Total posts: 1,065
I'm going to say this once:
Tulsi Gabbard is a honeypot. She is like Reagan in the 80s. A conservative who was planted there so the Intelligence Community could do whatever they wanted. Ronald Reagan was an FBI informant. He was deeply connected to the intelligence community for many years before becoming President.
When Tulsi gave her speech on the threats to freedom from Democrats it reminded me of Reagan's "A Time For Choosing."
That is what is going on here. She's going to be the President either following Trump's 2028 exit or after the Democrat candidate who wins in 2028.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
What a sick joke all of this is.
George Carlin explained it best:
"It's one big club, and you ain't in it!"
Trump was in the club, then he left the club because he was well aware of what the WEF was trying to accomplish here in America. This show trial is because they know he'll destroy Biden in 2024, so they're trying to destroy his credibility the only way they know how.
It won't work, of course, because Trump has dealt with much worse and still bounced back, but they are trying.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I thought it made a lot of sense to have an independent third party review everything. After all, nobody thinks having an inspector general is a bad idea. This is no different.
But SCOTUS can rule what it wants to rule. They have been a rather liberal court for "conservatives." Kavanaugh and Barrett were HUGE disappointments, even on abortion. I have no idea why liberals hate them so much. They are hardly conservative.
The only three justices on that court who are true conservatives are Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Barrett and Kavanaugh are center-right at best, and hard left at worst.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
New York City.
Imagine having the greatest team in Baseball, coming off of winning 2 Superbowls, and having a basketball team that was really competitive, only to watch all three decay into ruin and nobody showing any initiative to do anything about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He was a one term President genius
Don't backpedal now. I always knew you were a closet qanon member!! You can drop the act now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Say whatever you like, but I didn't call him the president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
need a decoder ring, or addendums to be able to read them in their alleged true form?
What languages are the Bible written in? It wasn't English. That's why there hundreds of TRANSLATIONS! They all differ based on INTERPRETATIONS of the Greek.
Honestly I would laugh at this troll account but some people actually believe the tripe you're joking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I'm waiting to see how being black will somehow tie into this. After all, you blame them for everything else in life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wow, if you’re not President of the United States (Trump)
We all just witnessed it. Roosevelt agreed it was a stolen election!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Why are you talking about yourself in third person?
Is this a Seinfeld episode?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It was a play on words about Biden.
Commander, catheter.
A catheter is what people wear when they can't hold it in anymore.
Idk I thought it was funny.
I forget that jokes about liberals are not funny on here, but calling conservatives bitches and racists is somehow hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Did you get your theology diploma from a cracker jack box?
If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.
Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not sure it will make much of a difference in moderation, TBH.
It is the mods who can interpret moderation any way they want, even if it makes no sense. The support article on moderation blatantly says so.
So, basically, even if a dictionary and the laws of logic and reason agree with you, it doesn't matter because mods have complete freedom to reinterpret the rules however they want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
None of which are eyewitness accounts.
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Luke 1:1-4: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
If the gospels weren't eyewitness accounts or recordings of eyewitness accounts then how do you explain these passages?
Luke, in particular, claims he interviewed people and studied the issue thoroughly. Clearly there were many MANY people to talk to for Luke to compile his gospel account.
The similarities cannot be denied
Except you forgot a few things:
"So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out."
Jesus was already dead before Joseph of Arimathea took his body. The Romans gave him the pierced side test and he passed the test so they knew he was dead. This is an entirely different story than what you paint. In fact, Joseph and Nicodemus, in the immediate passages following what you cite, perform the Jewish burial customs:
"Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."
So it is apparent that Jesus was dead to everyone in the story. Furthermore, your cherry picked account in Josephus's work does not mention Jesus nor Joseph of Arimathea, so I have no idea how you came to your conclusions there.
All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.
Yes but did cult leaders specifically tell their followers not to lavish them with gifts? Did the cult leaders of Rome give up material belongings altogether and never stay in the same home, instead moving from house to house, facing death, imprisonment, and starvation? What kind of cult leader is that? Who starts a cult and then tells people not to give them any money, nor sleep with the women, nor treat them any differently than anyone else? And then tells the followers that their words should be checked against Scripture to make sure it is true? What kind of cult is that?
Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject
Except in Mark 2:5, John 8:58, and John 7:5. And that is just SOME of the times. Plus all the times He raised the dead, made the blind see, and forgave people's sins. I mean... Nobody except Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (and both because of outside sources) comes away reading the gospel accounts thinking Jesus didn't claim to be God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.
Created:
-->
@Vader
RM is not a bad candidate for President. I just disagree with the way he believes moderation should be handled and how to handle case by case reports
Correct me if I'm wrong but a simple majority is enough to overturn the President's vetoes anyways, right?
So if this is the case, then isn't the position of President kind of overrated? He oversees duties, but ultimately the moderators have the final say in what goes on, not the President. What is stopping a coup of Moderators against the President's wishes? And what is the process for moderator removal if they are being a bad actor?
I am not trying to plot the removal of any moderators whatsoever. I am just asking after reading the President's duties in relation to moderator ones.
For instance, the moderation section states:
"Mods have complete discretion in the enforcement and interpretation of the site rules, with all exceptions stated in these terms. Mod decisions are final and not subject to appeal."
What if a situation arose where a mod was acting rogue? Or what if the chief mod goes rogue? What happens then?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What would you know about RM's credentials?
Well, it isn't like there's a short article written about him in the DART Hall of Fame or a lengthy amount of past forum posts to read that he wrote or anything like that...
How do you know what Ehyeh does in his spare time and who he has a shrine to?
To quote the Catheter and Chief: C'mon man!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Ah. Gotcha. I didn't know!
Created:
Best.Korea,
When you actually learn the difference between a fact and a statement from a genocidal dictator, I will respect your opinion and that of North Koreans working for their government.
Created:
-->
@Vader
@Ehyeh
I noticed the help section for the President hasn't been updated yet. It still says Airmax is the president:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
You forgot about Antifa and BLM burning down black neighborhoods and putting black businsssmen and businesswomen out of business and making it difficult for black grandmothers to go to the store and buy the food they used to be able to do before BLM and Antifa brought "equality" to their city.
You also forgot about Stacy Abrams (the woman who said ultrasounds have a fake heartbeat in them to stop women from getting abortions), AOC (the woman who said the world would be gone in 12 years) AND ilhan Omar (who basically said white genocide is cool) and Rashida Tlaib who said to ostracize all Trump supporters and called them Nazis, and also called for Trump to be murdered.
Then there's Jim Carrey who made paintings of dead, bloody babies and that crazed lunatic who held a severed Trump head on a pike for "comedy," and all those liberal school districts that banned gendered bathrooms and are pumping children full of chemicals and taking them to psychologists who tell them it is normal to chop your dick off and become a women if you're a man.
But, you know, only the right has crazies. The left is just "boring."
Created:
So there were a couple wikipedia accounts that were active 24/7. (1) They were propaganda accounts for governments. What they did was, they had a person on Wikipedia 24/7 who would edit things to be pro-country of origin. Multiple people took shifts to accomplish this. I think it is significantly more probable that Shila is simply a collective of users who have nothing better to do than shitpost on DART.
As to why she never responded to messages, it took me days of searching on my mobile phone layout to find where the friend request and messaging options are. So if we assume these people are like me and are taking shifts mostly on their mobile phones, it makes sense how they couldn't have found it. The mobile layout is clunky and I am thankful it is getting fixed.
BUT, this doesn't mean that skynet and such do not exist. I personally believe one user on here is a bot, but I am not sure. And, no, it isn't Oromagi.
I mean, after all Best.Korea I am pretty sure is a North Korean propagandist who is actually working for the North Korean government.
So if North Korea cared enough to join, then why wouldn't other countries?
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I mean. Svali was also saying this stuff back in the 00s. Few believed her then.
Created:
Revision 1:
TOPIC:
Is the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible has Narcissistic Tendencies?
STANCES:
PRO must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible has Narcissistic Tendencies.
CON must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible does not have Narcissistic tendencies.
DEFINITIONS:
The following will determine the standards for this debate:
For theology definitions, theopedia.org will be used.
For Hebrew word definitions, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.
For Greek word definitions, Thayer's Greek Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.
