Do you gossip? or have a big mouth?

[peptastic]

I have a really big mouth. I once told a coworker after asking her to repeat herself three times that I did not speak baby talk. Sometimes, I don't know when not to be rude.
I'm somewhat better at gossiping but unlike my twin who keeps everything close to the chest I can spill gossip.

I have somewhat of a big mouth but only if a topic or discussion has been broached and the information comes up in conversation.
BUT - I think it goes without saying "Don't tell anyone" does not include my twin. I absolutely will tell her.
On Seinfeld they did an episode where couples automatically share everything including secrets. I'm not married but I could see this as an understandable exception.
Work gossip can be shared with a spouse or best friend if they don't work with you. That's acceptable to me.

I've held onto other's secrets for years before spilling something. I'm not the sort to call someone up five minutes after hearing juicy gossip "Hey guys didja hear?" [my older sister does this] but I'm as bad as a kid when it comes to spilling stuff I've heard.
"You want to be set up on a date? I thought you were married."

When is it acceptable to you to divulge a secret? If you know someone is having an affair would you tell them?
Or are you only loyal to who your with at that moment and spill everyone's gossip?
I know people where their own secrets are special but everyone's else troubles are fair game.
[I just finished the third Song of Fire and Ice book A Storm of Swords. Tyrion Lannister is told he talks too much. I realised I'd never make it in the game of thrones because not only do I talk too much but my face reveals everything. I'd never be able to be Varys or Littlefinger carefully weaving a web.]

 

[BrummieBoy]

I have a really big mouth. I know people where their own secrets are special but everyone's else troubles are fair game.
.... I'd never be able to be Varys or Littlefinger carefully weaving a web.]

Ah! Gossip!
It's who we are, for better or for worse:

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/20/136465083/psst-the-human-brain-is-wired-for-gossip

Your comment doesn't distinguish between online and off, and i think the real 'gossip' developments are the merging of both realms.

I am unusual in that I love to facilitate pointless gossip about 'me' both online and I.R.L. And I absolutely love to mix/mash-up those two realms as a way of entrapping the unskilful and the unwary into simply HORRIBLE! car crashes which rebound on them and usually leave them either in an emergency psychiatric situation or with a knock on the door from the lawyers and/police!

I love to flood everything with a mix of possible, plausible, unlikely and frankly impossible claims, anecdotes, quotes until it become entirely pointless for virtually anyone not in my circle of friends and confidantes to even attempt to 'know' me. This way, I retain my privacy in a world where privacy is disappearing due to the corporate machinations of FB/Tw/G+ and all the rest of them. Salinger in Shinkjuku.

I've 'crossed the line' from humourous to unethical a few times, impersonating people I think have crossed swords with me in the past. But that's now a criminal offence in the U.K, so I've learned my lesson, fortunately without doing time. I really regret some of my stupid behaviour in the past, but I've made amends to those involved and it really helped me to understand the nature of hate,revenge, gossip and what Americans call 'blowback'.

Gossip can destroy people's lives but only if they're vulnerable and/or take it seriously. There's the really tragic cases where troubled teenagers die because they're taunted about their looks or sexuality or race or any other feature that gossips and bullies think they can latch on to. Gossip ranges from this malicious extreme to the truly silly. For instance, various trolls gossip on this site exchange silly PMs about people's 'real-life' locations and identities.

'I know people where their own secrets are special but everyone's else troubles are fair game.' lulz....[yawn]

I get unsolicited emails with this stuff......it's all funny but I fully realise that the most 'ferocious' here are also the most vulnerable and, other than in 'The Pigsty', great care has to be taken in dealing with their outbursts as they're clearly, objectively unwell. It would be effortless to 'hire someone pretending to be me' to turn up at their doors in real-life and challenge the 'keyboard warriors' but what if they had a heart attack and dropped dead? There's an ethics to trolling and an ethics to trol-slaying. It's an art-form really.

