Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by mkevent View Post
    Capall

    I don’t think the people referencing Lolita are trying to make those who didn’t read the book feel illiterate .

    Lolita is written from Humbert’s (the pedophile) (or however he is classified) point of view. Because if this, the reader tends to see him as a bit less of a monster because he gets to put his spin on the events that occurred.

    Lolita was a little girl (12?) when she met him. Her normal 12 year old behavior was viewed as seductive from someone with a proclivity towards towards being sexually attracted to children.

    I believe what mvp is trying to explain is that any normal adult would read the book and be disgusted and appalled by the writers narrative. Being sexually attracted to children and acting on it is just wrong, no matter how sympathetic the narrator may seem.
    Humbert puts the spin that Lolita seduced him and ruined his life, when in fact it was he who stole her innocence and ruined hers.

    It is all about perspective. Blaming the victims (as what happens in Lolita) is what we are seeing with the ISWG group.

    No matter how persuasive a narrator may be, it never makes the act of violating children or teens acceptable. Period.
    Yes, kind of, but more:

    1. Folks ought to consider just how they think about power in sexual relationships if they use the term "Lolita" to refer to the (female) apparently innocent, yet strangely and irresistibly perpetrator of the relationship. If you use that uncritically, you have entered Humbert's universe. If, on the other hand, you read the whole thing as sick, sad and frightening exploitation of a child, you inhabit my universe. But I acknowledged, too, that I'm an usual reader insofar as I have lived a version of like that looks more like Dolores' (Lolita's) life than Humbert's. I have read no criticism of _Lolita_, but I imagine that Nabokov thought most of his readers were in between these two positions, leaning more toward my position when they were watching someone else's pedophilia.

    2. That said, every time someone says something like "boys will be boys" they naturalize some form of exploitative sexual relationship. When they say, "Yes, but she was wearing a mini-skirt/drunk/walking by herself at night/lied to get into the bar," they redistribute power between perp and victim, adult and child, just as Humbert attempted to do in the telling of his story to us.

    3. The point is that it's *not* clear to me just what we think "any normal adult" would think. In fact, that is why the victim blaming gets produced and consumed. If all of us saw this as something as plain as the sexual exploitation of a helpless child (Lolita is an orphan, by the way), the epithet, "Lolita" to refer tongue-in-cheek to a promiscuous girl would not have meaning.

    Because of the #MeToo movement and a whole bunch of other changes, we are all now being required to think way more carefully about sex and power than we were before. I think that's great. But I don't think everyone is there yet, nor wants to be introspective about how they consume and spread ideas like children seducing adults.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


      By “upfront”, I meant that if the respondent wants arbitration, they must pay prior to the arbitration happening (upfront), then are reimbursed after the arbitration if they win their appeal. Essentially, the loser pays the costs of arbitration.




      And? That’s not any different from any other type of appeal.

      Comment


        Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
        Hawthorne's short stories are way better than his novels.

        The reform group members can't exhibit empathy for the victims, because they've channeled their empathy to people who rape children.

        I'm an English professor who has never read a lot of things, Moby Dick is a hard pass.
        There's always Huston's movie, with Gregory Peck, and Richard Basehart (wonderful voice) as Ishmael. ;0) There is a very interesting story about the filming of that movie in Alan Villiers' book, The Way of a Ship. They wanted to hire him as their sailing expert, he declined, then on vacation in Wales a year or two later he saw an odd ship at the Cardiff dock and that's what they were trying to film on. He got dragooned into sailing it, against his better judgment.

        Comment


          Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

          In all fairness this is coming from someone who believes his 10 year old daughter can make her own choices about having sexual contact with an adult and she has to live with those choices. He also believes that one is ONLY a victim if they choose to remain quiet about abuse. If nothing else, he’s consistent.
          He would also seem to be "conditioning" her to the idea of voluntarily pursuing restorative justice over other recourse should she ever be unfortunate enough to find herself in a position to have to make that choice...

          Comment


            Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

            How can the movie be 1955 with Jeremy Irons as Humbert?



            I think I got the movie's date wrong. Hang on (googling): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

            The novel was published in 1955. The movie(S!) were 1962 and 1997.

            The armchair saddler
            Politically Pro-Cat

            Comment


              Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

              And? That’s not any different from any other type of appeal.
              I have zero problem with the loser paying the cost of arbitration, zero problem with people creating or donating to GFM drives to pay arbitration fees for probably guilty people who want to appeal.

