OCinBuffalo

Yes, just like prositution rings have no strategy. Just like drug cartels have no strategy. Good theives? They don't plan or have a strategy at all. They just show up and start stealing. Nah, these people, like Putin, are all low-lifes, which means they are incapable of strategic thinking. F'ing preposterous. Russians won't do anything without a plan. Russia values chess more than most countries. Russian programmers are famous for over-planning every single little detail. The best hacks, that steal tons of data/$ are coming from Russia. The F'ing KGB put together entire "American" towns and raised kids there from birth to 18 as deep cover operatives. The KGB was famous for long, complex, operations, often spending years to target and then turn a single spy. Putin is a Russian, and KGB guy to boot...but, Putin has no strategy? Again, F'ing preposterous. In fact, typical, ...lybob, F'ing preposterous.

Just the opposite, actually. By definition, you can't be a loser if you are following through on the commitments you have made to yourself and your team, by striving to do your best every day. Balls and strikes, hits and strikeouts, will come no matter what. They mean nothing, because they have nothing to do with the commitments you've made and the effort you put in to meet them, each day. At one point in my life, due to a confluence of events, I ended up on unemployment for 2 months exactly, and days later was cajoled into coaching 13-15 year olds in baseball. I had 11 kids on the team, nine with single mothers. Yikes. So, I immediately created some player rules as well as parent rules. Mostly tradeoffs like "We will practice every day from 4-7, which helps you, but, every player will have a clean uniform and properly fitting shoes for every game, and you will attend every game, or find a sub, which helps me." Or, "Baseball is a privlege, and I won't tolerate bad behavior or bad effort here, at home, or at school. Say the word and your kid plays the minimum, even if we have to field 8." No kid wanted to be the reason we fielded only 8, so, I only had to sit one kid, one time. We didn't win because we had the best players. Not even close. We had one kid, who got his first hit the whole year...in a playoff game...with the bases loaded...driving in the tying and winning runs. I'm more proud of that than of some of the work I've done, because both the player and I refused to quit. All season we worked and worked and finally it paid off. We won because I hammered the value of working hard to get better into them. Well, that, and I'm a good hitting coach(from my dad), and more importantly, my pitcher friend from high school showed up at the bar out of nowhere, volunteered to help out, and turned 6 of our kids into starting pitchers...in a week. Yeah. 6 kids with at least 2 pitches they could throw for strikes if not 3. The new problem became who should start/get innings. They started arguing over it, not for personal glory, but because each truly believed they had the best chance to help the team. None of this was possible without them busting their asses to get better every day, and seeing results, which gave them confidence, and now they demanded the ball. We started using all 6 in 7 innings, and they still bitched about not being the guy who got "the start"(2 innings). Nice problem to have, especially since my buddy had all but one of his pitchers available for every game. After a week of that, I uh, delegated all pitching decisions to my buddy. On that team, every kid deserved a trophy, because they worked for it. It just so happens they got one: the league championship.