It amuses me that anyone who posts on this site imagines that anyone outside of it would ever take anything said here seriously! The 'reputation' of this site is so abyssmal that anything emerging from it has almost zero credibility. That's why the Kristeen Young 'expose' thread is so funny, because she really did hit the bullseye. There are '3 Mental Patients' here. They are completely delusional sociopaths, and only other Social Narcissists could ever take them remotely seriously. Although it is kinda funny that they recoil in horror when their personal details are plastered all over the place. Clearly, they are not as chillaxed about the merger of their online and 'real-life' identities as they perhaps imagine. Web 2.0 is coming to and end and Web 3.0 is almost upon us. In South Korea, it's already there and sites like this are perhaps increasingly impossible: which is both good and bad, depending on your point of view.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-PIN

Imagine if everyone here had to register with their driver's licence and a credit card? I think the 'tone' would change pretty damn quickly. Facefc-uk and the rest are herding the credulous into this world with their 'helpful' requests for mobile phone numbers and banning of mononyms and nick-names. It won't be long now. The InterWeb as we know it is almost over. Morrissey will be so pleased, so relieved to sink back into the arms of 'official cultural gatekeepers' and not have to cope with the psychotic 'fans' trashing him anymore. Or maybe he's 'co-dependent'. 'All you need is me' etc.

I think he made an error of judgement in even mentioning this site as it gave it a plausibility that no-one else gives it, including 95% of those who use it. I doubt he could ever take action to stop the 'gossip' because he would have to establish that 'any reasonable person' would take seriously anything said here. I think that's unlikely!

In China they employ millions to monitor sites for 'unapproved gossip' about anyone who is in a position of authority. But people there apparently find ever more ingenious ways to subvert the system and carry on dissing the rich and powerful.

Online or in real-life: you have to have credibility to effectively gossip, otherwise you just become another delusional person who is instantly dismissed. People used to gossip in the home, work and social spaces like pubs. Now, of course, there's the whole 'social media' gossip-fest. Twitter is, essentially, nothing more than a gossip arena ranging from the hilarious to the deeply disturbing. Facebook is also largely 'gossip' as was My Waste of Space: all that 'friends' nonsense for people who aren't even casual contacts. And, of course, there's this site! Which is like a last hold out of MySpace jpegs/gifs/epithet blizzards. It's is far more of a micro-social-networking gossip site than it is a news/information forum on the Artists Who Were Formerly 'Morrissey'!

I read an hilarious article about how, 'these days', if you're not 'on Facebook' you are considered deeply suspicious by the rest of the world. Once can only assume that the suspicion is that you are not on Facebook, but on 'Morrissey-Solo.com' eek!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/12/catherine-bennett-facebook-psycopaths



Of course, the cutting edge has moved on and it's now a lot harder to be an effective braggart and certainly involves more skill than n*ggr c*N* f#@K as a 'default posture'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/new-art-of-underbragging

Gossip is always a way of establishing hierarchy and rank. Who is The Alpha Male/Female/Inter-Sex Being? I notice that people are so 'absorbed' online these days that they don't seem to have much time for real-life gossip and perhaps that art will be lost gradually. It's, like, MAJOR-ly AMAAAAAZING that you started this thread as I've been ruminating about this since I began my brief, time limited encore here.

One of the '3 Mental Patients' has today left another 'really worrying' threat/abuse territorial pissing on my 'reputation': 'I know something you don't know, friend.' Gosh! What could it possibly be? I could care less, etc.

Veterans of this site will remember the interminable 'Paul' saga and the absolute delusionality of the moderator who staged this supposed 'gossip' fest. As if anyone 'sane' would ever care what emerged from this site about anyone real, impersonated or imagined. Really, Morrissey: don't give this place anymore credence. Don't tempt anyone to think they have leverage over you through this Web 2.0 land-grab. Just sort out and reposition yourself for Web 3.0 and to ensure your posthumous Web legacy is handled better than the legacy of The Smiths. Gossip vs Free Speech. Almost impossible to resolve. A predicament not a problem with a solution, etc.

An excellent idea for a thread! I've really enjoyed pondering this, trapped as I am in my mom's basement with my 22 stone bloated by anti-psychotics sad sack of a loser life, etc. etc.

I have no intention of submitting to gossip from lower-level chimps either online or off. And I will die before I give in to the Facefc-uk tyranny.

I'd love to stay and chat, but I need to get the kids ready for Mass.

Best wishes

'BrummieBoy/Girl/Inter-Sex Being, etc, etc lulz, lols, yawns.

ps: The Leonard Cohen Files is descending into chaos due to the Hop Farm debacle. And that was such a 'nice' civilized site! I bet no-one here could ever guess who 'I/we/us' am/are over there! lol-yawn, etc

 

[Anonymous]

I read the article about how people are now considered suspect if they don't have a facebook page. In related news, http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/aug/24/tdmain01-facebook-posting-marine-veteran-released--ar-2151724/

At least he was released, probably with an implant like the one they gave Scully.

The only thing I don't understand about "them" wanting to remove anonymity is that we are already all so easily known to them and it's completely legal to monitor our every move. If I was the eye in the pyramid I would allow people to think they were anonymous and keep collecting the info. The Internet knows everything about any of us that have ever been naive enough to think we were anonymous anyway. When I think of what I used to do AT WORK with no concept of "clearing history" which is another illusion. That only hides it from someone already on your computer, and if they are on your computer it's past the stage where you can "clear the history."

 

[realitybites]

When I think of what I used to do AT WORK with no concept of "clearing history" which is another illusion. That only hides it from someone already on your computer, and if they are on your computer it's past the stage where you can "clear the history."

What kind of stuff? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Jimmy does it the ol' skool way...

 

[BrummieBoy]

I'm composing a further response to this thread as it's kind of ....interesting.

For now, here's a link to Gwynneth's musings on the topic:

http://goop.com/journal/be/30/evil-tongue

 

[BrummieBoy]

I read the article about how people are now considered suspect if they don't have a facebook page. In related news, http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/aug/24/tdmain01-facebook-posting-marine-veteran-released--ar-2151724/

At least he was released, probably with an implant like the one they gave Scully.

The only thing I don't understand about "them" wanting to remove anonymity is that we are already all so easily known to them and it's completely legal to monitor our every move. If I was the eye in the pyramid I would allow people to think they were anonymous and keep collecting the info. The Internet knows everything about any of us that have ever been naive enough to think we were anonymous anyway. When I think of what I used to do AT WORK with no concept of "clearing history" which is another illusion. That only hides it from someone already on your computer, and if they are on your computer it's past the stage where you can "clear the history."

Thank you for that link. Prison Planet, indeed.

Brandon Traub is certainly an interesting one. It seems you can say anything in America unless you question 9/11, which immediately invalidates you. It happened to Gore Vidal. Here's a link to a genuinely creative American subversive whose writings I find helpful when considering this:

http://www.ranprieur.com/essays/911FAQ.html

I deliberately trashed/remixed/remashed my/our online/real-life identities years ago to try and preclude surveillance but it's pointless now. Living off-grid in any meaningful sense is just too expensive and labour-intensive and even then you cannot escape basic i.d never mind cctv and biometrics. In the UK this is all already a done deal. When you can't buy a new laptop battery without triggering a credit-check it become pointless. And, of course, if you use any anonymizer which is frowned upon, you're inviting a complete forensic pat-down paranoia for the rest of your life.

I guess all this Big Brother Echelon CGHQ Facebook stuff is an elaborate form of gossip which is now increasingly conducted by machine code which only comes up on an important screen if you use a current 'boo!' word....

http://www.bugbrother.com/echelon/spookwordsgenerator.html#more

regards

 

[BrummieBoy]

I think people back then were under the illusion that Morrissey read this site. They were so worried about how they looked in his eyes, and fiercely defended Morrissey against any criticism. It was a real nightmare for many of us. I was trolled in a very horrendous way. My brother's online memorial site was linked to then trolled by posters here. Personal details of mine, including my family members' real names and addresses, were posted--leading to them being called by a person from this forum. Even my ex-husband's employer was called by someone from here. So online harassment can lead to real life harassment as well. This time brought out the worst in me. I started behaving in an unbecoming manner myself. And I am not proud of that time. Now, it is water under the bridge. I have learned much and avoid the traps these days. Now I use my real name online--ever since joining facebook years ago. I am transparent and try to balance being expressive with over-sharing. And I don't get trolled any longer. Mostly my online experiences have been good in the last few years. The only thing I regret today is that some of the stuff written about my family can still be found through a Google search. My sister has read some things that really hurt her. And for this I feel guilty and ashamed.