              Just didn’t understand the need to bash BN when she says, “There are fees.” This strikes me as a true statement. There are fees. Entirely sensible and legitimate fees, in my view.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Ubu&Goober View Post

                He would also seem to be "conditioning" her to the idea of voluntarily pursuing restorative justice over other recourse should she ever be unfortunate enough to find herself in a position to have to make that choice...
                I will refrain from speculation because I do not know him. It’s a sensitive topic and many statements raise my eyebrows, however it would be irresponsible of me to express any opinion beyond commenting on his words and how they read.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  You meant “illiteracy” literally?

                  “Illiteracy” means lacking the ability to read, which is different from “declined to study literature in college”.
                  You can read my original comment to see if I used the term "illiterate" correctly. No, I don't think Illiterate means "declined to study literature in college." I'm not gratuitously snarky or careful about language. But I do reserve the right to be clear.
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                    [
                    QUOTE=Ubu&Goober;n10534843]

                    He would also seem to be "conditioning" her to the idea of voluntarily pursuing restorative justice over other recourse should she ever be unfortunate enough to find herself in a position to have to make that choice...[/QUOTE]

                    My bold above. I hadn’t thought about how all the sicko stuff DM says about his own daughter could, if he actually says this stuff to her, (rather than just drone on and on on social media) it could condition her to be the perfect victim. Because, the way he frames it, his minor child if ever a victim of abuse, would be expected to “live with her choices” and “learn from her mistakes”. 😱😱😱😱

                    Those are his own words when asked after RG’s suicide how he would feel if his own child was a victim. So these statements are out there. He clearly believes that the victims are responsible for their choices.

                    I am NOT saying that he is intentionally doing this as I have no way of knowing his intentions.
                    Last edited by oneequestrienne; Dec. 13, 2019, 06:13 PM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                      I have zero problem with the loser paying the cost of arbitration, zero problem with people creating or donating to GFM drives to pay arbitration fees for probably guilty people who want to appeal.

                      Just didn’t understand the need to bash BN when she says, “There are fees.” This strikes me as a true statement. There are fees. Entirely sensible and legitimate fees, in my view.
                      Because she makes people think there are fees associated with the Safe Sport investigation. The fees charged by JAMS, it’s own entity, have zero to do with safe sport. One pays JAMS when they appeal. If one is investigated and admits guilt, gets banned, has no intention of appealing, no fees.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by mvp View Post

                        You can read my original comment to see if I used the term "illiterate" correctly. No, I don't think Illiterate means "declined to study literature in college." I'm not gratuitously snarky or careful about language. But I do reserve the right to be clear.
                        I was responding to your subsequent post in which you clarified that in your first post you were using “illiterate” “literally”, to refer to someone who hadn’t read Nobokov “for whatever reason” and relied on the movie instead.

                        Of the large number of people who have not read Nobokov, I assume very few are literally “illiterate” and the vast majority are fully literate but spent college and leisure time reading other stuff. Your references to non readers of Nobokov as “illiterate” seemed harsh.

                        But maybe I just didn’t understand the second post.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                          I will refrain from speculation because I do not know him. It’s a sensitive topic and many statements raise my eyebrows, however it would be irresponsible of me to express any opinion beyond commenting on his words and how they read.
                          It was a hindsight thought based on this statement of his (copied and pasted from post #87 by VHM in LIVESTREAM... thread)

                          "...I have a 10-year-old daughter and one of the topics that we discussed is to get away from this either/or he’s right she’s wrong kind of dialogue and move to the restorative justice. It’s practiced extensively in schools thankfully and it’s one of the more civilized aspects of America and things that give me hope. It’s particularly sad, tragic, that there was no opportunity for something like that in Rob’s case.”

                          in combination with his words and thought process in general on this topic it does seem as if her environmental frame of reference for judging behavior will be skewed somewhat.
                          and from post #71 in same thread:

                          I’m a father of a daughter. If you don’t think I would take a machete to somebody that acted inappropriately towards her? Then you don’t know me. But it also doesn’t mean that I’m going to teach her, as she grows, and Finds herself in situations where she has choices and she can decide what exploration she wants to make or not make, that she will have an awareness of the consequences and she will have an awareness not to be a victim and to speak up.

                          He doesn't seem to recognize the effect of the power imbalance in a relationship and how a person might not feel like they have a "choice" with regard to the consequences they will have to live with.

                          Comment


                            Ubu&Goober I totally get it. I’m just saying I don’t know the man and I don’t know if he’s serious or playing devils advocate. I hope he’s playing devils advocate or speaking from the pain of losing a good friend.

