Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.
Was he vetted? How'd that work out?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.
Was he vetted? How'd that work out?
Do you really think we can "vet" out future potential mass killers? Unless this guy was FB friends with Bin Laden.
Really, I don't think there's anything we can do to stop this type of lone wolf attack.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.
Was he vetted? How'd that work out?
Do you really think we can "vet" out future potential mass killers? Unless this guy was FB friends with Bin Laden.
Really, I don't think there's anything we can do to stop this type of lone wolf attack.
100%? No, of course there really isn't. Nor will there ever be. This type of occurrence is just a part of our reality with a "war on terror" policy as part of our life.
To think that a "vetting" process can eliminate criminal activity from this, or any, portion of the population is patently absurd. To think that violent crimes and criminal acts committed by immigrants is something new, or mutually an "immigrant thing", is just as absurd. The fact that Muslims have become the boogeyman for certain elements of the country is the reactionary manifestation of the uninformed to something they feel they have no control over and need to quantify, feel threatened by and don't bother to check the facts behind the headlines. The fact that we have millions of immigrants in this country, with approx. 70,000 refugees admitted in 2015 alone, and what, barely a relative handful of "terrorist" attacks on our soil shows that the current processes seem to be working as they should.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/30 22:46:46
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank I think it is a pretty good idea to prevent future mass murderers from entering the USA. To take it a logical step further, we ought also to throw out any future mass murderers who currently are resident in the country.
Was he vetted? How'd that work out?
Do you really think we can "vet" out future potential mass killers? Unless this guy was FB friends with Bin Laden.
Really, I don't think there's anything we can do to stop this type of lone wolf attack.
100%? No, of course there really isn't. Nor will there ever be. This type of occurrence is just a part of our reality with a "war on terror" policy as part of our life.
To think that a "vetting" process can eliminate criminal activity from this, or any, portion of the population is patently absurd. To think that violent crimes and criminal acts committed by immigrants is something new, or mutually an "immigrant thing", is just as absurd. The fact that Muslims have become the boogeyman for certain elements of the country is the reactionary manifestation of the uninformed to something they feel they have no control over and need to quantify, feel threatened by and don't bother to check the facts behind the headlines. The fact that we have millions of immigrants in this country, with approx. 70,000 refugees admitted in 2015 alone, and what, barely a relative handful of "terrorist" attacks on our soil shows that the current processes seem to be working as they should.
Relative handful of "terrorist" attacks??? lil' bit more than a handful.
Wow 73 plots in 16 years? Truly this is an epidimic beyond reason. At this rate Muslims are right on track to match the 300 bombings and burnings of abortion clinics in the past 30 years. They're really gonna have to work though if they want to match law enforcement. They kill about 1000 people annually. And if they can't match cops they have a long DBZ style training arc ahead of them before they match our yearly 5000+ hate crimes.
LordofHats wrote: Wow 73 plots in 16 years? Truly this is an epidimic beyond reason.
That's more than a handful
At this rate Muslims are right on track to match the 300 bombings and burnings of abortion clinics in the past 30 years.
They're really gonna have to work though if they want to match law enforcement. They kill about 1000 people annually. And if they can't match cops they have a long DBZ style training arc ahead of them before they match our yearly 5000+ hate crimes.
So ignore that its a problem...
smdh
In truth, we have been lucky. Most of our incidents of self-starting jihadists have been small and perpetrated by losers who are, luckily, incompetent at mass killing . So, yes our death toll has mercifully been low and we haven't seen anything like the 88 killed in Nice, FR or the 130 killed in Bataclan Theater in Paris.
But, it's only a matter of time man.
I mean, we just had that Pulse shooting (killing 48) that was obviously an ISIS inspired attack.
So, until we have this 'national coversation' on what to do with radical Islam (ie, Islamism), it'll only continue and we're at risk for even worst attacks.
You know, Whembly, I'm sure if i had the time to look back at your posting history, I could find examples of you saying that the number of children killed by guns accidentally every year isn't high enough to be the basis of any gun control laws because they're statistical outliers. I'm also willing to say that number is probably significantly higher than the number of people killed by refugee terrorists every year.
I mean, we just had that Pulse shooting (killing 48) that was obviously an ISIS inspired attack.
