501. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163851 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 7:23 am

To top this someone should clone himself and than marry himself. The ultimate orgy of narcissism.I do find myself very attractive. Too bad I am not a biologist and likely can't afford the service of one.

EDIT I wrote "himself" because I think mostly men are into having non stop perverted sex with themselves, no disrespect for the ladies.

502. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163656 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm

That does not mean I wish to peek in their bedrooms, much less have my kids peek likewise, whether on the real thing or else a televised depiction, watered down or not.

So that means you wouldn't mind if your kids peek into the bedroom of straight couples? No one is saying that we should show gay people having sex on kid's show. I don't think you would see heterosexuals having sex on children show either, I don't know what your problem is.

True. Let's just leave it up to parents to decide if their kids should view it in programmes purportedly made for them,

Parents can switch off the TV if they don't like Ernie and Burt or the tele tubbies (well, though I heard it is a show more for thirty something stoners) They always have the decision.

503. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163652 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Steve,

Oh, and I am a far better person to talk about gay icons with than Carto, if he will forgive me. I have followed everyone from Streisand to Mika.

I can't stand Streisand. It is funny that I have never been able to get into the "gay culture" thing. All gay men I know like the sound of music, I hate it with a passion, indeed I hate most musicals, with the exception of the South Park Movie, the Man of La Mancha and Jesus Christ, Super Star,--admittedly the last one is very gay with all the macho types bearing their hairy chests and wearing leather.

I also can't stand Queer as folks, at least the American version.

504. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163648 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Jac,

I think you may be mistaken if you think I am "on your side". I am gay, I just don't think Steve's speculation that homosexuality is a selected trait is on solid scientific ground (though it can still have a genetic basis and very likely so, but that is a different story altogether, not everything genetic is the result of selection.)

The bottom line is, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves with "we were born that way". No one asks or cares whether your preference of hot food is the result of nature or nurture.

The way I see it, even if homosexuals are born, those who hate us would still say it is a genetic disease, so "blaming the genes" doesn't really get us very far as long as we still see the need to "blame" something for who we are,--for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to be apologetic of the fact that I am attracted to men and I won't.

We are here and we are here to stay. I don't need to justify my sexual preference any more than you have to justify yours. In a rational society no one should even care about anyone's sexuality, whether in real life or on TV.

What I find more objectionable is that the "token gays" in TV are often based on stereotype than reality, and they often appear only in shows that have something to do with "gay themes", I think having gay characters on TV shows shouldn't be seen as a "special event", period,

505. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163394 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 9:39 am

gr8hands

Bonzai -- all religious concepts are the result of indoctrination. Children are not born knowing the concept of god or believing in one.

Since children are not born with any knowledge,--well assumming there is no reincarnation,-- what is not "indoctrination" by your definition?

Feral children do not spontaneously develop the concept away from parents/society.

I don't know about that. Where do you think the concept of God originally come from? (I don't mean organized religion)

But even if you are right, it only proves that the notion of God is not an instinct for animals capable of abstract thinking and apprehending symbolism. But most things probably aren't instinctive in that sense.

And there are many examples of isolated pockets (even a single household) of one religion surrounded by a society of a different religion -- think jew or jehovah's witness or wiccan.

These enclaves form internally coherent communities with high degrees of conformity. But many of their children do eventually break away.

As for single household of different beliefs, they only prove that there are loners and non conformers and there are people who never talk to their neighbours. How do their children turn out?

506. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163349 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 8:22 am

Annabanana,

He feels that not only does he have a need for community but he has a "god-shaped hole" (to use DR's words) that needs to be fulfilled because of what he was indoctrinated with as a child.

That "God shaped hole" could be a short hand for a lot of emotional yearnings. I don't think it is necessarily the result of being told things which are factually not true.

507. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163341 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 8:12 am

Podaar,

I think RM has an emotional need that has to be filled.

His needy personality might have been due to his upbringing, but I don't think it has anything to do with the truth claims he was "indoctrinated" into. He wants community, from what I gathered from his posts on Robertson's. His new found religiosity is the result, not the cause.

He hopes that these claims are true because of his needs, not that he thinks the truth claims are credible or compelling. Based on the latest he might have succeeded in his effort to self delude, but it is not like he was told some BS at a young age and retains them because he thinks they are true.

You guys all make it sounds like belief is some kind of intellectual exercise which at some point stumbles because of bad logic and poor empirical thinking. "Facts" and logic are often not the point at all as your own example of RM shows.

508. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163332 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:56 am

Sargeist

The reason why it is dangerous to tell children certain things is evidenced by the time I told my niece that the reason I am so tall is that I was stretched by the doctors as soon as I was born. Her unquestioning belief in what I was saying as a member of her family caused me to immediately tell her I was joking. But that was the occasion when I realised exactly how careful one has to be.

C'mon now. If she still takes your "tall tale" seriously when she gets older I think you will have more to worry about her intelligence than having lied to her.

Give children some credits. They are not morons.

509. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163330 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:52 am

Phatbat,

They do have minds of their own, but well meaning people prime that mind to believe things on insufficient evidence. Once the mind is primed to accept this as a virtue then it can be very dangerous for the individual when they grow and develop the mind of their own.

I think you take the word "believe" too literally, as if all beliefs are conveyed always as certainty and recieved as such.

You make the assumption that if a person is irrational in one belief, he must be consistently irrational in everything. I think that is a rather strange assumption. Most of us are not always consistent in our views and actions, and it is particularly strange that you would assume perfect consistency from the very people who subscribe to irrational theistic beliefs.

510. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163325 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 am

Steve,

True, but that was never the intention of the FSM.

May not have been for its creators, but for some posters here it is. I wouldn't bother to dig up any
sample, just make a special note to pay attention next time when they come up.

511. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163319 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 am

Sargeist

I have no problem with the data, I just don't agree with the interpretation.

512. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163316 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 am

I had always assumed it was because of the (apparent) fact that, e.g., almost all Catholics are the children of Catholics.

Religion is not only belief, it is also a cultural and communal experience. What do you expect a cultural Catholic to become in say, Italy or Northern Ireland where Catholicism is so interwined with the culture? A Zoroastrian?

Religion, as it is practiced in the real world, is not only a set of metaphysical beliefs and truth claims. People who genuinely think that the FSM is a good caricature of real religion is missing something in their understanding.

513. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163313 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:28 am

And is there a never-ending supply of virgins, as once one has been deflowered, she's no longer a virgin.

Virgins they may be, but there is nothing to say that they must be beautiful. A 300lb virgin with a foul body odour and a big mole on her chin is still a virgin,--and probably not difficult to understand why she is one. The fine print only says "all God's creatures are beautiful", that can be deceiving.

They simply cannot accept that we (all life) are here for no other reason than the fact that our parents/ancestors reproduced

I think that is simplistic. Many "home grown" jihadists go radical to rebel against their parents who are only cultural Muslims. I find this whole thing about childhood indoctrination rather poorly supported by data. Children do have their own minds and agency.

Edit On re-reading I realize how political incorrect I was in making fun of obess, not so good looking people who happen to be virgins. I hang my head in shame.

514. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163304 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:01 am

Greyman

Ah. What? I'm not parsing that last phrase. How can a meaning be real if it is not true?

Ever read a work of literature or watch a film that moves you?

On the other hand, quantum mechanics may be "true" (I mean that in a provisional sense in case the philosophers here want to nitpick), it has absolutely no meaning to most people. They do use gadgets created from applying QM, but that is not "meaning" in the very specific sense that we use here.

Maybe "real" is the wrong word, but I do think meaning and truth are two separate things, though they sometimes coincide. Meaning is subjective and first person. "Truth" in the sense of science is objective and third person.

Myths have meanings in a metaphorical way and they are reinterpreted by each generation. While not "true" in a literal, objective sense, they nevertheless have an important role in conveying wisdom, intuitions and lessons. These are essential in nurturing and sustaining civilizations. Dawkins is not a good source on these subjects. I suggest reading some anthropology instead.

Yes, that's so. More precisely, we do not see any indication that anything was created for a purpose. It does not follow that we cannot find a reason to continue to exist.

I agree. I would go further to say that even if we are created for a purpose there is no reason we should obey it. We may be created as slaves or as yes-men and women to some egomaniac,--I don't mean the poster,-- cosmic dictator (as in the Abrahamic religions) but there is no reason why we shouldn't rebel. Having a mind means we can create our own purose.