                            I feel for the people who lost a friend, a brother, a mentor when RG suicided. Couple that with having that same person be banned for molestation, rape who knows what with kids and I can see why people would be in denial. That’s a lot to come to grips with in a short amount of time. I’m not saying his words are “right” I’m just saying I hope they are coming from a place of confusion (I’m sure there is a better word) rather than firm beliefs.

                            Sometimes I think people forget how many lives are impacted by crime. It’s not just the victim and the perpetrator who gets caught. It’s the friends and family of both parties who may not have known. Who may have been told something but didn’t believe it. Crime, especially of this nature, has a huge ripple effect.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                              Because she makes people think there are fees associated with the Safe Sport investigation. The fees charged by JAMS, it’s own entity, have zero to do with safe sport. One pays JAMS when they appeal. If one is investigated and admits guilt, gets banned, has no intention of appealing, no fees.

                              I do not agree with your statement that JAMS “has nothing to do with SafeSport.” JAMS is the provider of the independent arbitration services which, according to SafeSport code, the accused has the right to invoke, at their own expense, in the overall SS procedure. It is vital to the SafeSport process that the option of appeal is provided. Again, it makes no difference whether one writes the check to SafeSport or JAMS. The respondent bears the cost of the arbitration option provided in the overall SafeSport procedure. As they should.

                              It was time two rounds ago to just agree the other is wrong and call it a day.








                              Comment


                                Originally posted by TheMoo View Post
                                Ubu&Goober I totally get it. I’m just saying I don’t know the man and I don’t know if he’s serious or playing devils advocate. I hope he’s playing devils advocate or speaking from the pain of losing a good friend.

                                I feel for the people who lost a friend, a brother, a mentor when RG suicided. Couple that with having that same person be banned for molestation, rape who knows what with kids and I can see why people would be in denial. That’s a lot to come to grips with in a short amount of time. I’m not saying his words are “right” I’m just saying I hope they are coming from a place of confusion (I’m sure there is a better word) rather than firm beliefs.

                                Sometimes I think people forget how many lives are impacted by crime. It’s not just the victim and the perpetrator who gets caught. It’s the friends and family of both parties who may not have known. Who may have been told something but didn’t believe it. Crime, especially of this nature, has a huge ripple effect.
                                I don’t think he’s playing devil’s advocate. His stated position on this has been consistent over months and months. And I do know him.
                                The Evil Chem Prof

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Peggy View Post

                                  I don’t think he’s playing devil’s advocate. His stated position on this has been consistent over months and months. And I do know him.
                                  Given that his wife is a victim and he has a young daughter, I find his public statements quite alarming.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


                                    I do not agree with your statement that JAMS “has nothing to do with SafeSport.” JAMS is the provider of the independent arbitration services which, according to SafeSport code, the accused has the right to invoke, at their own expense, in the overall SS procedure. It is vital to the SafeSport process that the option of appeal is provided. Again, it makes no difference whether one writes the check to SafeSport or JAMS. The respondent bears the cost of the arbitration option provided in the overall SafeSport procedure. As they should.

                                    It was time two rounds ago to just agree the other is wrong and call it a day.







                                    I feel like there is nothing stopping people from mounting a legal challenge in an appellate court. If I’m wrong please correct me. However, it’s cheaper to go through JAMS and stick with arbitration. That being said..... You are smart and use your brain. When BN talks about fees you agree because YOU know through your own education that JAMS costs money. However, some people are not like you. And that is BN’s target audience. SOME people think it is Safe Sport who charges money not JAMS.

                                    I mean hell the last question of the night was about fees in the 6k+ range for Safe Sport. Dear Mr. Henry was trying not to laugh when the woman insisted that is what she heard.

                                    No BN is not wrong that there are fees associated. (Potentially). However she makes people who unlike yourself, don’t educate themselves think it’s safe sport who charges.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post
                                      Ubu&Goober I totally get it. I’m just saying I don’t know the man and I don’t know if he’s serious or playing devils advocate. I hope he’s playing devils advocate or speaking from the pain of losing a good friend.

                                      I feel for the people who lost a friend, a brother, a mentor when RG suicided. Couple that with having that same person be banned for molestation, rape who knows what with kids and I can see why people would be in denial. That’s a lot to come to grips with in a short amount of time. I’m not saying his words are “right” I’m just saying I hope they are coming from a place of confusion (I’m sure there is a better word) rather than firm beliefs.