Yes, and he was a US citizen.
So, until we have this 'national coversation' on what to do with radical Islam (ie, Islamism), it'll only continue and we're at risk for even worst attacks.
What do you propose? Instituting the Thought Police or perhaps the PreCrime Division? If that's the case, you'd better hope the government is working on breeding PreCogs to stop people.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:31:53
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
The only options are not "ignore" and "treat as the most massive problem." The amount of attention dedicated to the fear of Islamic terrorism in the US (most of the western world really) is in wild disproportion to the actual incidents.
Remember when Republicans were all about not letting the terrorists win? Well congratulations. The Republicans have let the terrorists win by giving them exactly what they want. Muslims demonized into a proverbial enemy entity that must be "extremely" opposed. I think we should have a national conversation about not letting fear mongers run public policy into the ground but apparently a couple individual lone wolves are sufficient to achieve that end, and "national conversation" now means "shut up and stop apologizing for the terrorists and agree with me that radical Islam is the worst of things."
I'd rather have an honest conversation where radicals are the problem, and among radicals within the US Muslims represent a minority compared to more native hate groups (but we happily dismiss a Christian shooting up an Abortion clinic as "just a cray guy" while a couple other "crazy guys" constitute sufficient reason to start "extreme" action).
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm pointing it out with liberal usage of quotation marks
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You know, Whembly, I'm sure if i had the time to look back at your posting history, I could find examples of you saying that the number of children killed by guns accidentally every year isn't high enough to be the basis of any gun control laws. I'm also will to say that number is significantly higher than the number of people killed by refugee terrorists.
Go ahead and make that case. I'll be here.
In reality, it's a strawman. One deals with rights that our citizen enjoys. The other, is what do we want our immigration/refugee law look like...
I mean, we just had that Pulse shooting (killing 48) that was obviously an ISIS inspired attack.
Yes, and he was a US citizen.
And? He was on the FBI watchlist too...
So, until we have this 'national coversation' on what to do with radical Islam (ie, Islamism), it'll only continue and we're at risk for even worst attacks.
What do you propose? Instituting the Thought Police or perhaps the PreCrime Division? If that's the case, you'd better hope the government is working on breeding PreCogs to stop people.
Honestly, I have no idea. (I'm ignoring your Thought Police/PreCogs quip).
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
But, at the god damn minimum we need to stop pussy footing over the issues at Islamism.
The only options are not "ignore" and "treat as the most massive problem." The amount of attention dedicated to the fear of Islamic terrorism in the US (most of the western world really) is in wild disproportion to the actual incidents.
Remember when Republicans were all about not letting the terrorists win? Well congratulations. The Republicans have let the terrorists win by giving them exactly what they want. Muslims demonized into a proverbial enemy entity that must be "extremely" opposed. I think we should have a national conversation about not letting fear mongers run public policy into the ground but apparently a couple individual lone wolves are sufficient to achieve that end, and "national conversation" now means "shut up and stop apologizing for the terrorists and agree with me that radical Islam is the worst of things."
I'd rather have an honest conversation where radicals are the problem, and among radicals within the US Muslims represent a minority compared to more native hate groups (but we happily dismiss a Christian shooting up an Abortion clinic as "just a cray guy" while a couple other "crazy guys" constitute sufficient reason to start "extreme" action).
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm pointing it out with liberal usage of quotation marks
No... radical Islamism wins when we ignore that it's a problem. Just look at how much effort it takes to get the Obama administration, the FBI and the media to admit that Omar Mateen was radicalized when he attacked that nightclub.
EDIT: and who's ignoring the crazy Christian attackers? O.o
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:41:59
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You know, Whembly, I'm sure if i had the time to look back at your posting history, I could find examples of you saying that the number of children killed by guns accidentally every year isn't high enough to be the basis of any gun control laws. I'm also will to say that number is significantly higher than the number of people killed by refugee terrorists.
Go ahead and make that case. I'll be here.
In reality, it's a strawman. One deals with rights that our citizen enjoys. The other, is what do we want our immigration/refugee law look like...
I mean, we just had that Pulse shooting (killing 48) that was obviously an ISIS inspired attack.
Yes, and he was a US citizen.