Oh. I see. So... if I understand that, you are saying that: it's not the content of belief that matters, only that it provides comfort? Since false comfort is better than none?

Content of belief doesn't necessarily means its truthfulness. There are vicious lies to harm and white lies to comfort. Even though both are not true, but there is no moral equivalence.

Nothing wrong with seeking "false comfort" in and of itself. Why do you insist on operating on people without anesthetics? What good does it do? I don't think "truth" is good or bad, it just is. You are saying it is always better to be truthful, this is a subjective value judgement.

515. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163260 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 am

I agree with Clod.

516. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163024 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 8:58 pm

That is a probably a bit above the level at which selection can work.I think we need to look more closely at how homosexuality can be an advantage to the reproduction of close kin. I suspect it may be the non-reproducing uncle and aunt aspect. This may be indicated by the observation that the younger children of a family tend be gay more than the older children

How do you know it has to be selection at work? I find it a bit presumptuous.

Sorry, man I think this is the kind of pan adaptationist bullocks which people like Dannett and the evolutionary psychologists are pushing. The nurturing gay uncle theory is just a plausible sounding speculation without a shred of evidence.

I don't know where did proponents of this theory get the idea that homosexuals are more "nurturing" than their heterosexual counterparts. I just cannot see myself babysitting for my brothers.

Like a large part of evolutionary psychology, this sounds like making up a good story as one goes along in order to force observations to fit a prefabricated theory (that everything is the result of selection)

Homosexuals are not sterile and they can reproduce and in many cultures they did (and do) reproduce. Getting married and having children were (and still is in many places) a social obligation which had (has) little to do with personal preferences, fulfillment and romance, these are relatively modern concepts.In the same way heterosexuals were often arranged to marry and have children with partners for whom they feel no sexual attraction whatsoever just to get the job done, so to speak.

If for some reason most of the world's population is wiped out and there is a dire need to repopulate the earth I think many homosexuals would probably be having children for the sake of perpetuating the human race.

If homosexuality is a selected trait it has to be hereditary somehow, There is zero evidence that it is, There are no data which indicate that children of homosexuals,--yes, they do exist,--are more likely to be homosexuals themselves.

517. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162674 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 8:01 am

As Tina Turner said "What's love got to do with it?"

It is silly to suggest that one is incapable of love if he rejects superstition,

518. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162647 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 7:04 am

Is love the greatest power found in the human race?

Is it a bubble gum pop song, like those cheesy shit mass produced by Paul McCartney?

P.S. IMO the Beetles are over-rated (John is somewhat ok)

519. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162641 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

True, but he is someone, and someone with, unfortunately, influence.

But I don't know whether he is motivated by his "moderate" religious belief or by traditional belief that the King should represent all his subjects and British styled "multi-culturalism", which is a secular idea.

I think in the U.K religion and tradition is so intertwined that you sometimes cannot tell them apart. To me it is not any more absurd to have Bishops on committees than to keep the Monarchy in the first place. I doubt that Bishops would be sitting on the House of Lord if the Monarchy is no more.

BTW, she is our Queen too so I think I do have a right to comment on that, and Charles will be our King when she dies or retires. Shudder the thought,

520. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162634 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

I don't agree with copyrighting songs and music 30 years later, when they become part of the general cultural fabric, It may be sweet to see the "Expelled" crew being screwed, but I don't like the way that this happens.

521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162632 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

Prince Charles is an idiot. Being an adulterer he would be wise to shut up on the topic.

522. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162622 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:34 am

Russell,

I left a message on your blog regarding art and religion. Want to hear your thought on it.

523. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162620 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:24 am

It was to show that it was reasonable to put forward the position that "moderates" could be empowering "fundamentalists" by claiming that faith was good.

We have gone through this before. This is a strawman, No moderate I have heard ever said any faith is good, regardless of content.

You can question them on what criteria they use, but no one ever makes blanket endorsement of any faith.

EDIT

Is buying someone a cake on his birthday "encouraging" obesity?

524. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162614 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:18 am

We should instead classify people by the intensity with with they hold beliefs, not by what they believe.

No, they should be classified by their methods to believe.