For medical definitions, MedicineNet's dictionary will be used, available here:
And if none of the above can provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used.
RULES:
By participating in this debate, PRO and CON agree to adhere to the following rules:
1. Use of logical fallacies are strictly prohibited. Any logical fallacy that exists in this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is banned from the debate. All logical fallacies shall be defined according to this Wikipedia webpage. Any deliberate usage of a logical fallacy results in immediate forfeiture and admittance of defeat. Accidental usage can be rectified by not using the fallacy again and moving on with the debate.
2. The rules and definitions of logic shall come from the webpage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic, and not Merriam Webster's online Dictionary or any other Wikipedia page. This debate shall be governed by the laws of logic, meaning burden of proof is required by both parties.
3. Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:
4. Usage of any compliance technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:
5. The rules of grammar and proper English shall come from Grammarbook.com available here: https://www.grammarbook.com/ and they will be followed strictly. Deliberate attempts to use gibberish English result in forfeiture of debate by the person who committed the action.
6. Using definitions from any source or definition not already supplied and properly used within the rules arising from this description is banned, UNLESS there is not already a definition for either the specific word or root word(s) with which a definition may be constructed, in the approved sources.
7. For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be defined by "something that furnishes proof," and "proof" shall be defined as "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" statement shall be defined as "a report of facts or opinions." Opinions shall not be substituted for facts and facts shall not be substituted for opinions. And facts are inherently superior to opinions. [OR DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS AS PER THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE].
8. Sources are weighted according to their satisfaction of the Burden of Proof, with primary sources better satisfying the burden of proof than secondary and tertiary sources, all of which are defined by this webpage: https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources
9. Both PRO and Con agree to debating in good faith as per Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary Definition: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose." With lawfulness deriving from definition 1b for lawful: "constituted, authorized, or established by law." Both PRO and CON agree these debate rules and all else contained in this description are the law for the debate, unless any federal or state or other government laws make such act illegal. In which case, either party shall list the law barring them from agreeing to the debate rules in their entirety and amendments shall be made in the comments to accommodate such laws. Lying is banned and the person who lies forfeits the debate.
10. Voters agree to vote in favor of the party that was second to violate the rules, e.g. the first person to violate these rules shall be penalized by voters voting that the first person to violate the rules lost the debate.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Here is what I propose:
TOPIC:
Is the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible a Narcissist?
STANCES:
PRO must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible is a Narcissist.
CON must only argue that the Judeo-Christian God of the Christian Protestant Bible is not a Narcissist.
DEFINITIONS:
The following will determine the standards for this debate:
For theology definitions, theopedia.org will be used.
For Hebrew word definitions, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.
For Greek word definitions, Thayer's Greek Lexicon will be used, available from biblehub.com.
For medical definitions, MedicineNet's dictionary will be used, available here:
And if none of the above can provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used.
RULES:
By participating in this debate, PRO and CON agree to adhere to the following rules:
1. Use of logical fallacies are strictly prohibited. Any logical fallacy that exists in this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is banned from the debate. All logical fallacies shall be defined according to this Wikipedia webpage. Any deliberate usage of a logical fallacy results in immediate forfeiture and admittance of defeat. Accidental usage can be rectified by not using the fallacy again and moving on with the debate.
2. The rules and definitions of logic shall come from the webpage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic, and not Merriam Webster's online Dictionary or any other Wikipedia page. This debate shall be governed by the laws of logic, meaning burden of proof is required by both parties.
3. Usage of any propaganda technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:
4. Usage of any compliance technique, as defined, outlined, and explained in this Wikipedia webpage, as an argument is banned:
5. The rules of grammar and proper English shall come from Grammarbook.com available here: https://www.grammarbook.com/ and they will be followed strictly. Deliberate attempts to use gibberish English result in forfeiture of debate by the person who committed the action.
6. Using definitions from any source or definition not already supplied and properly used within the rules arising from this description is banned, UNLESS there is not already a definition for either the specific word or root word(s) with which a definition may be constructed, in the approved sources.
