WHAT THE *BLEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!?????*

In the three years that I've been writing these blogs, I have come across some weird and wacky news stories. Seriously, some of the stories that I have chosen to comment on have left me shaking my head and wondering if the human race is evolving into a new level of idiocy or regressing back to the caveman days. During the past three years I have commented on news stories involving a middle-aged actor marrying a schoolgirl, a guy who came up with the 'brilliant idea' to light an explosive device up the part of his body where the sun don't shine, a crazy parent who published a book showing the 'positive effects' of exposing children to a potentially fatal disease, people who walk around wearing diapers and behaving like babies, famous people who say or do stupid things and so on and so forth.
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how we as human beings, the most advanced species on this earth, can come up with new and stupid ways to make fools of ourselves. I honestly didn't think it could get any weirder.

Until yesterday.

I came across a news article on nbnchicago.com that left me shocked and speechless. The article's title was short but disturbing: Police Say Man Sexually Abused His Peacock.
Yup, told you it was disturbing. David Beckman, a 64-year old man from Roselle, Illinois in the US, was accused of sexually assaulting his pet peacock. He was visited at his home by police following reports that he had solicited a child and well. They found the bird, named Phyl, dead in Beckman's garage with signs that it had been sexually abused.
The article stated that Beckman was facing three charges of harassment by telephone, unlawful possession of drugs, two counts of marijuana possession, attempted indecent solicitation of a child, cruelty to animals and two counts of battery.
According to the huffingtonpost.com, he was being held at DuPage County Jail on a $10,000 bond and has an arraignment scheduled for June 12.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
 

Wow. What do you say after reading that? I didn't know whether to feel scared or repulsed, or whether or not to giggle at the article's disgusting but frank headline. Seriously, it's bad enough that he tried to make advances to a child but to then direct his rage to an innocent peacock? I thought this kind of crap only happened on really sick TV shows and movies! He certainly put some of the lunatics that I have covered over the past three years to shame. Silly, life-threatening stunts, dangerous pranks and assorted acts of idiocy are nothing compared to what this demented creature did.

Then again, the article did note that he was charged for drug possession so perhaps he was not in a sound state of mind when he committed his atrocity. If that is the case I can only imagine how he'd react once he is made aware of what he had done to poor Phyl. We'd probably hear reports that he had hanged himself in his cell, his last words being 'Forgive me, Phyl!!!!!!'

Ok, unnecessary joke but I couldn't resist.

Well, not much more to say, other than that to prey on children is as cowardly as it is disgusting, but to prey on children and animals.....? I'm pretty sure there is a special place in hell for people who do that stuff. In the meantime, I hope that this debauched and immoral ogre gets the punishment he deserves and is locked up behind thick glass for good. That means one less predator roaming the streets terrorising children - and animals. There's a sentence I never thought I'd use.

Dear Mike

An open letter from Bernd to Mike Jeffries, CEO of US clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch.

Dear Mike,

To be completely honest, while I have been aware of the clothing company that you preside over I have not heard about you until yesterday. I'm not exactly the sort of guy who follows the fashion industry and its whimsical world of trendy clothes, weird outfits, eccentric designers and underweight models. I read an article about you yesterday and all I have to say is you are a shallow bully and a hypocrite.

The article, posted on the generation Y-themed website Elite Daily, was titled Abercrombie & Fitch CEO explains why he hates fat chicks. In it, you were quoted as stating that you only want good-looking people to wear your brand and that overweight people can never have access to your goods because they are not cool enough to be deemed worthy of wearing your threads. While this may be seen as limiting your demographic, you claim that making your goods available to everyone would make the brand less desirable. Your defence is that your brand (which is primarily marketed towards teenagers and people in their early 20's) is akin to the popular and trendy brand that popular schoolkids like to wear and that, therefore, their ugly and unpopular peers shouldn't have access to them.
You also claim to only hire good-looking people to work in your stores so that they, in turn, can only attract other good-looking customers to enter your stores. Furthermore, you concede to having some XL and XXL sizes in your stores - but for males only since some male athletes like gridiron players are too big to fit into standard sizes.
But large sizes for women are unacceptable, according to you. Why? Because fat 'chicks' will never be part of the 'in' crowd.

Mr. Jeffries, the article noted that other retailers such as H&M and American Eagle cater to people of all sizes but you refuse to follow their lead. On the one hand, good on you for sticking to your vision and your beliefs (shallow as they are), but are you aware that you live in the country with the highest obesity rate in the developed world and that the problem is only getting worse? There are only so many 'thin' and 'beautiful' people (your words, not mine) that you can market your brand towards. Also, by limiting your demographic, you are sure to lose to your competitors sooner rather than later. I can hear the dudes at H&M and American Eagle licking their lips already.
Besides, nobody wants to be told that they are not good enough to wear your brand, which I'd imagine your salespeople are trained to do should the 'wrong' person walk through the doors of your stores. People who are scorned in a humiliating manner such as this WILL talk and that could mean less business and more headaches for you.

Also, Mr. Jeffries, for a guy who thinks he has the right to judge people on their physical appearance, you sure are sorely lacking in that department. No disrespect, but in my humble opinion, you look like Peter Helliar, Oliver Kahn, Donald Trump and an alien rolled into one hideous package. Does your aversion for 'ugly' and fat people stem from childhood bullying or, as the article pointed out, are you only surrounding yourself with good-looking people now to fulfil some childhood fantasy?
I hate to compare you with one of history's greatest villains, but one of the reasons why people laugh at Adolf Hitler today (besides the moustache, comb-over and psycho persona) is that he deemed the Aryan race to be the 'master race' despite not being a blonde-haired, blue-eyed man.
In your case Mr. Jeffries, you're an ugly dude who preaches that only good-looking people should wear your clothes. Talk about hypocritical.

Handsome fella, isn't he?

And need I remind you that in 2004 your 'stay bonus' dropped from $US12 million to $US6 million after the original was deemed too excessive? In 2008 you were deemed by the Corporate Library as the year's 'Highest Paid Worst Performer' after receiving a compensation package worth $US71.8 million.
And in 2009, it was revealed that during the retail recession, you refused to offer discounts and lower prices until your stores posted losses for 17 consecutive months - all the while still refusing to open your doors to everybody. Yeah, well done, Mike.

Finally, Mr. Jeffries, despite the growing obesity crisis there in the US (and other parts of the world), there are still people who are turning their lives around through diet and exercise. And what is the first thing that people who have managed to lose weight tend to do? Buy a new wardrobe. Mr. Jeffries, if you had only been more open and generous with your brand you could have had new customers dropping by for a visit but I'm pretty sure that thanks to your big mouth and superficial views, these people would pass your store, give it the ol' middle finger salute (or hurl a brick through a window) then keep walking. Great insults last a long time, Mr. Jeffries. People never forget them.
And also, just to let you know, a majority of the readers who have left their feedback on the article believe that you are unattractive, an idiot, a jackass, a jerk, that your goods are unimaginative, repetitive and far past their prime and that you really need to keep up with the times and trends. Oh yeah, and also, middle aged men who use the word 'dude' repeatedly are seen as sad and pathetic losers. Can't be too good for the already-tarnished image, buddy!

Yours sincerely,

Bernd.

PS: Nothing personal. Just telling it like it is.

You're a professional, ACT LIKE IT!!!!!!

Wade Graham in action for the Cronulla Sharks

There are many stupid ways to land yourself in hot water at your job. Playing childish pranks, vandalising someone's property, bullying co-workers, stealing work supplies etc.

For Cronulla Sharks rugby league player Wade Graham, he could very well face consequences for an act of immaturity that, quite frankly, didn't need to happen. The 22-year old back-rower went to an interview with The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). Unfortunately for Wade, he showed up wearing a T-shirt, cargo pants, thongs and his cap on backwards, looking more like a bloke headed out for a house party than a serious, FORMAL interview with a governing body that was investigating the use of drugs within his club.
Graham was apparently advised to wear a suit to the interview but he chose to ignore it and his defiance was rewarded with the possibility of a fine from the NRL for showing a lack of professionalism in a serious setting. He issued an apology for his lack of fashion sense and failure to take the meeting with ASADA seriously but it was too little too late. Not only can he receive a fine for a silly, avoidable mistake but his outfit has also made him a laughing stock among journalists and especially fashion writers.

Wade Graham's 'formal attire' for his meeting with ASADA

You know, when I was younger, I applied for a job in the city and turned up to a group interview wearing an outfit that still makes me cringe whenever I think about it. I wore a short sleeved polo shirt that was way too big for my slim frame, pants what we so high that the beltline may as well have been on my nipples and I didn't bother to comb my hair properly. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Granted, my lack of experience in the field of work may have played a part but I am certain that my ghastly outfit contributed to my failure.
Wade should have known that when it comes to these formal settings, image is everything, especially if you consider yourself a professional in your field of work, in his case, sport. And if that formal setting involves a governing body that was doing investigative work for illegal practices in your workplace, it pretty much goes without saying that you have to represent your employers to the best of your ability and the first thing they notice is how you look. Way to give those hecklers that stereotype guys in your field of work as a bunch of low-IQ morons extra ammunition, Wade!

Some have suggested that Wade's defiance was a sign of him and his teammates' anger at how the ASADA investigations have sullied the image of their club and players but if that was the case, why couldn't he show up looking like a true professional and during the course of the interview, tell them how disappointed he felt that his club was getting a bad reputation? He'll probably be reprimanded for whinging but it's a lot better than showing up and trying to convey some kind of message through your silly outfit and not only failing to spread that message, but getting punished because of it.
As part of his apology, Wade stated that he took the meeting seriously and that his outfit was an accidental mistake and not a sign of defiance. I'm sorry, but that is a weak excuse. If he had every intention of taking that meeting seriously then he would have dressed accordingly. You're a professional, Wade. Act like it!

He who puts down the razor gets the power

Street Fighter's Zangief

As a kid, I was a massive fan of the Street Fighter video game series. The character I used often changed depending on my mood but as a kid who dreamed that he would one day change his pudgy body into an athletic, muscular one in adulthood, the character of Zangief always impressed me. Mind you, I didn't use him very often - his special moves were complicated to pull-off, he was slow as molasses and he didn't have any projectile-based attacks - but his appearance was incredible. He was tall, had a physique that would make Schwarzenegger nervous and his mean face was covered with a full beard and topped with a mohawk haircut. He pretty much resembled a taller, angrier, whiter version of Mr. T, minus the gold chains.

In short, the dude looked like a total badass. The type who could reduce you to a quivering mess just by glowering at you.

But I wonder.....would his tough-guy appearance be seriously hampered if he didn't have the beard? Sure, he'd still have the tricky but deadly wrestling moves, the tank-like physique, the mohawk, the attitude and all, but would a clean-shaven face make all that seem hollow?
And what about other bearded hard men past and present like Mr. T, Kimbo Slice, Ned Kelly, Russell Crowe, Stone Cold Steve Austin and Bill Goldberg? Would their masculinity be diminished if they had a more clean-shaven appearance?

Anyway, according to a scientific study conducted by the University of New South Wales' Ecology Research Centre, beards are a man's way of displaying his age, dominance, power, aggression and masculinity over his peers, even though studies have shown that women, while they recognise the beard's purpose of highlighting a man's masculinity, prefer facial stubble over a full beard.
In short, men use beards to impress and perhaps threaten other men rather than to attract women.

'I pity the fool who picks up his razor, I DO!!!'

Well, I certainly can believe that. How else do you explain the sudden emergence of beards in most male celebrities? Ben Affleck, George Clooney, Hugh Jackman, Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf and Ryan Reynolds are just a few who have recently sported beards, and fictional characters such as Rubeus Hagrid from the Harry Potter series, Gandalf the wizard in Lord Of The Rings have full beards to signify their gigantic size and their age and wisdom, respectively.
Heck, 'stereotypes' that signify masculinity and aggression such as biker gang members, circus strongmen, lumberjacks and wrestlers often have full beards to enhance their strength, power and aggression and this is reflected in their often gruff personalities.

And let's not forget that 'Movember' was created in order for men to grow their beards and encourage them to raise awareness of prostate cancer and other male-related illnesses. It doesn't get much manlier than that.

So bottom line is, the more hair on your face you have, the more masculine and intimidating you will appear to both men and women. Sure, your missus will probably pester you non-stop to grab a razor and get rid of that monstrosity, but she will also grudgingly admit that it makes you look tougher, stronger and more aggressive than you really are - but that it makes you look like a hobo.

