AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 28, 2015 9:23:30 GMT -5
It's amazing that folks still can't grasp the difference between what flies over a State or Federal building and what flies outside on personal property. It's not that complicated or hard to understand. The "tit for tat", "well this is what was said about the confederate flag, so ban the rainbow flag" is just stupid & wastes time & energy. we look like idiots screaming "they did it first! so now we're going to do it to them!" We need less foot stomping and finger pointing and more focusing on and fixing of the damn problem! I think we know the difference. Thank you for playing.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 28, 2015 9:26:19 GMT -5
Grumpy, we can point out that some psyco kills many people in a church has a flag hanging in his room, is the sole reason that that man killed all the people. So its' only fair that we point out that having a gay flag hang in this psyco"s house is the sole reason that he killed the reporters, see how easy it is to misconstrue things. Only if you are willing to embrace willing ignorance of the historical context of those two flags. I don't think anyone claimed that the confederate flag is the sole reason for the SC church shooting. Rather, they pointed it out as a symbol of the shooters white supremacist ideology (along with the flag of South African apartheid).
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 28, 2015 9:36:12 GMT -5
Grumpy, we can point out that some psyco kills many people in a church has a flag hanging in his room, is the sole reason that that man killed all the people. So its' only fair that we point out that having a gay flag hang in this psyco"s house is the sole reason that he killed the reporters, see how easy it is to misconstrue things. Except your argument fails because in the killer's own words he decided to buy his gun and start a race war after the killing of the nine black church members. Even Breibart noted in their silly article the guy wanted to start a race war: "...an Obama-supporter, claimed that his motive involved a “race war."" Does the above quote from the article say 'gay war'? Breitbart made no mention of a gay war on straight folks. Your position fails, this thread fails, and the intent Breitbart's article grossly fails. Failures all around.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 28, 2015 9:38:00 GMT -5
the poor oppressed Christians. It must be awful having to undergo the persecutions inflicted on them daily. No, but the daily mocking of a whole group over the actions of a minority gets old. Especially when those same people doing the mocking are the first to say you shouldn't judge any group by the actions of a few members. Fair enough. The same can be said for the purpose and intent of this thread.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 28, 2015 10:04:41 GMT -5
Breitbart, Who is this man? It seems only the liberals on this board Quote him.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 28, 2015 10:05:12 GMT -5
All the baneverythingers will be happy to know that, according to a co-worker of mine, a school has banned a Wonder Woman lunchbox because Superheroes sometimes resort to violence to solve problems. It is fine for young ladies to aspire to be princesses and mermaids but not superheroes. No link. Sorry. Just word of mouth. Could be crapola.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 28, 2015 10:11:16 GMT -5
Following the exhaustive debate in the "liberal totalitarian" thread, it should come as no surprise to anyone that many conservatives see recent "social justice" movements as an outright attack on religious freedoms. Furthermore, while it would be premature to say that most progressives hate religious fundamentalists, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that progressives hate religious fundamentalism.
Our message board provides ample proof of this. Not a day goes by without posters voicing their disdain for fundamentalist doctrines, or rejoicing in the failures and downfall of fundamentalist ideologues. The contempt is palpable. It becomes still more evident on message boards where conservative voices are more powerful and the discussion is less censored.
Does the rainbow flag serve as a symbol of this hatred? Does it represent the "conform or be crushed" new fundamentalism of the left? Can it?
If we embrace the recent hysteria surrounding the confederate flag, Redskins logo, etc., it would indeed appear that current public opinion, not historical legacy, determines what a flag (symbol, more generally) represents. Hence why can the rainbow flag not stand for the left's accelerating crusade against non-conformist ideologies? Why can it not stand for the firing of the Mozilla CEO, the gagging of church pastors and journalists in Canada, the Oregon bakery affair, the slandering of Mr. Cathy at Chik-Fil-A, the mandated "gender pronoun" training in California, the open contempt for fundamentalist values, and the fervent desire to suppress them?