I'm sorry to read of your loss and the subsequent harassment events. I think things have moved on and there's now the first tentative moves to firmly anchor cyber-crime to 'real life', whatever the complexities that entails.

There's an interesting debate on this happening in Europe and the emergence of 'walled gardens' like Facebook/Twitter which Google cannot crawl has fascinating implications for future search engine credibility:

http://paidcontent.org/2011/03/18/4...a-right-to-forget-law-so-what-does-that-mean/

I think there will be a revolt against all this and people will deliberately flood the web with impenetrable garbage that only a fool would try to parse. Some people have already done this. I don't think 'The 3 Mental Patients' are quite up to speed with developments.

I wonder how a young Salinger would approach this issue? Poor Salinger became unhinged about privacy and gossip, but all that did was exaggerate the dilemma. The Streisand Effect, etc. I'm not sure it's possible to ring-fence any coherent narrative of self in the modern world, and I'm also not sure it's entirely necessary.

I'm still thinking this through. I'll return to this thread later today. It's a great topic. Thanks 'peptastic'

regards

 

[BrummieBoy]

I have a really big mouth. I once told a coworker after asking her to repeat herself three times that I did not speak baby talk. Sometimes, I don't know when not to be rude.
I'm somewhat better at gossiping but unlike my twin who keeps everything close to the chest I can spill gossip.

I have somewhat of a big mouth but only if a topic or discussion has been broached and the information comes up in conversation.
BUT - I think it goes without saying "Don't tell anyone" does not include my twin. I absolutely will tell her.
On Seinfeld they did an episode where couples automatically share everything including secrets. I'm not married but I could see this as an understandable exception.
Work gossip can be shared with a spouse or best friend if they don't work with you. That's acceptable to me.

I've held onto other's secrets for years before spilling something. I'm not the sort to call someone up five minutes after hearing juicy gossip "Hey guys didja hear?" [my older sister does this] but I'm as bad as a kid when it comes to spilling stuff I've heard.
"You want to be set up on a date? I thought you were married."

When is it acceptable to you to divulge a secret? If you know someone is having an affair would you tell them?
Or are you only loyal to who your with at that moment and spill everyone's gossip?
I know people where their own secrets are special but everyone's else troubles are fair game.
[I just finished the third Song of Fire and Ice book A Storm of Swords. Tyrion Lannister is told he talks too much. I realised I'd never make it in the game of thrones because not only do I talk too much but my face reveals everything. I'd never be able to be Varys or Littlefinger carefully weaving a web.]

I think the only way to free yourself of gossip is to have a religion which forbids it or provides a safety valve for dealing with it. The Catholic ceremony of 'confession' has now been rebranded as 'reconciliation' and is basically a free counselling session to offload toxic psychic debris in return for a fresh start. Morrissey, of course, is the ultimate guilty Catholic, yet still finds himself drawn back into a purgatory of nugatory gossip. Is there a word for a Tourette's Gossip Syndrome?

I'm glad my 'water-cooler' days are over (unless the world financial system actually does collapse!). I remember the scenes very well, how every nuance, nod and remark was part of an elaborate system of signalling status and prestige amongst the drones. The same hierarchies are within the family, the tribe, the nation, the international communities. We are social primates. Gossip is our raison d'etre. Unless we are genuinely hermetic. Morrissey 'famously' claimed 'i am an island' in an entirely inappropriate allusion to John Donne to try to big up his faux-Outsider chic, but of course, he's an habitual social primate, status obsessing chimpanzee like nearly everyone else! His outbursts about current affairs are a desperate attempt to create a new 'water-cooler' talking points memo. It's getting rather desperate, in my not so humble opinion.

Paul Simon got there first with 'I Am A Rock'. He didn't need to spend an entire career on repeat. Morrissey's mix-up of Eleanor Rigby and I Am A Rock with various literary and filmic tropes was really wonderful at the outset. But I really fear he will destroy it all by his complete inability to limit his gossip and practice what our Buddhist friends call 'Right Speech'. Says BrummieBoy! Who, back in the day was easily the worst, most cruel gossip and scowl ever to hit the planet! lol! But that was then....this is now.