There are moderates who are intense in their beliefs, just that they don't think the belief should only be derived from one book while precluding other data.

Many confuse a religious moderate with a weak believer, that's why I think "moderate" is actually not a very good label.

525. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162613 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:14 am

"Uncle Mark, is there a god?" "Er..., um... well, a lot of people think there is, but I don't, but I wouldn't like to tell you that there isn't, er.., um ..., bluster"

Well, I think that is a good answer. I would have said "I don't believe there is one, some people think there is. You would have to decide it for yourself when you are older, but I will be always happy to tell you my ideas at that time.."

Damn, just notice Paula has beaten me to it.

526. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162601 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 5:56 am

Steve

Think of it like this. Smoking doesn't kill everyone, but we would not approve of people saying that it is not only harmless, but a jolly good thing.

Sorry man, you're begging the question. By using smoking as an analogy you already subsumed that any kind of belief is not only harmful, but toxic, I don't want to get into another endless debate with you over this here because I don't have a lot of time today, but it suffices to note that people who object to Richard's slogan don't necessarily agree with that premise. It would be like wooter trying to argue for design by saying a painting must have a painter, we don't agree that it washes to compare the universe to a painting, which already subsumed that it is an artifact.

By the way I don't know of anything which is not harmful when doing to the excess.

The question is not necessarily whether something is "moderately harmful" but what benefits you may derive from it, and whether they outweighs the harm, this is at least partly a question of subjective preference and choice.

I cannot thinking of any good health reason for eating deserts, but it would be absurd to argue that cakes are harmful and therefore should be eliminated. In case there is any misunderstanding I am not using cakes as an analogy for religion, I am just questioning the logic that anything with moderate "harm" in some way is necessarily undesirable. Humans don't operate on binary logic.

BTW, according to recent announcements by health Canada obesity and related ailments "kill" more people in Canada than smoking, Of course "kill" always needs to be qualified in this kind of statements (Just as smoking "kills" x number every year)

527. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162388 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:36 pm

JEDDAH, 17 April 2008 â€" Officials at the Jeddah General Court confirmed yesterday that they are dealing with the case of a Turkish barber who is allegedly facing the death penalty after being tried for swearing at God.

Huh.. he faces the death penalty for not telling God to fuck off 5 times a day?

What kind of atheist tyranny is that..

528. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162386 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Goldy

Kardashovel does go on about time travel. Maybe the Disco Institute knows something the rest of us don't.

Huh..The Disco institute? Did Kardashovel time travel back to the 1970's?

529. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162385 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm

'"Most parents send their children to our schools because of the Christian values that our schools espouse, because our schools stand for biblical values,"'

So I wonder if boys without dates would be allowed, they are probably masturbating...

530. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162384 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

MarieCooper

I don't think young people should be of one sexuality or another.

Totally agree. They should experiment more.If you don't try how do you know you don't like it?

I am all for making decisions based on empirical data.

531. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162344 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Cos we're insane too. :-)

Signed:the rabbit.

532. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162342 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I don't think RM is pulling a double agent. If he is just playing Robertson why did he come back to post those trollish posts under the name D-I-Ogenes? I am very sure that was him.

But let's say I am wrong, I would still question the sanity of someone who would go through such an elaborate plot in order to "infiltrate" Robertson's Church, can anyone be actually that bored?! It is just the internet for fudge's sake.

533. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162257 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Oh, no, not again. The man needs to get laid.

534. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162253 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Mind you they had it easy compared with the denizens of Cockermouth.

And I am a denizen of Pottymouth. Actually, I mean Styrer. :)

535. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162251 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

But he [Richard Morgan]vomits that anywhere that he is not invited to vomit it then ...

Yeah, that is his problem. He is needy.

Everything was so personal, he wanted to spill his heart out, he longed for that warm, fluffy feeling of a "community" on the internet where people interact only on a very superficial level most of the time and ideas are more interesting than personality, So he is disillusioned and makes an about face.

I have no problem that he changed his mind, for whatever reason, but it is petty to have to spew his venom here under other names (I am convinced that D-I-Ogenesis was him) and kissing up to DR in such a nauseating manner, soon he will be writing music to praise Jesus and Robertson. Religious or not, the man should have more self respect.

536. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161920 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Time machines bring a whole new element to the concept of planning, Bonzai.

