2002, 11:09:19 PM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 6, 2002, 11:11:38 PM EDT
Edited by Mike
May 6, 2002, 11:41:59 PM EDT
|
Post #37,719
5/7/02 1:25:50 AM
|
Whatever.
So, that is TWO data points that you've admitted to. (if you can call that last one an admission).
16 - 30 is "okay"
-and-
15 - 24 is "okay".
All the rest are "okay" as long as the state says they're okay but you don't like the state telling you what is okay.
Yes, that was your original point.
Now, you have "won" because Dr. F.'s professional opinion is that, if you, at 15 had sex with the woman in the story (24), it would not be abuse.
Now, find where I said it would be abuse.
:)
As I said in the beginning, all I'm doing is establishing the criteria you are operating under.
I don't recall ever saying it was "abuse" or "wrong" or anything.
All I've done, so far, is ask you what the criteria you operate under are.
And point out where you contradict your previous statements.
|
Post #37,737
5/7/02 7:59:28 AM
|
"Just say prosecute" ............<wink>
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,739
5/7/02 8:19:56 AM
|
Again, proof that you lie.
Here's the link to the post of mine that you referenced. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37395|Just say "prosecute".] Allow me to quote myself from said post: "okay" or "legal"?
You will notice that I did not address what the age of consent should be, only that it should apply equally to boys as well as girls. Again? "okay" or "legal"?
Again, I haven't stated what I feel the age of consent should be, just that it be applied to boys as well as girls. Another time? Hmmmm, and here I thought the discussion was about adult/child sex. Yet you're using two 14yo's as an example.
Whatever. Do you need me to quote it again? #1. It is about adult/child sex. Not about two 14yo's.
#2. "okay" and "legal" are NOT the same.
#3. I did NOT say that >I< would be traumatized. One more time? Again, is there any test or measurement to determine where each individual child is in that continuum?
If not, then setting a "legal" age of consent is up to the society that the child/adult inhabit.
And I'm saying that that age limit should apply to boy and girls. Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be wrong with Y aged adult? I didn't think so. The reference "Just say "prosecute"." was in response to your title "Just say no - yeah right!" Again, you started this thread with a rant about "the state" telling >YOU< what is good for you. My point was that if the laws were violated, they will be prosecuted. As I've pointed out, "okay" is not the same as "legal". You seemed to have a problem, in your initial post, with what was "legal". That being , what the state was telling you was good for you. So, prosecute what is illegal. Then I asked you for the criteria under which it would be "okay". And you retreated into what would be "legal". And now you've resorted to lies, again. In my previous post....[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37719|Whatever.]I asked: As I said in the beginning, all I'm doing is establishing the criteria you are operating under.
I don't recall ever saying it was "abuse" or "wrong" or anything.
All I've done, so far, is ask you what the criteria you operate under are.
And point out where you contradict your previous statements. You seem to imply that my post "Just say "Prosecute"." was where I contradict your previous statements or where I said it was "abuse" or "wrong". Yet, when I read it, it seems to, explicitely, request you to clarify your position. My only comments are that such criteria apply equally to girls as well as boys. So, what were you saying?
|
Post #37,748
5/7/02 9:32:58 AM
|
1,2,3,4 ....You take the low road.....
Dude, your posts are festooned with questions about adults fucking
children. Did you supply specific ages? You were intentionally
evasive of this. You see ... you were so busy trying to learn my position
from me, that you couldn't spare time to address this, despite my question.
Guess the 'ole fact finding missions don't work both ways do they?
>>Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be
>>wrong with Y aged adult?
<Brandi Mode On>
So you DO think its okay for an adult to fuck a child?
<Brandi Mode Off>
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,761
5/7/02 11:00:06 AM
|
Again, more lies. I'll provide links to the truth.
Dude, your posts are festooned with questions about adults fucking children. Did you supply specific ages? Yes. I supplied specific ages. Over and over and over and over again. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37502|Very interesting.] [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37516|"okay" == "do you see any problems with it".] [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37524|Allow me to quote you.] [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37547|How much EASIER can it be?] You were intentionally evasive of this. I believe the above links speak for themselves. They specifically ask for you to say "okay" or "not okay" for specific ages. Yet you claim I was evasive. You could not do so. Instead you said that "the state" was the best judge for what was best for everyone. A position that does seem to contradict your earlier statement about how you did not feel that "the state" knew what was best. Most curious.
|
Post #37,773
5/7/02 11:58:18 AM
|
Haw haw haw
>>Now, could you point out where I said that X aged child would be wrong
>>with Y aged adult?
>>Yes. I supplied specific ages. Over and over and over and over again.
Which is it? Let me guess.....out comes the "out of context" argument.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,774
5/7/02 12:02:03 PM
|
Hee hee hee.
So, is it okay for an adult to do it with a child?
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,779
5/7/02 12:28:06 PM
|
Har har har
The schoolmistress was 24 when she had sex with the boy.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,948
5/8/02 2:36:53 PM
|
Made me look.
I suppose I should know better.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #37,628
5/6/02 12:06:34 PM
|
Not entirely
He does sometimes have something interesting to say, or a good point to make.
It is totally pointless to try to have a discussion with him, much less argue with him.