Harry Potter's Rubeus Hagrid

As for me, I won't be growing a beard any time soon. First of all, the idea of having a big bush on my face sounds pretty itchy and high maintenance (I don't quite fancy the idea of having food and drink stuck on my facial hair).
Secondly, I have been told by my nearest and dearest that even with facial stubble, I look like a criminal. I'm pretty sure that with a beard I'd look like an assassin - or a pirate. Either way, I'd look like someone on the wrong side of the law. Sure, it would be nice to have that element of danger and mystery about me, but Bernd, for all his grumpiness, is a good guy!
And finally, when I am clean-shaven I've been told that I look remarkably young for my age - and that shallow reason alone is enough to keep it clean as a whistle!

Deserved result

 

Early last year, Australian swimmer James Magnussen (nicknamed 'The Missile' by the Aussie press) told the Australian media to 'brace themselves', as he would go into the London Olympics later that year and wreak havoc in the pool.

Once the Olympics went underway, the Australian Men's Freestyle Relay team, consisting of Magnussen, James Roberts, Eamon Sullivan and Matt Targett were red-hot favourites to win the event (even against a strong US team that had Michael Phelps in its team). So heavily favoured were the Aussie boys to win that they christened themselves the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' shortly before the race.

Well, as we now know, Magnussen may as well have warned the Australian media to brace themselves for a lamentable effort from him and the relay team may as well have named themselves the 'Weapons of Self Destruction'.
Magnussen failed to capture a single gold medal on his own and went home with a silver and bronze, which isn't bad but given the way he talked himself up prior to the games, it was a disappointing result.
As for the relay team, they came in fourth behind France, the USA and Russia. Way to be the heavy favourites going in, eh?
In other words, Magnussen and his boys went home branded as overhyped, egotistical losers and to add insult to injury, rumours of misbehaviour on their part began to surface after the games were over.

As it turns out, the rumours were true. Some time last week, Magnussen, Sullivan, Roberts, Targett, Cameron McEvoy and Tommaso D'Orsogna held a media conference to apologise for engaging in inappropriate behaviour at a training camp shortly before last year's Olympics. Boozing, partying, playing pranks on and harassing female swimmers, bullying younger swimmers and taking the controversial sedative Stilnox during 'bonding sessions'.

Roberts claimed not to have taken Stilnox but he admitted to partaking in the other antics that his teammates got up to. Sullivan, in particular should have known better, seeing as how he was a senior member of the swimming team and should have showed more leadership and responsibility.

And considering the effort they put up once the Olympics went underway, I think it's fair to say that they were still doing some goofing around on the side instead of warming up and getting into 'fighting' mode.

To make matters worse, the team's head coach Leigh Nugent did next to nothing about the situation and some female swimmers have come forward and said that the boys may not have been entirely truthful in their confession.

This is not to say that the boys were the only ones who misbehaved. 100m backstroke silver medallist Emily Seebohm blamed long sessions on facebook and twitter for her lack of focus and there were reports of coaches failing to discipline and control their athletes.

In short, the swimming team that represented Australia last year was in complete disarray and the weak results on the medal tally reflected it.

 

You know, when I watched the Men's freestyle relay team go down I was disappointed. Not just in the result, but mainly because I knew that the guys had allowed their egos to get the better of them. All throughout 2012 I had to read yet another ego-driven statement from Magnussen and when I read that the relay team gave themselves a nickname, I thought to myself 'I hope you boys realise that you've just placed ENORMOUS pressure on yourselves. You had better back up the trash-talk or forever be known as hypejobs'.
As for Magnussen, once I heard that he had gone home with just a silver medal and failed to qualify for one of his pet events, I have to admit that a part of my was snickering. All that talk and he couldn't back it up? Way to go, big man. A silver medal is a great result but the way that Jimbo Mag was talking, ONLY a gold would have been acceptable.

Needless to say that my disappointment in these guys were compounded when the allegations of bad behaviour on their part was exposed as truth. Talk about an embarrassment for themselves and for the country. Here they are, about to compete for the event that they have spent their whole sporting lives preparing for and use it as an opportunity to act like idiots. No, I don't buy the few who dismiss their antics as just 'boys will be boys' and 'kids being kids'. They are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES about to represent THEIR COUNTRY in the freakin' Olympics! Thus, they are expected to conduct themselves professionally and that means staying focused and giving it their all.