Are you drunk already? :)

Well in case you are not, I am off to make some diner (it is almost midnight here). Take care.

537. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161915 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm

We need to be humble about our knowledge of the universe, and we need to understand that it is incomplete, but what I objected to is any implication that our knowledge was somehow relative to us. This seemed very much like a post-modern attitude.

I think you are talking pass each other. I don't think he is saying anything "Post Modern". To say that our knowledge is a property of us doesn't deny an objective reality, just like saying a map is not the landscape doesn't deny the existence of the landscape, nor does it imply that the map is a purely cultural construct.

I think you actually agree.

538. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161907 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Oh yes. Jesus is central to my understanding of the afterlife, as well as this one.

Did you also say you believe in reincarnation?

539. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161905 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Whose "Plan"?

If it is a "developing" God, a God in training like an exploring child, how can it have a "plan"?

540. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161898 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Ok,

Just to clarify so that we won't misunderstand each other, you are some kind of mystic, am I right? Did you say you are a Christian?

541. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161889 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm

But you didn't answer how your idea of God conveys anything more substantial than my "mystical" metaphor.

542. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161878 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm

You are beginning to grok what I am saying... but more like a God in development.

Then it is not a God.

How is it different from saying, like I sometimes do, in an effort to sound mystical, that God is the cosmos. The cosmos is conscious because we are and we are a part of it, and when we explore the universe and try to figure out the laws of nature, it is God reflecting on himself, and that God is learning and maturing as we become more civilized and sophisticated?

Do you have any children, Bonzai?

No, I am gay, used to be considered abomination by God fearing people and should be put to death, I guess I am yet another failure for the trainee God.

543. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161863 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Karda

I did not suggest that randomness implies purpose. I am saying that it is not logical to suggest that randomness implies lack of purpose. Get it straight.

If that is the case it would be a very clumsy, wasteful and incompetent God who uses trial and error to achieve his purpose, failing most of the time and having to start over from time to time as evidented by mass extinctions.

A God in training?

544. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161842 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm

The "disposable" attitude to PCs is a sheer waste of money.

Not to mention creating toxic wastes and taking up landfill sites. Recycling and making new computers all cost energy and it comes from burning fossil fuels and funny the guy who isspamming every thread with peak oil apocalypse.

Computers are "obsoleted" so quickly not because of "Moore's law",--which he invokes like some kind of magical incantation, it is because of profit margin and capitalist logic. More waste means more jobs, more sales of newer models, more profit and higher GDP (and higher environmental cost which is swept under the rug)

545. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161790 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm

epeeist

The OP isn't quite as eloquent as Tolstoy, but has very much the same opinion.

Yeah, I remember reading Tolstoy, he argued basically everyone sucked, including Beethoven, all French writers and himself. I love the Russians, always so passionate.

546. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161782 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm

So bringingithome4u concedes that ID is theistic, so it doesn't belong in science, whether science alone is sufficient "to build human intellect"is a separate issue (obviously the answer is no, "human intellect" would also include art and literature)

Since ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science classroom and scientific research.

Case closed.

I have no problem with teaching ID in creative writing or religious study classes, or in philosophy courses examining pseudo sciences.

547. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161775 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

"I have many opinions, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."

George Herbert Walker Bush aka Bush I

Worshiping oneself is not as easy as you think.

548. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161774 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm

This is a bizarre statement.

Not the only one for sure, based on what I read from him.

549. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161768 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Clydey

You clearly have something against him. I have no objection to dissenting voices. I simply prefer that they make an effort to back up their argument.

Who says I wanted to make an argument?

Maybe I was just being in my catty self and wanted to provoke some people?

How do you figure that I have something against Dawkins? Are you saying "you are either with us or against us"? I always prefer to be a loner.

I only offer my observations, he does strike me as taking himself too seriously at times and that is not cool IMO, but it doesn't mean that I disagree with most of his message and don't like his books,

Assumptions, assumptions, you made too many assumptions my friend :)

550. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161750 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Who says it is objective?

But it is good to be the lone dissenter.

EDIT: Besides, I only hero worship dead people who didn't and obviously can't lead any movement and didn't want to be hero worshiped. Hence there is no danger of turning people into gurus.