He is deliberately obtuse, is a legend in his own mind, and enjoys "luring and hooking" people in conversations.
After a topic indents about 4 levels, it is pretty safe to ignore his posts. He has nothing to say at that point.
|
Post #37,721
5/7/02 1:45:57 AM
|
Have to disagree with this characterization.
Dunno if you were lurking in the "IWE" part of IWETHEY days, when a quite larger cross-section of folk visited the then (almost unique?) IW-Electric forum.
Some were (eventually shown to be) rather habitual 'shills', active in other locales; at least one whose handle I recall ('daleross') appeared to be an active astroturf kinda guy. 'Khasim's methods of slicing through the puffery were, I thought in several bravura performances - most effective of all the many attempts. I still think that, in retrospect.
Hell.. it's close-enough to the Socratic method, y'know? And if taking debate seriously is a negative - that would be in the spirit of our time, as lampooned by our Oz friend in his contrivance of N.I.C.E. (Nations Institute for Computing Excellence, IIRC), a refreshing interlude for us all - interspersed between the knock-down drag-outs with the forces from the Dark Side. Yes.. there was Diversity there!
BTW I'm quite sure Khasim/Brandioch has corrected himself more than a few - or altered his criticism of a POV, when the espouser made his point clearer. I'm not in habit of indexing everything I've read though - so you may ignore my recollection if you want.
As to bad blood - well... some folks do tend towards anger when they see / think they have seen a pattern of certain kinds of evasiveness. Let him who is without sin.. Overall I believe that, if you have (especially) a strongly held conviction which sounds a lot like daily cant, and your logic is sloppy in upholding it - expect to get little mercy. If that's Bad, then B. is Bad.
As I am biased, for sharing B's POV on a number of hot-buttion Issuez as appear to arise periodically - from Org. religion to Corp. greed - you may dismiss my comments, or go back to some of the archives as once contained some collected gem-threads. Alas I don't know where these reside currently; think the EZ-board stuff from pub4 converted to 13? or vice-versa - worked a few months ago. This one from Infoworld is dead:
[link|http://forums.archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayForums.pl?archfors.htm|forums.archive.infoworld]
BeeP had some stuff on his site from IWE days - that link is dead too, I just noted. Maybe sometime - some of this shall hit CD. Maybe not. Here's a link to EZ which works except - what is linked doesn't (!) {sigh}
[link|http://pub13.ezboard.com/fiwetheyiwetheyforumguidelines.showMessage?index=187&topicID=6.topic|EZ Board]
Anyway.. calling Brandioch 'a troll' - is to demonstrate one's ignorance of what troll means IMnsHO, so I demur from the tut-tutting.
Ashton
|
Post #37,741
5/7/02 8:37:27 AM
|
Re: Have to disagree with this characterization.
I remember IWE. I was lurking there since 95 or 96. And I remember the shill wars as well. It is true that he supported positions similar to my own views. I am unconvinced that the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument necessarily applies.
Cutting through puffery... um, well, maybe... Socratic, I don't think so. He is gratuitously rude and he deliberately misstates opponents (always confrontational, never a reasonable discussion) position to set up a simplistic assault of one-liners.
victim: Assert not A, Assert B, Assert C, draw conclusion.
Brandi: Well, If A, your position is ridiculous, how stupid are you?
He may or may not have corrected his position in the past. I don't usually follow his arguments too far and only see them if I am trying to see if someone else has something interesting to say. After the third or fourth wave of his assault he seems kind of bot like. Repetitive barking may relieve his boredom, but I find it wearisome.
I also share his POV sometimes. At these times I find it distaseful to publicly side with a rabid rottweiler on methamphetamine. But that would be my problem. I probably have issues with defenders of the faith as well.
In general, yeah, he occasionally has a really good rant, and his technical posts are worth reading, but the majority of his stuff seems tiresome to me. Different strokes, I suppose. I can't be too upset; I still come back...
Hugh
|
Post #37,778
5/7/02 12:25:13 PM
|
Like your conclusion
>>I can't be too upset; I still come back...
That's exactly how I feel. I still choose to tangle
and make myself part of the dynamic....so can it be all
bad?
Yet, there's a certain dishonesty which you feel you have
to confront......in the hope of making the world an
improved place. Unfortunately...I think I just end
up feeding the fire.
A: So its about children and adults?
B: No
A: So we ARE talking about children and adults though right? [ad nauseum]
B: No
A: At what ages do you think its "okay"?
B: [specific answers] (for better or worse)
A: You repeatedly REFUSE to answer my question!
Its odd......and desperate........I'm inclined to think.
Will we ever get back to the point that the professional/scientific
community do see circumstances in which a relationship between
a 15 year old and a 24 year old falls this side of the line of appropriate
behavior?
I very much doubt it. The reason.....he's lost that argument.
So he'll want to have a different one instead.
Thanks for hearing me out.
-- William Shatner's Trousers --
|
Post #37,629
5/6/02 12:07:00 PM
|
I've often thought people were kidding...
only to discover later that they were being sincerely stupid. Never overestimate the intelligence of a random stranger. Most of them are idiots.
A tip on dealing with a troll: either you have fun with him, or he has fun with you. Which is the case, is up to you. Better to be in on the joke.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