                                      Sometimes I think people forget how many lives are impacted by crime. It’s not just the victim and the perpetrator who gets caught. It’s the friends and family of both parties who may not have known. Who may have been told something but didn’t believe it. Crime, especially of this nature, has a huge ripple effect.
                                      I hear where you are coming from, and I can understand where others are coming from, and I can understand looking at this guy’s public posts, and just thinking, “Wow. He’s a pretentious blow hard and just taking an opportunity to exercise his right to free speech, defend the friend that he lost, and toss around a few philosophical concepts that don’t actually fit very well in this situation... but he likes his pet theories.”

                                      In many respects, that’s my instinctive reaction based on what I have seen and read.

                                      HOWEVER... something about him coming right on back into these discussions with a vengeance, and launching into ISWG territory in addition to defending his old friend... coupled with the fact that so much of what he says strikes me as incredibly tone deaf given his own wife’s published personal experience with Lipari?

                                      Something about it all is making my hair stand up on end.

                                      Peggy says she has known him a long time, and had a generalized, charitable take on him. But she also says he is serious about his opinions on this stuff. In general, I have always found her to be a very reasonable poster on these forums. So bluntly... my hair is still standing on end because I take that to mean he sincerely thinks that victims somehow need to bear more responsibility for the role they played in their own abuse...

                                      He seems to be saying these things in an affable, dime store philosopher, Southern California sort of way... but somehow, eventually... it ends up in a place where it seems that he takes a round about path to making the case that the victims in the RG and GM cases were NOT actually really and truly victims at all. Just kids who were having sex with their adult coaches. And all of us in flyover country just can’t handle the complexities of such things, and aren’t smart enough to understand how to discuss and justify it.

                                      I find this alarming. And concerning. And not a helpful discussion for our sport at present... because these are the ideas Safe Sport is trying to move the community AWAY from.

                                      For someone who fancies himself quite progressive and intellectual... this guy is really incredibly backwards and... “pig ignorant.”
                                      Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Dec. 13, 2019, 07:01 PM. Reason: typos plus clarity

                                      Comment


                                        For clarity, "conditioning" might not have been a nuanced enough word choice. I stayed away from "grooming" because by no means did I want to suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to shape her that way. Conditioning (by exposure in her general environment) seemed to be the best descriptor for what I was trying to get at. Not at all the same, but the concept I was aiming toward is something akin to growing up in a place with high traffic. All you know is high traffic density and are clueless as to how different it can be in the middle of nowhere with vast stretches of highway and no other vehicles.

                                        Would certainly welcome other word choice suggestions

                                        ETA: I don't know him so would not want imply that I know what he is doing with regard to raising his daughter. My comments were an observation on the environment that he has depicted in his posts
                                        Last edited by Ubu&Goober; Dec. 13, 2019, 07:05 PM. Reason: further clarity

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Ubu&Goober View Post
                                          For clarity, "conditioning" might not have been a nuanced enough word choice. I stayed away from "grooming" because by no means did I want to suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to shape her that way. Conditioning (by exposure in her general environment) seemed to be the best descriptor for what I was trying to get at. Not at all the same, but the concept I was aiming toward is something akin to growing up in a place with high traffic. All you know is high traffic density and are clueless as to how different it can be in the middle of nowhere with vast stretches of highway and no other vehicles.

                                          Would certainly welcome other word choice suggestions
                                          I think conditioning is an excellent word choice.

                                          Hap Hansen’s comments way back from 2018 and the NYT article about JW got brought up on another thread today...

                                          He essentially admitted he had seen JW carrying on with young girls. But he was annoyed about it getting brought up now and didn’t exhibit ANY care or concern about it. It came across like he thought the whole thing was a non issue.

                                          To me.... that’s an example of conditioning.

                                          Its also worth noting, Rob Gage rose with JW as a late teenager as well. And was part of the scene out in SoCal.

                                          He got a lifetime ban for abusing young teenage girls as an adult male coach.

                                          Maybe his case case had nothing to do with time he spent as a student of JW as an older teen and very young adult. Or.... maybe it was conditioning.

                                          Conditioning, be it inadvertent, or intentional... is a serious issue. Just my opinion. And I actually thought your choice of that word was excellent.

                                          I won’t judge DMs intentions. I don’t know him. But the impact of his words on actual victims who are reading them? Victims of RG and GM? And the potential impact of his careless words and odd ramblings on his own wife and daughter? That concerns me... and I do judge it quite harshly.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X