But you know, they don't deserve all the blame. What the hell were the coaches doing throughout all this!? Enjoying the sights and sounds of London? Why wasn't there someone to lay down the law and get these crazy kids back in line?
Seriously, you guys failed your athletes and so the whole debacle rests partly, if not entirely on your shoulders. Shame on all of you!

The next Olympics is three years away, and I hope that by then, athletes AND coaches had cleaned up their acts. For most members of the swimming team, this is a chance to redeem themselves since most of them are still young enough to make amends.
As for the members of the team who might be too old or may have perhaps retired by the time the next Olympics happens, what can I say? It's a damn shame that you had to end your Olympic careers on a low.
As for the coaches, you guys had better get your act together unless you want to be crucified by the media yet again for bringing in a team of losers into the biggest show on earth.
When a team that lacks unity and leadership, there's only one guaranteed outcome - disaster. Looking back now, the poor results yielded from the pool was well deserved.

Time to get serious, guys.

The importance of watching your mouth

Last week, Australian boxer Anthony Mundine was defeated by his countryman (and reigning IBF middleweight boxing champ) Daniel Geale. Sure, losing a fight is bad, but to make matters worse for Mundine, he had failed miserably to back up the non-stop trash-talk he had heaped onto Geale in the months leading up to the fight.
From the moment the match-up was announced, Mundine was every bit the ill-mannered, tactless motormouth. He called Geale a limited fighter among other things, and then had the nerve to take a shot at the champion's family and Aboriginal heritage. Journalists and internet boxing forums had a field day roasting Mundine for his disgusting comments and all the while, he proclaimed that he would not only take Geale's title away from him, but that he would beat him worse than he did during their first fight, which took place four years ago and saw Mundine win a controversial decision.

Anthony Mundine (L) samples Daniel Geale's right hand

Anyway, Mundine's antics and subsequent failure came to mind when I watched an episode of My Kitchen Rules on TV last night. The show focuses on teams of two representing the Australian states competing against each other to transform their humble homes into instant restaurants, complete with menus, themes, decorations etc for one night. Two judges, both professional chefs, will oversee the proceedings.
From the moment this show began, best friends and New South Wales representatives Jessie and Biswa stirred controversy with their harsh judgment on their fellow contestants' offerings, frequently complaining that there was an element (or three) in the dishes that they don't like. Let's just say that I've lost track as to which foods they can and (supposedly) can't have.
If that wasn't enough, they talked a big game, boasting that they had what it took to get top marks and that they'd show the others how this competition should be played and that everyone will be in for a big surprise.

Needless to say, their moment to shine was eagerly anticipated. Problem was, the opposite happened.

Firstly, they greeted their guests at their home with the promise of 'no more boring dishes'. And just like that, any chance of them gaining any semblance of respect from their competitors and even the judges just went flying out the window.

Then came a series of disasters and silly mistakes in the kitchen that led to them being absurdly late in serving the entree and then the main course. The biggest shock there is that none of the guests left. I know I would have.

In between catastrophes and watching fellow contestants and the judges sample their dishes, the girls criticised themselves and each other and then started crying on each others' shoulders - although they did jump up and down for joy during the fleeting moments that something went right in the kitchen. I watched all this and thought, 'forget about whining, groaning and yahoo-ing, GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!'

Finally, they served dessert on time - unfortunately it tasted so bad that at least 3 contestants nearly vomitted and even the judges had a hard time keeping it down.

In the end, Jessie and Biswa's boasting that they would get a perfect score went down in flames and instead they ended up with the lowest score in the competition to date.

You can call it bad luck or karma, but to me, I'd say it was them crumbling to the extremely high expectation that they inadvertently set for themselves thanks to the non-stop yapping they did leading up to their turn. It's one thing to merely state that they didn't like another competitor's food - it's another to constantly whinge and make a big deal about it as though they were served poison and then let the cat out of the bag by making stupid statements like 'NO MORE BORING DISHES!!!!!' If there is one key benefit to staying humble, it's that win or lose, you'll still have your fellow peers' respect.