And, if Hillary actually knew anything about military and strategic matters, she'd know that Western Civilization is hugely dependent on the fact that we stopped making the toughest guy in the room the arbitrary military leader a very long time ago. Strategy, from which all policy should emanate, is more about being clever than "making the hard choices" or being "tough". Having to make hard choices now, usually results from making stupid ones earlier. Anyone who actually comprehends Sun Tzu, and doesn't just have his book prominently displayed in their office for show, knows this. For example, gutting our military, while at the same time acting like a giant candyass, and thus inviting the entire world to dust off, and either ressurect, or at least reconsider, their vast number of "how I can be an a-hole" plans, are the stupid choices Obama is making now, that are going to require the next POTUS to make hard choices later. This results from the dim leftist view that the less soldiers we have, the less "militaristic" we are, and therefore, the less "militaristic" other countries will be. Unmitigated moron Nader shows you that clear as day above. Naders and his ilk will never understand military power is neutral. Somebody is always going to have it. The military art(and it is an art, not a science) is to make sure the right people have it, rather than the wrong people. Wanna be relative? Fine. Make sure the people who are least likely to F up, or purposely abuse it, have it(we make mistakes, but, do you really want to see what China does with it?). Going out of our way to make sure the US isn't the world's dominant military power...is the very best way to ensure the most war and famine possible, and thus ensure the poor get killed by the millions. Once again, this is all merely indicative of the Obama rule: If you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite. IF I want millions of poor people, especially non-whites dead? The best way is allow leftists, the poor's supposed great defenders, to be in charge of foreign/military policy. It's almost as stupid as the other dim leftist view of war: The less soldiers we commit, the less will get killed. (Somalia anyone?) Which....basically explains how Viet Nam became Viet Nam. And of course, the over-reaction there was to then send in tons of soldiers, which was the policy, that STILL did not emanate from a coherent strategy. Remember that word? Instead of the normal leftist approach to the imminent failure of their policy: "Quick, throw $ at it", we had is variant, "Quick, throw men at it".

Habib: Why do I always get stuck with Hassan? An AK-47 is the most user-friendly rifle in history, but Hassan the idiot can't figure it out. One day he is going kill all of us with his, and none of us will get our 72 virgins, because there is no martyrdom for "death by idiot". CAIR spin doctor Jamal: Dammit, there he goes again! Every single time I come up with a really good plan to rationalize Islamic terror, or marginalize and character assassinate those who demand that we either answer for it, or commit ourselves to fixing Islam's problems, Obama always beats me to it! It's like instead of being POTUS, his sole mission in life is to make mine meaningless. Khalil: Every time I come home, my wives terrorize me more in one day, than I terrorize the infidels in a year. And unlike the infidels, I can't go the bar and B word about it. Hakim: Allah dammit, I had to let the boss win at soccer again today. I'm so sick of pretending he's better than me, but if I don't, I will die a slow, agonizing death. The worst thing that happens to the infidels if they beat their bosses at something is they have to work the weekend.

Perhaps a middle ground for "everyone gets a trophy" and "kids need to learn about winning and losing" is: every kid that actually participates gets a trophy. Meaning, if you make all the games and the practices, or have been excused by the coach for good reason, then and only then do you get a trophy. The thought being: if you make a commitment to your team, then keeping that commitment, and working hard at it, is what we should be honoring.

I just got back from 2nd cousin's wedding this weekend. Good times. Both sides are heavy partiers, which is always great. Partying as we know, means bathroom, which is where I headed. I walked in, saw 2 guys from the other side talking, and began my preparations. Just as I was about to go, the first guy bellows: "Come over here, get on your knees, twist off the cap, and blow as hard as you can!" Of course I look over my shoulder in sheer WTF mode. To my relief, it became instantly clear guy #1 was telling a story. Guy #1 goes on: "So the stupid SOB gets down and blows on the F'ing tire! I told him you gotta blow harder, and he does! Then I told him to get up, and to 'GTFO of here you dumb mother F'er and never come back'" As he said the last part he whipped his brown paper towel in the garbage and stormed out. I am now laughing so hard from the story, and still in shock from the first line, that I can't do my business. So, I pack things up and the 2nd guy is gone. Now I am boggled. I need to hear the first part of the story, or my night sucks. Sure enough, the 2nd guy comes back to the bar and I demand he tell me the first part. He laughs and says: "That's my uncle. My cousin is 20 now, but 2 years ago she was going on her first date. The kid showed up and my uncle met him outside. He looked into the car and it was a mess. He asked the kid "Have you ever cleaned this car?" The kid said no. Then, he started to inspect the car, and noticed the right rear tire was low. He told the kid it was, and then he asked "Do you know how to inflate a tire?" The kid said no. ....which is when I walked in.