7. For the purposes of this debate, evidence shall be defined by "something that furnishes proof," and "proof" shall be defined as "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" statement shall be defined as "a report of facts or opinions." Opinions shall not be substituted for facts and facts shall not be substituted for opinions. And facts are inherently superior to opinions. [OR DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS AS PER THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE].
8. Sources are weighted according to their satisfaction of the Burden of Proof, with primary sources better satisfying the burden of proof than secondary and tertiary sources, all of which are defined by this webpage: https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources
9. Both PRO and Con agree to debating in good faith as per Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary Definition: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose." With lawfulness deriving from definition 1b for lawful: "constituted, authorized, or established by law." Both PRO and CON agree these debate rules and all else contained in this description are the law for the debate, unless any federal or state or other government laws make such act illegal. In which case, either party shall list the law barring them from agreeing to the debate rules in their entirety and amendments shall be made in the comments to accommodate such laws. Lying is banned and the person who lies forfeits the debate.
10. Voters agree to vote in favor of the party that was second to violate the rules, e.g. the first person to violate these rules shall be penalized by voters voting that the first person to violate the rules lost the debate.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The poor are also getting pregnant and having babies in a publicly-funded country, though.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You can't condemn a mother for not choosing adoption over abortion and then later condemn the mother for not wanting to connect with the unwanted child.
Murdering. Just call it murdering already, jeez. She wanted to murder her child. And I do blame her for that 100%.
If we can simply murder people we don't want, then what is even the point of having laws or a government in the first place?
I applaud the father for saving a life. The mother was the asshole. If HE demanded she got an abortion, he would be lambasted by everyone from all sides. The "right to choose" argument would say the baby should suddenly live, it is entirely one-sided.
This is what is stupid about the whole abortion debate. It boils down to people having hatred for those who aren't even born yet, for a crime they never committed, resolving from a mistake they never made.
If this doesn't show you the current evils of society, I don't know what will.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Although Cohn always denied his homosexuality in public, he had a few known boyfriends over the course of his life,
SHOCKER!!!
Who cares. If you think this is a "gotcha," you've missed the point entirely of Donald Trump's presidency.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If I am allowed to include the old testament in my analysis
Sure. I still don't think it'll help your case, though.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Now that you know where we got our inflated egos from.
I mean, if you forget about the whole sin and disobeying God and eating the apple and sin entering the world thing, that is...
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'm really not interested in getting into an all out "scientific" debate over whether souls exist
Why bicker about my studies then if you don't want to debate this?
The only "evidence" we are therefore left with is asserting them as the cause of something else
What else saw the various things mentioned?
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Marine Rapper is Black. TWS1405 is a white law enforcement officer.
I am still trying to figure out why it's a hard act to follow. Are you making a joke on law enforcement or about TWS?
Created:
The simple fact of the matter is a fetus is a living human being.
For starters, all of the biological markers for life are pregnant at fertilization. (1)
Furthermore, the fetus has a complete genetic code. (2)
The overwhelming majority of biologists, even liberal pro-abortion ones, believe that human life begins at conception. (3)
Therefore, it is a human being in the earliest stages of life. Biologists and scientific studies both agree to this.
Moreover, abortion is a very dangerous procedure for the women involved, with approximately 10% of women having immediate complications from an abortion. (4)
Furthermore, a 1997 study in Finland found that women who aborted their baby are significantly more likely to die within one year than pregnant women who carried their baby to term. (4)
Additionally, two Denmark studies in 2012 that followed the entire female population of women in Denmark found that women who aborted their baby were significantly more likely to die within 10 years than women who carried to term, and also found that the risk of death INCREASES with every abortion. (4)
So not only does abortion kill the baby, it also is dangerous to the woman having an abortion.
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@Shila
That is a tough act to follow.
Howso?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
They will indeed just print more money. Money is worthless without government backing. This is why those billionaires all want land and power instead of their money, because they know more of it can be printed.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, considering Peter Thiel wouldn't be able to finish testing Clearview AI without the Ukraine War I highly doubt he will. [1]
After all, Putin is a Young Global Leader and a puppet of Klaus Schwab. [2]
SOURCES:
Created:
-->
@Shila
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Most of what Kanye confirms is extremely old news. Kanye is simply just ANOTHER person to come forward on it.