I think freeing yourself from gossip is the foundation of almost every possible pathway to personal liberation. And it's something that has to be practised afresh every single minute, hour, day. We are Gossip. Beth Ditto chose that band name well.

regards

 

[peptastic]

Has anyone on this site ever heard of goodreads.com? There was quite a scandal where authors posted popular reviewers real life information in an attempt to "stop bullying" and they even got a platform on huffpo for it. The guardian and others tried not to take sides [coming down more in favour for the authors] but it was quite disturbing to me. The four authors behind the site were pretending to stop bullying by posting where reviewers worked, their addresses, home phone numbers, etc. because they perceived bad reviews as bullying. I think reviewers should feel free to post honest critiques of a book and not be targeted for real life harassment.
It doesn't surprise me that some people felt they were protecting Moz then. Some of these author fans tend to troll people on goodreads even for three star reviews.

Slate.com had a good article about the switch of honest critiques and the likes and happy friend relationships artists have on twitter and tumblr, etc. Against Enthusiasm
The epidemic of niceness in online book culture.
There's a drawback to using our real names on a facebook page and insulting a musician as some do the opposite and our ruder online under a fake name.

I was quite guilty of reading gossip on Holmes and Cruise divorce as I was hoping it'd reveal just how horrible Sc1ent0logists are. [misspelled on purpose so the cult won't come here and attack me]

 

[BrummieBoy]

Has anyone on this site ever heard of goodreads.com? There was quite a scandal where authors posted popular reviewers real life information in an attempt to "stop bullying" and they even got a platform on huffpo for it. The guardian and others tried not to take sides [coming down more in favour for the authors] but it was quite disturbing to me. The four authors behind the site were pretending to stop bullying by posting where reviewers worked, their addresses, home phone numbers, etc. because they perceived bad reviews as bullying. I think reviewers should feel free to post honest critiques of a book and not be targeted for real life harassment.
It doesn't surprise me that some people felt they were protecting Moz then. Some of these author fans tend to troll people on goodreads even for three star reviews.

Slate.com had a good article about the switch of honest critiques and the likes and happy friend relationships artists have on twitter and tumblr, etc. Against Enthusiasm
The epidemic of niceness in online book culture.
There's a drawback to using our real names on a facebook page and insulting a musician as some do the opposite and our ruder online under a fake name.

I was quite guilty of reading gossip on Holmes and Cruise divorce as I was hoping it'd reveal just how horrible Sc1ent0logists are. [misspelled on purpose so the cult won't come here and attack me]

We must check out 'goodreads'. We use 'librarything'.

This is all developing. 'Sockpuppets' are a problem on real, credible sites, not just the 'reputation ballot-stuffing' fools here busy trashing Kewpie's Reputation Poll:

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/condemnation-grows-sock-puppet-reviews.html

I guess there's some dark humour in linking Project Chanology with 'insulting a musician' on his cult-tastic 'fan'-atic shrine, but it's time-limited and has a sell-by date. This site, I mean: not 'Project Chanology'. When I need a laugh, either South Park or BBC vs Scientology never fails!

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/scientology-and-me/

As per your privacy/freedom of speech thread: we are at the tail-end of Web 2.0 and the mapping of data from there to the walled gardens of Web 3.0 FB/Tw/G+ is nearly complete. A lot of people from this site's heyday 'got confused' about the difference between 'online' and 'offline' harassment, and are possibly going to get a nasty surprise when their 'real-life reputation' is linked to their 'pseudo-anonymous' ones: and they have to pay Abine or the like huge sums to sort the mess out. Unless, of course: that confusion and data-blizzard was what they consciously intended to ensure they could never be reliably tracked/parsed on The Interwebz. 'Salinger In A Digital Shinjuku', etc.

We don't condone such 'hunter gets captured by the game' online-forum-reverse-strategies: we preach forgiveness......except when genuine Old-Testament wrath is the only answer....or when some beer-drinking asshole neglecting a kid whilst trying to smear someone as 'racist' just doesn't get the hint......patience is an endless virtue.......until it's not.

As currently topical Ian Dury said so presciently:

"There ain't half been some clever bastards.
Probably got help from their mum
(who had help from her mum).
There ain't half been some clever bastards.
Now that we've had some,
let's hope that there's lots more to come."