Bah! Beat me to it! Question: at least with the above you have a chance of reaching the pockets, and store candy, action figures, you know, things boys will like in them. But, with the OP's jacket, how the F do you reach the pocket while wearing it? Why is making you do a stretch, just to barely get into the thing, a good idea? God help you if you store your phone in there(which is probably the intent), that's just asking for pocket dials and missed calls.

No. Just like in hockey, there is juniors, and NCAA, but there is also the AHL. You can't really believe that looking to the sideline for the read on the defense/audible calls, throwing to one side of the field, read option, spread offenses that run 3 routs only and no sight adjustments, hell, these "new" college offenses which are merely modified versions of the same old wishbone/option offenses...which is exactly what is happening in college... ....have anything to do with NFL football. If anything, college is regressing into High School football, because college coaching has become inundated by control freaks. There's an inverse relationship between college football control freak and successful NFL coaching. Two words: Nick Saban. (Soon to be: Chip Kelly, btw. Doug Marrone too soon?) Most college players might as well have a joystick on their helmets, especially QBs, since their every action is now controlled by the sideline. Contrast that with how Dan Marino or Jim Kelly played the college game. You think either of their coaches told them F all once the play was sent in? Back in the 80s-90s, maybe the NCAA was the NFL minor leagues. Not anymore. Christ, go through the draft analysis of practically every damn QB now, except Luck, and for the last 8 years or so: it's always the same thing! "Concerns over how QB X will adapt to the NFL game" It's approaching broken record status. And who was Luck's coach? Answer: an NFL guy who ran an NFL offense.

Somebody needs to learn what "~" means, and, that it does not mean "took at least 3 full years of playing". ">= 3 years" is the proper mathematical representation...of what I didn't say. I said "~3 years"... "to start heading in one direction or the other". And, I made it clear that playing/not playing, as well as all other variables, are indicative of: NOTHING! "No causal factors" means: you can pull any amount of data out of this domain, and prove one point, but, some other clown can do the same and prove the exact opposite. Why? Because all any of you can do(maybe, if you know how) is identify correlations. Correlation is not causation, and we are not the social scientists who pretend that it is. We are Bills fans who want straight answers. The straightest, quantitatively supported answer remains, like it or not, "wait and see". All playing can possibly accomplish: allow a player to reach his maximum potential, and then, again, in ~3 years, head in direction or the other. However, playing real games against real teams does offer one thing: certainty. For example: since it's been 3 years, we don't have much to fear from Ryan Tannehill. I know that, because I have hard data that tells me we don't. Unlike EJ, we now know exactly who Tannehill is: Captain Pop Gun. Captain Pop Gun isn't going to beat you deep on a fly, because his deep ball == a punt. The entire NFL knows this now, especially our D, never mind Rex Ryan. I am exactly as afraid of Tannehill as I was of Chad Pennigton...because: data, not emoting. Also, misquoting me/misunderstanding it, is how you ended up writing a whole post, before you realized at the end...that the 2nd bolded above is exactly what I meant, isn't it? So, what, you got done researching/writing all of that, and at the very end, you realized it was misguided, and finally comprehended what I actually did say...But, after working so hard on it, you just decided to post it anyway? Well, then let me say that if I had said the first bolded, this would be a fine counter argument. However, I said the 2nd bolded...so...nice, if irrelevant, work. I guess. Free advice counselor? Leave the math and science, to the math and science people.

That is a question, that, if you actually put the work in yourself, and found its truthful answer, would be a great learning experience for you. In fact I'd bet it would change your life and make you a more effective person in just about everything you do. I assure you: you won't be wasting your time. I know infuriating posters with wild goose chases, and long posts, is my custom. Not this time. No, this time, in dead seriousness, you can only benefit by seeking and finding the TRUE answer to your own question above. It's worth the investment, and you will see that when you've found it. Who else but the above quoted poster? As usual you are confused. You are confusing, or conflating, or both, my observations of behavior here, with me being empowered to develop and/or enforce the behavior I observe. I didn't set the rules, they were here long before I got here, and mostly developed by the leftists, who outnumbered the right/liberty people(that still remain, btw) by at least 4-1 in 2005. I am acting no different than a historian, or perhaps better an anthropologist who seeks to explain a culture. How the culture of PPP began is unkown to me. I wasn't here when the first insult was thrown, nor was I here for the first PPP thread meltdown. All I have sought to do, is first undestand PPP, and then thrive in it. The above merely reflects my understanding of the cause/effect. And, you are breaking rule #1. The consequences of which are literally in this thread for all to see. Thus, my observations are merely facts to be accepted, not edicts to obey. As for the rest of you: the first thing I said was this was going to be a hilarious, and thus worthy PPP endeavor. So far, it is mostly as expected. However, we need more rules(observations) for standard PPP trouble/hilarity to continue. To get things back on track: 7. You are allowed to get away with posting a single link, or other people's work, without doing any work yourself whatsoever. This is contrary to standard PPP practice, where showing one's own work is demanded. Adding one or two lines of personal thought(especially if it's especially stupid) to 3rd party content can start a 10+ page war(see the Benghazi thread). But, some posters are allowed to post nothing but somebody else's work, and get away scot free. Some posters may even be throwing single links out on purpose, thinking they are throwing metaphorical meat into the dog pit, find it entertaining to watch the dogs go at it, and thinking they are above the fray. However, they are clearly not above everyone if their behavior has been observed. For reasons passing understanding this behavior is tolerated, and there is no punishment. As I said, irony abounds at PPP.

I am going to ask you the same thing about Obamacare next year. Mark it down now.

Right, but wouldn't the removal of our focus from making sure every individual pays income tax/dealing with all the business loopholes, free up a hell of a lot of time to focus merely on businesses paying sales tax? I don't know that we need to fully abolish the IRS. Rather give it a job that for the first time in it's history is scoped properly, and one that it actually has a real chance of doing objectively/properly? I think all decisions about non-profit tax status shold be a state-level issue anyway, and only brought to the Feds when such corporations operate over state lines. Then rather than the IRS doing it, leave it the the FEC. IF you separate the acitivity from the $, etc. Have one Federal group focus on the behavior, and another on the $, then you can defeat the agenda of a Lois Lerner type, because you need both groups to take action.

It was suggested that a thread be started on this topic. Personally, I think this is a hilarious idea and therefore a worthy PPP endeavor. However, I also think it would be helpful for lurkers who wanna try their hand in the big game, and, regular posters who are scared of/disgusted by us largely because they don't understand the rules of the game. So, without further adieu I will begin with a few "manners", and some oldies but goodies, and the rest of you can join in: 1. The more angry/emotional you get, the more we like it. Thus don't get angry, get even. The punishment for getting angry depends on how angry you get, and what is posted. If you flip out, and post something as stupid as it is easily recalled, good luck living it down. It will become a weapon which will be used to beat you, repatedly. 2. Counterintuitively, insults and name calling are not indicative of losing the argument at PPP. Instead, whoever is being more insulting, and calling more names, is probably winning. No true PPP victory can be had without both insult and injury. The closer a PPP poster is to victory, the more insults fly. The reason for this is simple: PPP has a lot of smart people. Merely winning on the merits of the argument is too easy. True victory requires insults that are as funny as the argument is true. The flip side makes total sense: insulting/calling names, but with a losing argument, creates the same punishment as #1. Thus, the LESS sure of victory a poster is, the LESS insults fly. 3. Don't be phony, and sure as hell don't act morally superior, or sanctimonious. Definitely don't assclown your way into being all 3 at the same time. That is blood in the water for PPP. From "I take the time to talk to janitors at Dennys"(I said oldies but goodies) to "everyone who doesn't demand full acceptance of gay marriage is a bigot", many here have been severly punished for their self-righteous, self-congratulation. In this way, PPP is a great thing. It's stops the self-unaware in their tracks. It reminds people that their farts smell. It prevents mere values(meat is murder) from being presented as universal human principles(murder is murder). 4. You aren't allowed to write long posts about anything, other than personal, working knowledge of equity markets, economics, and your finance major in general. If that is the subject, then full page posts are "serious matters to be discussed". If you long post about anything else, your punishment is endless trolling, from the same people who write long posts about finance or real estate. Yes, this is unfair and ironic, but, unfairness and irony flying from all directions: is one of the best things about PPP.