The problem is the people who come forward always have really checkered pasts or are known to be extremely sarcastic (like Dave Chappelle) so people don't believe them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Well this comes down to a difference in definitions. I thought by physical you meant exists in the 3rd dimension. If you just mean exists then yeah it has weight I'm sure.
You completely ignored the other links in their entirety, opting instead to just focus on one. The other ones are proof of people knowing events after they had died, including where objects were in a room and who was doing what to them and complete sentences. That is also very strong evidence that you chose not to focus on.The “evidence” of the study you cited
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
A born human being is an actualized human being.
What about 3 minutes before birth? Is it a human being then?
Created:
You still never answered RationalMadman's question.
What does North Korea think about corporal punishment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Oh they gained for sure. But the elites make trillions in war. Where do you think most of those trillions the government spent went?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
GAHHHH!!! SO. MANY. RESPONSES.
If the soul has weight then that would make it physical. Is that your assertion?
I don't claim to know the makeup of the soul, just that science has found evidence it is there.
Created:
Posted in:
Am I the only person who thinks Bush simply LET 9/11 happen so there could be a fake war on terror?
After all, there is a lot of oil in Iraq and Iran, and it also gave a chance for the elites to make billions on selling their war inventions and other sales on the home front.
The fake war on drugs and horrifying war on communism were huge moneymakers, why not just make another fake war on terror?
Seems like it makes perfect sense to me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You sure you aren't talking about yourself there, bud? After all, you seem to know better than the FBI on their own UCR and Biologists on biology, without citing any evidence, of course. Like always.LOL!!!! Delusions of grandeur and psychological projection shines bright once again. LOL!!!!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Most people see arguing as bad social skills and see debating as a pseudohobby that only argumentative pricks take.
And it has caused society to become stupid.
When I was in college my communications textbooks talked about how illiberal it is to censor people and silence people who disagree with you on things. They talked about how without public discourse ignorance abounds.
Now liberals are calling for cancel culture and silencing everyone they hate. They became the very thing they claimed to be against.
Created:
-->
@Uragirimono
You completely misinterpreted what I said. I said people need to live out their contracts. Every contract has a severance option. If it doesn't then that is the employee's fault. A contract can be negotiated or not accepted.
Furthermore, I said that if leaving your job directly causes someone's murder then that is wrong.
There is literally only one clause. People can leave for any option on the planet that is in a contract. And nobody is forcing them to even agree with a contract for employment. They can offer not to have one. But once a person does agree to a contract, then they need to adhere to it.
Created:
-->
@Uragirimono
hospitals can change their mind
They shouldn't be allowed to be. Legality does not equal morality. But in the gross majority of cases in the western world, they are not allowed to if it is life threatening.
Individual employees can also quit and find new jobs.
Only because contracts are written with severance clauses in them either by a government law or through the contract itself.
So if a hospital worker can consent to working and then say "never mind, I want to stop", how can a pregnant person who consented to being pregnant say "never mind I want to stop"?
I'd argue that if it will murder the person they are caring for, and nobody can replace them, then they should not if they are contracted to do so. You can't just murder people. They have a right to life.
Created:
-->
@Uragirimono
So you support denying those in car wrecks treatment for their injuries (as they made a contract when they started to drive knowing a wreck was a risk), you support denying smokers who develop lung cancer medical treatment (as they made a contract when they started to smoke knowing cancer was a risk), and you support denying soldiers PTSD treatment (as they made a contract when they signed up with the military knowing medical trauma is to be expected).
These are blatant straw mans. Nothing I stated says we should refuse care to people. Furthermore, many people willingly volunteer to take care of people at hospitals and are paid by the state government and federal government to take care of these people.
Moreover, the hospitals accept the people voluntarily and care for them voluntarily. They willingly accept the risks associated with caring for them. That is, everyone involved willingly signs a contract to take care of these people. Nothing is coerced. This is how the system should work.
A baby is the same. You volunteered and signed the contract to take care of it should the situation arise. Just like the hospitals sign the contract to take care of the other people.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Biology is about chemical compounds
Biology is the study of life. Chemistry is about chemical compounds.
There is also zero scientific justification for the assertion that souls exist.
Not true:
There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest there is a soul.
Created: