Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Damn. I forgot about this game. I was thinking about it a while ago but couldn't remember the name of it.

As soon as I get my next paycheck, I will be donating. Good luck with the campaign.

At 12/9/14 01:28 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: No no you don't understand
you only get to choose between the two songs posted first in this thread

Ah, you've caught me. I didn't actually read any of the posts.

Those songs are garbage though, so I stand by my original comment.

please pay attention because hip hop is serious

Teletubby titties.

Best hip hop song of the year would have to be any of the top tracks off of Wu Tang's A Better Tomorrow.

The first track, Ruckus in B Minor, would be a good example.

Wu tang is forever.

At 12/8/14 01:37 PM, tox wrote: I live in canada, hence i pay for people to have government funded helthcare for smoking

Then direct your hatred toward socialized medicine.

And yes, lets all get together and kill ourselves slowly,

Are you under the impression that you're going to live forever? Because you're not. Spoiler alert, we're all going to die. Who cares if some people are going to knock a few years off doing something they enjoy?

Smoking is bad once its bad the second time, its bad the 746 time... Its does not get better

2 big family size buckets of fried chicken id within reason argue is relative to a single sig

My point was that heart disease is a pretty big killer as well. I'm not arguing that it's less dangerous; I'm saying that we're all going to die one way or another, and there are several ways to bring about death. So maybe you should chill out and understand that tobacco users are always going to exist. Or not. Your call.

I have been a fur, in sexuality groups, in hate groups, consorted with the kkk and read from different view points of cultures around the world why they are right why others are wrong and where people should die, i have spoken to peafeful people and people that went to jail for their dreams, fallen in with protesters and pro police groups,

Holy shit. What the fuck are you talking about?

Nasty, disgusting and terrible

And redundant.

Nicotine is a bitch. I was able to overcome addictions to much harder drugs, but god damn is smoking a hard habit to break.

At 12/8/14 12:00 PM, Witch wrote: Yes, about ten a day. You all seem to think it's "disgusting", care to elaborate?

I've been smoking for eight years now, but even I can acknowledge the fact that it's pretty disgusting. I hate smelling like cigarettes, and it makes my breath feel rotten. I have friends who disagree and love to smoke inside and shit, but I've never been able to live like that.

At 12/8/14 12:19 PM, tox wrote: The death corners at schools, buildings, and other areas labled as smoking zones

Lol. Yeah because, you know, if it weren't for those filthy smokers, we'd all be able to hang out by the dumpsters outside. They've got the whole place locked down, and it's ridiculous!

The leaching assholes that expect us healthy people and our tax money to support you as you get the surguries required for your miserable life because you chose to smoke

I'm guessing that you must be 100% healthy and make absolutely no choices that are possibly detrimental to your health. Otherwise, this wouldn't be a very sound argument. I imagine it's been at least a decade since you've eaten some fried chicken.

And then you have the audacity to think its right to smoke because you are to weak to quit or too stupid to put down the death stick

Have you ever actually had a conversation about smoking with a smoker? As in, not through an internet forum? It sounds like you're getting all your info from anti-smoking campaigns.

At 12/8/14 02:22 AM, Diki wrote:

At 12/8/14 01:41 AM, Seasons wrote: Right. I'm saying that "Get hold of yourself, I thought" makes sense, while "Does the captain notice? (I thought)" sounds a bit awkward. In a sense, you are slightly mixing tenses.

I think you're misunderstanding how dialogue and thought tags are used. The latter example you quoted isn't mixing tense because the thought isn't part of the narration; the narration is quoting the thought and then narrating the fact that it was a thought.

It seems my original point has been lost. I'm not saying your mechanics are improper, and I understand the stylistic choice you've made. I was merely explaining my point of view after you seemed to think that it would be incorrect to change to the italicized thoughts. I don't believe I'm misunderstanding tags. You mentioned that the reason you don't have tags for each thought is to eliminate redundancy, and I'm saying that if you incorporated imaginary tags for some of those thoughts, it sounds awkward due to tense. Obviously you wouldn't actually go back and incorporate these tags. It was just an exercise.

Imagine a scene where a husband and wife are having coffee:

She poured him a cup of coffee in his favorite mug and added two servings of cream.

I don't like cream, he thought.

You wouldn't change the "don't" to "didn't" because people don't think that way.

It's going to vary depending on the type of sentence. The husband is stating an opinion. It wouldn't be logical to change the "don't" to "didn't" here because the meaning would change, but you would be able to write something like "I didn't want cream, he thought" without any trouble. It's not whether or not people think that way but a matter of syntax.

I feel as though I'm going on a tirade against your mechanics though, which isn't the case. You didn't do anything "incorrectly," if there even is such a thing in creative writing. You've just been misunderstanding my reasoning.

At 12/8/14 01:18 AM, Diki wrote: If I made the tag present tense I'd be mixing past and present narration, which is a big no-no.
...
The only reason I even included that one tag was in case the reader isn't aware that the italics are the narrator's thoughts, so I just popped that in there for the first one to make it clear. After that, any thought tags would be redundant since no other character could possibly be thinking.

Right. I'm saying that "Get hold of yourself, I thought" makes sense, while "Does the captain notice? (I thought)" sounds a bit awkward. In a sense, you are slightly mixing tenses.

Stylistically, it might sound better, but it says the opposite of what I want it to say.

I agree. Having the thoughts in present tense does relay the message more immediately. Like I said, I'm being a stickler.

And boy howdy do I know how foggy a little bit of alcohol can make your mind. :)

Indeed. :)

At 12/7/14 10:16 PM, Diki wrote: Also, not to insult or condescend your understanding of literature, but merely to clear up any possible confusion, the reason his thoughts are in present-tense is because if they were in past-tense it would mean he was, at the time of the thought, thinking in past-tense, which wouldn't make sense.

No problem on the feedback! Glad you found some of it worthwhile.

As an English teacher, I do have to defend myself on the tense aspect of the italicized thoughts. I don't think changing it to past tense would be illogical. You even use past tense in the tag for the first one: "Get hold of yourself, I thought." Thoughts like this and the one that follows ("The scars on his neck... it’s a wonder he can still speak.") aren't what disrupted my reading - it's the thoughts that slightly change tense immediately after the prose.

I get that the narrator is commenting on what's currently happening, but thoughts like "Does the captain notice?" I think would sound better written like "Did the captain notice?" I know that's a pretty lame piece of feedback, though, and after rereading, it's not nearly as distracting. I'd had a few drinks after dinner, and was still feeling a bit buzzed when I read through the first time.

Woah! A nicely written short story in the writing forum! Awesome!

Here are my thoughts.

I enjoyed reading this, though the ending was a little confusing. It feels like the last section was dedicated to you showing the reader the mix-up between land and water, but I'm not too sure I understand why there is a mix-up in the first place. I'm guessing that the Brawfleg somehow scrambled the narrator's mind, but I'm having trouble figuring out what's really happening.

If there's something that the reader is supposed to figure out, then I'd consider maybe reworking the last few pages. But obviously don't just go off the fact that I didn't get it, though. Get some other people's opinions.

Anyways, I genuinely enjoyed reading the overall story. It has a nice flow to it, though it is slightly interrupted by some simple errors. My most nitpicky comment would be about the italicized thoughts. They're a little disruptive of the narrative, especially considering that the narrator's thoughts are already being relayed through the past tense prose - the italicized thoughts are written in present tense, which is a bit jarring and broke up my "suspension of disbelief."

For now, I'd ask yourself what you want the ending to achieve, or what you want the main takeaway to be for the reader. Then figure out whether or not it's being accomplished.

Good stuff, man. Refreshing to see this kind of stuff around here.

At 12/7/14 02:16 PM, FantasticFox wrote: I'm currently in a strict private school but I will be going to a public school this year. I know that they can't tell me that I can't wear atheist t-shirts but is it likely that they will?

What is an "atheist t-shirt?" A shirt that says, "I don't believe in God," or something?

If they have a dress code, then you won't be able to do anything that violates it. Students at my school are free to wear anything as long as it isn't offensive or revealing. If your definition of an atheist t-shirt falls into one of those categories, then you might be asked to change.

Really, you should just focus on learning and obtaining knowledge and skills, instead of worrying about your clothes.

At 12/6/14 12:24 PM, VicariousE wrote: I believe I bought your user icon in the late 20th century... Grateful Dead concert promo poster?

Indeed. Not sure if it was originally a promo poster or just some random Dead-related artwork. I have a tapestry of the image.

At 12/6/14 12:02 PM, Vinnyy wrote: Everything that exists, came from something else already created. It may not be exactly the same as the original, but it is not completely new either. Nothing is original.

Your confidence in this statement is refreshing, though I'm not sure I entirely agree with your point. Is it depressing to think that genuine originality is nearly unattainable?

Also, when do you supposed the human race reached the point where everything "new" is based on something old? I guess it would depend on the category -- literature, art, religion, etc.

At 12/6/14 03:37 AM, Kwing wrote: That statement reminds me quite a bit of the game Smudge.
http://www.rrrrthats5rs.com/games/smudge/

You can only work with the colors you're given, but you can change a picture vastly.

This game confuses me. I am frightened by this.

At 12/6/14 03:43 PM, Splats wrote: You know something is entirely original when you see it.
And moments like that should be cherished, celebrated.

Ah, a good thought. It's like Justice Stewart's quote, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." It seems you're saying the same about originality.

At 12/6/14 12:08 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: If you define originality this way...

Very good point. I think people will interpret the term originality differently, which will inevitably influence their response to such a statement.

At 12/6/14 12:05 AM, Jester wrote: The most original person is just the one who can blend previously formed ideas and concepts in the most seamless and least recognizable way.

Interesting. I'd agree with this statement. How would we define plagiarism in this context? Particular in regard to trying to "hide" to original source of inspiration?

Also, hope you're doing well brother man.

At 12/6/14 12:09 AM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote: i don't buy it

go ahead and try to prove that fucking shit it'll take you forever

Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily stating my own beliefs. Just thought I'd post something somewhat thought-provoking and see if anyone had some interesting ideas on the subject.

Everything has either already been done before, or everything new is so deeply influenced or inspired by previous works, that all originality has been lost.

Discuss.

I would pretty much do whatever the fuck I want to, considering that seems to be acceptable.

Whenever you do finally get everything running, make sure you play Hugo's House of Horrors. It's awesome and you'll love it.

At 10/28/14 09:47 PM, WahyaRanger wrote:

At 10/28/14 09:46 PM, Seasons wrote: Losing my virginity to @Sensationalism may have had something to do with it, though.

Wow that's pretty cute super kawaii NG love story there Iron Mang.

I don't know what most of those words mean, which is probably why I feel like an adult.

At 10/28/14 09:42 PM, WahyaRanger wrote: With that being said, what absolutely made you guys start feeling like an adult?

Was it broken hearts and shattered dreams or what's the deal?

Honestly, it just kind of happened. It just takes time. And paying bills. And working thankless jobs. And then paying more bills. There wasn't anything super specific about it. Losing my virginity to @Sensationalism may have had something to do with it, though.

At 10/28/14 09:34 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Well, you're a teenager, you're still a kid. I felt like one all through my early twenties.
This is probably the first year I've felt more like an actual adult and less like someone pretending to be an adult. If that makes any sense to anyone besides me.

I hear that.

I expected to begin feeling more adult-like as soon I started paying my own bills, but I've been doing that the past three years and am just now starting to feel like an adult.

At 10/21/14 11:45 PM, NeonSpider wrote: No, I have pretty brutal standards, in the words of others. I would take courseloads full of difficult classes that even professors would say were brutal. I'm very perfectionist in what I do, and I would stay up days at a time to get work done. I would get A's in classes where the typical grade was F and people had to work hard to even pull a C.

You're a hard worker, and that's respectable. I think you could be a bit more eloquent in your description of yourself because you do come off as pretty condescending. I do understand what you're saying, though.

I may be judging sociology unfairly. That may be the case. But in my mind I'm still going to see certain fields as requiring more than others. I'm still going to think of some things as being harder than others. It's not that it's not useful, but am I going to respect someone from a "hard" science more than someone from a "soft" one? Yes. Because I view them as having greater skills. Is this fair? I don't know.

Your argument on sociology is still incredibly weak, but I think we'll just to agree to disagree. I'm not a moron who thinks all fields are the same in terms of difficulty; I was simply trying to make you understand that sociology has its place, as does psychology, and that there's no need to view on as being more difficult than the other, especially considering you have absolutely no experience in either field. I don't see how or why you came to the conclusion of one being a hard or soft science, other than to reinforce your already contentious rhetoric.

Am I a bit elitist? Yes, definitely. Am I wrong in my assessment? Maybe. Maybe not. But you'd be lying to yourself if you thought people didn't value some fields more than others. Can you honestly say you value every single field equally? Can you? Is an English studies major equally as valuable as a medical major? That is up to you to decide.

Everyone is an elitist, my friend. I'm guilty just as much as you. No, I don't value every field equally. I do, however, respect people who go into fields because that's what they want to do -- if they're following their passion, and are able to find a way to contribute to the world, then they have my respect. If, however, they are simply taking the 'easy way out,' then they're not worthy of respect.

I love your example. My B.A. is in English, and Literature and Creative Writing were my two concentrations. Now a days I'm studying Education, because I plan to teach. I use my degree everyday -- I publish articles for a magazine, and I write academic papers revolving around different theories on education (many of which include sources from both sociologists and psychologists, fyi).

Also, get this: some of my fellow English major graduates are now studying medicine. They passed the MCAT, just as did many of my friends who majored in biology. Do you not understand how relationships exist between certain disciplines, no matter how far apart they may seem from one another? My English major friends are going to be great doctors, as are my friends coming from more science-related backgrounds. Why? Because they're following their passion, and have developed their strengths in ways that will assist them in developing their weaknesses. I think the saddest part of this conversation is your apparent inability to comprehend how certain branches of knowledge complement one another.

And I think you're drawing lines in the sand simply to say that you've drawn lines in the sand. You're making unnecessary divisions between fields of study (I say unnecessary not because there are no divisions or distinctions, but because you're only making these distinctions for the sake of pointing a finger and saying, "This one is better than that one.")

Get off your high horse, man. You're a smart guy, I can tell. But at the end of the day, you're not coming off as the hardworking guy you think are, at least not here -- which is a shame, because I genuinely believe that you are, indeed, a smart, hardworking guy that holds himself to high standards. Check your rhetoric; maybe I'm just misinterpreting, but you're pretty much just coming off as a self-entitled douche bag with absolutely no evidence to back up his condescending attitude.

I hate that I'm beginning to sound like a douche bag myself, but I don't know how else to put it. I'm honestly not trying to start an argument. I think you've made good points; I just want you to recognize where I'm coming from.

Also, PM me if you wish to keep this convo going. The OP of this thread already sent me a PM asking me to go slit my wrists (not sure why), and this thread is lame anyway.

respect

Happy birthday to the guy with whom I once had a very brief argument that was eventually settled amicably! Congratulations on making it one more year without dying.

On another note, since when did birthday threads become a thing? Ever since my return about a month ago, I've seen like twenty of them.

At 10/20/14 07:18 PM, Jester wrote: my grandmother is a vile and abusive woman and it's a crime that she's the only grandparent of mine to make it this long

This was how I felt about my grandfather, who outlived all my other relatives. I loved every member of my extended family except for that man, and yet somehow he was the one who stayed around the longest. Maybe there's a trick to being a nasty person and achieving eternal life?

At 10/21/14 03:25 PM, beakerboy wrote: im waiting impatiently for all my family members to die.

I had a particular reply for this, but then I realized you're the guy who randomly sent me this PM. Guess I'll refrain from pissing you off again.

I would get excited about hoverboards, but I just can't get over the title of this thread and its inappropriate use of the apostrophe. But, yeah, I guess it's cool and all. Can't wait until I'm like fifty and the technology has improved.

At 10/21/14 06:18 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 10/21/14 12:10 PM, FinaLee wrote:

At 10/21/14 11:58 AM, Knights wrote: Next on the list, flying DeLorean's that can travel through time.

Don't forget self-lacing shoes.

You know you can just leave your shoes tied, right?

Slip your feet out to take them off, slip them in to put them on

I don't think I've tied a shoe in almost a year

Couldn't agree with this more. The only time I need to tie my shoes is when I'm wearing some hightop converse. Other than that, most of shoes have held the same knot for the past year or so.