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/archive/index.php/t-75851.html

Luckily for some, our resources are limited. Chasing down amateur sociopaths is not really a productive use of time, but it can be fun for a while when you're laid up with a bandaged ankle for a few weeks.....lol! unless, of course, a child really is in danger?

regards

BrummieBoy aka W-G-E aka SeanTheBrummie aka 'will the real Dorrithey plz stand up, plz stand up....'ah, 'those were the days, my friends' and now they're over. most of the hard-core have 'moved on' from Morrissey and from this So-Low playpen......or have they.......? Will there be a final 'hurrah!', a third-act? Sadly, due to FB/Tw/G+ and their data-mining tyranny: the answer is No.

 

[peptastic]

We must check out 'goodreads'. We use 'librarything'.

This is all developing. 'Sockpuppets' are a problem on real, credible sites, not just the 'reputation ballot-stuffing' fools here busy trashing Kewpie's Reputation Poll:

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/condemnation-grows-sock-puppet-reviews.html

I guess there's some dark humour in linking Project Chanology with 'insulting a musician' on his cult-tastic 'fan'-atic shrine, but it's time-limited and has a sell-by date. This site, I mean: not 'Project Chanology'. When I need a laugh, either South Park or BBC vs Scientology never fails!

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/scientology-and-me/

As per your privacy/freedom of speech thread: we are at the tail-end of Web 2.0 and the mapping of data from there to the walled gardens of Web 3.0 FB/Tw/G+ is nearly complete. A lot of people from this site's heyday 'got confused' about the difference between 'online' and 'offline' harassment, and are possibly going to get a nasty surprise when their 'real-life reputation' is linked to their 'pseudo-anonymous' ones: and they have to pay Abine or the like huge sums to sort the mess out. Unless, of course: that confusion and data-blizzard was what they consciously intended to ensure they could never be reliably tracked/parsed on The Interwebz. 'Salinger In A Digital Shinjuku', etc.

We don't condone such 'hunter gets captured by the game' online-forum-reverse-strategies: we preach forgiveness......except when genuine Old-Testament wrath is the only answer....or when some beer-drinking asshole neglecting a kid whilst trying to smear someone as 'racist' just doesn't get the hint......patience is an endless virtue.......until it's not.

As currently topical Ian Dury said so presciently:

"There ain't half been some clever bastards.
Probably got help from their mum
(who had help from her mum).
There ain't half been some clever bastards.
Now that we've had some,
let's hope that there's lots more to come."

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/archive/index.php/t-75851.html

Luckily for some, our resources are limited. Chasing down amateur sociopaths is not really a productive use of time, but it can be fun for a while when you're laid up with a bandaged ankle for a few weeks.....lol! unless, of course, a child really is in danger?

regards

BrummieBoy aka W-G-E aka SeanTheBrummie aka 'will the real Dorrithey plz stand up, plz stand up....'ah, 'those were the days, my friends' and now they're over. most of the hard-core have 'moved on' from Morrissey and from this So-Low playpen......or have they.......? Will there be a final 'hurrah!', a third-act? Sadly, due to FB/Tw/G+ and their data-mining tyranny: the answer is No.

That's true that more and more news websites are using facebook as commenting. It'll cause problems for people like the federal news lawyer in New Orleans to speak their mind freely.
it'll be a shame though. The attempt to reign in the internet will lose some good aspects to it.

There's a benefit to people not being outed for speaking their minds if they fear retaliation.
Glenn Greenwald ran some articles earlier this year when he was still on salon.com about a bigwig who used lawyers to stifle anyone saying anything bad about him. Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics
This guy took out exspensive billboards against homosexuality and used fear of lawsuits to shut people up who called him out on his policies.

The whole goodreads scandal is sort of like that in my eyes. Whose going to give books bad reviews if they are worried their internet lives will be ruined? It's a shame it's mainly indie authors doing it. They could benefit more from online communities than the bigwig publishers.
I'm not worried about stalkers for me but my twin has had some.
I was told once that I'd get murdered while the person in question would be stalked. I'm not stalker worthy at least.
[Favourite thing someone has said to me ever. Just murdered.]

I'm on librarything as well but I noticed that they have a downvote system much like amazon. That could be problematic if they implement the removal system like amazon does.