And? He was on the FBI watchlist too...
So, until we have this 'national coversation' on what to do with radical Islam (ie, Islamism), it'll only continue and we're at risk for even worst attacks.
What do you propose? Instituting the Thought Police or perhaps the PreCrime Division? If that's the case, you'd better hope the government is working on breeding PreCogs to stop people.
Honestly, I have no idea. (I'm ignoring your Thought Police/PreCogs quip).
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
But, at the god damn minimum we need to stop pussy footing over the issues at Islamism.
The only options are not "ignore" and "treat as the most massive problem." The amount of attention dedicated to the fear of Islamic terrorism in the US (most of the western world really) is in wild disproportion to the actual incidents.
Remember when Republicans were all about not letting the terrorists win? Well congratulations. The Republicans have let the terrorists win by giving them exactly what they want. Muslims demonized into a proverbial enemy entity that must be "extremely" opposed. I think we should have a national conversation about not letting fear mongers run public policy into the ground but apparently a couple individual lone wolves are sufficient to achieve that end, and "national conversation" now means "shut up and stop apologizing for the terrorists and agree with me that radical Islam is the worst of things."
I'd rather have an honest conversation where radicals are the problem, and among radicals within the US Muslims represent a minority compared to more native hate groups (but we happily dismiss a Christian shooting up an Abortion clinic as "just a cray guy" while a couple other "crazy guys" constitute sufficient reason to start "extreme" action).
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm pointing it out with liberal usage of quotation marks
No... radical Islamism wins when we ignore that it's a problem. Just look at how much effort it takes to get the Obama administration, the FBI and the media to admit that Omar Mateen was radicalized when he attacked that nightclub.
You do realize that the middle east nations hold the most amounts of refugees right? As for the radical Islamism, we better look towards radical Christanity and other reiglions as well because you cannot pretend that they do not do bad things also
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You know, Whembly, I'm sure if i had the time to look back at your posting history, I could find examples of you saying that the number of children killed by guns accidentally every year isn't high enough to be the basis of any gun control laws. I'm also will to say that number is significantly higher than the number of people killed by refugee terrorists.
Go ahead and make that case. I'll be here.
In reality, it's a strawman. One deals with rights that our citizen enjoys. The other, is what do we want our immigration/refugee law look like...
I mean, we just had that Pulse shooting (killing 48) that was obviously an ISIS inspired attack.
Yes, and he was a US citizen.
And? He was on the FBI watchlist too...
So, until we have this 'national coversation' on what to do with radical Islam (ie, Islamism), it'll only continue and we're at risk for even worst attacks.
What do you propose? Instituting the Thought Police or perhaps the PreCrime Division? If that's the case, you'd better hope the government is working on breeding PreCogs to stop people.
Honestly, I have no idea. (I'm ignoring your Thought Police/PreCogs quip).
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
But, at the god damn minimum we need to stop pussy footing over the issues at Islamism.
The only options are not "ignore" and "treat as the most massive problem." The amount of attention dedicated to the fear of Islamic terrorism in the US (most of the western world really) is in wild disproportion to the actual incidents.
Remember when Republicans were all about not letting the terrorists win? Well congratulations. The Republicans have let the terrorists win by giving them exactly what they want. Muslims demonized into a proverbial enemy entity that must be "extremely" opposed. I think we should have a national conversation about not letting fear mongers run public policy into the ground but apparently a couple individual lone wolves are sufficient to achieve that end, and "national conversation" now means "shut up and stop apologizing for the terrorists and agree with me that radical Islam is the worst of things."
I'd rather have an honest conversation where radicals are the problem, and among radicals within the US Muslims represent a minority compared to more native hate groups (but we happily dismiss a Christian shooting up an Abortion clinic as "just a cray guy" while a couple other "crazy guys" constitute sufficient reason to start "extreme" action).
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm pointing it out with liberal usage of quotation marks
No... radical Islamism wins when we ignore that it's a problem. Just look at how much effort it takes to get the Obama administration, the FBI and the media to admit that Omar Mateen was radicalized when he attacked that nightclub.
You do realize that the middle east nations hold the most amounts of refugees right?