At 10/21/14 03:31 AM, NeonSpider wrote: To be fair, I view most liberal arts as requiring less skill than the hard sciences and I do value skill the most. That's not to say they aren't useful. They just seem less challenging than other majors, IMO.

As someone who received their B.A. and who is currently working on their M.A. at a major engineering university, this is a view I've had thrown at me multiple times. I'm not going to disagree that the sciences can't be more difficult or arduous to study, but I think that you're painting with too broad a brush once again. It's unfair to condescend toward entire fields of study and those involved if you've no real experience working within them. I knew engineer majors who wouldn't have been very successful in many of the courses I took as an undergrad; likewise, I would've probably failed miserably as an engineer major. Did any of us other throw rocks at each other or claim to be more intelligent? No. Did I realize that my engineering friends were acquiring a much more marketable degree? Absolutely.

No courses in sociology, a couple of courses in psychology, and I hold a science degree.

Well there you go.

In any case I think we can both agree that OP is definitely in the wrong field and doesn't belong in sociology, yes?

OP sounds like a high school student taking his first course in sociology. Most high schoolers tend to hold odd epistemological beliefs regardless of what classroom you place them in, so I wouldn't judge his ability to acquire knowledge just yet.

I'm just saying there's majors people take because they're known to be easier.

I agree that some degrees are easier to obtain than others, but for the most part its relative. Also, in this situation I would judge the individual rather than the field of study. If somebody is acquiring a degree simply because it's easier than others, then they're a moron regardless of what they're studying.

And with each example those are the exact sorts of majors people would switch to if they found the theory-heavy counterparts to be too difficult but still wanted to do that general sort of thing. Of course some people might actually prefer it for other reasons but there is a lot of that.

You could argue that sociology is more "theory-heavy" than psychology, as the former tends to revolve around how entire populations or certain people groups behave and interact with one another, whereas the latter focuses on the individual. How can you possibly not see the respective value within these two fields of study? Just because there is a lot of overlap doesn't mean that one is less or more important than the other. Each contribute to society, plain and simple. I'm pretty confused by your wanting to belittle an entire field of studying you know absolutely nothing about -- I imagine you're parroting the words of a psychology professor who made a joke about sociologists, or something.

My thinking is go hard or go home. Take the full theory, and not just the applied versions of things.

How is sociology any less applicable? Or are you saying it's more applicable, but less theory driven? How would you know this, as somebody with absolutely no experience in the field? There is a working relationship between psychology and sociology you seem to be overlooking, all for the sake of saying "this one is better." Your argument is weak, dude.

I might come across as being a bit too hard, but I hold myself to no lesser standards. The standards I apply to myself have been described as "brutal" by some. If I'm hard on other people's work, I'm even harder on my own.

I wouldn't use the word "brutal" before the phrase, "high and mighty."

At 10/20/14 10:04 PM, NeonSpider wrote: No I don't think that and if you think I do you really don't know me and haven't been paying attention to any of my posts at all. I'm very anti-consumerist and anti-corporatist and so forth. I'm about the furthest as possible from someone who cares only about the money.

Fair enough. I believe I said, "If you believe..." in my post; I didn't mean to make any assumptions about you as a person, but I did misinterpret your statement as being a shot at people who major within the liberal arts.

I value useful skills and knowledge alone. If you make good money from using your skills, that's fine, but I absolutely do not respect people who only get their money in exploitative ways. So I've no respect for most "business" people but I have great respect for doctors, scientists, artists, musicians, engineers, mechanics, and so forth. Any demonstration of skill is something I respect.

Right on. I agree.

If your roommate is making good money doing what he likes, that's fine and I'm happy for him.

Awesome.

Also there's a huge difference between someone like your roommate who double-majored in psychology and someone who only majors in sociology. Clearly he has the skills for psychology. It's like that with a number of majors, where there's a serious one, and then a "If you can't pass muster here, try this one instead". Sociology is the "if you can't pass" for psychology.

That's complete bullshit, my friend. How many courses on sociology have you taken? Have you ever sat down and had a talk with a sociology professor? What about psychology? Have you taken any courses in that field? Do you have any degrees yourself? You're making a pretty bizarre assumption.

Same for applied anything vs the more full-on thing. Sociology if you're not good enough for psychology, electrical engineering technology if you're not good enough for electrical engineering, computer information systems or management information systems if you're not good enough for computer science, and so forth.