If any symbol were to represent such a thing, it would surely be the rainbow flag. One might ordinarily appeal to its intended meaning as a symbol of diversity, but as the confederate flag precedent clearly establishes, neither a symbol's intended meaning nor its historical meaning represent what it actually means. Personally I've always thought of it as representing the spectrum of illnesses and afflictions one is prone to suffering by embracing its ideologies, not hatred.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 28, 2015 10:14:15 GMT -5
Breitbart, Who is this man? It seems only the liberals on this board Quote him. Shooby and spacecoastpaul are liberal?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 28, 2015 10:21:24 GMT -5
Breitbart, Who is this man? It seems only the liberals on this board Quote him.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 28, 2015 10:28:08 GMT -5
All the baneverythingers will be happy to know that, according to a co-worker of mine, a school has banned a Wonder Woman lunchbox because Superheroes sometimes resort to violence to solve problems. It is fine for young ladies to aspire to be princesses and mermaids but not superheroes. No link. Sorry. Just word of mouth. Could be crapola. Wonder Woman Lunchbox
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 28, 2015 10:31:51 GMT -5
No, but the daily mocking of a whole group over the actions of a minority gets old. Especially when those same people doing the mocking are the first to say you shouldn't judge any group by the actions of a few members. Fair enough. The same can be said for the purpose and intent of this thread. Agreed. The fact is that when people are angry and filled with hate, they will find any "reason" to justify their actions. Gun control is not the answer. Pointing fingers at demographics is not the answer. We need to figure out why we have so many angry people who think murder or violence is the solution.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 28, 2015 10:39:18 GMT -5
Following the exhaustive debate in the "liberal totalitarian" thread, it should come as no surprise to anyone that many conservatives see recent "social justice" movements as an outright attack on religious freedoms. Furthermore, while it would be premature to say that most progressives hate religious fundamentalists, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that progressives hate religious fundamental ism. Our message board provides ample proof of this. Not a day goes by without posters voicing their disdain for fundamentalist doctrines, or rejoicing in the failures and downfall of fundamentalist ideologues. The contempt is palpable. It becomes still more evident on message boards where conservative voices are more powerful and the discussion is less censored. Does the rainbow flag serve as a symbol of this hatred? Does it represent the "conform or be crushed" new fundamentalism of the left? Can it? If we embrace the recent hysteria surrounding the confederate flag, Redskins logo, etc., it would indeed appear that current public opinion, not historical legacy, determines what a flag (symbol, more generally) represents. Hence why can the rainbow flag not stand for the left's accelerating crusade against non-conformist ideologies? Why can it not stand for the firing of the Mozilla CEO, the gagging of church pastors and journalists in Canada, the Oregon bakery affair, the slandering of Mr. Cathy at Chik-Fil-A, the mandated "gender pronoun" training in California, the open contempt for fundamentalist values, and the fervent desire to suppress them? If any symbol were to represent such a thing, it would surely be the rainbow flag. One might ordinarily appeal to its intended meaning as a symbol of diversity, but as the confederate flag precedent clearly establishes, neither a symbol's intended meaning nor its historical meaning represent what it actually means. Personally I've always thought of it as representing the spectrum of illnesses and afflictions one is prone to suffering by embracing its ideologies, not hatred. The point I keep trying to make which ties these issues together is that liberalism is a fundamentalist theology. I use the analogy of the liberal caliphate to paint a picture of what life would look like under liberal totalitarian rule. Liberals worship the state. This is why they hate religious people. A power higher than the state which people believe directs them how to live their lives, especially when those beliefs direct them in ways contrary to state doctrine, cannot be tolerated or ignored. Liberals are well aware of the principles outlined in the Declaration if Independence, which is why they attack our country at the foundation- attempting to bury our history, disparaging our founders for those that do discover our history and revere them, and making light of our Declaration by claiming it has no legal power. The law is very important to liberal fundamentalists. Judges and lawyers are the priest class in their society. They are able to quickly overpower the will of free people by issuing decrees which nullify it. Social justice is a deliberate, premeditated perversion of religious principle. It is employed mainly to equate taxation and government wealth redistribution schemes with traditional religious teachings on helping the poor, the less fortunate, and helping people in times of crisis. One way to shift deeply held beliefs is to pretend that you share them, and slowly condition people to believe that the polar opposite thing you're doing- stealing money at gunpoint from people that work and giving it to others who will not work- is actually the good thing they believe- providing voluntary charitable assistance to those truly in need. The rainbow flag could just as well be seen as the in-your-face oppression of Christians and others whose literal lives, property, and pursuit of happiness are threatened by the liberal fundamentalist's social agenda, and their grinding march "forward" into a glorious utopia where there is no authority higher than the state. The State Is The Greatest! The State Is The Greatest!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 28, 2015 10:54:38 GMT -5
Prove to me that such a power exists, and I'll be more than happy to change my stance.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 28, 2015 11:26:41 GMT -5