Jessie (L) and Biswa

Sure, confidence is a good thing. If you don't back yourself you won't go as far as you believe you can. But there is a BIG difference between confidence and arrogance and people like Anthony Mundine and Jessie and Biswa need to realise that. Constantly putting others down just to talk yourself up is not confidence, it is arrogant and downright disgusting and immature behaviour, especially if you resort to malicious personal attacks the way Mundine did before he fought Daniel Geale.
If hating on someone just to give yourself an advantage in a competition is what works for you, then by all means go for it. But keep your dignity intact and watch your mouth. Some things are best left unsaid. That way, if you win, people will still be willing to give you the respect you deserve.

Remember, the more you brag and put people down in your pursuit of victory, the higher people's expectations of you will be - and if you fail to meet these expectations even by the slimmest of margins, you will hear about it loud and clear for a very, very long time.   

Downright irresponsible

Measles - it is a highly contagious, irritating and potentially fatal disease of the respiratory system. According to the World Health Organisation, it is 'one of the leading causes of death among young children, even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.

But writer Stephanie Messenger isn't buying it.

An anti-vaccination campaigner, she is the author of an absolutely ridiculous childrens' book called Melanie's Marvellous Measles, which promotes the supposed 'health benefits' associated with contracting the disease.
At one point in the story, one of the characters, Tina, is reassured by her mother that the disease is beneficial for children, as it makes the body stronger and 'more mature' for the future. Sickeningly, Tina's mother then recommends that they go and visit Melanie so that she, too can catch the disease and that if it gets too annoying, carrot juice and melons will help.

Naturally, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) is totally against this book and doctors have called for it to be pulled off the shelves. Dr. Steve Hambleton, president of the AMA called Messenger and anyone else who approves of this tripe a bunch of 'crazies' who ought to hang their heads down in shame. He goes on to explain that Measles is fatal to children as a result of the encephalitis (swelling of the brain) and pneumonia associated with the disease.
Dr. Hambleton concedes that there can be some minor side-effects to the measles vaccine, but that it is still far better to get the vaccine than to forgo it and is still a mandatory part of a child's health.

While I am 100% against Ms. Messenger's story and think that she is an irresponsible nutcase for having the audacity to print such nonsence (that is also aimed at children to boot), I did feel compelled to do a bit of web-based research just to find out what could have possibly driven her to write this story and become such a staunch anti-vaccine campaigner. Unlike some campaigners such as movie star Jim Carrey, she seems to be against ALL vaccines whereas people like Mr. Carrey still see the importance of vaccinations against rubella, measles, mumps, whooping cough and other fatal diseases.
So I typed her name up on google and sure enough, there was a link commenting on different anti-vaccination posts she made on different forums across the internet, as well as the contents of a book that she co-authored called Vaccination Roulette (link is right here http://www.dilutedthinking.com/hln_story.php). Her crusade began when one of her children died due to a medical condition and she placed the blame on vaccination. She has since claimed that her unvaccinated children are 'alive and well' whereas her vaccinated child is not.

Unfortunately, according to the link, Ms. Messenger only arrived at this conclusion thanks to reading about the 'adverse' effects of the 'triple antigen vaccine' and watching an episode of The Phil Donaghue show back in the day in which Dr. Robert Mendelsohn (an American doctor who, strangely, criticised everything about his chosen field) appeared as a guest to speak out against vaccination.
Not only that, but she writes in her Vaccination Roulette book that her child was suspected of having a condition called Alexander Disease, which, apparently, is a genetic disease that was possibly passed to him by his father's genes. That guy, by the way, is Ms. Messenger's ex. Her other children are not from him. I guess that explains why they haven't inherited that condition.

Ms. Messenger definitely has the right to her own opinion and I guess good on her for sticking to her guns, but I wonder if she realises that a vast majority of the country believes she is crazy and that her book is the height of irresponsibility. It has medically been proven that measles is a highly-infectious and potentially deadly disease, particularly to children, yet her response to this is to come up with a childrens' book praising the supposed 'benefits' of the disease. Sorry, Ms. Messenger, but the people who labelled you 'crazy' seem to have the upper hand here.

Ok, blog's over, I'll sit back and wait for someone to come up with a book on the benefits of eating rat poison now.