Yeah... I'm not going to deny there may be some value within what you're saying, but I think overall it's pretty unfair what you're saying; you're generalizing entire groups of people with hardly any evidence of them being any less capable than those studying the "full-on thing," whatever that means. I get what you mean, but you're painting with far too broad of a brush.

At 10/20/14 08:40 PM, AtlasTheGaurdian wrote:

At 10/20/14 07:57 PM, Seasons wrote: Like I said, I could be wrong.

sips coffee

coffee is for uncultured plebs though

Just like the word pleb.

<3

At 10/20/14 07:52 PM, AtlasTheGaurdian wrote: That's cool, man

[sips tea]

Like I said, I could be wrong.

sips coffee

At 10/19/14 11:11 PM, beakerboy wrote: my Soc. teacher, a female, has blatantly blurted out that the government and/or other private fundraisers go out of their way to cater to women only, for money for school.

She's wrong.

At 10/20/14 12:38 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Sociology -- the major for those who aren't even good enough for Psychology.

Tell that to my old roommate, a double major in psych and soc. He's working a job he loves, using both of his degrees, and is making very decent money. Sure, he could've made more money if he majored in engineering, but if you think the only point of living is making as much money as possible, then I feel sorry for you.

People use the term 'alpha' and 'beta' in this sense are morons not worthy of any attention.

At 10/20/14 05:35 PM, AtlasTheGaurdian wrote:

At 10/20/14 02:16 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: aw fuck
this isn't cool
I like Banksy

relax it's fake faggot

I have a feeling that you didn't realize it was fake until it was pointed out to you, and that you're now too embarrassed to admit it. I could be wrong, though.

I enjoyed reading this, though the ending was a bit confusing. Unless this is supposed to be a small part of a larger writing piece, I'd consider clarifying what exactly the "take-away" is supposed to be... I guess I'm confused as to what the girl meant when she said "you didn't have to do this." Perhaps I need to know more about her relationship with the narrator? Or maybe the three beers I've had are impairing my judgement more than expected.

Overall, not a bad little story. I've got some small comments below, but please take them with a grain of salt.

At 10/11/14 06:56 PM, walterwagner wrote: I turned to him and allowed for my blurred vision to settle. I could make his face out, even in the dim lit environment, even with the emotional analgesic doing an exceptional job impairing my sight, a side effect I've taken kindly to embracing.

Slightly awkward phrasing in the first line. Maybe something like this? "I turned to him. My vision was blurry, unfocused. I could make out his face, even in the dim..."

Just let me say that I only tend to nit-pick at stuff like this when I enjoy the overall content of what's been written. I enjoyed reading this, and don't have many recommendations or criticisms in terms of the story. That's why I'm focusing on the more minor stuff. Al

“Dion, we need to go get them.”
“Fu-fuck alright where are they,” I said in my stupor.
“Where are you guys!” he exclaimed into the phone.

Your dialogue isn't bad, but don't go overboard with the tags you add to it (e.g., he exclaimed into the phone). It can sound really awkward sometimes, although this particular example isn't all that bad. Just know that it's not always a bad thing to leave dialogue standing by itself; as long as the reader knows who is talking, it's not really necessary to add stuff like "I said in my stupor." Obviously this is just my opinion on dialogue, though. So take it as you will.

“WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GUYS?”

Nit-picky comment, but I really don't think the caps are necessary. Show us the shouting through your choice of words or the character's actions -- not by placing it in all caps.

The tension, fear and whisky made him aggressive.

I loved this line and the proceeding paragraph. Consider using this as the hook? I was a little bored before this point -- granted, i was interested enough to keep reading, but this is the part where I became genuinely interested. I also really like this line because it doesn't seem 'forced,' as if you weren't trying too hard to sound literary or use flowery language. It's simple and to the point, which is the type of writing I like best. This type of language makes me think of Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors.

I like the perspective you chose; it lets a lot of things remain unsaid yet heavily implied. It's easy to infer

I strap in their seatbelts and we begin to drive. Lachlan starts yelling at both of them. I order two lattes, drove up to the window and collected them. I parked in the lot and looked at the two girls.

Some tense changes here. Is this being told in present tense or past tense? Watch out for that.