It's amazing that folks still can't grasp the difference between what flies over a State or Federal building and what flies outside on personal property. It's not that complicated or hard to understand. The "tit for tat", "well this is what was said about the confederate flag, so ban the rainbow flag" is just stupid & wastes time & energy. we look like idiots screaming "they did it first! so now we're going to do it to them!" We need less foot stomping and finger pointing and more focusing on and fixing of the damn problem! I think we know the difference. Thank you for playing. I'm seeing rainbow colors, but not a rainbow flag flying over the building.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,905
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 28, 2015 11:55:32 GMT -5
I live in the South and proudly display my Pennsylvania civil war era battle flag so honor my four ancestors who got killed fighting for the union at Gettysburg. I guess if I finally snap and run through town killing people with my axe they will say it's a Yankee hate flag. Because it's so famous for all those Quakers and coal miners and the Amish who raged across the countryside under it's banner, terrorizing people, raping and lynching and eating shoofly pie. Seriously, how can a flag be a hate flag when it has all the colors of the rainbow on it? It's like having a hate flag made from skittles.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 11:59:41 GMT -5
huh? since when? seriously, i have NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE TODAY. the poor oppressed Christians. It must be awful having to undergo the persecutions inflicted on them daily. yeah, must be tough when you only have an 85% majority, legal protection under the constitution, and incredible economic advantage- having to actually hear people complain about those facts must be horrid.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:02:12 GMT -5
the poor oppressed Christians. It must be awful having to undergo the persecutions inflicted on them daily. No, but the daily mocking of a whole group over the actions of a minority gets old. Especially when those same people doing the mocking are the first to say you shouldn't judge any group by the actions of a few members. i think the mocking is OK. it is when the mocking goes beyond mocking that i have a problem with it.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 28, 2015 12:05:06 GMT -5
I live in the South and proudly display my Pennsylvania civil war era battle flag so honor my four ancestors who got killed fighting for the union at Gettysburg. I guess if I finally snap and run through town killing people with my axe they will say it's a Yankee hate flag. Because it's so famous for all those Quakers and coal miners and the Amish who raged across the countryside under it's banner, terrorizing people, raping and lynching and eating shoofly pie. Seriously, how can a flag be a hate flag when it has all the colors of the rainbow on it? It's like having a hate flag made from skittles. I guess because people love to live in a constant state of hysteria and being offended and are always looking for something to blame - rather than the person actually doing wrong. That's all I can figure out. Seems like a crappy way to go through life but hey....to each their own, I guess. Same goes for the confederate flag, too....or whatever people are calling it.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 28, 2015 12:05:53 GMT -5
No, but the daily mocking of a whole group over the actions of a minority gets old. Especially when those same people doing the mocking are the first to say you shouldn't judge any group by the actions of a few members. i think the mocking is OK. it is when the mocking goes beyond mocking that i have a problem with it. Interesting. Are there groups of people you don't think it's ok to "mock"? If so, which groups would that be?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:06:05 GMT -5
I like how this thread is dismissed as "dumb" or "stupid" by people incapable of grasping the keenly nuanced point it makes. After Dylann Roof shot and killed 9 people at a historically black church in Charleston, SC; an entire culture was condemned because Dylann Roof was seen displaying their flag. It is true that the Confederate flag has a more sorted history than the history of the gay pride flag but reasonable people can agree to disagree about that, and we can all respect a southerner's display of the flag as southern pride, a rebel spirit, etc. However, some very unreasonable people got extremely hyperactive about it, and disparaged the entire southern culture, and slandered and libeled the mostly decent people who display the flag. It became such an over the top circus that NASCAR even attempted to "ban" the flag at their events. So, now we have a black, gay killer motivated by race and political ideology- clearly identifying with Obama, and the Democratic Party's radical agenda for the culture- and no one is talking about banning the gay flag. The reason is quite simple: the left hopes this story goes away, so they're going to bury it; and conservatives don't engage in the kind of historical revisionism and cultural cleansing the left does- where the whole country has to be scrubbed of any reference to any historical facts or events they find disturbing, or which might undermine their whimsical notions of a glorious Utopia. Good thread. Sad so few understand it. i already explained why this shit happens. it is mostly for historical reasons. is it fair? not really. is it biased? absolutely. is it understandable? assuredly. however, i sternly disagree that Obama or "the left" have to hope it goes away. it WILL go away, until such a time as the oppression of gays on straights and atheists on Christians is seen as an actual problem, rather than something to be laughed at.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:06:46 GMT -5
i think the mocking is OK. it is when the mocking goes beyond mocking that i have a problem with it. Interesting. Are there groups of people you don't think it's ok to "mock"? If so, which groups would that be? liberals, conservatives, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, men women...... who do you think it is NOT ok to mock? edit: i guess i just don't take mocking that seriously. it says way more about the mocker than the group.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:12:18 GMT -5
Breitbart, Who is this man? It seems only the liberals on this board Quote him. Paul and Shooby are liberals? VICTORY IS MINE!!!!