Yeah, yeah, keep carrying that warter, Kelly. In fact I get "good post" a hell of a lot more than not...when...I'm being serious/not writing targeted posts designed to draw out idiocy/real motives. Sometimes it makes sense to fight absurdity, with absurdity. Sometimes not. You simply don't know when I'm doing what, or why, and I am sure as hell not gonna tell you. Besides, it's far more entertaing, for me, to see you continue your "try to play PPP on the football board" Children's Crusade. It's friggin hilarious. No. I said 100% plug and play, not 75%.

I think we can all agree that if If the world was run on "the eyeball test"? It would suck. Every great idea or great person has one thing in common: tons of rejection prior to acceptance. Then, automagically after acceptance, the person/their ideas are taken for granted, as if the rejection never existed. We remember the greatness, we forget the rejection. We all know why. That rejection almost entirely results from "The eyeball test". The good news: if the eyeball test didn't exist, half my business wouldn't exist, because that's the part where we clean up the stupid that the previous eyeball tests have generated.

Sorry, but horsecrap. I refuse to lower the standard for this board. That high standard was set by guys like you who were here long before I showed up. I'm just following it. The audience has choices : get on our level, or go follow Joe B on Twitter. Besides, audience? Please. My audience is you, personally, and the other posters like you. It's obvious to both of us who is on that list, isn't it? One great thing about a message board is that it is a meritocracy(unless the mods are misbehaving). Posters can earn their way into my audience, the same as I earn my way into theirs. Think about it: Bill in NYC is in my audience, and he has hated every damn minute of it, for 10 years! Shall we do CB vs. OL draft picks one more time for the newbies? Yes, the only 100% plug and play QB I've seen in my lifetime is Marino. We can never fully support the case for Kelly or Warren Moon, because of the start in the USFL, and CFL, respectively, and the horrible NFL teams they joined. Kelly, Moon, and Fred Jackson, are reasons why minor leauge NFL makes sense. "Developing" on the bench vs. playing every week? Easy choice. TV audiences is a concern. Thus, minor leauge NFL should be played on Tuesdays.

You know I've been ignoring your routine attempts to soothe your own PPP butthurt using my football posts, right? Mostly because you're a good poster. You avoid PPP now, and say things like the above, here, not because you are a coward, but because you know there's no point in defending what has obviously become indefensible. So, you take your shots where you can. I get it. But, come on. My quantitative approach, when I'm being serious and not trolling, doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the subject matter. Therefore, whether you "like" this post or not solely depends on whether it just happens to agree with your beliefs. You're one of many posters who benefit when I change gears from PPP to football, but apply literally the same approach, because it means somebody else's nonsense is being scrutinized and shredded this time, instead of yours. It's a relief, and fun to watch, isn't it? That's all this is.