As for the radical Islamism, we better look towards radical Christanity and other reiglions as well because you cannot pretend that they do not do bad things also
whembly wrote: Go ahead and make that case. I'll be here.
When I get the time, I will.
In reality, it's a strawman. One deals with rights that our citizen enjoys. The other, is what do we want our immigration/refugee law look like...
No, it's not a strawman argument. You're trying to use something that is a statistical anomaly for justification while ignoring other statistical anomalies when it suites your worldview.
And? He was on the FBI watchlist too...
At one time, yes. But what good does that do? The "watchlists" are bs and trying to use them to deprive people of their constitutional rights is even worse.
Honestly, I have no idea. (I'm ignoring your Thought Police/PreCogs quip).
Why are you ignoring it? You're asking a way to stop the dissemination of opinions on the basis that you don't like it. Sorry, that's a no-go in this country.
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
They do, though I'm sure you already knew that or you'll just claim that some idiot on Twitter told you that it isn't true.
But, at the god damn minimum we need to stop pussy footing over the issues at Islamism.
Who is pussyfooting around? What do you want to do besides have "no idea?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:46:59
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Meanwhile the western world is flipping the metaphorical gak over about 40,000 people (only about 3,000 of whom are seeking to enter the US).
Not only is it correct, it's a overwhelming understatement. Seriously. Jesus Christ. This has been pointed out how many times now and still it get repeated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:50:14
Only 1 of those countries pictured are Gulf States.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:55:24
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
whembly wrote: Go ahead and make that case. I'll be here.
When I get the time, I will.
In reality, it's a strawman. One deals with rights that our citizen enjoys. The other, is what do we want our immigration/refugee law look like...
No, it's not a strawman argument. You're trying to use something that is a statistical anomaly for justification while ignoring other statistical anomalies when it suites your worldview.
What do you think my "worldview" consist of?
No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....
And? He was on the FBI watchlist too...
At one time, yes. But what good does that do? The "watchlists" are bs and trying to use them to deprive people of their constitutional rights is even worse.
It's more of a statement that Omar Mateen was on the FBI's radar, rather than advocating for "watchlists".
Honestly, I have no idea. (I'm ignoring your Thought Police/PreCogs quip).
Why are you ignoring it? You're asking a way to stop the dissemination of opinions on the basis that you don't like it. Sorry, that's a no-go in this country.
This is NOT what I'm asking. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
They do, though I'm sure you already knew that or you'll just claim that some idiot on Twitter told you that it isn't true.
Not the wealthy gulf-states.
And please, stop with the twitter dig.
But, at the god damn minimum we need to stop pussy footing over the issues at Islamism.
Who is pussyfooting around? What do you want to do besides have "no idea?"
The media in general. The Obama administration... like what the FBI did when they redacted 'Islamic' references when they released Omar Matteen's transcripts to the negotiator at the night of the Pulse shooting. Things like that...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/30 23:58:24
nels1031 wrote: Only 1 of those countries pictured are Gulf States.
Oh I forgot that Lebenon, Turkey, and Iraq aren't in the Middle east (Hey maybe that is a good thing we can strike the Middle East quagmire being started with the Iraq war then under Wubya)
No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." Meaning being that by definition the selective application of equality is in itself a perverse inequality. I
This is NOT what I'm asking. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
He's just carrying what you're saying to its conclusion, something I find many people fail to do.
Not the wealth gulf-states.
Moved that goal post awfully fast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: Only 1 of those countries pictured are Gulf States.
But are they in the Middle East?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/01 00:01:50
No. I'm simply asking is it really wise to import Muslims from the most backward, violent and jihad-addled parts of the Islamic world? If yes, should more scrutiny be employed based on this? Note, this isn't saying "more scrutiny for all muslim"....
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." Meaning being that by definition the selective application of equality is in itself a perverse inequality.
Bull gak. We have every right, and legally too, to dictate who can immigrate and refugee status.
This is NOT what I'm asking. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
He's just carrying what you're saying to its conclusion, something I find many people fail to do.
Assume much?
Not the wealth gulf-states.
Moved that goal post awfully fast.
That's not moving the goal post. That's acknowledging that states like Saudia Arabia, Brahain, UAE and others aren't doing much at all either.
FYI, there are refugees in the Gulf States. Several hundred thousand. They're aren't reported as such because much like the Palestinians, and Lebanese displaced by wars in Israel-Palestine and Lebanon the Gulf States don't list refugees as "refugees." It's an internal PR thing, but it's produced an external myth that there are no refugees in the Arabian Penninsula when there in fact are. They are lumped in was "Overstays", a classification of people used in the Arab Gulf states for people who "we really want to pretend aren't here."
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
Saudia Arabia, Brahain, UAE are the "other" countries... right?
Jesus man. Move that goal post any further and it's going to hit all the gas guzzling soccer mom vans in the parking lot. The district doesn't have the money for the premium hikes!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/01 00:10:25
Maybe encourage other mid-east nations to take those refugees?
Saudia Arabia, Brahain, UAE are the "other" countries... right?
Jesus man. Move that goal post any further and it's going to hit all the gas guzzling soccer mom vans in the parking lot. The district doesn't have the money for the premium hikes!
That is my response. Not sorry that you don't like it.
I would think my disdain for being talked past has been made abundantly clear at this point, but hey we're again rehashing the same talking points on Muslims and dangerous radicals from like a decade ago yet again so obviously we're all just insane.
First rule of holes man... stop digging.
If you stop digging now you're goal post is just gonna fall over.
That is my response. Not sorry that you don't like it.
I would think my disdain for being talked past has been made abundantly clear at this point, but hey we're again rehashing the same talking points on Muslims and dangerous radicals from like a decade ago yet again so obviously we're all just insane.
Look, I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here.
With the post flying around, and the parsing, snipping posts... your question may have been lost in the shuffle.
If you think I'm talking past you, then please restate your question and I'll give it an honest reply.
First rule of holes man... stop digging.
If you stop digging now you're goal post is just gonna fall over.
:sigh: paraphrasing.
Scotty says: what would you suggest? moi: I dunno... maybe ask other mid-east nations to take 'em Ustrello says: but they do moi: incorrect, shows CNN links that some of the wealthiest mid-east nations aren't really doing much. (looking back, I'll submit that I gave the appearance that all mid-east nations weren't accepting refugees... which is untrue)
You jump in saying that I'm moving goalposts. So... I dunno what's going on here.
I'm not even sure what to do, and I just spitballed an answer to scooty... yet, ya'll wanna latch onto that.
O.o
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/01 00:30:26
How many of those 73 are real terrorist plots, not cases where the FBI finds some random angry Muslim, holds his hand through every step of planning an attack, and parades him around in front of the cameras as "proof" that there are terrorist to catch? Or ridiculous "plots" like the guy (listed on the timeline!) who tried to send $1000 to a foreign terrorist group?
And how many were things that could have been stopped by screening immigrants more carefully, not cases of people deciding to commit violent acts while already living the US? Increased restrictions on immigration won't do a thing to stop someone who enters the country with no violent intentions or ties to terrorist groups, decides at some later date that violence is the answer, and exercises their second amendment right to buy an AR-15.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
We have talked about this topic many of times. Maybe Leto can write a bot that can repost the answers to the same claims that always get addressed over the past few years.
We have talked about this topic many of times. Maybe Leto can write a bot that can repost the answers to the same claims that always get addressed over the past few years.
How many of those 73 are real terrorist plots, not cases where the FBI finds some random angry Muslim, holds his hand through every step of planning an attack, and parades him around in front of the cameras as "proof" that there are terrorist to catch? Or ridiculous "plots" like the guy (listed on the timeline!) who tried to send $1000 to a foreign terrorist group?
I would say they're all "real". Good thing many of those were mitigated, stopped or just plain dumbassery.
And how many were things that could have been stopped by screening immigrants more carefully, not cases of people deciding to commit violent acts while already living the US? Increased restrictions on immigration won't do a thing to stop someone who enters the country with no violent intentions or ties to terrorist groups, decides at some later date that violence is the answer, and exercises their second amendment right to buy an AR-15.
No idea (as I've stated before).
I don't even know what hoops of fire you'd have to do to be able to immigrate. I imagine rules are different for straight up immigration, visa, refugee status... etc...
I think we have to accept that a few mass killings are the inevitable result of sending billions of dollars overseas to blow up other people.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