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 28, 2015 12:12:18 GMT -5
I don't think it's ok to mock anyone. It's not the way I was raised to behave. Unfortunately, I forget that on occasion, but that still doesn't make it ok.
Why would it be ok to mock Christians but not to mock liberals, conservatives, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, men women....?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:14:56 GMT -5
I don't think it's ok to mock anyone. It's not the way I was raised to behave.
me neither. but mocking is "unkind speech". speech is protected in this country. therefore, mocking is protected. i might loathe it, but i will fight to the death to protect a person's right to do it.
Unfortunately, I forget that on occasion, but that still doesn't make it ok.
Why would it be ok to mock Christians but not to mock liberals, conservatives, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, men women....? i never claimed that it was not OK to mock any of these groups. however, it will cost you a lot more social capital to mock, say, the DISABLED, than it would cost you to mock, say DONALD TRUMP, who earns a good mocking every waking hour.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:17:16 GMT -5
Following the exhaustive debate in the "liberal totalitarian" thread, it should come as no surprise to anyone that many conservatives see recent "social justice" movements as an outright attack on religious freedoms. Furthermore, while it would be premature to say that most progressives hate religious fundamentalists, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that progressives hate religious fundamental ism. Our message board provides ample proof of this. Not a day goes by without posters voicing their disdain for fundamentalist doctrines, or rejoicing in the failures and downfall of fundamentalist ideologues. The contempt is palpable. It becomes still more evident on message boards where conservative voices are more powerful and the discussion is less censored. Does the rainbow flag serve as a symbol of this hatred? Does it represent the "conform or be crushed" new fundamentalism of the left? Can it? If we embrace the recent hysteria surrounding the confederate flag, Redskins logo, etc., it would indeed appear that current public opinion, not historical legacy, determines what a flag (symbol, more generally) represents. Hence why can the rainbow flag not stand for the left's accelerating crusade against non-conformist ideologies? Why can it not stand for the firing of the Mozilla CEO, the gagging of church pastors and journalists in Canada, the Oregon bakery affair, the slandering of Mr. Cathy at Chik-Fil-A, the mandated "gender pronoun" training in California, the open contempt for fundamentalist values, and the fervent desire to suppress them? If any symbol were to represent such a thing, it would surely be the rainbow flag. One might ordinarily appeal to its intended meaning as a symbol of diversity, but as the confederate flag precedent clearly establishes, neither a symbol's intended meaning nor its historical meaning represent what it actually means. Personally I've always thought of it as representing the spectrum of illnesses and afflictions one is prone to suffering by embracing its ideologies, not hatred. The point I keep trying to make which ties these issues together is that liberalism is a fundamentalist theology. absolutely wrong. liberalism is fundamentally rational. fundamentalism is fundamentally dogmatic. the twain shall never meet. edit: "liberal totalitarian" is an oxymoron. when totalitarians come to power, liberals are the first to die. it happened under Stalin. it happened under Hitler. liberals are fundamentally interested in LIBERTY- thus the name. totalitarians are fundamentally interested in CRUSHING liberty. i will defend your right to practice your religion to the death, boys. TO THE DEATH. but not your right to oppress others. sorry. that is where i draw the line. ditto for any other liberal that is "not on name only".
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5
I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 28, 2015 12:21:43 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:22:40 GMT -5
I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. i guess so. and i guess i should have said "should be tolerated in a free an open society" rather than "OK" (which is what i meant). by OK, i didn't mean i like it, or personally participate in it. i just meant that i put up with it, because the alternative is that i have less freedom to speak (and possibly be misinterpreted).
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 28, 2015 12:22:54 GMT -5
Do I think mocking is a constructive exercise if you are hoping to gain parity? No, not really.
However, when the other sides arguments are so patently ridiculous and hyperbolic, it can sometimes be hard to resist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 28, 2015 12:24:48 GMT -5
I believe everyone should be mocked occasionally. It's a way of showing people their own biases and the ridiculous thoughts and beliefs they lead to. And we all have biases. i have certainly earned it on occasion.
|
|