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get): Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale? Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation. Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already? Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other. Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS. "Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

My mom is a teacher. She has decided to "take it easy" and finish out her time as a 3rd grade teacher, because she used to do alternative. Apparently she and her team of 3rd grade teachers have a series of lighter events planned, now that the standardized testing hell is over. One of them is "restaurant day". They are serving 4 kinds of doughnuts, having "servers", "chefs" and teaching each kid how to properly eat with a knife and fork, napkin in lap, etc., because these are largely very poor kids, and many of them literally eat everything with their hands. The principal tries to eat lunch with every kid once during the school year. Apparently he is on board, because these urchins gross him out on a daily basis. However, guess who is not: the social worker. (Shocker, I know) Apparently teaching kids manners, and how to conduct themselves properly in a restaurant setting, is "culturally biased". So I ask: culturally biased against what? Having a job? Being a success? Not grossing out your prospective mate? Distinguishing oneself from a F'ing squirrel? IF there is a bias, what is the alternative/what are we being biased against? Are we offending cavemen? Are we offending the desert Bedouins, who eat with one hand, and wipe their ass with the other? Are we offending Indians, because they either they historically could not afford utensils, or weren't allowed them due to their caste? Which culture are we being biased against? Pink's Kmart culture? Can anybody credibly explain to me how in the hell good manners is anything other than a mandatory life skill, and therefore one that ALL 3rd grade teachers must teach?

Love this idea. That would be great. I was young, but I think I remember Danny White of the Cowboys being a QB, but also the kicker or punter.

Dude, like it or not, I am a magnet for women who like to start schit, and I can prove it. What now? Are you going to tell me that my own life hasn't happened?

Well, here's one Eagles fan's perspective(STOP! NSFW150 Don't even think about clicking on this at work. In fact, don't even look at this post at all if you are at work, because even that may get you in trouble. Actually, the safest course is to log off right now, because this guy drops an aresenal of bombs): http://dailysnark.com/eagles-fans-makes-hilarious-reaction-video-lesean-mccoy-trade/ Hilarious. I may have to grab a still of this as my new avatar.

Seems weird that Ryan would say he hasn't seen him/doesn't know if he's coming back, AND, also know about his medical status, and that he hasn't been cleared yet. It's May. Not much to talk about. So, we talk about this stuff.

This all assumes the woman in question is smart, and can therefore think through your point: that it is now harder to run this con. If a woman is smart, and not a criminal, then why does she need to do any of this? She can make her own way, and most people are proud to do just that. It's the dim ones who think schit like this up, because they have nothing else to do, no prospects, etc. The dim ones will run 1-5, regardless of whether it is harder now, because they don't know that it is. What do they have to lose? It's no different than the people who play the lottery every day: that's the best plan for their money that they can conceive. Thus, I would argue that it doesn't matter if it's harder: criminals and low-life women will do it anyway. It's just a lottery ticket, scratch it off and see what happens. EDIT: And, I highly doubt allowing the media to try and convict is the kind of country we want. I get the pattern thing with this guy, but, I also get 2 other things: the Duke Lacrosse case, and, the click-whoring media of today. When is EJ due to be cut?

For 7 hours, and more if I go to the Big Tree, I suddenly inherit 70k+ of the best friends I've ever known. I've taken: Bears Eagles Ravens Cowboys Patriots 49ers Giants and Green Bay fans with me to games, and all of them except the Green Bay guy were shocked by what they saw. Green Bay guy said "just another Packers game" But everybody else is amazed by our entire scene. They couldn't get over the genuine, not marketing/manufactured, comeraderie. The Bears fan was completely baffled at the Big Tree. You know how you sorta get mixed around in there, getting out of way of the servers, people going to the bathroom, etc.? The people you came in with end up all over the place, and you end up in a gaggle of new people, but no one cares? Our newly formed gaggle were all talking about the game( high fiving, etc. because it was the 19-0 Miami game). Bears fan quietly asked me if I knew any of these people, because she found it odd that after 5 minutes of conversation, and the way we were acting, I hadn't introduced her to them. She thought I was being rude(damn women). No, I said. Then, I asked if anybody in the gaggle knew anybody else. No, they said. Her jaw dropped. Then she said the phrase I've heard over and over from everybody but Green Bay guy: "I've never seen anything like this." I tell all of them: it may or may not be better, but it is different, and it's ours. (Which means it's not to be F'ed with, Brandon)